Just back from a pleasant Memorial Day weekend in Kansas, I noticed the Bush administration is appealing a federal judge’s ruling March 29th that it cannot keep a Kansas meatpacker from testing all its cows for mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE). The AP article is posted at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4846051.html
I spent time with friends in north-central Kansas towns near the Nebraska border (Concordia, Jamestown, Jewel) and briefly in Kansas City. The meatpacker is Creekstone Farms Premium Beef of Arkansas City, Kansas (on the southern border of the state, about 20 miles north of Ponca City, OK).
Turns out Creekstone has been fighting this battle since 2004. The company specialized in exporting beef abroad, to countries like Mexico, Russia and especially Japan. When the first case of mad cow disease was found in the U.S. on December 23, 2003, the exports cratered.
Creekstone figured $20 a head to test each cow was a worthwhile expenditure to restore confidence in its exports. The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times say it spent $500,000 to build the first mad cow testing lab in a U.S. slaughterhouse and hired chemists and biologists to staff it. But the USDA, which controls sale of the mad cow test kits, refused to sell Creekstone enough kits to test each cow.
Why would the USDA take such a position? USDA said that there was “no scientific justification” for testing steers as young as Creekstone sells and that certifying some beef for export as disease-free might make Americans fear the safety of untested beef.
Creekstone argued, however, that the USDA bowed to pressure from the big four meat companies that control 80% of the industry, which don’t want to face competitive pressure to test all their cows. Creekstone slaughters about 1,000 cattle a day. The four largest meatpackers slaughter about 400 per hour. Obviously 100% testing would cost them some. They could weather the worst of the mad cow crisis by shifting attention to pork, chicken and turkey production. And it suited their interests if smaller specialty meatpackers like Creekstone were bankrupted by inability to export beef and gobbled up by the big four.
Whether it is it really effective disease control to test all cows for mad cow can be debated. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which represents 27,000 cattle ranchers, says testing young animals “is like testing kindergartners for Alzheimer’s.” The USDA says that cattle in the U.S. slaughtered for food are generally between 18 and 24 months old, which is long before the disease is detectable.
Whether or not that claim proves correct, the economic reality is that the smaller meatpackers cannot survive without extensive mad cow testing.
Last August, USA Today editorialized against the USDA position. In an analysis entitled “Mad cow watch goes blind,” it questioned the effectiveness of the USDA’s plan to test only 1% of the 100,000 cattle slaughtered daily in the U.S. It noted that 65 countries have full or partial restrictions on importing U.S. beef products, due to fears that the testing is not rigorous enough. As a result, U.S. beef exports dropped from $3.8 billion in 2003 to $1.4 billion in 2005.
In this light, USA Today questioned the wisdom of the USDA keeping Creekstone from getting the test kits by invoking an obscure 1913 law intended to keep con artists from peddling bogus hog cholera serum to pig farmers.
Creekstone’s strategy is also supported by the Missouri Farmers Union, the Missouri-based Gateway Beef Cooperative, and the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA), which says it has 18,000 members in 47 states. They agree USDA is favoring large meatpacking companies over independents—and if the USDA prevails, it will drive more independents to financial ruin.
This leaves the Bush administration in an interesting quandary. Normally a vocal champion of the free-market economy, it finds itself opposing small agricultural entrepreneurs’ innovative strategy for staying competitive. In the process, it ends up subsidizing agribusiness in its drive to eliminate smaller competitors. The kind of America we want to be is very much in the balance.
As USA Today editorialized, “…there’s little logic in stopping a company from exceeding regulations to meet the demands of its customers, or protecting its rivals from legitimate competition.” The federal judge ruled that the law as currently written does not give the USDA the authority to regulate mad cow tests or prevent meatpackers from testing. The Bush administration ought to follow the law.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Can the Pope Retract Vatican II’s Decree on Religious Freedom?
On May 13th, the last day of his trip to Brazil, Pope Benedict XVI ignited a new firestorm of controversy, by telling a meeting of Latin American bishops “The proclamation of Jesus and his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture.”
Eleven days after the remarks, Google finds 15,700 references to “imposition of a foreign culture.” Growing at a rate of over 150 per hour, the comments are overwhelmingly negative.
