"Now, don't tell me you're going to be silly," said Lady Mounteagle. "That's just what we meant; to link up the great religions of East and West; Buddha and Christ. Surely you must understand that all religions are really the same."
"If they are," said Father Brown mildly, "it seems rather unnecessary to go into the middle of Asia to get one."
- G.K. Chesterton, The Red Moon of Meru
Our Good Friday reflection from last year was based on images from the opera Parsifal by Wagner. Though not a sacred piece per se, it remains a piece of work of monumental beauty and emotion, and the religious overtone throughout is undeniable. "You see, that's not how it is. It is the tears of repentant sinners, that fall like holy dew today to moisten field and meadow; thus making them fertile. Now all creatures rejoice in visible signs of the Redeemer, to whom they dedicate their prayers. Since they cannot see Him on the Cross, they look up instead to man redeemed, who feels free from dread and the burden of sin because of God's loving sacrifice. The grass and flowers of the meadows notice that the foot of man does not trample them today, but that, as God, with heavenly patience and mercy, suffered for man, so mankind today in pious gratitude spares nature with gentle tread. Then all creatures give thanks, all that blooms and soon will fade, and nature now absolved from sin today enjoys its day of innocence."
Click here for more from last year's piece.
In the old Church calendar today was known as Spy Wednesday, and so it seemed like an good time to consider the question of Judas. He's been in the news a lot lately, what with this talk about the "Gospel of Judas," but Jimmy Akin provides an excellent debunking of that whole idea here.
No, what I'm wondering is what kind of a disciple Judas was. Was he ever any good? Almost invariably when he's mentioned in the Gospels, it's with the appendage, "who later betrayed Him." John in particular views him with total scorn - look at Monday's Gospel for example. ("This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.' ") Now, a lot of this could simply be understood as a retrospective look at Judas' character, written with the hindsight of his betrayal. But John calls him a thief, and so we wonder if there were other clues, indications that Judas might not be what he claimed to be.
When Jesus sent the disciples out in pairs to preach the word, heal the sick, and so forth, He would have included Judas. So one wonders: did he ever heal anyone, ever cast out demons? Did his preaching ever make any converts? Did he do his fair share of the work, or was he content to sit back and let his partner do all the heavy lifting? Perhaps he lacked the gifts of the others, or possibly it was never in him at all. "You're better at this than I am," he might have said (almost apologetically), explaining why he'd do all the talking when they arrived in a new town but would leave it to the other disciple when it came to things like healing.
Eventually this would have started some talking, especially in a group as close-knit as the apostles. Would they have looked strangely at him, whispering when his back was turned? Did they see his failures in those key areas to be signs of weakness, of the possibility that he wasn't like the rest of them, that he was a fraud? That would explain a great deal of John's hostility, for example. "There's something about that one that bears watching," they might have thought. In today's parlance, he might be considered high-risk, a misfit, someone who didn't belong. This isn't to feel sorry for him, merely to suggest that the signs might have been there from the beginning, telling the other disciples to watch out. We'll never know the answers, of course, at least not in this world. It's possible that someone has already written at length about this topic, one of the early Church fathers for example. But the question continues to intrigue us.
In his homily today Fr. Pavlik looked at this question from another angle. Where the other disciples heard the teachings of Jesus and took these teachings to their hearts, Judas merely heard words. Where the other disciples made Christ an integral part of their very lives, Judas simply went through the motions. He attended all the meetings, went along on all the trips, was seen in public with his fellow disciples at the side of Jesus. From all outward appearances, Judas was loyal, attentive, indistinguishable from the other eleven.
Jesus knew better, of course, and quite possibly so did the rest of them. Outwardly Judas may have appeared a model disciple, but Jesus knew what was in his heart. And perhaps this is the lesson we should all take from Spy Wednesday. We attend Mass, we listen to Christ's words in the Gospel, we lead what we like to think of as a Christian life. Outwardly we make an impression on others.
But what will Christ find when He spies on our hearts? Will He find His love, His teachings, His imprint? Or will our hearts simply reflect our own vanity, our concern with how we look, how we are seen by others, how we perceive ourselves?
That is the mystery of Judas, and as we enter the Triduum let us pray that we find the answer, the one that can come only from Christ Jesus.
UPDATE: AdoroTeDevote has been thinking about Judas too, with a very provocative, heartfelt piece that asks more interesting questions.
Jimmy Akin with a really good piece on the immigration debate, which includes both hard economic reality and a very sensible look at the real "social justice" issues involved. Hint: there's more to it than what some of the bishops would like you to think. For example:
The effect of illegal aliens in the agricultural industry is not that they do work that otherwise wouldn't get done. It's that they depress the wages in the agricultural industry to the point that such jobs are unattractive to Americans.
In other words, when discussing the idea of social justice (or, as the Strib would put it, "dignity"), we must consider the effect that immigration has on both jobs and wages in this country, and the effect that has on American workers. What is it they say about charity beginning at home? Perhaps the same could go for social justice.
Ah, I think Chesterton would have some strong thoughts on this...
Mona Charen with a terrific column today on the immigration protests. Excerpts:
Too many Americans, particularly those who control the schools, have abandoned the goal of assimilation -- the idea that Americans had a right to demand that immigrants learn our language, abide by our laws, adopt our customs and abandon loyalty to any other power. Exalting multiculturalism and multilingualism, and encouraging separatism on the part of minorities, liberals are in effect asking Americans not just to open their doors but to tear down the house.
[…]
Most galling to many Americans (both native-born and naturalized) is the attitude of entitlement displayed by the illegals who thronged the streets in recent weeks. To stage a demonstration demanding anything when you are not in the country legally is an act of supreme chutzpah. But what do we expect? When immigrants arrive, they find school systems bending over backward to offer bilingual education, Mexican pride festivals and Spanish language options at the bank, supermarket and post office. Our intellectual climate tells them that separatism is the way to go.
Meanwhile, over at NRO John Derbyshire (don’t always agree with him, but gotta give him props when he’s on) offers suggestions on how to answer the canned statements that come from those who want to open the borders up:This is not to suggest that Mexican immigrants abandon pride in their origins or forsake their cultural heritage, merely that they do what every other immigrant group has done -- integrate in public and save the mother tongue for the home. It would also be fitting for them to remember that gratitude is becoming; entitlement is not.
Why is this such an emotional issue? I think Mona Charen’s concluding paragraph sums it all up:
The fashion of multiculturalism has sparked exactly the opposite of what its propounders intended. Hostility to foreigners has increased because Americans have declining confidence that immigrants want to or can assimilate into the larger society.
Hadleyblogger Bobby is back with one of his regular commentaries on the music scene in South Carolina. He raises some of the same questions we've raised here in the past: the status of live musical performance today, role of the producer and director in interpreting a stage work, the etiquette (or lack thereof) among modern audiences, the sorry state of "sacred" music in some churches, and more.
*****
I'm still tired as I write at 7 AM following arriving home at 2 AM the previous evening from Carousel in Hartsville on the second half of a two-night, two musical weekend. It was a way to mingle with a few friends, and more than a fair share of incidents.
Friday night was back at my alma mater for A Little Night Music of Sondheim, and because of the loss to that hated rival school (whose radio station in that market is the Air America station, while my alma mater is the O'Reilly / Hannity / Ingraham station), I couldn't wear my college ring or "that" shirt and tie combination with the suit.
