What It Means

I like the way Weigel puts it:

Yet it was expected that the Catholic Church would, indeed must, take the path of accommodation: that has been the central assumption of what's typically called "progressive" Catholicism. That assumption has now been decisively and definitively refuted. The "progressive" project is over --- not because its intentions were malign, but because it posed an ultimately boring question: how little can I believe, and how little can I do, and still remain a Catholic?

In choosing a pope with an unparalleled command of ancient, medieval and modern theology, the College of Cardinals has sent a clear signal to the entire Catholic Church: The really interesting question is, how much of this rich, vast, subtle tradition have I made my own? At the same time, the College of Cardinals, by electing Pope Benedict XVI, has told both the church and the world that the evangelical adventure of dynamic orthodoxy launched by John Paul II will not only continue, but be deepened.

Comments

[Christine]

Thank you, thank you, thank yooooouuuuuuuuu George Weigel for articulating so well what so many "mainstream" Catholics have been feeling.

[RP Burke]

Weigel is no genius. This is an old question, asked for decades by those who had to know how late they could be at Mass on Sunday and still meet the minimum requirements for the Sunday obligation. The answer was that it was only a venial sin if you arrived by the time the offertory started, then the first of the three principal parts of the Mass (the readings and sermon being considered non-principal).

[Julia]

It seems that BenedictXVI has an ally on the relativity business in Justice Janis Rogers Brown who has been on hold for 2 years as a nominee for the DC circuit. Here's an account of a recent speech she gave:

http://benedictblog.com/archives/2005/04/my_breakfast_wi.php (He used "Benedict" as a moniker before the recent papal election)

Here's an explanation of Benedict XVI's position on the relativity problem.

http://www.tcrnews2.com/schall.html

She's the African American daughter of Southern sharecropers and I found no evidence that she's Catholic, but she quotes George Weigel and sounds a lot like B16!!! Hope she finally gets seated. What a choice for the next SCt opening she would be.

[KMB]

I think the Weigel quote hits the nail on the head. I am leading a "Welcome Home" session at our parish to give nonpracticing Catholics an avenue to return to the faith and answer questions that might be keeping them away. The constant theme of the "returnees" is "the rules". What can I do and what can I not do; the thinking is that if I just know the rules that God will love me more.

[Christine]

RP Burke, but I think the point that Weigel is making is that "Progressive" Catholics are just as capable of a minimalist approach that is willing to jettison all the supernatural and revelatory aspects of the faith for a "purer" social justice agenda that concerns itself ONLY with this world, just as in the past the extreme sometimes swung in the other direction.

It should never have been either/or but both/and. That's what makes Catholics -- "catholic."

[Gerard E.]

Bullseye. Jack Hitt, say hello to our scholarly friend. Clearly another Republican Jesus You See On TV. Not.

[Grant Gallicho]

What a surprise. The election of Benedict XVI conforms completely with Weigel's view of Catholicism.

[Ken]

What a surprise. The election of Benedict XVI doesn't conform with Charles Curran's view of Catholicism. Talk about boring, Mr. Gallicho.

[Todd]

RP is right, but there's more.

Weigel must have been smoking a really, really, really fine cigar when he wrote this. Is he really saying that progressives are all for minimalism? I get it! The neoorthodox are positioning themselves for the coming whirlwind. It was the neo-o's who really advocated singing psalms and other extras at Mass, who pine for the end of the quiet Mass, who like baptisms at Sunday Mass, who like RCIA when it lasts a year or more, who resist paying employees just wages for teaching or music ... he can't be serious.

Weigel must have been having a very bad day when he wrote this tripe. The man's a scholar, not a Republican spinmeister. His piece is tripe, which is too bad, because Pope Benedict has some good things to say that everybody should be listening to.

[Richard]

"This is an old question, asked for decades by those who had to know how late they could be at Mass on Sunday and still meet the minimum requirements for the Sunday obligation."

Hello RP,

Very true. But until the middle of the 20th Century no one had undertaken a vast cultural campaign to make such attitudes normative - and apply them to every facet of life.

[Liam]

The strawman is unworthy of Weigel. The minimalist mindset is not a particularly "progressive project"; actually, it is a timeworn Catholic project to which progressives contributed their/our share of banality in the past couple of generations. But the syndrome is as old as the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul, because you can even see it at work there. The enduring pervasiveness of this syndrome helped fuel the Protestant Reformation, lest we forget....

But Weigel can do much better than to imply that the syndrome sprang Athena-like from the progressive head of Zeus.

Lame. Like what it criticizes.

[Richard]

Hello Ken,

Most fun of all was hearing Curran's bizarre claim that he's a "theological Thomist."

Uh huh.

But then it allows him to paint his theological battle with Ratzinger as being just another Augustinian-Thomist dust-up.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

RP Burke, Todd, and Grant(one ship)

The rest of us (another ship)

Two ships passing in the night.

"Weigel must have been having a very bad day when he wrote this tripe. The man's a scholar, not a Republican spinmeister."

What does any of this have to do with party politics? How is this tripe? He explains precisely what the problem with the vision of Vatican II and the Church is. No sure if this weren't a column he could probably going into further depth. But note that nowhere does Weigel argue for doctrinal minimalism in terms of just wage or anything else. He might argue with its application and perhaps he is wrong. But this certainly is not the same as the cluster of pelvic issues that seems to be the driving force between modern liberalism in religion. While I have been a fan at times of what Grant has had to say here, I must say that I find these little outbursts to be pretty pathetic.

And I have praised Commonweal for its arts coverage and wish that a more faithful analog existed. But please, Charlie Curran. Isn't it interesting that since this man's license was taken away in the 1980s he hasn't really been heard of? The man is a third-rate scholar whose reputation like that of McBrien and others was based solely on the fact that he dissented and he wore a collar or was at a Catholic institution. He's a pathetic man and it really is below Commonweal to give him space to print his work. He writes: "Despite my personal hurt, I recognize that as a result of the condemnation I have more influence in the church now than I would have if I were never condemned--the ironies of history!" The man is living in a delusional, fantasy world.

[WRY]

A radical proposal:

End Sunday obligation.

If you want to see who is committed to the church and who is not, this will do it, pronto.

You could even put in a nice twist: Miss Mass and you can't go to communion until you've made a confession (not for missing Mass, but for all that other stuff you do).

[Zhou De-Ming]

I don't know much about Mr. Weigel, including whether he smokes cigars, and I don't have any of his books, but I think the point he made is significant.