They accuse the pope of failing to lament the history of enslavement, massacres and destruction that marked the indigenous Americans’ forced conversion to Roman Catholicism by Portuguese and Spanish invaders—a history, explicitly recognized by John Paul II during previous visits, in which 15th Century popes drew a line from North to South Pole, giving Spain sovereignty over all lands discovered to the west and Portugal over all to the east—and of turning a deaf ear to written requests by several Indian groups who sought his help in defending their lands and cultures.
Attempting to find some silver lining to this episode, National Catholic Reporter columnist John Allen suggested May 17th that the pope had again fallen victim to Prada-in-mouth disease—letting ill-considered language get in the way of a legitimate theological position. Allen wrote: “Because Christ came for all, Benedict reasoned, Christianity was not alien to pre-Columbian cultures; it was the fulfillment to which their religious experience pointed.”
But it needs to be asked if even the theological position is sound.
Alfred North Whitehead’s Theory of Limits provides an important tool for weighing the importance and accuracy of assertions. His oft repeated formula, “All things work between limits,” meant that the truth or falsehood of an assertion depends on its scope of useful application. In other words, a given assertion is true only within strict limits; if those limits are forgotten, the assertion begins to do the work of a falsehood.
Benedict forgot at least two important limits to his assertion that Jesus is the true fulfillment of indigenous cultures and religions.
The first is that Christians are by no means unanimous on what that concept means or how it should be unpacked. That Jesus is the fulfillment of non-Christian religions is an assertion that goes back to the earliest Fathers of the Christian church. But it may mean merely that those religions have teachings and practices which are compatible with teachings and practices of Jesus. It does not lead automatically to the belief that explicit conversion to Christianity is the only way indigenous peoples can be saved.
Catholics and others have sometimes asserted that there can be no salvation apart from belief in their specific version of Jesus. But Christians, and even Catholics, have never said this univocally or unequivocally. Catholics nuanced this view significantly in several documents at the Second Vatican Council, and it has been subject to ongoing debate in Christian theology schools for decades.
The second limitation on Benedict’s theology is that, with the Decree on Religious Freedom, approved overwhelmingly by the bishops at Vatican II after months of debate and proclaimed by the pope December 7, 1965, the Catholic Church explicitly and intentionally developed its teaching on evangelization—by characterizing violation of religious freedom as an unacceptable assault not only on the dignity of the human person but also on divine revelation itself.
The church’s position was unmistakable: “This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.”
Vatican II spoke approvingly of Jesus’ commission to his followers, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations” (Mt. 28:19-20). But the church was careful to call even manipulative proselytizing an offense against human dignity: “…in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices, everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of ones own right and a violation of the right of others.”
The Council also said that forced conversion contradicted the behavior and will of the persuasive God personified in Jesus: “This truth appears at its height in Christ Jesus… He is also meek and humble of heart. And in attracting and inviting His disciples He acted patiently… His intention was to rouse faith in His hearers and to confirm them in faith, not to exert coercion upon them… He refused to be a political Messiah, ruling by force… He refused to impose the truth by force on those who spoke against it.”
Tension remained in the Catholic position on evangelization even after Vatican II. The Council did not successfully flesh out how missionary activity could be justified and carried forward while still being respectful of other religions. But the Council clearly drew the line at forced conversion as a legitimate means of spreading the gospel.
The largest failing of Benedict’s Brazil pronouncement is that it crosses that line. Condoning the savagery against indigenous peoples orchestrated by the 15th Century popes is not acceptable. Nor is appearing to condone continuation of that savagery where it is still being perpetrated—whether by multinational corporations, reactionary governments, or religious fundamentalists. Nor is suggesting that Western European culture is the one by which all others must be measured—and the only one from which others can learn.
Benedict can take such positions only if he retracts the Declaration on Religious Freedom enacted by Vatican II and Pope Paul VI. For reasons Vatican II articulated all too well, he lacks the authority to do so. If he tries to, much of the church will ignore him. Some Catholics will part company with him. Google already tells us what most of the world thinks.
The closest Benedict got to a legitimate point was a statement that has barely been quoted at all: “Authentic cultures are not closed in upon themselves, nor are they set in stone at a particular point in history, but they are open, or better still, they are seeking an encounter with other cultures, hoping to reach universality through encounter and dialogue with other ways of life.”