A Little Night Music -- I was able to sit in the fourth row, behind a group of friends who made an entire row. A full orchestra and the works . . . and guest artists (including a paper company executive) made the evening fun. But for some reason, I still can't identify Marion (my pianist from a pair of recitals) even after all of these years. And what was the situation with those ladies in front of me standing together as their "heroine" came on stage for the final bows? They jumped so early I was reminded of my voice teacher's warnings to me -- "don't instigate the standing ovation." ["Words we should all live by" - Mitchell] A hug from Brittnee Siemon (a dear friend I've made from classical music) and also Mariel Angel Estrella, making her debut in the music department's events (she's a nursing major) (and old stories), were able to pass the time.
Next week (Good Friday) is her doctoral recital, and the dearest of dears (my voice teacher) is joining her for the ride. I'm going there and skipping my church's Easter "musical" (note there isn't anything of a Passion and Resurrection theme in the songs -- they are just the regular pop/rock songs people now sing in church) to hear a friend. [From what he's written in the past, I feel for Bobby - anyone with an appreciation for true sacred music seems to have no place in his church. - Mitchell] Brittnee is a youth choir leader and I hope her material is better than the junk our inept leader does. Of course, when the leader and the singers (one is just a year older than I am) states karaoké accompaniment exclusively, it's a wonder nobody wants to play at church when the leader wants it that way. He refuses to consider any instrumentalists, and I've called him over that.
[Bobby goes on to point out that his voice teacher is directing the performance of the musical Carousel that night.] But some things had me questioning -- and no, she is not to blame because she wasn't there to arrange the music -- the producer in question, Graham Wood, is to blame in my book since he's top brass.
Watch out for the stories! During some dead time as I walked into the theatre, a few attendees wanted to meet the director, and I obliged by giving them stories about our friendship. While the stories flowed, she popped behind me and I escaped . . . is there some sort of mind game from just knowing her and being able to simply laugh it off?
And oh, by the way: whatever happened to etiquette? Kids were in tee-shirts, jeans, and sometimes ripped. A few used their cell phones while in the auditorium (intermissions and pre-show mostly) in violation of the No Phones, Food, or Drink rule. (I keep my phone in my truck, charging, in concerts.) All of this looked odd when I only wear suits to these performances.
I know how you feel, Bobby. Whenever we go to the orchestra or opera we always dress up, and it seems as if we're sometimes outnumbered by people in casual shirts and jeans. Would it hurt to put on nice clothes just once in a while?
Maybe they were hedging their bets with the headline to the online story at the Strib's website, but the headline that appeared across the front page of this morning's printed paper said it all: "Marchers Seek Dignity for Immigrants."
Geez, where do you start?
What they really mean to say is that the marchers were seeking a "legal status" for immigrants, not dignity. First off, the government can't give you dignity, just like it can't give you a lot of things. We're all born with dignity: the dignity of the human being, created by God, made manifest through the birth of Jesus as God made Man. Now, not everyone thought this was a good idea - Satan and the fallen angels rebelled against the idea of paying homage to a human being - but it's a fact nonetheless. If you don't understand that, then the rest isn't going to make any sense. But the point is that dignity is not the government's to give, any more than it is to take away.
Put it this way - do you think the Strib, or any other MSM newspaper in America, would ever have come up with this headline?
"Marchers Seek Dignity For Unborn."
Nah, I didn't think so.
But this idea must come as quite the revelation to the editors at the Strib. I mean, they must have been shocked, shocked, to find out that there was anyone left in America without dignity. Except, of course, for various special interest groups - women, minorities, homosexuals, disabled activists who could profit from embryonic stem-cells, and now illegal aliens. And anyone else looking to feed at the trough.
Perhaps it might occur to them at some point in time that there are those who would suggest that "dignity," at least they way the Strib thinks of it, applies not only to the unborn, who don't even get a chance to live life with dignity, but also the sick and elderly facing an enforced death. Of course, the pro-death faction has a much different definition of dignity when it comes to dying.
There is an inherent dignity to life, period. And maybe the reason liberals like the writers at the Strib don't get it is that they're become so infatuated with the deadly stench of decay from the hoary agenda they've pushed for so many years, they've forgotten what words really mean.
Just as they've forgotten what life really means.
My friend BaddaBlogger has a terrific piece on the issue today, as does Anti-Strib, the local watchdog on our paper of record. (A warning though, if you go to Anti-Strib - their posts aren't always family-friendly, which is why we don't link to the site on a regular basis. Forewarned is forearmed.)
It would seem that one of the distinguishing characteristics of modern culture is the desire to make one's own mark on the scene. Our greatest fear is that of being a nobody, and, as the old saying goes, you're nobody if somebody loves you. So we go about our business trying to achieve that one great breakthrough that defines us, that brings us acclaim and admiration and, yes, love.
Nowhere is this behavior more evident than in the performing arts (with the possible exception of politics), which helps to explain why you hardly ever see a straightforward production of Shakespeare anymore. Every director becomes obsessed with putting their own personal interpretation on the play, so that in the end it's no longer, "William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet," but instead "Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet," or something like that. Judie alluded to this the other day in her post on the Guthrie Theatre's new season.
It's not confined to theater, of course. Why do you think there are so many remakes of classic and semi-classic movies? Rather than think up a new idea, filmmakers come up with their own spins on already-established stories, often introducing some radical reinterpretation of the story (see The Manchurian Candidate, for example). Some of the innovations are more noticeable than others. Many of them are simply annoying.
Which brings us to the current production of Princess Ida by The Gilbert & Sullivan Very Light Opera Company (GSVLOC). The GSVLOC is a more-or-less amateur company, dedicated to the work of G&S. They put on one full-blown operetta a year, and other occasional concerts as well. Now, since G&S only wrote fourteen operettas, and since the GSVLOC has been around since 1979, a certain amount of reinterpretation might become necessary - after all, how many times can you stage the same play? In last year's production of The Gondoliers they dressed the Venetians as Mafia types, but otherwise it was pretty free of gimmicks.
What, then, to make of the "Director's Note" that appeared in the program for Princess Ida? The director, Lesley Hendrickson, starts with an explanation that puts the story in context (always helpful since so many of the shows topical to G&S's time, satires on particular aspects of British life).
In Princess Ida William S. Gilbert turns Tennyson's epic poem, "The Princes," into a scathing attack on women's education. Though GIlbert's sneers are hard to take, today it is almost as hard to take them very seriously.
Hmm, no bias there, is there? Frankly, I find it hard to take any G&S production seriously. And I'm not sure you're supposed to. Have you ever read the plot of any grand opera production? Most of them are not exactly what I'd call slice-of-life dramas. In most operas, the plot exists to support the music. Satires, by definition, tend to exaggerate things to make a point. If you try to take Gulliver's Travels too seriously, I suspect you're going to be in trouble.
Ida further alienates modern sensibility by forcing an arranged marriage. As far as Gilbert was concerned, any reasonably intelligent and attractive young lady ought to be able to make a go of marriage with any reasonably intelligent and attractive young man. Romantic love he treated as humbug. Now, many couples in the G&S canon are paired up almost at random by the final curtain. But they, at least, were looking to be paired up: Ida clearly is not.