Since the rallying cry of "Aggiornamento!" (which returns 6.8 million Google results) from Pope John XXIII at the start of the Vatican II Council, it seems that American Catholics have been, in typical American fashion, in a great hurry to implement "out with the old, in with the new" and a particularly American fondness for streamlining and efficiency in all things ecclesial.
Latin out; English in.
Statues out; Peace Poles in.
Mary out; Women's rights in.
Saints out; We Are The Church in.
Missals out; OCP "worship aids" in.
Communion rails out; communion blessings in.
Rosary out; donuts and coffee in.
Catechism out; pop theology in.
etc.

Is it any wonder that so many American Catholics are so ignorant of so much of the Tradition of the Church? Can they be blamed for their "minimalism" if that is what they were taught?

I really think we might need something like "re-education camps" for American clergy who received their formation in the 1970's and 1980's, assuming they don't leave.

[Rich Leonardi]

Weigel must have been smoking a really, really, really fine cigar when he wrote this. Is he really saying that progressives are all for minimalism? I get it! The neoorthodox are positioning themselves for the coming whirlwind. It was the neo-o's who really advocated singing psalms and other extras at Mass ...

Nothing says "Weigel nailed it" like a temper tantrum from the likes of the person above. This is the same person who denigrates the CCC as "religion from a book", denies the historicity of the "details" of the Gospel narratives, and who compromises the sanctity of Holy Orders by calling priests "warm bodies in cassocks". Notice the common thread? Denials all.

It's never going to be 1978 again. Not ever.

[Cranky Lawyer]

WRY--

I think the Sunday obligation is more for the Church (and clergy) than for the laity.

I have no doubt that had the church not found a duty of the laity to attend Mass each Sunday, the reciprocal RIGHT of the laity to attend Mass each Sunday would have been abrogated long ago.

In other words, if we didn't have to go, "they" (the clergy) wouldn't be obligated to say Mass each Sunday--and at many different times each Sunday.

Just a thought...

[RP Burke]

A reply to Cheeky Lawyer.

Who are you to say that a former president of a major theological society is a "third-rate scholar"? What are your credentials for making that judgment?

A reply to Zhou De-Ming.

I would be very interested to know the answer to the question you pose. Andrew Greeley uses sociological data to argue that the pivotal event that set the American church on the path to, as you put it, ignorance and minimalism was Humanae Vitae. We're a long way from that encyclical's issuance. What would be the causes, really? What kinds of scholarly theoretical questions could we ask? (You have gotten my researcher's blood flowing!!)

[Christine]

"It's never going to be 1978 again. Not ever."

DEO GRATIAS!!

Ooops, I have to qualify that. That was the year I married my beloved spouse, so it does hold some deep sentimental affection for me!

[Rick Lugari]

Cheeky,

He should be read:

"Despite my personal hurt, I recognize that as a result of the condemnation I have no influence, save that of providing fodder for bloggers--the ironies of history!"

[Cheeky Lawyer]

Sorry R.P. I rely on my friends in the academy who make that judgment. And no offense but the fact that he was head of the Catholic Theological Society is hardly indication that he is a great scholar. I would think the fact that no one outside of Commonweal really takes him seriously would be indication enough that he is hardly a rigorous thinker.

[WRY]

That's a good point, Cranky Lawyer. In some places we'd be down to one Mass each weekend, I bet.
I just threw it out there for discussion.

[Todd]

CL, wishful thinking we're on two ships. One barque; two decks perhaps. We're not talking about McBrien and Curran, by the way. Weigel is on the hot seat for this essay. If you want to bring paragons of Catholic orthodoxy, let's talk about Deal Hudson or the Society of St John or that Omaha priest who's under investigation for that stack of money disappearing. The world has enough mud for slinging, if you really want to lower the discussion to that level.

Zhou, my friend, you've been blinded by celebrity. American Catholicism is not the big player on the block, and it shows a misplaced hubris to emphasize it. If anything, progressives, especially social gospel Catholics have been quite aware of the church outside the US borders. The explosion of mission work by lay people in the Third World as well as First World poverty centers belies yours and Weigel's theory.

Weigel writes of the battle "between bishops, priests, religious and laity who see the church primarily in terms of its evangelical mission, and bishops, priests, religious and laity who see the church primarily in terms of institutional maintenance and the exercise of intra-institutional power."

Even I happily concede that many conservative Catholics have been on the front lines of this struggle and have offered significant contributions to Catholicism in the past half century. But the maintenance of power is more an aspect of sin than progressive reform. Ask progressive Catholics: is part of their agenda saving clerical face in the wake of sex scandals. Wait for the laughter to ensue.

Weigel's football imagery is ironic. A good percentage of American Catholics adjust their churchgoing habits based on kickoff times. New metaphor, please. And if the neo-o's were smart, they'd ask for a new spokesman, too.

[Rich Leonardi]

RP,

HV was issued in 1968, the year the West embarked on an experiment with cultural suicide. Recognizing that I haven't seen Greeley's data (life is short), you could mark the beginning of the decline of just about anything by that year.

[Bob Kunz]

It appears that Weigel's configuration stings.

He may be no genius (the lack itself likely a charism) but I think it's a progressive conceit to somehow think he's making the "progressive project" the origin of moral minimalism. In fact, he's implying the exact reverse of that--and therein lies the rub.

The sting is to see the self-considered lofty aim of the "progressive project" rendered to yet another "boring" slant on our avoidance of self-donation.

It wasn't supposed to be that way.

[amy]

Cranky and Wry:

Do you think the Sunday Obligation - as articulated before the Council in popular preaching and catechesis - is still a tremendous factor in Mass-going? I don't, except in terms of some vague cultural memory. Do you think many people actually confess missing Mass as a sin?

I don't think Weigel is suggesting that pre-V2 thinking *wasn't* marked by minimalism. I don't think he talks about it in this column. What he's addressing is the now - forty years later. Why *is it* that the accomodating churches are in decline? That's the question.

[Rick Lugari]

zhou,

Might I add a couple of biggies?:

Our Lord out (into a broom closet); felt tapestries of the Jesus fish in
Crucified Christ of the cross, risen Christ on if at all

[Cranky Lawyer]

Amy--

I do think some attend Mass out of a sense of obligation and that some do confess neglecting the Sunday obligation.

My point was not about pre- or post-V2 or minimalism. My point is that I think many, many priests would rather do anything other than say Mass on Sunday, and so without the obligation, the laity wouldn't have the opportunity to attend Mass on Sundays.

[Christine]

"Ask progressive Catholics: is part of their agenda saving clerical face in the wake of sex scandals. Wait for the laughter to ensue."

