Shifts in Rome

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.