Right, we've got the point. Arranged marriage = bad. Acting from the heart, letting passions rule the day = good. Perhaps that's why the divorce rate in this country is as high as it is. Frankly, if you read the accounts of many arranged marriages, even into the 20th Century, you hear a lot of good things about them. As many of the participants themselves say, they had to learn to love each other, which meant that there was still something remaining in the marriage after the passion of romantic love might have faded away. Don't you think the director is really talking about the image of men dominating marriage, forcing their women to stay in the house, barefoot and pregnant, at least when they're not doing all the housework? Again, this is clearly an instance of reading "modern sensibilities" into a work that was contemporary to the mores of the 19th Century.
So how does one approach a modern production?
How about by doing it the way the authors wrote it, and keeping your editorial opinions to yourself?
An easy argument is that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it.
Right. Pretty soon women won't be allowed in the workplace at all. They'll be kept locked away at home, barefoot and pregnant. Remember The Handmaid's Tale? It's just around the corner, boys and girls.
Those of us old enough to remember the bad old days before the women's liberation movement can take a certain satisfaction in showing hte youngsters how tough it used to be.
Umm, were those the days before AIDS and HIV, before date rape drugs, mass pornography, skyrocketing abortions and the treatment of women as little more than sex objects? Yeah, I guess those were bad old days after all.
But one can also move beyond Gilbert's cheap jokes at women's expense and see more broadly human questions.
And if the director had read the libretto closely, she would have seen that Gilbert gets just as many jokes off at the expense of the men, who often come across as headstrong, brawn-over-brains types. It's called comedy, in case you haven't noticed.
How does one effedtively rebel against a clear injustice?
I don't know. Let's put one up there and check it out.
Can the use of force ever be justified?
Sure. How about the war on terrorism? Whoops, guess that's not the kind of force she had in mind.
Finally, isn't the cause already lost if one's principles are abandoned in the attempt?
Perhaps G&S might have felt the cause was lost if they'd read Director's Notes like this.
Some issues, I fear, will never become dated.
Just like the liberal's viewpoint of the world. Professional complainers, still stuck in the 70s.
Needless to say, after reading that I didn't know what to expect from the production itself. Were they going to turn the whole thing into some kind of liberal screed, touting women's rights and bashing Bush and the war? (Don't laugh - contemporary jokes are often inserted into G&S operettas - it's a kind of tradition.)
Thankfully, nothing of the sort was apparent in this production, at least nothing I could detect. Oh, there was one banner in the women's college that read, "Better Wisdom Than Weapons of War," (which reminded me of the old slogan "Better Living Through Chemistry," which I'm sure is not what they had in mind), but for all I know that could have been in the original production notes. Otherwise, this was straight-ahead G&S, all good, clean fun.
The performances were what you'd expect from a non-professional group, and that isn't meant in a bad way. The singers are almost always better than the orchestra, and the horns are almost always the weakest part of the orchestra. But both singers and musicians performed with a clear love of the work, and that's often enough to overcome many limitations.
Amanda Broge, as Ida, was head-and-shoulders over the rest of the cast. One hopes that this woman has a serious opera career in mind, for whenever she opened her mouth in song she became the immediate focus of the audience. It's not that she showed up the other cast members as being bad; it's just that she was so clearly so much more talented.
Timothy James as Hilarion, her prospective husband, had a pleasant tenor and a pleasing manner. His father, King Hildebrand, played by Waldyn Benbenek, had just the right touch of ham to play G&S, and Jim Ahren's King Gama (Ida's father) made for a very funny curmedgeon. His three sons, the dense warriors Arac (Christopher Michela), Guron (Brian Haase) and Scynthius (Don Moyer) provided some wonderful comic moments. The sets offered detail that seems nowadays to be missing even from the Minnesota Opera (which sells us poverty and tries to pass it off as minimalism). And a word should be said for Roderick Kettlewell, the conductor. The warm reception he received from cast members when he came out for his bow at the end suggests the glue that held the entire production together.
So it was a fun night at the opera. Which once again begs the question - what possible motive could have been served by that Director's Note in the program? Aside from putting the opera in context, it did nothing to further one's enjoyment of the production. As I said, if anything it made me even more nervous about what might be coming.
One is forced to conclude that the life of an opera director is a hard one. When Domingo or Callas were on stage, how many people even knew who the director was? And so in the end, one can only think that by interjecting her own political thoughts into the program, thoughts that had no bearing on what unfolded on stage, Lesley Hendrickson was making a last, desperate attempt to be noticed. We had no choice but to comply. Happily, Gilbert and Sullivan didn't have to pay her any attention.
We’re used to considering John the Baptist during Advent (“Make straight the path of the Lord!”) but how does he serve as a pattern for Lent? That was the topic of Fr. Michael Keating’s presentation at the Church of St. Helena's Lenten series last Friday night - a stimulating, richly layered, and inspiring talk.
In the life of John the Baptist we see the model for the life of Christ, the lives of the great figures of the Old Testament, and the lives we are called to live.
Moses. Abraham. David. Solomon. Isaiah. Their lives follow a similar pattern:
What with everything that's been going on lately, it's been easy to lose touch with other areas of interest that fly below the radar. For example, Herb Ely has a terrific piece from a couple of weeks ago on a subject that's always of interest to me: the question of leadership. Herb asks the question "Are Leaders Always Out of Touch?" and seems to suggest they usually are. We're talking about all kinds of leaders here: political, corporate, religious. One of the things they have in common, in my opinion: they lose the foundation on which successful leadership is built. As Herb suggests,
The problem is, I suggest, worse that just being out of touch. Leaders become so committed to their frames of reference that they can be said to be in denial about coming disasters.
Herb's right that the problem is more than being out of touch. Perhaps we're talking about the same thing, perhaps not; but it seems to me that part of the problem is that these people are no longer grounded in reality. And by reality I'm talking about something more supernatural than listening to their advisors. Whittaker Chambers once suggested that without a moral foundation, capitalism was no better than any other kind of -ism. What we see in common so often in cases of failed leadership is that lack of moral structure to their plan.
In biblical times the role of warning leaders of coming disasters belonged to the prophet. In church history many men and women assumed the role of changing their orders and were called reformers. In modern times employees can always try to warn the public of a leadership failure by going to the press, the police or congress. These employees are whistleblowers – or informers.
Today there's a great debate going on about the role of religion - in public life, in politics, in the workplace. Listening to argument in the Church about issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage and women priests, you'd think there was even disagreement about the role of religion in religion. And yet it's clear that religion - in terms of a strongly developed and ordered conscience - is what's missing so much of the time when we discuss failed leadership. Are these people truly concerned about the primacy of one faith over another, as the multicultural mavens suggest? Or are they worried that the prophet preaches the words of a rival to their way of thinking, an inconvenience that prevents them from considering their own true love?
I've said before that religion is a very inconvenient thing nowadays. When you're all tied up in worship of the ego, the bottom line, the material good, the sensual pleasure - it's just plain annoying to have that whispering in your ear. That's why most of the prophets were killed, the reformers exiled, and the whistleblowers fired. Their glory only appears retrospectively, when we can appreciate them from a distance, at which point their disgraceful death becomes a victory that transforms the meaning of their life.
