I couldn't resist this one.
As Diogenes points out, the new schism is not about abortion, gay marriage, women's ordination, or even the Real Presence. Nope, it's worse than that: it's about kneeling after the Agnus Dei. That's right. A group of parishioners at a California Catholic parish have been kicked out of the parish and the diocese for doing something at Mass that is specifically allowed by the Vatican: kneeling after everybody says "Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace."
This is yet another actual, factual vignette from contemporary Church life that my talents as a parodist can't begin to match. Already the Church in the developed world lives in a state of internal schism with Rome about many things, the original and most important of which is contraception. As a result of the "Truce of 1968," in which Pope Paul VI made it known that nobody would be disciplined for rejecting his teaching that contraception is gravely immoral, many Catholics have acted as though that teaching and many others can be ignored with spiritual impunity. It's got to the point that a great many educated Catholics simply don't care what the Vatican says if it taking it to heart would seriously affect their lives. They take the duty to obey conscience to entail the right to believe and act as they like and still call themselves Catholics, which it doesn't and logically couldn't. And while people can still be excommunicated informally in some parishes for remarrying without annulment while their exes still live, the fact is that nobody is excommunicated for heresy anymore. For at least the past forty years in the Church—at least for the average Jane and Joe in the pews—it seems not to have mattered what one believes, as long as one doesn't marry without the blessing of the Church. Until now. Yup, they've really drawn the line in the sand on this kneeling business.
Paradoxically, of course, all that this stupidity on the bishop's part shows is that he no longer knows or cares what's really important. I have said the same about a few other bishops before—though admittedly the occasions were, unlike this one, objectively important. Yet this is just an extreme manifestation of the same sort of thing. One wonders what world these guys live in. Whatever it is, it contains too many liturgical fusspots. And we all know that, unlike with terrorists, you can't negotiate with liturgists. You just toe the line or you're excommunicated.
At least somebody has some backbone. Now if only it were put in the right places.
Mr. Liccione,
ReplyDeleteIt is still too early to make any conclusions. I live in Orange County, though I do not attend St. Mary's. Steve Greenhut has something of an axe to grind.
You can see comments I have made at Dom Bettinelli's and Mark Shea's site.
This whole thing is not about kneeling. Kneeling is an excuse. I do not know what whole story is, but something is definitely fishy. I am planning to go to Mass this Sunday at St Mary's to get a better feel of the situation.
Those wronged should kneel before the archbishop, in supplication, asking him permission to kiss his ring and beseeching him to hear their cause. He'll be too embarrased to refuse.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of anti-modernist activism, though often starting in true grievances, can lead to a kind of ascetic pride. Humility of the ring-kissing sort might work better.
This is not new -- it is reminiscent of a struggle in Canada back in the mid-80's or so over parishioners who were arrested and charged for kneeling to receive communion. It went all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada -- the parishioners were charged criminally with "disturbing the solemnity of a church service" -- where they were cleared. One of the people in question later went on to become an MP.
ReplyDeleteKneeling is fine; I wish all American dioceses would just make up their mind to do it. Some people talk about how we need to incorporate localism and indigenous customs in the mass and then when there's a genuine and uniquely American tradition of kneeling after the Agnus Dei, suddenly we've got to do what everyone else does. Highly illogical.
ReplyDeleteThat said, disobeying your pastor is not fine. I don't care if kneeling is allowed by Rome. It's not wrong to insist, in this local church family, that people stand after the Agnus Dei. These people act like they're Peter and John before the Sanhedron. BS. They need to fight the real battles of our culture, and this one liturgical rubric which Rome has left up to the local bishop to decide is not one of them.
Lord have mercy.
ReplyDelete... doing something at Mass that is specifically allowed by the Vatican: kneeling after everybody says "Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace."
ReplyDeleteRead your GIRM more closely. It gives local bishops' conferences the authority to modify the posture of the people during the Mass; in turn the US Conference of Bishops has given local bishops the authority to modify posture in the specific case of the time after the Agnus Dei.
Does the local bishop here, in expecting the people to stand for the distribution of communion, make a variation in the practice of the universal church? No. The US bishops expect quite a lot more kneeling than the universal church, which expects the people to kneel only at the consecration itself.
A tempest in a teapot. If you and I were to be at Mass together in this diocese I would not try to pick you up off the kneeler. Amy Welborn is right on about this: Let's find some important issues to fight about.
Mr. Liccione, I'd be interested in your serious opinion on the question in this form: is it the duty of a faithful lay Catholic to obey a liturgical directive from his bishop, even if he (the layman) in good faith believes both that the directive is wrong and that the bishop lacked authority to give it?