You know, Todd, lately my ragsheet of a local paper has been printing article after article about pedophiles and other sexual abusers in our area, especially young guys trying to entice little kids into their vehicles. Not one of them is a member of the clergy. My ex-cop husband and my social worker sister (with an M.SW. degree, if you please) encountered plenty of same long before the crisis hit the Church. It ain't a "conservative/liberal" issue.

And I'll very happily disassociate myself from some of the "progressive" women's religious orders who don't mind invoking the names of Isis, Hera, and other pagan mythologies along with the name of Mary of Nazareth.

That kind of progressivism I don't need.

Charles Curran and Matthew Fox just blips on my radar.

[mio]

Cheeky Lawyer,

Yeah, dontcha know Curran won, like, awards and stuff? He said so, right there in his article.

Obviously, he's above reproach. I mean, we're talkin' AWARDS.

- Cheesy Lawyer (a.k.a. mio)

[Grant Gallicho]

Does it make me old-fashioned to say I have confessed missing Mass?

My quibble with Weigel is twofold: first this talk of "victory" for his interpretation of Catholicism is colored by a triumphalistic tone. Second, his description of "progressive" Catholicism is a caricature.

But Cheeky: it seems I have no ground to gain with you owing to my association with Commonweal, which, in your mind, is alone in taking Curran seriously. I'm curious: how much of him have you read?

I'm at wit's end with the Catholic blogosphere. There's so much bile, and so much insult. I've had just about enough of the self-gratifying "tough love" excuse. I'm starting to think that people contribute to comments out of a desire to satisfy their own ego rather than moving toward truth in Christian charity.

[Zhou De-Ming]

Dear RP Burke,

The period from the cry of "Aggiornamento!" on January 25, 1959, to the crying over "Humanae Vitae" July 25, 1968 (9 years, 6 months) is, I believe, the "incubation period" for the current Catholic Church in America. After that, a lot of folks just took a walk. Many of those that stayed, decided to re-form the church in their own image.

It has, basically, been a free-for-all in the American churches for the last 36 years and 9 months. That is enough time that now we have many priests and laity who are seriously ignorant of Tradition; and sadly, many are still seriously ignorant of Scripture.

What is left for Catholics to contemplate? Women's ordination. Married clergy. Reproductive issues. Sex scandals. Social Justice works. Oppression from the Roman Curia. Sappy OCP music. This is what they hear, what they consider.

For example, I have a neighbor, a woman about 70, who teaches "Children's Liturgy." She is all for women's ordination. She is all for married clergy. She despises the folks in the Vatican. She hated Cardinal Ratzinger. She is a lifetime American Catholic who stuck around, still hoping for the realization of the dreams of the early 1960's. She has no interest in liturgy except that it be brief and mildly entertaining.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

"If you want to bring paragons of Catholic orthodoxy, let's talk about Deal Hudson or the Society of St John or that Omaha priest who's under investigation for that stack of money disappearing."

I don't see Deal Hudson as a paragon of orthodoxy (orthopraxis), nor would I suggest that the abuse that allegedly occurred at the Society of St. John would be a model of orthodoxy and we don't know much about Stravinkas so I guess I wouldn't jump on that one one way or the other.

"The world has enough mud for slinging, if you really want to lower the discussion to that level."

I wasn't mud slinging. I was commenting on Curran. I am sorry if the truth hurts. And I don't see how Weigel is on the "hot seat."

[WRY]

Amy,
I made my comment because I've wondered whether the concept of Sunday obligation has enforced a rules-bound mentality among Catholics: we do things not because we love Christ but because we have to. It seems to me that people who attend Mass in cut-offs and tank tops are perhaps there only because they feel like they have to be.
I know someone who believes in abortion rights, birth control and gay sexual relations but who wouldn't miss Mass for anything because she'd feel like she'd done something horrible.

[Tom]

I think the part of Weigel's post Amy emphasized is wrong, and can be shown to be wrong pretty easily. What fraction of the comments on this blog are reactions against the fact that those involved in the "'progressive' project" have in no way attempted to do the least they can and remain Catholic? It's "Peace 'N' Justice" Catholics we make fun of, not "Peace 'N' Quiet" Catholics.

Still, if the "'progressive' project" did not itself try to propose a minimalist Catholicism, I think one of its primary effects was to contribute to a new, even more minimal Catholic life. Where, in the following sentence, would the typical mimimally-inclined Catholic stop listening: "You don't have to pay attention to what the Church teaches about sexual matters, but you do have to love God in the poor."

[Zhou De-Ming]

Dear Todd...sorry...I read your comment a couple of times, and I really don't understand. Could you explain/elaborate? Thanks!

Todd wrote: Zhou, my friend, you've been blinded by celebrity. American Catholicism is not the big player on the block, and it shows a misplaced hubris to emphasize it. If anything, progressives, especially social gospel Catholics have been quite aware of the church outside the US borders. The explosion of mission work by lay people in the Third World as well as First World poverty centers belies yours and Weigel's theory.

(I thought Weigel and this topic was about the Church in America. If you want to talk about great things happening in Korea, or China, or Kenya, etc. I'm confused.
I'm all for missionaries, and I've been one, and I've worked in homeless service centers, etc. But what has that got to do with the mess in my local parishes? Sorry, I don't get it.)

[ken]

What a surprise. The election of Benedict XVI conforms completely with Weigel's view of Catholicism.

Mr. Gallicho: And you make no contributions to the snideness of the blogosphere?

That's pretty damn snide.

[amy]

Tom's right, I think (as usual), and I stand corrected.

[Cranky Lawyer]

Tom--

I'm not sure if I follow you, but I would have turned your sentence around. Where would the minimally inclined Catholic stop listening to this sentence: "As long as you love God in the poor, you don't have to pay attention to what the church teaches about sexual matters."

On a good day, I would say after "teaches." On a bad day, I would say after "love."

[Grant Gallicho]

Compared to what? In my head it sounded more resigned than snide. There's no room for surprise in Weigel's formulation. It's exactly as he said it would be. Even so-called liberals are holding out before passing judgment. Not Weigel. (And you can call me Grant.)

[Eileen R]

Grant:
I'm at wit's end with the Catholic blogosphere. There's so much bile, and so much insult. I've had just about enough of the self-gratifying "tough love" excuse.

Tough love? Hardly.

It's called the clash of ideas. Wherever you get people arguing ideas, people who really care about them, there'll be heat.

I don't find St. Blog's any worse than any other forum for exchange of ideas. There is intemperance here in expression, but this is, while sometimes venial sin on the part of posters, not an extraordinary feature of discussion.