And at this point I think I'll stop, because I feel another, longer post coming on, from an extraordinary talk I heard over the weekend.
In the meantime check Herb's post out, which deals with this topic much better than I have!
Or, perhaps, why they hate what we hope to become. For as we hope to become true imitators of Christ, it is not us but Him Who they condemn. The reading from yesterday's Mass:
For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves, "Short and sorrowful is our life, and there is no remedy when a man comes to his end, and no one has been known to return from Hades.
"Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father.
Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."
Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls.
Wisdom 2: 1, 12-22
As we prepare for tomorrow's first anniversary of the death of Terri Schiavo, we would be wise to ponder the continuing ways in which we read of God's love for us.
Yesterday's readings presented images of God as loving parent. Jesus talks of His relationship to the Father:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel." (John 5:19-20)
However, the most striking image from yesterday comes in Isaiah: "Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you." (Isaiah 49:15)
As Fr. Pavlik said in his homily yesterday, the love of a mother for her child is one of the strongest bonds known to man. It is universally accepted as the greatest definition of earthly love. It is inconceivable that a mother could forget this love. And yet, even if she should forget you, God will not. Even if a mother's love turns away from her child, unimaginable as that might be, God's love will stay firm and steady.
It is hard to imagine receiving any stronger words of assurance than these. And these readings from yesterday show us everything that is wrong with today's culture of death. The mother's love for her child is a given, unquestioned. And yet we have mothers today attempting to murder their unborn. Pro-abortion groups don't even seem to bother debating whether or not the unborn child is actually alive. It's all a matter of how you define a productive life, a worthwhile life, a convenient life. Life is what you make it. Not what God makes it, but what you make it.
"Whatever [the Father] does, that the Son does likewise." And so our children grow up observing our callous attention to life, the ease with which we seem to disregard it. Perhaps the child is even aware of another brother or sister who wasn't born, who was prevented from achieving life outside the womb. Is it any wonder that these same children turn a cold eye to their parents as they age? They debate the usefulness of life, the wisdom of medical treatment, the "mercy" of "assisted suicide." Some see the handwriting on the wall and give up, lobbying for their own death as a "quality of life" issue; and you wonder if in some collective, subconscious sense they realize the role they are consigned to play in the play they helped create, and decide to stop fighting.
In these ways and many others, we have truly made a hash of God's love for us. And so we live in the culture we live in. But we take consolation in the fact that God does not make a hash of His love. To Him it remains pure, unchanging, ever devoted. And we turn to Him for consolation, and are received like a loving mother, like a loyal and devoted father, in the glorious honesty of His love.
Two giants from the days of my political youth died this week.
Caspar Weinberger - Cap the Knife - was Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, and presided over the largest peacetime military buildup in history. It was much-needed after the detente of the Nixon administration, the paralysis of Ford, and the ineptitude of Carter. We tend to forget nowadays what things were like back then - the Cold War (in many ways a more real war than what we're experiencing today) burning hot, the Russian Bear a true theat to peace, and the United States in no way equipped to deal with the future.
To do what was necessary, Weinberger had to fight the Democratic House (and for two years the Democratic Senate) every step of the way. He had to fight those within his own party who feared rising budget deficits (David Stockman, anyone?) Ronald Reagan needed a fighter in the Pentagon, a man who represented Reagan's own beliefs, and the nation's best interests. Caspar Weinberger was that man.
By all accounts, Cap Weinberger was a true patriot, a true gentleman, a elegant presence in the Administration. I liked him, I'm sorry to hear of his passing, and I hope he's headed for a better place.
*****
Lyn Nofziger was the kind of man who made politics fun. If there were more like him out there today, I might still be involved in the game. He took politics seriously, make no mistake about that; it's just that he didn't take himself that seriously, or his role in the whole thing. In other words, he didn't feel the need to inflate his importance, and that's a hard thing to find in politics today, whether it be Washington or anywhere else.
Many describe Nofziger as a true Reaganite, and it brings back the memories of the days when conservatives would say, "Let Reagan be Reagan." It does seem as we've always worried about the people our presidents surround themselves with, doesn't it? In truth, very few of them seem to have the knack of understanding both the president's best interests and the nation's. They're either "yes" men-lackeys who put the presidential cult of personality above all else, or they're total slaves to their departments, treating the president with distain. Nofziger was neither of those.
There's a series of excellent quotes from Nofziger himself, written over the last few months and put up today by Peter Robinson at NRO. There are two that are my favorites, ones that say what I often want to say, only much better. The first one could describe my own political state right now (with the exception that I'm not registered with any party):
I am a Republican because I believe that freedom is more important than government-provided security. Sometimes I wish I were a Democrat because Democrats seem to have more fun. At other times I wish I were a Libertarian because Republicans are too much like Democrats. What I actually am is a right-wing independent who is registered Republican because there isn't any place else to go.
And here is the one I'd like to leave you with, to ponder at your leisure:
One of the things I do to fill the waning hours of my life is write book reviews, mainly for the Washington Times. Recently I read and reviewed a book by National Review magazine’s white house reporter, Byron York, titled “The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.
I quote: “...many of the founders (of this nation) believed that the constitution does not grant us rights but rather safeguards those rights given us by a higher power.” Well, yes, and generally speaking, that “higher power” can be identified as God. York seems a little tentative about this, about the idea that our rights are God-given and that the constitution cannot give us our rights, but can only safeguard them. The important thing here, however, is that the Founding Fathers were not alone. Patriots through the years have shared that belief. One who did was a recent president named Ronald Reagan.
In many of his speeches and elsewhere Reagan made that point—that our rights are God-given. That, he insisted, is one of the great differences between the United States and other nations. In most other nations, he noted, rights are granted by government and therefore are at the mercy of government. In the United States, rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom to keep and bear arms, and many others enunciated in the first ten amendments, cannot be taken away by government…because they are not granted by government; they are the individual’s as a matter of God-given right…. [MH - this was a point often raised as well by Bishop Sheen.]
Interesting, isn’t it, that the rights of atheists, America-haters and rabble rousers are all protected because the Founding Fathers turned to God for guidance as they sought to give themselves and those who would follow after them a more perfect union?
Words that George Mason might agree with as well!
America is richer for having had these men, and poorer for not having them now. Requiescant in pace.
By now even the most casual college basketball fan, his bracket in a shambles, must be asking the question, "Just who the *$@#&% is George Mason, anyway?" Even in the world of obscure small-college teams, George Mason is an obscure college, with an equally obscure namesake. (George Washington University may struggle for respect in college athletics, but at least they've got a big-time namesake - the biggest, in fact.)
I figured that George Mason must have been a signer of either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. As it turns out, he was neither. He was a big player in Virginia politics at the time; friend of both Jefferson and Washington, and a delegate to the Virginia Convention in 1776. His primary, and greatest, claim to fame is his authorship of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which turned out to be the model for the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.
He was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but he refused to sign the Constitution. He had many reasons, chief among them the original Constitution's lack of a declaration of rights similar to that of Virginia's, and his fear of a strong central federal government. It was this opposition to the Constitution that probably ended his long friendship with Washington. Just because he refused to sign the Constitution, however, one should not consign him to the historical dustbin; it was his relentless campaigning which helped lead to the introduction of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. To the extent that Mason is known today, it is as the "Father of the Bill of Rights."