Benedict’s mistake, however, was his failure to apply this first of all to Europe, historically or today. The indigenous cultures of America welcomed the 15th Century Europeans with encounter and dialogue. Their reward was to have an alien culture and religion imposed on them by force, by Europeans truly “closed in upon themselves.” The victims rightly call this genocide.
More than one commentator has noted the irony that George W. Bush, no favorite of the Europeans, has actually done a better job addressing this issue than Benedict XVI. On the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown settlement, Bush decried the negative effects that European colonization had on the Indian tribes of Virginia. Queen Elizabeth II also used the occasion to express sorrow for the British role in oppressing Native Americans and Africans.
The other Europeans—and the European pope—also need to repent of the destruction of other cultures and religions. And they need to make clear to the world that their deepest, most enduring commitment is never to repeat it again.
Eleven days after the remarks, Google finds 15,700 references to “imposition of a foreign culture.” Growing at a rate of over 150 per hour, the comments are overwhelmingly negative.
They accuse the pope of failing to lament the history of enslavement, massacres and destruction that marked the indigenous Americans’ forced conversion to Roman Catholicism by Portuguese and Spanish invaders—a history, explicitly recognized by John Paul II during previous visits, in which 15th Century popes drew a line from North to South Pole, giving Spain sovereignty over all lands discovered to the west and Portugal over all to the east—and of turning a deaf ear to written requests by several Indian groups who sought his help in defending their lands and cultures.
Attempting to find some silver lining to this episode, National Catholic Reporter columnist John Allen suggested May 17th that the pope had again fallen victim to Prada-in-mouth disease—letting ill-considered language get in the way of a legitimate theological position. Allen wrote: “Because Christ came for all, Benedict reasoned, Christianity was not alien to pre-Columbian cultures; it was the fulfillment to which their religious experience pointed.”
But it needs to be asked if even the theological position is sound.
Alfred North Whitehead’s Theory of Limits provides an important tool for weighing the importance and accuracy of assertions. His oft repeated formula, “All things work between limits,” meant that the truth or falsehood of an assertion depends on its scope of useful application. In other words, a given assertion is true only within strict limits; if those limits are forgotten, the assertion begins to do the work of a falsehood.
Benedict forgot at least two important limits to his assertion that Jesus is the true fulfillment of indigenous cultures and religions.
The first is that Christians are by no means unanimous on what that concept means or how it should be unpacked. That Jesus is the fulfillment of non-Christian religions is an assertion that goes back to the earliest Fathers of the Christian church. But it may mean merely that those religions have teachings and practices which are compatible with teachings and practices of Jesus. It does not lead automatically to the belief that explicit conversion to Christianity is the only way indigenous peoples can be saved.
Catholics and others have sometimes asserted that there can be no salvation apart from belief in their specific version of Jesus. But Christians, and even Catholics, have never said this univocally or unequivocally. Catholics nuanced this view significantly in several documents at the Second Vatican Council, and it has been subject to ongoing debate in Christian theology schools for decades.
The second limitation on Benedict’s theology is that, with the Decree on Religious Freedom, approved overwhelmingly by the bishops at Vatican II after months of debate and proclaimed by the pope December 7, 1965, the Catholic Church explicitly and intentionally developed its teaching on evangelization—by characterizing violation of religious freedom as an unacceptable assault not only on the dignity of the human person but also on divine revelation itself.
The church’s position was unmistakable: “This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.”
Vatican II spoke approvingly of Jesus’ commission to his followers, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations” (Mt. 28:19-20). But the church was careful to call even manipulative proselytizing an offense against human dignity: “…in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices, everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of ones own right and a violation of the right of others.”
The Council also said that forced conversion contradicted the behavior and will of the persuasive God personified in Jesus: “This truth appears at its height in Christ Jesus… He is also meek and humble of heart. And in attracting and inviting His disciples He acted patiently… His intention was to rouse faith in His hearers and to confirm them in faith, not to exert coercion upon them… He refused to be a political Messiah, ruling by force… He refused to impose the truth by force on those who spoke against it.”
Tension remained in the Catholic position on evangelization even after Vatican II. The Council did not successfully flesh out how missionary activity could be justified and carried forward while still being respectful of other religions. But the Council clearly drew the line at forced conversion as a legitimate means of spreading the gospel.