[Grant Gallicho]

Wait, I'm confused: are there two lawyers here, one Cranky and one Cheeky? (Could we just use our bloody names?!) Cranky: "you don't have to pay attention to what the church teaches in sexual matters" is part of a caricature.

[Maclin Horton]

I read the comments thread here before reading Weigel himself and find myself puzzled. It seems to me that many of the comments don't have that much to do with what Weigel said. The sentence emphasized by Amy is not about the natural human tendency to do as little as we can get by with, it's about a conscious strategy of trying to remove from Catholic doctrine anything that might not be to the liking of that chimera, "modern man." That's what he's saying has failed.

An interesting question raised by this piece is whether and when Weigel and others of similar mind (Michael Novak, Fr. Neuhaus) will accept what I believe to be the case: that they also are somewhat accomodationist where contemporary American capitalism is concerned.

[Grant Gallicho]

Eileen,

I've heard it too many times: "we're harsh because we have to be in order to serve truth." I didn't say I don't understand the passions behing arguments. But you and I are in simple disagreement about the character of the vast majority of the comments in this place. I find it one of the blogosphere's most distinctive features than most comments are laced with sniffs and provocations.

[Zhou De-Ming]

Dear Grant,

May I assume you write professionally? Do you find my comments at Open Book harsh? I'm just curious. Often I try to be temperate and compassionate. Perhaps that is why more than one person has assumed I'm female, and one even expressed a desire to marry me (except he was married already). I'm no fan of harshness myself.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

"I'm at wit's end with the Catholic blogosphere. There's so much bile, and so much insult. I've had just about enough of the self-gratifying "tough love" excuse. I'm starting to think that people contribute to comments out of a desire to satisfy their own ego rather than moving toward truth in Christian charity."

I agree with much you say there. But let us not forget that you began with:

"What a surprise. The election of Benedict XVI conforms completely with Weigel's view of Catholicism."

Admittedly, I reacted in a cheeky fashion because I thought you uncharitable in your assessment. George is a friend and mentor and someone from whom I have learned a great deal about Christ.

Then someone pointed me toward Father Curran's piece in Commonweal, a magazine that you know I have praised as we have exchanged e-mails about. I don't think any magazine on the conservative side (for lack of a better term right now) of the Catholic spectrum can compare with it or America's writing, depth, and broad view of art and culture (First Things doesn't count as it is ecumenical). That's why it disappoints me to see a piece by Father Curran in Commonweal and why it disappoints me that Commonweal so often seems to conform itself to the world rather than to Christ's teaaching. Curran seems to me to be a has been and a third-rate scholar. I have read (or at least most of it...this was 5/6 years ago) his book, "The Catholic Moral Tradition Today: A Synthesis" and I read some of the volumes he and Father McCormick edited on moral theology though I can't remember if I read any of his specific pieces.

[Eileen R]

Mileage may vary in what people find overly harsh and provocative.

For instance, Grant, I sometimes find your comments "laced with sniffs and provocations," as you put it. I'm sure mine seem that way to a lot of people. (Well, even to me sometimes, when I'm in an introspective sort of mood). Where one stands does a lot for perspective on whether someone is being snide.

[William Bloomfield]

The "progressive project" of which Weigel speaks sought to eliminate the concept of sin and guilt. "Just follow your conscience."

I'm sure that there are progressives who do much in the social justice wing of the Church (as well as in other areas), but many Catholics heard the message of "no sin" and "no guilt" and made Catholicism an adventure in minimalism.

Did the progressives intend this minimalism? I would say no. But do they bear some blame? Yes.

[Grant Gallicho]

Zhou: (I do write and edit for the cash money.) But, while I'm sure some others who spend more time here than I do could render a better-informed judgment, your comments have never struck me as harsh.

Eileen: You're right, of course, and I know I'm not immune to getting heated. But I do think there is a distinct brand of poster whose musings are distinctive for their insulting tone. I don't even think they're trying to be generous.

[Eileen R]

Zhou is definitely Eagle Scout. The real item, not the impostor.

[Eileen R]

Grant, yes, this is true. Lots of idealogues about sometimes.

[Richard]

"Ask progressive Catholics: is part of their agenda saving clerical face in the wake of sex scandals. Wait for the laughter to ensue."

Modify that to read "progressive Catholics in chanceries, the clergy, and the USSCB" and you might well be right. Not all ofthem but quite a few. Bronson Havard is their poster boy.

I would like to think that even most progressive Catholics in the laity are as dismayed by the scandals as I am - even if we disagree on what is causing them and what the solution is.

I think Charles Curran was once a first rate scholar. Or at least was flirting with being one. From 1968 onward it was all downhill, however. Like McBrien and Kung he tended to coast on his reputation for dissent. After his delicensing in 1986 he's been a cipher save in the more radical segments of Catholic theology.

I particularly have enjoyed Zhou's comments on this thread. Especially his 11:30 post. He is, as always, insightful.

Weigel's meme, "how little can I believe, and how little can I do, and still remain a Catholic?" is not limited to any faction or party or movement or societal segment or period in Church history. I am sure even Weigel would be the first to recognize that. But, contra Todd, I think he is validly drawing attention to a particular (and extraordinary powerful) manifestation of this behavior. There are no doubt lots of Republicans who choose their mass based on kickoff or first pitch time but generally they are not out agitating to move mass to Wednesday evenings or start services out with football cheers.

If anything, the aggiornamento revolution has made their slack behavior all the easier.

[Grant Gallicho]

This may sound absurd, but I really wasn't attempting to provoke with my sigh--and in my little brain, it was only that, a sigh. What disappoints me about Weigel's column is his description of "what crashed and burned." He's smart enough, experienced enough, to know that the swath he's declared dead is much wider, and much more faithful, than he's giving it credit for.

Are you saying that no one should publish Curran? Is it really because his theology is so third-rate or that his license to teach theology at Catholic schools was revoked?

[Shaun Gallagher]

I was recently, on my own Web journal, also pondering the question of "how little can I believe?"

Two thoughts:

1) If belief in (or acquiescence to) Church teachings does not make one Catholic, what does?

2) This question is very similar to one that teenagers often ask about sexual morality:

"How far can you go physically before it becomes a sin?"

But as Catholics, we should respond: "It shouldn't be a question of how far you can go and get away with it. In matters of love and sexuality, you shouldn't be looking to maintain just the bare minimum of virtue."