ReplyDeleteCharlie.
It would appear that while the tradition of the Latin Church for the last twelve or so hundred years was to kneel in adoration from the Sanctus to reception by the laity of the Eucharist, there was also an earlier tradition (mandated by canons of the First and Sixth Ecumenical Councils) that kneeling was a penitential practice, and that penance should not be performed during the Resurrection: thus in the Early Church (and maintained to this day in the Orthodox churches), it is generally the practice not to kneel.
ReplyDeleteIn short, the practice of kneeling was developed by the Roman Church, and the practice of standing throughout the Divine Liturgy is the practice of the Early Church and the Orthodox churches.
If it is the desire of the bishop of Orange County to be in conformity with the Orthodox churches, then this desire would be understandable. If it is also the case that GIRM permits the local bishop to regulate whether there is kneeling or not, then the bishop would be in the right to mandate standing at the Agnus Dei.
Further, under Canon 1373 of the RC Code of Canon Law: "A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties." (Emphasis mine)
Thus, it would appear that the Bishop would be within his rights also to punish with an interdict those who deliberately disobeyed his directives, and who counseled others to do so.
All that said, I entirely agree with the majority here that it is the office of a bishop to be a teacher and a shepherd to his people, and not a grade-school hall monitor.
In this context, I am reminded of my local OCA Bishop, Bishop Tikhon, a stern and good pastor of his people, who stood by silently and patiently while some of his people made full prostration from the Words of Institution to the Epiclesis. He knew better than to disturb the piety and devotion of the laity. It is a pity that the RC bishop of Orange County does not have this knowledge, or this wisdom.
Based on what I've seen as a parishoner in the Diocese, this whole thing is a show for possible future litigation, a PR blitz to assure any future court that they have implemented new policies to be responsive to whatever difficulties may arise. Both as a lawyer and as someone concerned about actual prevention of sexual abuse in the diocese where my kids are growing up, I'm a bit doubtful of the effectiveness of creating the image of openness before actually having efficient mechanism to respond to the complaints that do arise, but that appears to be what is going on. At any rate, part of the program is standardizing parish operations to appear open rather than insular, and the Latin Mass just doesn't fit in with that program, which is why I suspect Bishop Brown stopped it. There's still an indult Mass at the SJC Mission Basilica, but I expect that is easier to sell as a preservation of the historic character of the Mission; it doesn't have the flavor of some isolated "secret society" of Latin speakers.
ReplyDeleteI still find it a bit surprising that one of the Orange Punch co-bloggers was disillusioned to find that "the theses stunt [public promises to Catholics in the Diocese re: the sexual abuse scandal] was all about public relations rather than repentance." Maybe it's just my inner cynic, but it's been plainly obvious to me from the first time I saw the theses posted, and especially clear after my first day of teaching confirmation class. The students had to watch a diocese-produced video about sexual abuse intended to "start a conversation" with no substantial description of how to report sexual abuse, what the procedures are for punishing violators, just infantile discussion questions. That is, to me, PR over substance.
Not that there's anything wrong with a PR campaign, I suppose, but is credibility becomes suspect when juxtaposed with what appears to be tolerance for a priest accessing child pornography:
http://blogs.ocregister.com/orangepunch/2006/03/diocese_zero_tolerance_for_tra.html
Regardless, this isn't about cracking down on dissent from episcopal authority; it's about cracking down on dissent from the bishop's carefully crafted public image plan. These people just happened to get in the way.
BTW, the message was never actually delivered, except to the dumpster:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.ocregister.com/orangepunch/2006/03/getting_dumped_at_st_marys_1.html
Pontificator:
ReplyDeleteThis is not a juridical excommuniatio ferendae, of course; but to invite a group of Catholics to leave your diocese is certainly a form of excommunication. And I agree that this ditch isn't worth dying in.
Everybody:
The only thing I'm certain of at this point is that this fight isn't worth it for either side. The dissidents have drawn the line in the sand in such a way as to defy the legitimate authority of the local ordinary, who in turn is treating it as a pissing contest rather than using it to address the substantive problem I described in my post.
The Catholic Church can no longer afford, literally and figuratively, to have people shooting themselves in the foot like this.
Best,
Mike
Mr. Brandt:
ReplyDeleteYou can't possibly be serious. You mean THIS bishop Tikhon?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/25/AR2006022501266.html
Note the laypeople's assessment in OCANews.org:
"The distinctions cannot get any clearer and more defined than comparing the words and actions of Archbishop Job vs. Bishop Tikhon in regards to the current crisis.