The largest failing of Benedict’s Brazil pronouncement is that it crosses that line. Condoning the savagery against indigenous peoples orchestrated by the 15th Century popes is not acceptable. Nor is appearing to condone continuation of that savagery where it is still being perpetrated—whether by multinational corporations, reactionary governments, or religious fundamentalists. Nor is suggesting that Western European culture is the one by which all others must be measured—and the only one from which others can learn.
Benedict can take such positions only if he retracts the Declaration on Religious Freedom enacted by Vatican II and Pope Paul VI. For reasons Vatican II articulated all too well, he lacks the authority to do so. If he tries to, much of the church will ignore him. Some Catholics will part company with him. Google already tells us what most of the world thinks.
The closest Benedict got to a legitimate point was a statement that has barely been quoted at all: “Authentic cultures are not closed in upon themselves, nor are they set in stone at a particular point in history, but they are open, or better still, they are seeking an encounter with other cultures, hoping to reach universality through encounter and dialogue with other ways of life.”
Benedict’s mistake, however, was his failure to apply this first of all to Europe, historically or today. The indigenous cultures of America welcomed the 15th Century Europeans with encounter and dialogue. Their reward was to have an alien culture and religion imposed on them by force, by Europeans truly “closed in upon themselves.” The victims rightly call this genocide.
More than one commentator has noted the irony that George W. Bush, no favorite of the Europeans, has actually done a better job addressing this issue than Benedict XVI. On the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown settlement, Bush decried the negative effects that European colonization had on the Indian tribes of Virginia. Queen Elizabeth II also used the occasion to express sorrow for the British role in oppressing Native Americans and Africans.
The other Europeans—and the European pope—also need to repent of the destruction of other cultures and religions. And they need to make clear to the world that their deepest, most enduring commitment is never to repeat it again.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Will There Be Any, Up in Heaven?
Some very welcome humor about Peter Akinola's efforts to split the Anglican Communion was posted May 8th by MadPriest at http://revjph.blogspot.com
A Whole Load of Primates Go to Heaven
A plane full of archbishops crashes and they all go to heaven where God is waiting for them.
God says to Rowan. "Rowan, what do you believe?"
Rowan replied, "Well, I believe that my weakness brought the Anglican Church to the brink of destruction, but I truly did what I did to try and keep everyone together."
God thought for a second and said, "I admire your love for my Church. Come sit at my left."
God then addressed Katharine. "Katharine, what do you believe?"
Katharine replied, "I believe I should have been a lot more assertive in Dar Es Salaam. But I wanted the boys to accept me. I was being vain."
God thought for a second and said, "Because of your honesty, you are forgiven, my daughter. Come sit at my right."
God then called on Big Pete Akinola. "Your Holiness, what do you believe?"
Big Pete said, "I believe you're in MY chair!"
A Whole Load of Primates Go to Heaven
A plane full of archbishops crashes and they all go to heaven where God is waiting for them.
God says to Rowan. "Rowan, what do you believe?"
Rowan replied, "Well, I believe that my weakness brought the Anglican Church to the brink of destruction, but I truly did what I did to try and keep everyone together."
God thought for a second and said, "I admire your love for my Church. Come sit at my left."
God then addressed Katharine. "Katharine, what do you believe?"
Katharine replied, "I believe I should have been a lot more assertive in Dar Es Salaam. But I wanted the boys to accept me. I was being vain."
God thought for a second and said, "Because of your honesty, you are forgiven, my daughter. Come sit at my right."
God then called on Big Pete Akinola. "Your Holiness, what do you believe?"
Big Pete said, "I believe you're in MY chair!"