[Cheeky Lawyer]

Grant,

I think it is because he is third-rate. For crying out loud I read a book by the man long after I knew he had his license revoked. I don't think he is not worth listening too but I feel that he has, as one commentor noted, coasted on his reputation gained before 1968. I think he is just a little tired and boring frankly and there is not much vibrant in his thought. And yes, much of that has to do with the fact that he is a dissenter. Think of the greatest theologians of the last 100 years. Sure some of them had times when they were silenced or had tensions with the Church but they had a radical faithfulness that doesn't seem present in Curran. Here I think of Congar, De Lubac, von Balthasar, Ratzinger, even Rahner. What was their posture in front of what the Church proposed? In Milestones Ratzinger speaks of one of his professors who prior to its proclamation admanantly opposed the proclamation of the Dogma of the Assumption. This professor gave a presentation at an ecumenical conference and a Lutheran theologian asked what he would do if the Church declared the Dogma. He said something to the effect that he would recognize that the the Church was infinitely more wise than he and that he had been wrong. I would submit that the greats of these last 100 years adopted such a posture. They were free to be creative and great precisely because they accepted what the Church proposed (and they didn't accept this proposal just half-way or just on the biggies). They didn't say, "Well, I will accept this proposal on economic matters but not on matters that occur between the sheets" or "I will accept the Church when she proposes a way when it comes to personal morality." Rather, they said, the Church proposes Christ and that will change me in every way.

And I also grant you that were Weigel writing a full length book he'd need to be more exact and more nuanced. But it's a column!

[Emily]

Um, just a thought here, but don't you suppose the reason the Church requires Mass on Sunday is because it's, well, you know, kind of critical for the salvation of our souls. That whole observing the Lord's resurrection and communing with the God made Man in the Eucharist thing...last time I checked it was pretty important. Along those same lines the Church might as well give the green light to lying, gossip, and adultery...just to see who's really faithful.

Also, if there's anyone at Confession who did miss Sunday Mass for some reason or other, you can bet your sweet bippy they're confessing that. There may be one or two exceptions to this, but for the most part, people who miss Mass and don't consider it a mortal sin, also don't go to Confession. They think it's one of those things that ended with Vatican II...like the Sunday Mass obligation.

[Sandra Miesel]

By the way, on the Confession before each Communion suggestion, that used to be the rule for everyone. It was a hardship in my German father-in-law's village and it drove Tolkien's convert wife to distraction. And we also used to have to fast form all food and liquid from midnight, which generated its own set of rule-consciousness. (ie the panic when one got a drop of water down the throat while brushing one's teeth: can I still go to Communion this Sunday morning?)

[john hearn]

Grant,

I fail to see any real future for a movement in the Catholic Church that seems to pride itself on opposing settled Church teachings; at some point they either have to give up or get out. As someone else has pointed out, the leaders of this foolish movement *decided* to use minimalism as a weapon in their war against orthodoxy and the Magisterium that guards it. But that was just one strategy that was tried: ever hear of the "Spirit of Vat.II?"

As for you tremolos hand wringing about the "unwelcoming" nature of the Catholic blogosphere, I have noted in the past that when some "progressive" has no way of defending his agenda, he almost always resorts to whining.

[Maria Ashwell]

I agree with Richard, that the minimalism is no way confined to "progressives". I know and am friends with many "orthodox" thinking Catholics who love the Church, follow her teachings, and yet I am appalled by their constant obsession with their material comfort. They seem to have a pathological fear of suffering any financial difficulties, and for them that means not being able to but the "really good" carpet for their new basement. But Richard is right, we don't experience them in the same way because they are not demanding the Church change Tradition.

[RP Burke]

A reply to Cheeky Lawyer.

So which is it...

1. I rely on my friends in the academy who make that judgment.

or

2. I think it is because he is third-rate. For crying out loud I read a book by the man long after I knew he had his license revoked. ... I think he is just a little tired and boring frankly and there is not much vibrant in his thought...

???

[John Prangley]

As A European onlooker I am fascinated by how malicious and even venomous so many of you are, by the fetish of obedience to all church teaching which seems to obsess people, by the wish to belittle people who disagree with so ultramontane a version of the Church. As intelligent children of God surely we are obliged to examine the reasons for believing in things. And surely much non-infallible teaching will shange with time. Look how mature was the Church's response to Evolution; it had learned the lesson of Galileo. And why I ask is so much stress on the liturgy when Jesus showed none. Why are John Paul's teaching on War and Capital punishment ignored by people like George Weigel? I am genuinely puzzled.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

RP,

I don't see the contradiction. I rely on my friends for the judgment of where his work stands in relation to others but I have also read his work. My reading confirms what they tell me.

[john hearn]

John P,

And as an American onlooker, I am amazed at how you Europeans have been busy abandoning the foundations of your civilization in Christianity while aborting and contracepting yours selves into oblivion to the eager amusement of all of those Muslims in your midst. If you can't understand why people would get exited about the truth and of God's Church, then you are part of the problem for your sorry continent.

[Madmax]

Wiegel, Nuehas and Novak are not really interested
in Christ - they are more into obfuscation.

These are the soldiers of rigged "capitalism" - one
which rigs the market in favour of existing businesses and
against labor and competeition. Not a free market - for in a free
market, there would be far more businesses that goes bust due
to competition - but a really rigged one where the rich always
are rich. ie, an aristocracy. And in such an aristocracy, there
will always be favors to hand out. And many to prostitute
themselves for those favors.

The extent to which their kind have succeeded can be attested
to by this and other blogs claiming its all about Christ,
not about politics. Some bloggers, stopped blogging - I wonder
whether the dichotomoy got to them?

Is Janice Brown being supported because she's pro-life or because
she's anti-union? Does anyone know's what else she
subscribes to other than being pro-life? Irrespective of
whether those are right or wrong, her other views are never heard.

Thats the key - obfuscation of real political discussions that
should happen, in a frenzy of religion.

Preaching Christ, but really serving Mammon.
So ..mumble..mumble.. Arnold. And ..mumble, mumble.. Guliani.
And .mumble..mumble.. [subsititute Your pro-choice Repub name]
And deny communion to that communist murderer democrat. Doh.

About "pelvic issues"?. Many know that the debate is about
greed, and knowingly obfuscate. Many dont know, and acquiesce.
And many know and acquiesce, because they dont have anything
to lose.

Where did I see that before?

Yes, it had nothing to do about science, we accept that the
earth is not the center of the universe. Thats not why
we put Galileo on trial. No sir, we were very very worried
that the social order was going to collapse. Yep.

So loot, lie and slander in the name of Christ. And
Catholics go along with them because they are for Christ.
Nothing is wrong, when you do it for Christ, for when the
kingdom comes everything will be made all right.

[john hearn]

Madmax,

Well at least you weren't obfuscating. Try working a little harder on coherence and your'll be just fine!