I think one of the most telling things about Mason is this section from Catherine Drinker Bowen's marvelous book on the writing of the Constitution, Miracle in Philadelphia:
Nobody in Virginia or out of it questioned George Mason's devotion to his ideals. Washington's senior by seven years, Mason had long cherished a romantic view of liberty and republicanism. Back in '78 when Mason's own creation, the Virginia constitution, had been adopted, he wrote a friend that "we seem to have been treading upon enchanted ground." But in September of 1787, George Mason no longer walked as if enchanted. He had always distrusted a strong central government; now he saw one in the making. [...] Mason foresaw the new government eventually "vibrating," he wrote, "between a monarchy and a corrupt oppressive aristocracy." [Emphasis added]
Hey, this sounds like a team conservatives can root for!
Seriously, this gives us something to ponder indeed. We may have forgotten about George Mason, but his words validate the nickname of the college's athletic teams - the Patriots. Mason may have been right or wrong in opposing the Constitution, but I have to ask myself what he would think of our country and our government today. Have his worst fears come true? Would all the Founders, for that matter, despair at what their creation has become? Do we have any respect for the work these brave men risked their lives for?
All questions for another time, I suppose. For now let's wish George Mason's basketball team well in the Final Four, and thank them for bringing their namesake to light, even if for only a brief time. For this Cinderella team, the clock has yet to strike midnight. For our nation - well, that may be another matter.
You remember the "Just Say No" campaign. Simple message - whenever you're confronted with something you shouldn't be doing, just say no.
Simple in concept maybe, but not so simple in practice.
We talk less about just saying "yes." And often when we do say yes, it's to the wrong things - the things we ought to be saying no to. And yet our salvation rests on the simple act of saying yes. It is the yes we say when Jesus asks us to give our lives to Him.
And it all started with the yes of Mary, and the simple faith behind her answer. She couldn't have known everything God had in store for her because of that answer, and the foreshadowing she did have, as in the case of the words of Simeon, often wasn't encouraging.
And yet her yes was firm and decisive, and we see no evidence that she ever wavered in the faith she had in her answer, and in her God.
We've lately focused our attention on the negative, on the bad things that are going on both here and throughout the world. And, I'm afraid, we'll probably continue to be confronted with them. But for a moment let's consider the positive - the positive answer of Mary.
Let us answer her "yes" with our own. Just say yes to Mary when she extends her invitation to bring us closer to her Son. Just say yes to Jesus, and his offer of foregiveness and salvation. Just say yes to God, and let that yes speak for you throughout your life. Say yes to the Holy Spirit, and the wisdom to guide you in God's grace.
Just say yes as Mary did, which we commemorate on this Feast of the Annunciation, March 25.
This from G. K. Chesterton:
"...I am one of those people who believe that you've got to be dominated by your moral slant. I'm no 'art-for-art's-sake' man. I am quite incapable of talking or writing about Dutch gardens or the game of chess, but if I did, I have no doubt that what I say or write about them would be colored by my view of the cosmos."
Boy, isn't that what all of us Catholic bloggers are trying to do? Let us hope that we might have even a fraction of the success that Chesterton had in doing so.
Archbishop Harry Flynn has come under fire again (still?) for a reported incident at the Mass held on World Marriage Day. This Mass was held to celebrate the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, defined by the Church as being between one man and one woman. Of course, same-sex couples showed up to celebrate their own "marriages."
Here's where it always gets fun in the archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis. The archbishop is again accused of giving Holy Communion to people wearing the arm bands signifying their support of the right of homosexual couples to enjoy the same privileges of married life as truly-married couples. While some Eucharistic ministers refused Holy Communion to the arm band wearers, others did not. The archbishop was among them.
Did this really happen? Yes, according to Dennis McGrath, spokesman for the archdiocese. Here's his explanation: "The fact of the matter is it is true the archbishop gave them Communion. But the archbishop didn't see the armbands. When the archbishop gives someone Communion, he looks into their eyes, not at their arms. He never saw the darn things."
We'd like to believe that the archbishop was so caught up in the Holy Spirit and the gravity of his duty that the oversight can be excused. However, as Mitchell has put forth in his great post, What The Archbishop Knew, knowing that these things happen on a regular basis in this archdiocese, perhaps the archbishop should be just a little more aware of who is approaching him to receive Holy Communion. The archbishop also has a duty to the faithful and the public at large to make sure that his public displays do not bring on him and the Church any scandal.
It is said that the archbishop believes that just because someone wears an arm band in support of family or friends who are homosexuals, they might not be homosexuals themselves and they are not necessarily defying Church teaching on the practice of homosexuality. This is disingenuous. How can one support a group that openly defies Church teaching and not be defying it oneself? Isn't that rather like a politician who supports the right to abortion, but is personally opposed?
If the archbishop is not amenable to engage in battle himself, the least he can do is support us while we fight. Otherwise, it looks like he's on the side of the enemy. And who are we going to believe, him or our lyin' eyes.
Hmm. There’s some kind of Christian holiday coming up, isn’t there? (At least I think I read about it somewhere.) That means there must be controversy right around the corner as well, right? Ah yes, here it is. An article in this morning’s Star Tribune. “A cloth bunny and pastel-colored eggs with the words "Happy Easter" were taken down from the lobby of the St. Paul City Council offices Wednesday after someone questioned whether it was appropriate to note the Christian holiday.”
"It's not about being politically correct or anything else. Someone complained, everyone stopped and said, 'We ought not to do this,' " said Council President Kathy Lantry. "As government, we have a different responsibility about advancing the cause of religion, which we are not going to do."
Human Rights Director Tyrone Terrill (and yes, I’m mentioning his name because I think he should get a little publicity out of this) “sent Lantry an e-mail asking that the Easter decorations come down because they ‘could be offensive to non-Christians.’ “
Now, whether or not you agree with the opinion of the Director, you can at least see what his agenda is. (Is a bunny really a symbol of Easter? Let’s leave that aside for the moment.) And it raises what I think is a very intriguing question: can the absence of something, whether it be a symbol, a sign, or even a word – can its absence, as well as its presence, be construed as offensive?
Well, I suppose the answer has to be yes. After all, when Arizona refused to recognize Martin Luther King Day back in the early 90s, a lot of people were offended by its absence (the NFL refused to stage the Super Bowl there until the state changed its mind.) A lot of civil rights activists consider the absence of “diversity” to be offensive. For that matter, the diversity crowd considers the absense of multicultural recognition of events to be offensive. Let’s face it, there are plenty of examples that suggest the absence of recognition can be offensive to those for whom that recognition is meaningful.
We should ask for a moment why the word “Easter” is offensive in the first place. It’s just a word. It’s a Christian commemoration of an event. If you don’t happen to be a Christian, there’s nothing in the word that forces you to observe behavior that compromises your beliefs. It doesn’t require you to worship Christ. It doesn’t even require that you recognize the event. If there’s any group that might be offended by the concept of Easter, it’s the Jews – and yet I don’t see any mass evidence that most of them are bothered by it. Christians – real ones, that is – don’t hold the Jewish people responsible for the Crucifixion anymore. I really would have thought we’d gotten far beyond this point.