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Medieval Helpdesk
A really funny satire on adapting to new technology is making the rounds on YouTube and related blogs. Think WE have trouble with new hardware and software? Imagine, if you will, the skills needed to transtion from the medieval scroll to...THE BOOK!
http://www.youtube.com/?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ
Thanks to Jamey Boudreaux, Executive Director of the Louisiana Mississippi Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, for bringing this to my attention. He's at http://www.lmhpco.org/
http://www.youtube.com/?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ
Thanks to Jamey Boudreaux, Executive Director of the Louisiana Mississippi Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, for bringing this to my attention. He's at http://www.lmhpco.org/
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Anglican Communion: A Better Alternative from Africa
Thanks to "23 Acres of Black Dirt" (http://23acres.blogspot.com/) for calling attention to a remarkable analysis of the Anglican Communion by Njongonkulu Ndungane, Archbishop of Cape Town and Primate of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa. In a speech in Cape Town, Ndungane offers a spirited defense of the "bonds of affection" that have held the Communion together through thick and thin--and shows just how much will be lost if Peter Akinola gets his way. The speech is published at
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/75/acns4284.cfm
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/75/acns4284.cfm
Monday, May 14, 2007
Akinola’s Latest Assault on the Anglican Communion
Peter Akinola, the Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria, has made another move in his relentless drive to transform the Anglican Communion into the Orthodox Church of the Global South—with himself in charge.
Thumbing his nose at personal written pleas from Episcopal Presiding Bishop Kathryn Jefferts Schori and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Akinola has again insinuated himself into the internal affairs of the Episcopal Church (USA).
His Cinco de Mayo gift to the U.S. church was to appear in Woodbridge, VA (about 25 miles down I-95 from Washington, D.C.), and install a bishop to oversee 34 U.S. churches that have parted company with the Episcopal Church over the issues of blessing same-sex partners and consecrating bishops who have same-sex partners.
In a move that flies in the face of centuries of Anglican governance, the bishop of these U.S. congregations will report to the Anglican Church of Nigeria.
I have covered Akinola’s pernicious behavior in prior postings. That he lacks both the civil and the ecclesial authority to install a bishop over U.S. congregations seems not to trouble him or the 34 churches.
Several U.S. courts have ruled against the renegade congregations when they tried to confiscate the property of the Episcopal Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury asked Akinola not to take the action, because the Episcopal Church (USA) is still working on a September 30th deadline to respond to previous demands that Akinola instigated.
But Akinola is not one to let little niceties like law or due process or tradition stand in his way. He is determined that his bigotry against gay people—including gay Christians—will be the worldwide policy of the Anglican Communion, even though it flies in the face of decades of contemporary scripture scholarship and decades of discernment by Anglican congregations in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K.
As I have noted before, historically the Anglican Communion has been distinguished by its ability to cherish a broad diversity of theological views in a single worldwide community. The diversity was maintained because the national churches within the Anglican Communion all agreed to respect one another’s distinct traditions and identity, including their internal positions on controverted issues.
By taking another action at odds with that history, Akinola again makes loud and clear what his true interest is. Clearly it is not salvaging the Anglican Communion.
Unless the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Anglican primates tell Akinola that his actions are out of bounds, he will succeed in destroying the Communion. The replacement will be a church where he is the final arbiter of what is orthodox and who may belong.
Thumbing his nose at personal written pleas from Episcopal Presiding Bishop Kathryn Jefferts Schori and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Akinola has again insinuated himself into the internal affairs of the Episcopal Church (USA).
His Cinco de Mayo gift to the U.S. church was to appear in Woodbridge, VA (about 25 miles down I-95 from Washington, D.C.), and install a bishop to oversee 34 U.S. churches that have parted company with the Episcopal Church over the issues of blessing same-sex partners and consecrating bishops who have same-sex partners.
In a move that flies in the face of centuries of Anglican governance, the bishop of these U.S. congregations will report to the Anglican Church of Nigeria.
I have covered Akinola’s pernicious behavior in prior postings. That he lacks both the civil and the ecclesial authority to install a bishop over U.S. congregations seems not to trouble him or the 34 churches.
Several U.S. courts have ruled against the renegade congregations when they tried to confiscate the property of the Episcopal Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury asked Akinola not to take the action, because the Episcopal Church (USA) is still working on a September 30th deadline to respond to previous demands that Akinola instigated.
But Akinola is not one to let little niceties like law or due process or tradition stand in his way. He is determined that his bigotry against gay people—including gay Christians—will be the worldwide policy of the Anglican Communion, even though it flies in the face of decades of contemporary scripture scholarship and decades of discernment by Anglican congregations in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K.
As I have noted before, historically the Anglican Communion has been distinguished by its ability to cherish a broad diversity of theological views in a single worldwide community. The diversity was maintained because the national churches within the Anglican Communion all agreed to respect one another’s distinct traditions and identity, including their internal positions on controverted issues.