[William Bloomfield]

John P,

Ah yes, the "fetish of obedience."

Or is it Faith?

[Zhou De-Ming]

Dear John Prangley of Europe,

Are you the same John Prangley who "said he was ashamed to be Catholic," as reported 17 November 1999, in regard to the closing of a certain school?

Just wondering.

[john hearn]

RP,

What's this fetish of first rateism? The Devil could write first rate stuff, but to what end?

[austin]

'Should there be a Sunday obligation'--most Catholics I know don't know it is an 'obligation.' They just have a vague idea that Catholics think Sunday Mass is important. Our church empties every summer when CCD ends.

[Christine]

Madmax,

You've caused me to reflect on the words of Festus the Roman to St. Paul: "Your great learning has made you mad!"

:) :)

[berrienisd]

RP, if you're right about Weigel, why do so many people buy his books instead of yours? I think he articulates many of the things that we, as Catholics, all know and can't say. He's not the only one, by far, but he's one of the leading authors who are currently able to do this.

Correct about Fr. Curran, Ken. And his objecting now ratchets the whole thing up a notch because his grudge match is against the Pope. He'd best shut up while he's ahead. The Pope undoubtedly won't bother to do anything to him, but Curran will finally put the capstone on his reputation as an idiot and a has-been.

Correct, Charles, when you say......"until the middle of the 20th Century no one had undertaken a vast cultural campaign to make such attitudes normative - and apply them to every facet of life. The fact is, in all honesty, there are undeniably real saints. Then there are the rest of us. Maligning the saints and then elevating ourselves in hopes of fooling God doesn't work. Denigrating the sacred and elevating our own behavior in hopes of getting God to "grade on a curve" doesn't work either. It's treating God like a stupid blind dictator. It's a basic failure of honesty that simply does not have anything to do with a relationship with God. The only thing that does work is some effort and honesty coupled with God's mercy. Period.

[Frank Sales]

John Prangley, I don't want to be venemous or anything but:

1. Spend 15 minutes reading the posts in this blog and you'll see conservative catholics incessantly "examining the reasons for believing in things".

2. "Why so much stress on the liturgy when Jesus showed none" is a bizarre comment. It's simply apples and oranges to compare the way we deal with a sacramentally present Christ to the actually present Christ of the Gospels.

3. To say George Weigel ignores JPII's teachings on war and capital punishment is tantamount to saying you've never read George Weigel. And in that case you shouldn't have opened your mouth in the first place.

All this without malice, John, but in the spirit of fraternal correction!

[Christine]

"Why so much stress on the liturgy when Jesus showed none"

Hmmm. I do believe that the New Testament states that Jesus regularly attended the synagogue. Much of our liturgy of the word is based on those Jewish roots.

The second commandment states that "you shall worship the Lord your God" ... has that been abrogated?

And as a fellow European I thank God that I spent my years there at a time when the life of the Church was still rich and edifying.

[berrienisd]

"You don't have to pay attention to what the Church teaches about sexual matters, but you do have to love God in the poor." This statement, which is a common sentiment, is a prime example of minimalism. There are 10 commandments, not one.

Couple that with the Church empty and locked 15 minutes after mass because the people in charge don't want people saying rosaries in there (God forbid!) and what you have is an even finer example of minimalism. Not to mention silent prayer during Mass. Shame, shame. And yet, that kind of abusive scorn goes on. I've seen it in various parts of the country myself. I've read it in these blogs.

All the attempts at "outlawing" established types of popular piety, like the rosary, stations of the cross, Adoration and Benediction are minimalist. All the attempts at controlling the type of spirituality a person could have are minimalist--some people are indeed rosary prayers--leave them alone! All the attempts at controlling the language the Mass is said in are minimalist. The Novus Ordo can be said in both Latin and English, as well as other languages.

So don't give me this crap about the progressive movement of the last 40 years being non-minimalist. We've all suffered through it. It has been and is.

[berrienisd]

Grant, maybe Weigel was right. Did you ever think of that? Or do you think he can't be right--because he's not a progressive--so therefore must be doing something illegitimate??? You make me laugh. Some people will go to any lengths to save their pet ideas.

I beg to differ, but "you don't have to pay attention to what the church teaches in sexual matters" is not a mere caricature in the USA/Europe. It's what many Catholics have been taught by the friendly local progressives in the friendly neighborhood parish/chancery/catholic school/college. You do remember the full page spread in the Washington Post, I trust. 1968 was it not? Did they ever retract that? ;)

Maclin, read what you wrote carefully and I hope you are able to see how those two ideas are related. I'm worried for you if you don't. "The sentence emphasized by Amy is not about the natural human tendency to do as little as we can get by with, it's about a conscious strategy of trying to remove from Catholic doctrine anything that might not be to the liking of that chimera, "modern man." " Do you know what a pragmatist is? How about a materialist?

[Cranky Lawyer]

Grant--

I don't think the "no need to pay attention to the church in sexual matters" is a caricature; it's a summary of what I was taught at a Jesuit high school in the late 1970s and can be found nearly verbatim in Richard McBrien's "Catholicism."

(BTW, I don't use my real name because my line of work won't permit it. Sorry.)

[frank sales]

Cranky,

I went to an all boys Jesuit high school in the late 70's and what I find remarkable in hindsight is not the lack of orthodoxy in sexual matters (our fascination with sex ensured that that area was thoroughly dealt with in religion class) but how terribly inadequate the instruction was in that area. All we got were the "rules". Absolutely no instruction to put God, our bodies, our natures and sex into an integrated whole. No wonder the rules seemed arbitrary and bizarre.

My kids are still quite young, but I hope that Catholic catechists are putting the Theology of the Body into an instructional framework that is accessible to adolescent kids. If we want them to be countercultural we have to arm them properly, not just have them memorize rules and regulations.

[berrienisd]

Richard, you said, "There are no doubt lots of Republicans who choose their mass based on kickoff or first pitch time but generally they are not out agitating to move mass to Wednesday evenings or start services out with football cheers.
If anything, the aggiornamento revolution has made their slack behavior all the easier.

There is a lot of insight there, yes. I wonder if most of those people in the middle, like this naive republican (a political category) you speak of, know how they've been used to effect change in the church, and how it was planned and executed by those who would then turn and revile them for their naivety. For that is one of the most obnoxious features of the progressivist party--they enlist and then they despise those not as "active" and "participatory" as themselves. They classify us in extremely unkind terms, ladies and gentlemen, when we do not sing their unsingable songs, care for their political causes in faraway lands, hold our hands palm up just so, or use their gender-irrelevant parlance.