On one side (Archbishop Job) we have integrity, repentance, courage, ethics, eloquence, maturity, Christian love and leadership, humility and steadfast commitment to the truth, accountability, and selfless dedication to helping the Church through this crisis and healing for the long-term.
On the other side (Bishop Tikhon) you have delusion, vitriol, crassness, intellectual dishonesty, egomania, hatred, selfishness, rage, condescension, avoidance of truth, cowardly conduct, and complete lack of accountability to anything or anyone.
This is the perfect test case for showing us what the OCA administration and hierarch is really all about and how serious they are about their sacramental roles and responsibilities. Since I believe that the current financial crisis is merely a symptom of a much more serious and deeper spiritual crisis, how the Metropolitan and the other Bishops deal with this situation and whom they support in this critical spiritual battle, will speak volumes about what's really going on deep inside the leadership of the OCA.
These are indeed grave times in the history of the OCA and the decision to act or not to act will have significant long-term consequences for the future of the Orthodox Church in America and all of us. Silence is NOT an option!
Chris Banescu, Esq. "
If that's who you're holding up as an exemplary pastor, you can keep him. The guy's a poster child for lack of episcopal accountability; he launches vicious personal and professional attacks (often in personal diatribes on the Internet) against anyone with the nerve to suggest that there are massive ethical violations in the OCA administration. Bp. Brown may not be on anyone's short list for pastoral perfection, and his public retaliation against people raising the same sorts of issues may be no better (One Orange Punch blogger reports "After the first victim/board member to resign, Joelle Casteix, complained in this column that the diocese is using the self-policing panel as a means to cover up abuses, Bishop Tod Brown criticized her in a question-and-answer piece in the July Orange County Catholic, the diocesan newspaper"). But the notion that +Tikhon is some paradigm of "knowledge" or "wisdom" in his pastoral role, as if this demonstrates some sort of moral superiority in the OCA as compared to the Catholic Church, is ludicrous. Let's try removing the log from your own eye before you start complaining about other people's specks, all right?
In the same spirit, though, Michael is right in that this is a wasteful distraction when there are far worse problems.
At first, I wondered why CrimsonCatholic was being so needlessly combative with me, especially as I substantially agreed with him. Then I noted his profession. The words of Dr. Johnson come to mind in this context: "I would not speak ill of anyone, but I believe that that person may be a lawyer."
ReplyDeleteSeriously, though, I believe that CrimsonCatholic may be mistaken on several points:
1. He appears to think that I am Orthodox, and a partisan of the OCA. Neither happen to be the case. I am Russian Catholic, and my bishop is not His Grace, Bishop Tikhon, but His Grace, Nicholas, the Melkite Bishop of the Eparchy of Newton. I have met His Grace, Bishop Tikhon, however (have you, CrimsonCatholic?), and have found him to be a kind and thoughtful person personally.
2. My point in giving the example of His Grace, Bishop Tikhon, was not so much to praise His Grace (who has been known to be a bit rash and testy at times), but to show that even one such as His Grace displayed better knowledge and wisdom than did Bishop Brown in matters liturgical.
3. I think if CrimsonCatholic would read the facts presented by www.ocanews.org, rather than simply the opinions, he would find that His Grace, Bishop Tikhon wrote his original letter attacking Bishop Job because he thought the latter was airing the OCA's soiled linen in public. In a subsequent letter and actions, Bishop Tikhon had retreated from his attack of Bishop Job, and has apparently agreed with the need for an accounting of the apparent misappropriation of millions by the former metropolitan. At most, Bishop Tikhon would be guilty of going off half-cocked and attacking a person he should have instead defended. If that invalidates any authority that Bishop Tikhon may have, it would also invalidate any arguments that CrimsonCatholic might pose. I think it should be obvious that neither is the case.
That said, I entirely agree with both CrimsonCatholic and Dr. Liccione that there are far more important things than Bishop Brown's actions which should be discussed.
kneelers...the physical piece of furniture, that is...are relatively new to catholic practice. some churches are taking the kneelers out. yep, it's all girm warfare now.
ReplyDeleteJohn:
ReplyDeletePersonally, I always kneel when the rubrics of my diocese call for it, but I've always hated kneelers and won't use them. I find the bare floor more comfortable than having my torso shoved into the pew in front of me by a device I don't need.
It's amusing to watch people entertain the illusion that my practice is penetential. Since the few I've tried to explain myself to don't get it anyway, I've stopped trying.
Best,
Mike