Catholic and secular news sources have been reporting two imminent policy shifts in the Vatican: (1) Expanded permission to use the Tridentine rite to celebrate mass, and (2) Permission to use condoms in the fight against AIDS (a less likely possibility). I'd appreciate other perspectives on these issues.
Even though I find the Tridentine rite a bit inaccessible, I know people who find it very moving, and I think it has a lot to offer our Church today. First, many Catholics casually dismiss our history. Embracing Vatican II seems to imply rejecting what came before it as cold, distant traditions that could nourish faith. Yet dismissing history means we dismiss our ancestors as well, many of whom lived lives of profound faith animated by their participation in liturgy and parish and family life. Preserving the Tridentine rite today, not in old sacramentaries but as a coequal rite forming today's Catholics, can caution us not to expunge everything old, by demonstrating the enduring power of the liturgy. Similarly, the Tridentine rite can help us be sensitive to lacunae in our own Christian experience, by reminding us of aspects of liturgy that may have been lost in the reforms of Vatican II; some aspects of our worship may be more clearly present in the older rite.
For example, one of the most noticeable innovations in the new rite is the orientation of the priest; instead of facing "away from" the people, he faces toward them. This orientation makes many feel welcome members of a community, and perhaps helps the laity to participate more in liturgy. The old orientation, however, illustrates the nature of the community, in particular the relation between priest and congregation. The priest, acting in persona Christi caput, or in the person of Christ the head, addresses God with the people, who are the Church, the Body of Christ. Rather than facing away from the people, the priest faces God with the people. The Tridentine rite can remind us that liturgy is the prayer of the people, united in Christ, to God the Father.
On the second issues, condoms and AIDS, there are conflicting reports. Whatever is going on, I hope for a change of policy. As a general principle, contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is wrong because it closes a married couple to the gift of life, and, therefore, to their own humanity; spouses aspire to give their entire selves to each other, yet they give everything except their noblest qualities--their ability to father and mother, to create, to sacrifice.... But general principles remain just that until they engage particular circumstances. It sometimes happens that, within a married couple, one spouse has AIDS and the other does not. The couple faces a choice: (1) Live a life of marital abstinence, (2) Almost surely transmitting AIDS, perhaps even to their children, and (3) Reducing the chance of transmitting AIDS by using condoms. The moral doctrine of double effect helps us distinguish this case from ordinary contraception issues. The doctrine reflects that, if an action has two effects, one good (A) and one bad (B), then it is morally permissible if and only if: (1) A, and not B, is willed, (2) The act itself is not objectively evil, and (3) A outweighs B. (1) is subjective and requires vigilance and well-formed consciences on the part of spouses. As for (2), some might claim that contraception is objectively evil, but it is rather the intent to restrict the gift of self, that is, the reservations a couple has, that are problematic. A single tool can be used for distinct purposes (for example, narcotics have both good and evil uses). Finally, A could outweigh B, especially if a couple expresses their openness to life in other ways, such as adoption. By maintaining these distinctions, the fundamental doctrine of our Church need not change.
Anyway, there are my thoughts on two current Church issues. Should these changes come to pass, I trust they will benefit our Church, and all those of good will. I also hope that people will be critical and honest enough to avoid misinterpreting either shift according to their own prejudices.
Moussaoui's Conversion
With Judgment, Moussaoui Is Silenced at Last | Chicago Tribune
I've been fascinated with the Moussaoui trial, which ended with a bang when he was sentenced last week, even if Moussaoui himself will not end with "a great big bang of glory," as Judge Brinkema noted, but with a whimper. The exchange between Moussaoui and Brinkema was interesting, even as Moussaoui himself remained enigmatic.
For a while I assumed Moussaoui, who was surprised to get a sentence for life, not for death, was seeking martyrdom. He clearly tried to project an image of a defendant in control, defying his defense attorneys and mocking the court. He even exclaimed, "This was my choice!" suggesting he somehow outwitted our justice system by evading a death sentence. Martyrdom, according to what I took to be his ideology, is a more attractive alternative to imprisonment, and he could easily spin that as a success. Yet he claims that he won, America lost, because he will not be executed. I take this to be a loss for him, since he fought so hard against himself and his own due process, yet he failed. Moussaoui continues to pretend he is in control, but this is more and more clearly a delusion; no hypothesis is good unless it can be disproved, but Moussaoui could justify himself no matter the verdict. If he were honest with himself, he would see that a life sentence proves him wrong. Instead, he lets his ideology defy the world, not in fact, but in his own estimation.