And in fact, I think we have. Kathy Lantry’s ridiculous statement notwithstanding, what we’re really seeing is PC gone amok once again, of another attempt to mandate secularism in public. (The article reminds us that St. Paul is the city that tried to remove red poinsettias from the courthouse a few years ago, replacing them with white ones on the grounds that the red had too much of a traditional religious significance. You’d think these people might, for a moment, stop to consider the very name of their city. Wait, maybe I shouldn’t bring that up.) The idea that a rabbit and plastic eggs advances a particular religious belief is absurd. You show me a proselytizing rabbit, and I’ll show you an advocate for larger families – that’s all.
Which brings us back to the original point of this essay: apparently the Human Rights Commissioner believes it’s permissible to offend Christians. What other conclusion can you draw? If a symbol can be offensive, the lack of the same symbol – due to an actual prohibition of its display – can be equally offensive. In fact, I’m offended by it, and so are some members of the City Council (Councilman Dave Thune calls the decision “a shame.”) Do any of us count? Apparently not as far as the Human Rights Director of the city of St. Paul is concerned.
And that, too, is offensive.
(We report, you decide: continued.)
Our friend (and now fellow blogger) Hadleyblogger Ray has shared with us his correspondence with Archbishop Flynn regarding Fr. Altier. First, the Archbishop's email:
To interested party
Thank you for your recent note. I appreciate that you have benefited spiritually from Fr. Altier’s homilies. He has done much good work and is not being “silenced.”Fr. Robert Altier is a priest of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis in good standing. He wrote to ask me for permission to extend his radio ministry. I reviewed the situation and discerned that a break from his multi-media apostolates might be beneficial to him and to the parish of Saint Agnes. His primary responsibility has been and continues to be as assistant to the pastor there in ministering to the parishioners. The specific reasons for this decision are within the context of a bishop’s relationship with his priests. It would be most inappropriate to discuss them with others.
Many people have leaped to inaccurate and unkind conclusions. They do a disservice to Fr. Altier and to me. I pray that Lent will be a time for them to examine their consciences and grow in charity. They would be well-advised to listen to or read some homilies about the perils of rashly judging others and about the respect owed to the successors of the apostles.
Some people have mentioned concerns with regard to the “safe environment” programs for children. Let me assure you that pastors in this Archdiocese have a number of options from which to choose and that parents always retain the right
to withhold their children from any program to which they object.I hope that you may avail yourself of some of the other good spiritual resources on the radio, Internet or in good, old-fashioned books. I personally enjoy the insights of the periodical missal Magnificat. You are also free to visit Saint Agnes where Fr. Altier continues to actively minister.
With every good wish, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Harry J. Flynn, D. D.
Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis
Ray's reply: As an aside, “To Interested Party” is a strange salutation for a letter coming from my Archbishop. I’m sure that there must be a more “pastoral” salutation that could be used.
It might make some sense also to set up an special email account for the Archbishop for such emails.
My comment: This response is pure Archbishop Flynn: at once pastoral and condesending, thoughtful and tactless, intriguing and infuriating. In many ways it reads like a letter of recommendation written by an HR department for an employee that has been fired: cautious in the extreme, stressing the obvious, providing nothing that could be used against them, adding nothing to the base of knowledge.
To the archbishop's suggestion that his critics "would be well-advised to listen to or read some homilies about the perils of rashly judging others and about the respect owed to the successors of the apostles," his point is correct, and well-taken. One could only add that the archbishop himself might be well-advised to consult scripture, particularly Matthew 18:6.
UPDATE: Regular Guy Paul received the exact same response (form email, anyone?) from the archdiocese (scroll down to the end of the post to read), and has some pointed comments of his own.
Sunday’s (3/19/06) review of the new Guthrie Theater season by Rohan Preston in the Star Tribune is just one more example of the snobbish elitist attitude of the arts and croissants crowd. The new season isn’t bold enough. It isn’t new enough. It isn’t politically correct.
By Mr. Rohan’s admission, and the Guthrie’s own mission statement, the purpose of the Guthrie is to be “devoted to the traditional classical repertoire that has sustained us since our foundation and to the exploration of new works from diverse cultures and traditions.” This they have done over the years, performing works by Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Shaw, Williams, Stoppard and Fugard.
Mr. Rohan says that the Guthrie “has retreated into the safety of the familiar at exactly the moment when it needs to assert a grand vision and bold leadership through its play selection.” Well, perhaps another view is that the theater has stayed true to its vision of performing a “traditional classical repertoire.” The 2006 – 2007 season includes Shaw’s “Major Barbara”, Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”, and Williams’ “The Glass Menagerie.” It also includes a new play, “The Great Gatsby” and a piece called “Boats on a River” by Julie Marie Myatt. There’s room for all genres. The Guthrie is already that big and they’ve been doing experimental work for years. As a matter of fact, I’d love to see a Shakespeare play that wasn’t so experimental.
What’s wrong with including some crowd pleasers such as Simon’s “Lost in Yonkers” or the musical “1776” along with lesser known works. The bills have to be paid, after all, and it’s no shame to want to spend an evening at the theater that provides pure enjoyment. In 1971 audiences enjoyed “Cyrano de Bergerac and The Taming of the Shrew, both of which were artistic and box office successes.” The current director, Joe Dowling brought us “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, described as “the Guthrie's most attended play ever.” (Again quoting from the Guthrie’s website.)
Mr. Rohan gives his agenda away when he says, “ Myatt and …Barbara Field are the only women playwrights on the bill. Only one female director was named. And there are no playwrights or directors of color in the announced line-up.” Are we looking for good theater or an affirmative action utopia? Who cares what gender the playwrights and directors are or what color they are? Is it more important to fulfill some artificial political agenda or bring the ticket-buying public the entertainment they want? I’d think that the Guthrie, or any theater, would be more interested in filling seats.
He's one of the more enigmatic figures in the New Testament, Joseph the carpenter. He only appears in a few passages in the Gospels. We never hear him saying anything; he is never directly quoted by any of the writers. And once the Child Jesus is found preaching in the Temple, he disappears entirely, never to be mentioned again. We don’t know when he died, how long he lived, even how old he was when he married Mary (tradition usually depicts him as an old man; but Bishop Sheen, among others, hypothesized that God would only have entrusted to a young man the kinds of physical activities necessary to protect the Child and His Mother.) Some speculate that he was a widower with children, while others believe he may, like Mary, have been a consecrated virgin.
In the January/February 2006 issue of Gilbert Magazine, the publication of the American Chesterton Society, there comes this news item. It's short, so I'll just print the two paragraphs here.
"Did you hear the one about the Jewish woman who married a dolphin?
"Sharon Tendler of England married Cindy, a bottle-nosed dolphin at Dolphin Reef in the sourthern Israeli port of Eilat. 'It's not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He's the love of my life...It's not a bad thing. It's just something that we did because I love him...' She wore a white dress and flowers in her hair and..."
First it was divorce, then re-marriage, then men wanting to marry men and women, women. Why not marry a dolphin, or a dog, or a cat, or a block of Swiss cheese? Why not marry an under-age child? Just how far can we slide till we reach the bottom of that slope?