But the progressives have made a fatal error and they will pay for it in loss of their supposed gains. That error is believing that the naivety of that republican (& others like him) referred logically to their cause, which was change in the church--when it was not that, but merely naivety and simple weakness shared by many.

The progressives have seen, and been mystified and threatened by the millions who loved PJP2. These millions who stood in St. Peter's Square and cried in front of TVs all over the world are the real face of the Church militant.

Incidentally, CNN--liberal progressive bastion that it is--put together a poll of unfiltered Catholics on acceptance of our new pope. Only 9% of their usually biased sample had any problems with him whatsoever. Nearly 90% approved.

[Grant Gallicho]

Undersood, Cranky (about the name). I'm sorry you were taught that in the 1970s. It's thirty-five years on now. Catholic schools are different. When will McBrien not be trotted out as some kind of totem of liberal Catholicism? I'm anxious for that day. I'm also anxious for you to find the "near verbatim" passage in 'Catholicism' which comes close to "no need to pay attention to the church in sexual matters." In March 2004 I participated in a Common Ground conference on the subject on the church's teaching on human sexuality. There were liberals and conservatives present. No one suggested that the church should be ignored on sexual matters.

And all of you above who think you can lump those to the "left" of you into one monolithic movement may have built yourself a nice, weak straw man, but unfortunately one that has no correspondent reality. There in fact are "liberal" Catholics who find deep truth in the church's teachings on sexuality, who are prolife, and who actually go to Mass.

Berrienisd (huh?): Did I ever stop to think Weigel could be right? Yes, I did. And in the process of evaluating some of his assertions, I determined that he was wrong about what he called "progressive" Catholicism. I think he gets several things right in the column, Berrienisd (huh?). Believe it or not, there are some people who assess ideas and people based in and of themselves, and not according to party or affiliation. The rest of your musings (about locked churches and banned rosaries) would be deeply troubling if true. They sound like paranoid fantasy to me. One of the most liberal pastors I've ever known is devoted to the practice of Eucharistic adoration, and other devotional practices commonly thought among conservatives to give liberals the heebie-jeebies.

John Hearn had some fascinating things to say:

"I fail to see any real future for a movement in the Catholic Church that seems to pride itself on opposing settled Church teachings; at some point they either have to give up or get out. As someone else has pointed out, the leaders of this foolish movement *decided* to use minimalism as a weapon in their war against orthodoxy and the Magisterium that guards it. But that was just one strategy that was tried: ever hear of the 'Spirit of Vat.II?'

"As for you tremolos hand wringing about the "unwelcoming" nature of the Catholic blogosphere, I have noted in the past that when some "progressive" has no way of defending his agenda, he almost always resorts to whining."

He later called Europe a "sorry continent." Whither anti-Americanism? But anyway, John: You talk about progressive Catholicism as though it has a commander-in-chief and shock troops at his disposal. I don't know any liberals who "pride themselves on opposing church teaching." You speak of it as thought it's an end in itself. It isn't. As for this "war" you speak of, I'd urge caution against employing battle tropes in ecclesial debates. They serve no constructive purpose, and only arouse emotional responses. Of course, you may take that as another example of a "progressive" whining because he's incapable of "defending his agenda." You're right, let's forego courtesy and meet in front of the general store at high noon. See you there.

[Cranky Lawyer]

Grant--

Yes, it is 35 years on now. And, yes, I have moved beyond what I was taught as a high schooler. What's your point?

As long as McBrien is trotted out in his Roman collar everytime a network needs a sound bite, as long as his "Catholicism" is still used in RCIA and other teaching programs, he will remain a totem.

I've long since trashed my copy of his book, but the "near verbatim" passage I referred to follows roughly this syllogism:

The Church says follow your conscience in moral matters.

Human sexuality is a moral matter.

Therefore, follow your conscience on issues dealing with human sexuality. (I think this was featured most prominently in his discussion of birth control.)

Sadly, this syllogism typically translates into "if it feels good, do it." Particularly in matters sexual, this ethos leads us straight to hell.

[Rick Lugari]

Grant,

You said, “I don't know any liberals who ‘pride themselves on opposing church teaching.’ You speak of it as thought it's an end in itself.”

You have a valid point, and it serves its purpose in reminding us readers that a dissention of any sort can be over a substantive reason rather than for its own sake, and it may be true for a number of progressives. However, I think a lot of progressives pride themselves on their dissent, and in that it is an end in itself. Bishop Gumbleton, for example, is one of those who publicly prides himself on being at odds with Church teaching. If opposing Church teaching isn’t an end in itself, the pride is certainly there. It is pride that possesses someone to put himself or herself at odds with the Church’s teaching in the first place.

[berrienisd]

Grant, now you're going to disown McBrien too? Are you speaking for the progressive wing in general or is this just a decision of yours? On what points are you thinking of disowning him? I'd like to know what specific ideas you think he has wrong. Seriously.

"The rest of your musings (about locked churches and banned rosaries) would be deeply troubling if true." They are absolutely and completely true, not only here, but in the testimony of many Catholics. What do you think we have reacted to? Where have you been for 40 years? HELLO.

You said, "One of the most liberal priests....etc etc. One incident does not a truth make. I know a half dozen nuns here who sit under a sacred circle of trees with drums, rattles and feathers every June 21st. What do you make of that?

If going on and on about "faithful dissent" as if it were a good thing isn't priding oneself in dissenting from Church teaching, I'm not sure what it might be. There is no such thing. Rather, it's just plain pig-headed disobedience. Nothing I'd brag about.

I suggest that if you don't think that there has been concerted effort to change the church from the inside, that you are either naive or you haven't done your homework. I've done my homework.

I wrote above about the blatant use of the naive by the progressive concerns to push their points. When I come to these blogs, I'm never quite sure whether I'm talking to one who is using or one being used. It's rather curious. I suspect today that I know, however. Give it a rest, Grant.

[Eileen R]

Grant:
I'm sorry you were taught that in the 1970s. It's thirty-five years on now. Catholic schools are different.

It's thirty-five years on now and my Catholic high school taught the exact same thing. In fact, it was one of the reasons I switched over to the public system, where we could opt out of 'Human Sexuality' at least.

[RP Burke]

A reply to berrienisd.

Weigel sells more books than I do because I don't write books.

[Grant Gallicho]

Eileen,

When were you in high school? Or are you talking about your kids?