In his parting toast, Moussaoui called the trial a wasted opportunity for America to understand how people like him think, and to critically assess our own faults. Insofar as there is a major cultural gap between us and radical Islam, this is true. Yet Moussaoui's actions since his sentencing show that this gap is reciprocal. This leads us to what I can only call Moussaoui's (insincere) conversion.
A true judge, Brinkema astutely argued that not Moussaoui, but America emerged victorious:
Apparently, he did not understand the regard America has for fairness and the rule of law. Although I agree that Moussaoui probably didn't appreciate American institutions, I doubt his new-found respect for them. My counter-proposal to his hypothesis is that he lost, and he wants a better consolation prize. At least his fate has finally led Moussaoui to, embarassingly, admit he was wrong. One can only hope that his contradictions don't dissolve in ideology, but precipitate a sincere conversion.
I've been fascinated with the Moussaoui trial, which ended with a bang when he was sentenced last week, even if Moussaoui himself will not end with "a great big bang of glory," as Judge Brinkema noted, but with a whimper. The exchange between Moussaoui and Brinkema was interesting, even as Moussaoui himself remained enigmatic.
For a while I assumed Moussaoui, who was surprised to get a sentence for life, not for death, was seeking martyrdom. He clearly tried to project an image of a defendant in control, defying his defense attorneys and mocking the court. He even exclaimed, "This was my choice!" suggesting he somehow outwitted our justice system by evading a death sentence. Martyrdom, according to what I took to be his ideology, is a more attractive alternative to imprisonment, and he could easily spin that as a success. Yet he claims that he won, America lost, because he will not be executed. I take this to be a loss for him, since he fought so hard against himself and his own due process, yet he failed. Moussaoui continues to pretend he is in control, but this is more and more clearly a delusion; no hypothesis is good unless it can be disproved, but Moussaoui could justify himself no matter the verdict. If he were honest with himself, he would see that a life sentence proves him wrong. Instead, he lets his ideology defy the world, not in fact, but in his own estimation.
In his parting toast, Moussaoui called the trial a wasted opportunity for America to understand how people like him think, and to critically assess our own faults. Insofar as there is a major cultural gap between us and radical Islam, this is true. Yet Moussaoui's actions since his sentencing show that this gap is reciprocal. This leads us to what I can only call Moussaoui's (insincere) conversion.
A true judge, Brinkema astutely argued that not Moussaoui, but America emerged victorious:
This trial and this verdict are clear evidence of the enduring strength of this nation and its core values, which do not focus on hatred, bigotry and irrationality.Only days after the sentencing, Moussaoui is converted to the judge's view. He now claims that he lied in court and wishes to retract his guilty plea. He did not believe he could get a fair trial in America; people would be ruled by emotions and calling for his blood. Now he understands that he can get a fair trial, "even with American jurors," and he repents of his former ignorance.
Rather, we believe that all persons are created equal and that when they appear in one of our courts of law, they will be treated as equals, regardless of their background or their political beliefs.
Apparently, he did not understand the regard America has for fairness and the rule of law. Although I agree that Moussaoui probably didn't appreciate American institutions, I doubt his new-found respect for them. My counter-proposal to his hypothesis is that he lost, and he wants a better consolation prize. At least his fate has finally led Moussaoui to, embarassingly, admit he was wrong. One can only hope that his contradictions don't dissolve in ideology, but precipitate a sincere conversion.
Odd?
Charlie Daniels to perform with Knoxville Symphony Orchestra
Does this strike anyone else as an odd match? How will they decide between the fiddle and the violin?
Oil: A National Security Issue
So to start off things with one of my missions since last summer: reducing our addiction to oil. It's been disappointing to see gas prices rising so consistently, but not just because it's that much less we can spend on cooler things. Really, high gas prices hurt our economy and make us more dependent on foreign energy sources, not to mention the environmental effects and the spiritual degradation that comes from being indoors in air conditioned luxury all day, even on quarter-mile rides to the grocery store. Oil is a moral, environmental, economic, and national security issue.