By taking another action at odds with that history, Akinola again makes loud and clear what his true interest is. Clearly it is not salvaging the Anglican Communion.
Unless the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Anglican primates tell Akinola that his actions are out of bounds, he will succeed in destroying the Communion. The replacement will be a church where he is the final arbiter of what is orthodox and who may belong.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Latin Mass Redux? Not Exactly
The National Catholic Reporter’s John Allen titled his April 20th “All Things Catholic” online column, “Hold your breath for the next media frenzy: the Latin Mass document is coming.” The column is at http://ncrcafe.org/node/1041.
The column said a statement long-expected from the Vatican was imminent, expanding the times and places where priests can celebrate the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass. The Latin version was replaced in the mid-1960s by four “eucharistic prayers” in local languages. The new normative language reflected several decades of liturgical scholarship blessed by the majority of the bishops at the Second Vatican Council. Individual bishops and priests were still allowed to use the old Latin version, but only under very stringent conditions.
Although Allen felt a broader availability of the old Latin Mass would be seen as a victory by the most conservative Catholics—and be so reported by the media—he said the real-world impact of the new policy would be minimal. Pastors and liturgical experts estimated that no more than two percent of Catholics worldwide would attend the pre-Vatican II rite. Besides, the number of priests who know enough Latin to preside at the old Mass has dwindled.
He also noted that pre-Vatican II liturgical language sometimes reflects theology that was officially reversed at Vatican II, including statements about Jews that Rome has taken great pains to avoid and correct over the last 40 years. Apparently the Vatican has decided that those who prefer the old Latin Mass can hear such deficiencies without damage to the overall theology and policy of the church.
Allen’s column produced a lively response on the NCR website. By NCR’s latest count, readers have added 90 comments—more than for any column since February, when he covered the significance for religious freedom of laws various countries have adopted criminalizing hate speech and discriminatory actions against gay people.
One thing Allen’s column and the comments make clear is that there has been a variety of normative liturgies in the history of Christianity and of the Roman Catholic Church. This context is important for understanding any liturgical change, including the pending broader availability of the pre-Vatican II liturgy.
For the most traditionalist Catholics, the old Latin Mass—developed over roughly a thousand years and adopted officially by the Council of Trent—was “THE Mass.” It was absolute and unsurpassable. They deny the authority of the world’s bishops at Second Vatican Council to replace it, and they resent the bishops for doing so. They will try to spin the Vatican statement as vindication of their long-suffering dissent.
But it will not be. Instead, by making the old Latin Mass more available as an alternative to the vernacular eucharistic prayers, the Vatican will reinforce the fact that the church has always had, and will always have, multiple normative liturgies—and that all of them are subject to being revised, supplemented or replaced as the Christian community discovers better ways of doing liturgy (e.g., ways that improve worshippers’ ability to love God and neighbor, and that better articulate and promote the best that theologians have achieved).
I made this point in a previous post July 17, 2006, “A Better Way to Change Catholic Liturgical Language.” At that time the issue was the U.S. bishops preparing to make some changes to the liturgical English that Catholics in the U.S. have recited for over three decades. Like the adherents of the old Latin Mass, some weekly church goers will not like the bishops’ changes.
Just as the church could have been less draconian about restricting the old Latin Mass, so too with the newer revisions, it could continue to make the 30-year old English version available as an alternative to those who prefer it. I also had two larger points in mind.
First, it is not essential to the identity and survival of the church that its liturgical practice be identical around the globe. It is important that there be normative language and that it be repeated more than any alternatives. But making versions of the liturgy available which used to be normative and since have been surpassed does not detract from the current normative liturgy. On the contrary, while upholding the normative liturgy as the one which the church currently prefers, it emphasizes that there can be many authentic ways of commemorating the works and life of the Risen Lord and his presence with us today—and that no one version of eucharistic celebration can ever be treated as final or absolute.
Second, because liturgy can always be improved, the church can and should allow times and places where those who want to propose new liturgical language and practice can try them with willing congregations, in the hope that such experiences will lead to better normative language and practice down the road.