And how far does it have to go before some priests in this archdiocese will support a firm law (and their Archbishop) that strengthens the definition of Holy Matrimony between one man and one woman?
Far be it from me to suggest that a musical genius like Mozart might have got it all wrong, but I’ve often thought it might have been more appropriate to end Don Giovanni with the Don being dragged to the Netherworld by the statue of the man he murdered, the Commendatore, rather than with the scene that followed – his various victims taking delight in his final comeuppance. Take, for example, Puccini’s ending to La Traviata, with Alfredo looking down on the lifeless form of his love Violetta, and his final anguished cry as the music swells to its thunderous conclusion. It seems to me as if this was the way to bring Don Giovanni to an end.
It probably would not have been Mozart’s style, though, and it certainly wouldn’t have fit with the tone set in the Minnesota Opera’s just-concluded production of the classic. This was a Giovanni somewhat different from what we usually see, and it wasn’t only with the updating of the setting to an early 20th century, faintly Art Deco-stylized era.
No, this version chose to put the accent on the humorous elements that have always been present in what Mozart called his “dramma giocoso (opera buffa)" - in other words, a comedy with dramatic overtones. Rather than the evil sadist we’ve come to know and love (or rather, hate), this Don Giovanni (literally, Don Juan) comes across as a charming rogue; a bit of a cad perhaps (there is, after all, that murder you have to explain away, not to mention an attempted rape), but in the end he's not much different from other rakes we’ve known and loved through the years – Bill Clinton, for instance. Sure, he’s still a manipulator who sees in women nothing more than a chance for pleasure. Sure, he’s perfectly content to break up a marriage just for a night or two of passion. But, as he tells his servant Leporello, to be loyal to one woman would mean denying the other thousand. The man is nothing if not self-assured.
And in the hands of this Giovanni, Kyle Ketelsen (a winner of the Metropolitan Opera's National Council Audition), such a claim would not be out of line. Ketelsen played the comic potential of Giovanni to the hilt, without ever quite letting the character lapse into caricature. His Giovanni could turn on a dime - charming one moment, menacing the next, capable of making love and war in the same paragraph. He was smooth, suave, convincing, and totally amoral; and Ketelsen was in total control of the stage whenever he was on.
The same goes for Giovanni’s hapless servant Leporello, played by Patrick Carfizzi. Leporello is all too aware of his master’s faults – indeed, give him a moment and he’ll catalog them for you – but, although one gets the impression he really does feel bad about the Don's misdeeds and his own role in them, he lacks the moral strength to pull away. It is only when the Don is safely dead that he feels he can finally express his true feelings. Carfizzi was a true showman while on stage - at once both the efficient agent of his master and the helpless victim of his own success. For as long as he's useful to Giovanni, he makes himself indespensible - and thus is trapped in a lifestyle from which he yearns to escape (if the price is right, that is). He is, in a sense, the comic relief that advances the dramatic story, and one thinks that this was what was missing from Papageno in last year's The Magic Flute.
The biggest cheers at the end of the evening were reserved for these two, and rightly so; for the rest of the cast, while good to varying degrees, couldn't really keep up with Ketelsen and Carfizzi. Patricia Risley, as Giovanni's abandoned lover Donna Elvira (who's also pregnant, an interesting touch not in the original), was charming and vulnerable - and, truth be told, a little foolish to modern sensabilities; Erin Wall, playing the revenge-driven Donna Anna (it was her father Giovanni killed in the opening scene) was a capable singer but a static actress; Jamie-Rose Guarrine, as Giovanni's current conquest Zerlina, was - well, she was there; and Raymond Ayers, as Zerlina's left-out newlywed husband Masetto, was victim of a weak voice and a strong orchestra - not a good combination.
The production itself featured some interesting touches - the modern dress, for example (and one must admit that Giovanni was much more charming in his top hat, cape, and spats than he might have been in more traditional garb), and the playing-up of the comedy without changing the essence of the story. One thinks, for example, of the Act 1 conclusion in which Donna Anna, her would-be champion Don Ottavio (an adequate Theodore Chletsos), and Donna Elvira try to crash Giovanni's party, disguising themselves in masks and frock coats. The idea that the very pregnant Donna Elvira, her stomach protruding far beyond the cutaway coat, could possibly fool anyone simply by wearing a mask, was a moment of absurdity not lost on the amused audience. And yet the scene itself was played straight, and lost none of its impact for the comic touches.
There was also the scene in Act 2 where a shotgun-wielding Masetto, part of a posse out to get Giovanni, is separated from the group by Giovanni himself (disguised as Leporello), whereupon the two reenact a scene that could have come straight out of a Bugs Bunny cartoon ("Be vewy vewy qwiet; I'm hunting Giowannis"). This, too, could have easily turned slapstick without Ketelsen's steady hand.
I have to admit, though, that the climax was something of a letdown. Whereas many productions feature the Commendatore's Statue actually coming to life and dragging Giovanni to hell, this one did it all with smoke and mirrors - or lights and shadows, as it were. Not that it was ineffective; but when one goes to a western and is told that a band of Indians is about to attack, you don't want to see the tribe represented by a few feathers sticking out from behind a hill. That's a trick reserved for old-time TV dramas with small budgets; an operal company with national pretentions should be able to do better.
Xian Zhang, making her Minnesota Opera debut (as, indeed, were most of the leads) led the Opera's house orchestra, the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra, in a performance that was generally rock steady (although there were a couple of instances in which the singers and musicians seemed to get slightly out of synch). During the overture to Act 1, the thought crossed my mind - having heard this piece many, many times on the radio - that this orchestra was too small to be playing this music. But, given the cast and the size of the house, it proved to be just right.
And, of course, the gorgeous melodies of Mozart are almost impossible to contain within an orchestra pit; they want to burst out of the walls and envelope everything and everyone in their path. The sublime genius strikes yet again. Which leads, as it usually does, to a satisfying evening.
We've been waiting for the St. Paul weekly newspaper, The Wanderer, to weigh in on the Fr. Altier matter. In matters theological they are usually not afraid of a fight if they see a lie, an injustice or just plain misinformation. And they didn't disappoint.
The article in the March 16, 2006, issue didn't have a lot new to say - because there really isn't anything new. What the author Paul Likoudis did do was go over some of the examples of the Archbishop turning a blind eye to the abuses going on in the archdiocese while cracking down on Fr. Altier. This is the same ground covered by this blog and the many, many others here in the archdiocese and around the country, but it's always good to see that print journalists are willing to put it in black and white.
Here's the link to the article at The Wanderer website.
I am gong to try to be a clearing house for news and activities, good and not so good, of Catholic Church activities that are going on in Minnesota and surround states. At the same time I want to give publicity to a lot of the smaller blogs working hard in the wilderness and maybe if we all work together, we all will get our messages out to more people.
Let me second Adoro and thank you, Ray, for all your work setting this up!
Now, if we're all going to be knights of this round table, which ones are we? Forget about Arthur, Lancelot and Gallahad - we're more in the range of Sir Loin of Beef, Sir Osis of Liver, Sir Prize of Party,...
You know, covering the comings and goings in the archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis is getting to be a full-time job, and it's not at all what I bargained for when we started this blog back in November of 2004. But what are we to do? It is, after all, happening right here in our back yard - we kinda have to say something about it, don't we? At least if we look like we know what we're doing.