Berrienisd: what I don't need is a lecture on being informed from someone who can't sign his name. What the church doesn't need is this continued bickering that assumes each "side" is monolithic. Go read Amy's post on this. "We" and "they" gets us nowhere. "Do you speak for the progressive wing"--goodness me. No. I don't speak for anyone but little old me, and I am not disowning anyone. Do I always agree with everything McBrien says and writes. Nope. If he and I were of one mind on all issues, would that make it easier for you to attack me? Yup. But I'm not about to dance for you, whatever your name is. Feel free to contact me via my e-mail address.

[michigancatholic]

RP, bingo. When you can do what Weigel does as often and as well as he does, you'll be doing good.

[Liam]

Dan Brown sells more books than Weigel. Ergo, he must be better than Weigel.

[michigancatholic]

You mean you don't know about the truly impressive networking that goes on under the watchful eye of CTA? and VOTF? They've got a speakers' bureau you know, a big one. And a network called COR and a database of orgs and everything. I thought everyone here would be aware of how very many old-school church employees belong to that stuff.

Why....I used to teach in a Catholic school and paid (unwittingly) good money to the CEA who threw a convention starring a leading dissenter, on those lists, who had been censured by the Vatican. There's some $$$ down the flusher, eh?

Don't tell me there are no blocs in this, Grant. I won't believe you.

[michigancatholic]

But Liam, Dan Brown is only good at pure fiction. Not theology or history. He's a successful author of entertainment--fiction.

[+veritas+]

You know, one of the biggest problems in the Church today is our equivocation with the terms "liberal" and "conservative." Honestly, people, those of us who love Christ and His Church so much that we strive to be in total conformity with them need to do what the so-called conservative lay leaders did back in the 90s, and firmly tell the world we are "orthodox."

The most liberal priest in the world on some issues can still be "orthodox." The most conservative priest in the world on some issues can still be "orthodox." Just because many of those who name themselves "liberal" today are also heterodox, and many of those who are resigned to being called "conservative" are also orthodox, does not mean that liberal = heterodox and conservative = orthodox.

For the record, when heterodoxy becomes a public proclaimation of heterodoxical beliefs that contradict fundamental Church teaching, that person by default becomes a heretic. That word seriously needs to be taken out of the broom closet and dusted off, I believe. Call a spade a spade!

To return this thread to its original topic, I believe all these comments have merely underscored Weigel's points -- I mean, come on. McBrian? Greeley? Kung? Curran? Old guys, and old news. Show me a "headliner" young progressive already.

All the action these days in the below 50 crowd is in the orthodox end of the playing field -- the 50 yard line is no longer an option.

[michigancatholic]

Your terminology is correct, Veritas, even though we still bandy the old terms around too much because the structures of the last 40 years are still fading away. I hope in the future, the blocs will break up and regularize and we will get back to the business of just being orthodox.

I think many of us are looking forward to that....

[RP Burke]

A reply to michigancatholic.

Wrong as usual. I write magazine articles, newsletters and the like. I do a good job for good causes - not least of which is the reform of Catholic church music.

If I wrote nothing but "JP2 is wonderful" for ultramontanists I'd sell a lot of books too. If so, I'd only be doing well, not doing good.

[Eileen R]

Four years ago, Grant. It's likely there're regional differences - I live in Canada - but there *are* people teaching exactly that. The caricatures are out there, walking about, even though I know they don't represent people like you.

I don't think much on these people, really, outside of threads like this. I do try to pay more attention to the many good and loving people who are trying to serve God as best they can.

But the thing is, I think a lot of people who are called 'conservative Catholics' really have been hurt at one point or another. I know I will never forget the feeling of sitting in the pew hearing a sermon preached against "You Pharisees" for daring to kneel at Consecration.

Of course, the time I *definitely* had a sermon preached against me personally was quite different and quite weird.

It was by the assistant pastor of a church, and he was really annoyed that the pastor was allowing us to sell World Youth Day 'cash calendars; in the church lobby. He preached about how Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple, and how we were their modern equivalent.

I was delighted when later the pastor of that church won $1000 from our draw, and the nun who ran RCIA and confirmation classes won $100. Fr. Sermon Giver must have been furious.

[michigancatholic]

Well, RP, the word "reform" has an unclear meaning in the context we are currently in. You understand, I'm sure--it's a buzz word. So what are you trying to do? Bring back Chant and Latin or sell us yet more religious quickie jingles?

[RP Burke]

My main argument is that reform needs to begin with judgments -- based on facts and clear principles -- and not opinions.

So to determine that something presented at Mass is 'bad' music isn't a matter of "personal taste", the usual put-down you hear from some strum-a-dumber when you point out the flaws of saccharine unsingable pap, but of judgments of musical competence and liturgical appropriateness.

I also believe that the people have spoken in a number of areas, like the 'communion song' that is almost never sung by anyone other than the song leader, even in places where otherwise the people make a joyful noise all the time. The social scientist in
me thinks the hypothesis -- that the people naturally sing in joyous procession to the Lord's table -- has failed, but we need to collect data to prove it. Then we can determine that people sing other music much more willingly and better than Marty Haugen's rubbish.

So as far as music goes, I'm probably on your side (though I don't really know!).

[michigancatholic]

I think we need to have music that is gentle and prayerful, reverent and non-commercial. I think it needs to be simple and easy to sing or even hum. I think it needs to be beautiful enough to cause you to hum it when you are bored or tempted or in trouble....the same way I hum the EWTN Divine Mercy chaplet or say the Hail Mary in my off moments. I think it needs to support worship instead of compete with it. I think it can become part of you like the rosary, if it doesn't change seasonally. I think Catholics all over the world should be able to recognize each other after a couple of bars in any language.

Do you still agree with me?

[michigancatholic]

AND I think it ought to be simple enough to be hummed by a congregation of three and profound enough to be sung in 4-part harmony by a full choir. Tall order? No. We have some older pieces of music that can do that....

[Eileen R]

I know I need to get treatment for this, but I like 'On Eagle's Wings.' It's my shameful secret.

[michigancatholic]

S'okay, Eileen. I like Kool Whip too, just can't let it get out of control.... :p

[Donald R. McClarey]

"It was by the assistant pastor of a church, and he was really annoyed that the pastor was allowing us to sell World Youth Day 'cash calendars; in the church lobby. He preached about how Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple, and how we were their modern equivalent."

I'd say that the assistant pastor should also preach against taking collections during mass to be consistant. I'd also say that he and the pastor definitely were not getting along. I have no problem with preaching against Mammon, Heaven knows that love of money is the source of most evil, but I have never known yet personally any clergy who have turned down a contribution. I do not accuse most of them of hypocrisy, but I do think that anti-love of money sermons should be precise about what is being condemned rather than a blanket condemnation of acquiring money.