This was allowed for a period of time after Vatican II, when liturgical experts published experimental eucharistic prayers that followed the structure of the approved ones but offered language and rituals that many small congregations found more beautiful and more inspirational than the official language.
Unfortunately, Rome pretty much suppressed such experimentation, and the more conservative church goers made sure that violators were reported to the hierarchy. As a result the church is left to rely largely on non-Catholic Christians to test the effectiveness of liturgical innovations and improvements.
So a greater availability of the Latin Mass cannot be used to absolutize it or any version of the eucharistic liturgy. But it can be the occasion to remember again that alternatives to the normative language can be a healthy expression of religious humility and devotion—and that the alternatives should include not only older liturgies that have been replaced but also authorized experiments that can lead eventually to surpassing the liturgies that are normative today.
The column said a statement long-expected from the Vatican was imminent, expanding the times and places where priests can celebrate the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass. The Latin version was replaced in the mid-1960s by four “eucharistic prayers” in local languages. The new normative language reflected several decades of liturgical scholarship blessed by the majority of the bishops at the Second Vatican Council. Individual bishops and priests were still allowed to use the old Latin version, but only under very stringent conditions.
Although Allen felt a broader availability of the old Latin Mass would be seen as a victory by the most conservative Catholics—and be so reported by the media—he said the real-world impact of the new policy would be minimal. Pastors and liturgical experts estimated that no more than two percent of Catholics worldwide would attend the pre-Vatican II rite. Besides, the number of priests who know enough Latin to preside at the old Mass has dwindled.
He also noted that pre-Vatican II liturgical language sometimes reflects theology that was officially reversed at Vatican II, including statements about Jews that Rome has taken great pains to avoid and correct over the last 40 years. Apparently the Vatican has decided that those who prefer the old Latin Mass can hear such deficiencies without damage to the overall theology and policy of the church.
Allen’s column produced a lively response on the NCR website. By NCR’s latest count, readers have added 90 comments—more than for any column since February, when he covered the significance for religious freedom of laws various countries have adopted criminalizing hate speech and discriminatory actions against gay people.
One thing Allen’s column and the comments make clear is that there has been a variety of normative liturgies in the history of Christianity and of the Roman Catholic Church. This context is important for understanding any liturgical change, including the pending broader availability of the pre-Vatican II liturgy.
For the most traditionalist Catholics, the old Latin Mass—developed over roughly a thousand years and adopted officially by the Council of Trent—was “THE Mass.” It was absolute and unsurpassable. They deny the authority of the world’s bishops at Second Vatican Council to replace it, and they resent the bishops for doing so. They will try to spin the Vatican statement as vindication of their long-suffering dissent.
But it will not be. Instead, by making the old Latin Mass more available as an alternative to the vernacular eucharistic prayers, the Vatican will reinforce the fact that the church has always had, and will always have, multiple normative liturgies—and that all of them are subject to being revised, supplemented or replaced as the Christian community discovers better ways of doing liturgy (e.g., ways that improve worshippers’ ability to love God and neighbor, and that better articulate and promote the best that theologians have achieved).
I made this point in a previous post July 17, 2006, “A Better Way to Change Catholic Liturgical Language.” At that time the issue was the U.S. bishops preparing to make some changes to the liturgical English that Catholics in the U.S. have recited for over three decades. Like the adherents of the old Latin Mass, some weekly church goers will not like the bishops’ changes.
Just as the church could have been less draconian about restricting the old Latin Mass, so too with the newer revisions, it could continue to make the 30-year old English version available as an alternative to those who prefer it. I also had two larger points in mind.
First, it is not essential to the identity and survival of the church that its liturgical practice be identical around the globe. It is important that there be normative language and that it be repeated more than any alternatives. But making versions of the liturgy available which used to be normative and since have been surpassed does not detract from the current normative liturgy. On the contrary, while upholding the normative liturgy as the one which the church currently prefers, it emphasizes that there can be many authentic ways of commemorating the works and life of the Risen Lord and his presence with us today—and that no one version of eucharistic celebration can ever be treated as final or absolute.
Second, because liturgy can always be improved, the church can and should allow times and places where those who want to propose new liturgical language and practice can try them with willing congregations, in the hope that such experiences will lead to better normative language and practice down the road.