Politicians have been doing what politicians do best: talking; making vague, long-term promises; and offering small treats, like suspending environmental standards, to appease consumers. One big piece is missing. OPEC, Exxon, and hurricanes are not solely responsible for our oil woes. Consumers, that is, demand, is equally relevant. And our demand is extreme. Where are the politicians calling forcefully for citizens to do their part in conservation?
I envision an opportunity like we embraced during World War II, when ordinary people planted victory gardens in their own back yards to aid our economy, in this case, by increasing supply. In those days, our nation rallied around a common good, and citizens could see their small efforts as part of a concerted effort. The fighters overseas were not the only ones to sacrifice; those at home served their country, too. This is not nostalgia for the olden days; those times when our country embraced a genuine common good are few, but to hold up those moments as an inspiration today can help us to understand our identity and become heroes.
Where are our victory gardens? Today, we can walk or bike to work, or carpool. Sure this is a sacrifice. But surely a nation that is often patriotic to a fault ought to find courage and filial piety enough to fast, in union with the sacrifices our friends and family are making overseas. It's time to replace jingoism with authentic patriotism--to become the poeple we aspire to be.
I've been walking (or biking, back when I lived 10 miles away across the city) to work since September. Not only has it saved a bunch of money and reduced oil demand by a few gallons a week, but I have enjoyed time outside, which gives me an opportunity to transcend the sterile, synthetic environments modern man has chosen for himself. Nature helps me to find a sense of peace and admiration for creation, as I watched ducks and herons wading or swimming in the river, or chronicled in my memory the patient unfolding of leaves this spring. This, too, gives me a sense of freedom from the overwhelming demands of the modern world, so I can more faithfully accomplish my work without being enslaved to it.
All this is to say, you should walk to work, or the gorcery store, or anywhere you can. Try it for a week, and see what you think. Its communal and spiritual benefits are worth a shot. Also, you should write your senators, congressman, and president to encourage them to advocate conservation (I wrote Senator Frist last week--I'll let you know when he gets back to me). If we can capture America's imagination and rediscover a common good, our generation might yet rise to the civic heroism of our ancestors.
Politicians have been doing what politicians do best: talking; making vague, long-term promises; and offering small treats, like suspending environmental standards, to appease consumers. One big piece is missing. OPEC, Exxon, and hurricanes are not solely responsible for our oil woes. Consumers, that is, demand, is equally relevant. And our demand is extreme. Where are the politicians calling forcefully for citizens to do their part in conservation?
I envision an opportunity like we embraced during World War II, when ordinary people planted victory gardens in their own back yards to aid our economy, in this case, by increasing supply. In those days, our nation rallied around a common good, and citizens could see their small efforts as part of a concerted effort. The fighters overseas were not the only ones to sacrifice; those at home served their country, too. This is not nostalgia for the olden days; those times when our country embraced a genuine common good are few, but to hold up those moments as an inspiration today can help us to understand our identity and become heroes.
Where are our victory gardens? Today, we can walk or bike to work, or carpool. Sure this is a sacrifice. But surely a nation that is often patriotic to a fault ought to find courage and filial piety enough to fast, in union with the sacrifices our friends and family are making overseas. It's time to replace jingoism with authentic patriotism--to become the poeple we aspire to be.
I've been walking (or biking, back when I lived 10 miles away across the city) to work since September. Not only has it saved a bunch of money and reduced oil demand by a few gallons a week, but I have enjoyed time outside, which gives me an opportunity to transcend the sterile, synthetic environments modern man has chosen for himself. Nature helps me to find a sense of peace and admiration for creation, as I watched ducks and herons wading or swimming in the river, or chronicled in my memory the patient unfolding of leaves this spring. This, too, gives me a sense of freedom from the overwhelming demands of the modern world, so I can more faithfully accomplish my work without being enslaved to it.
All this is to say, you should walk to work, or the gorcery store, or anywhere you can. Try it for a week, and see what you think. Its communal and spiritual benefits are worth a shot. Also, you should write your senators, congressman, and president to encourage them to advocate conservation (I wrote Senator Frist last week--I'll let you know when he gets back to me). If we can capture America's imagination and rediscover a common good, our generation might yet rise to the civic heroism of our ancestors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The art of empathy in dramatic times
Over the past few years, my wife Christina and I have gotten involved in local theater (in the audience only - no auditions...yet!). I love ...