This was allowed for a period of time after Vatican II, when liturgical experts published experimental eucharistic prayers that followed the structure of the approved ones but offered language and rituals that many small congregations found more beautiful and more inspirational than the official language.
Unfortunately, Rome pretty much suppressed such experimentation, and the more conservative church goers made sure that violators were reported to the hierarchy. As a result the church is left to rely largely on non-Catholic Christians to test the effectiveness of liturgical innovations and improvements.
So a greater availability of the Latin Mass cannot be used to absolutize it or any version of the eucharistic liturgy. But it can be the occasion to remember again that alternatives to the normative language can be a healthy expression of religious humility and devotion—and that the alternatives should include not only older liturgies that have been replaced but also authorized experiments that can lead eventually to surpassing the liturgies that are normative today.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Ready for a Diet of Bread and Water? More on Bee Disappearance
You know the disappearance of honeybees is serious when the usually “let’s not panic” U.S. Department of Agriculture voices alarm. In the article published today, the head of the USDA’s bee and pollination program calls Colony Collapse Disorder “the biggest general threat to our food supply.” The impacts are pretty scary:
Bees pollinate over 90 of the tastiest flowering crops the U.S. has.
About 1/3 of the human diet comes from insect-pollinated plants.
The honeybee contributes about 80% of that pollination.
Even cattle, which feed on alfalfa, depend on bees.
The upshot is that if the bee disappearance becomes unstoppable, the domestic diet could be reduced literally to grains and water.
Since no one knows the cause(s) of the disappearance, there is little specific anyone can do right now to stop contributing to it. The USDA does not mention the concern that cell phone signals might be contributing. The suspects the USDA is investigating, with help from experts from Brazil and Europe, include pesticide, parasites or disease.
The article mentions that the list of suspects exceeds the time, people and funds the USDA has. Lobbying the Bush administration to give the crisis much more urgent priority is one constructive thing concerned citizens can do. The article is at
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/03/honeybees.dying.ap/index.html
Bees pollinate over 90 of the tastiest flowering crops the U.S. has.
About 1/3 of the human diet comes from insect-pollinated plants.
The honeybee contributes about 80% of that pollination.
Even cattle, which feed on alfalfa, depend on bees.
The upshot is that if the bee disappearance becomes unstoppable, the domestic diet could be reduced literally to grains and water.
Since no one knows the cause(s) of the disappearance, there is little specific anyone can do right now to stop contributing to it. The USDA does not mention the concern that cell phone signals might be contributing. The suspects the USDA is investigating, with help from experts from Brazil and Europe, include pesticide, parasites or disease.
The article mentions that the list of suspects exceeds the time, people and funds the USDA has. Lobbying the Bush administration to give the crisis much more urgent priority is one constructive thing concerned citizens can do. The article is at
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/03/honeybees.dying.ap/index.html
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Saint John Paul II?
The April 27th print edition of the National Catholic Reporter had this insightful letter from Richard B. Emond, Stafford, VA:
"The push is on to canonize John Paul II. In the accelerated, abbreviated process, the church is about to determine whether it has the one miracle required for beatification. If approved, it will then need another miracle to advance to canonization. I submit that it already has it, as it was truly a miracle that the church survived John Paul II."
I agree with his assessment of John Paul II's time in office: he single-handedly undid many of the best accomplishments of the Second Vatican Council. Whether the Catholic church will indeed survive him remains to be seen. Benedict XVI seems bent on leading his faithful down many cul de sacs, with little if any forward movement. Jesus is said to have assured Peter that "the gates of hell" would not prevail against the church. Time will tell whether Jesus also ruled out the self-destruction of Roman Catholicism.
"The push is on to canonize John Paul II. In the accelerated, abbreviated process, the church is about to determine whether it has the one miracle required for beatification. If approved, it will then need another miracle to advance to canonization. I submit that it already has it, as it was truly a miracle that the church survived John Paul II."
I agree with his assessment of John Paul II's time in office: he single-handedly undid many of the best accomplishments of the Second Vatican Council. Whether the Catholic church will indeed survive him remains to be seen. Benedict XVI seems bent on leading his faithful down many cul de sacs, with little if any forward movement. Jesus is said to have assured Peter that "the gates of hell" would not prevail against the church. Time will tell whether Jesus also ruled out the self-destruction of Roman Catholicism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