Case in point is news of the formation of a new group in the area, the Dan O'Connell Society. (HTs: Cvstos Fidei in Houston and Bettnet, as forwarded to me by Hadleyblogger Ray.) The group describes themselves as follows:
The Dan O'Connell society is a brotherhood of Catholic men who seek to restore the fraternity and fatherhood of the Catholic priesthood. We do our work in the memory of Dan O'Connell a Catholic layman from Hudson, Wisconsin who confronted and was then killed February 5, 2002, by Ryan Erickson a homosexual predator who had been ordained a Catholic priest in 2000.
Acting as spokesman for the group is Dr. David Pence, and in the interests of full disclosure I should point out that when I was a candidate for the state legislature in 1998, Dr. David Pence was a contributor to my campaign. I only met with him one time and liked him very much. I've seen him speak a couple of times since then, and didn't get a chance to introduce myself either time; so I don't know if he remembers me or not, but I do remember him. More recently, Dr. Pence was involved in a group called Ushers of the Eucharist, which took an active role in protesting the giving of the Eucharist to wearers of the Rainbow Sash.
At any rate, here's where the Dan O'Connell Society fits in to our current drama. As Domenico puts it, the Society "says it has the goods on certain high-ranking priests in the archdiocese and if they don’t come clean and resign, the group will release damning evidence about them."
Now, then. What does this mean? Well, it could mean anything, and perhaps that's the message the group intended to communicate. I think Domenico's analysis of the situation is spot-on:
The group sounds a lot like Roman Catholic Faithful. I hope they really have the goods because if they don’t they’ve opened themselves up not only to civil penalties, but also canonical penalties. On the other hand, as I’ve documented over the past couple of weeks, there is a sickness in the heart of the archdiocese that really needs to be cleaned up.
I've got two hands as well, and I think I'm looking at them the same way Domenico is. On the one hand, this kind of thing, complete with innuendo, makes me more than a little uncomfortable. On the other, something really does need to be done here, and one gets the feeling that this whole thing is coming to a head.
Granted, this feeling could exist because a very few of us are overly exposed to it - I wouldn't be surprised if the great majority of parishoners in this archdiocese had no idea what was going on. After all, the MSM isn't going to cover this in the same way they would if it the accusations were flying against the orthodox, conservative element in the Church.
However, I could be wrong about that. And I don't think I'm wrong in my suspicion that a great many people here sense something is not right. They might not be able to put their fingers on what it is, but they know it's out there. And, if the Dan O'Connell Society really does "have the goods," then we're going to find out what it is sooner or later.
Pray sooner rather than later, because the sooner this comes out in the open, the sooner - we hope - it can be taken care of, and the sooner this archdiocese can begin the process of pulling itself back together.
It looks like we're going to be covering this beat a little while longer; as Hadleyblogger Ray said, "When it rains, it pours!" Get your bumbershoots out, everyone - it's going to be a wet ride.
Fr. George Welzbacher is pastor of St. Agnes, the church where Fr. Altier is associate pastor. The following appeared in yesterday's bulletin - it is a transcript of the comments Fr. Welzbacher made last Sunday, March 5, regarding the situation with Fr. Altier. The emphasis in this transcript appears in the original statement in the bulletin. Following the statement is a brief additional comment by Fr. Welzbacher.
Deluged as the rectory was, beginning Thursday, March the second, with telephone calls land e-mail transmissions with respect to the current status of Father Altier, I felt constrained as pastor of St. Agnes Parish, to compose a brief statement assuring one and all that Father Altier still serves in good standing as the associate pastor of St. Agnes Parish. At all of the Masses offered here at St. Agnes on the weekend of March 4th and 5th my statement was read from the pulpit without further comment. Since many have asked for a copy of that statement, I am printing a transcript here.
* * * * *
Let me state at the outset that neither was I consulted about the command issued recently by the Archbishop to Father Altier nor was I informed about it prior to its announcement in the media. And for very good reason: the Archbishop is under no obligation to explain to his priests the reasons for his commands. During the ceremony of ordination priests take a vow of life-long obedience to their Bishop
and to his successors. Fr. Altier accordingly (and quite predictably) honored that vow, submitting at once to the Archbishop’s command by withdrawing from hosting his weekly call-in show on Relevant Radio and by removing the content of his website The Voice in the Desert.It is important to make clear that Father Altier’s faculties for maintaining his sacramental and teaching ministry here at St. Agnes Parish remain essentially intact; he will continue to say Mass, to hear confessions, to preach and teach and to give spiritual direction exactly as he has done in the past. I can offer no further comment because what I have just told you constitutes the entire sum and substance of my knowledge of the whole affair.
Should anyone question the Archbishop’s authority to restrict or even to terminate an apostolate conducted by any of his priests via the electronic media, the code of Canon Law, canon 831, section 2 clearly states: “It is for the conference of bishops to establish norms concerning the requirements for clerics and members of religious institutes to take part on radio or television in dealing with questions of Catholic doctrine or morals.”
The National Council of Catholic Bishops accordingly adapted canon 831 to the conditions prevailing in the United States by adding the following complementary norm for canon 831, section 2: “The National Conference of Bishops, in accord with the prescriptions of canon 831, article 2, hereby decrees that, provided no harm to the Church could result from their presence, clerics and members of religious institutes may participate in radio and television programs which treat of Catholic doctrine and morals. A cleric or religious who regularly takes part in such programs must be qualified by his or her knowledge of the subject and the teaching of the Magisterium, and must obtain the permission of either his or her proper diocesan bishop or the diocesan bishop of the place where the radio or television program is originally broadcast. In the case of members of religious institutes, permission of the competent superior is also required.”
This complementary norm was submitted to the Roman Congregation of Bishops and was officially approved as having regulatory force by the Cardinal Prefect and by the Secretary of that Congregation. “This norm was granted recognitio by the Congregation for Bishops in accord with article 82 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus and issued by decree of the Congregation for Bishops signed by His Eminence Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Prefect, and His Excellency Most Reverend Francisco Monterisi, Secretary, dated November 27, 2001.”
All of us are edified by Father Altier’s instantaneous and unquestioning submission to the Archbishop’s command, surely proof, were proof needed, of his humility. And as Psalm 149 assures us: “The Lord adorns the humble with
victory.”I have no further comment to make. I commend the Archbishop and Father Altier to your prayers.
* * * * *
A final word to parishioners who are parents of children and teenagers: the St. Agnes Schools will NOT — repeat NOT — be using the “Talking About Touching” material as part of our participation in the mandated
national program to protect children from sexual exploitation. We will be using the vastly more appropriate Arlington-Harrisburg program which incorporates the essential delicacy and discretion that teaching about chastity requires. This is the program that I am told on good authority Archbishop Flynn himself prefers. As long as I am pastor of St. Agnes parish our school at its various levels will give appropriate instruction on the virtue of chastity, a virtue without which the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be attained, but secular sex education will have no place in our curriculum.
Fr. George Welzbacher, pastor.
I have only this to add: Fr. Welzbacher is a remarkable man, a scholar and a true gentleman, a man for whom I have the highest respect; and his comments reflect this accordingly.
I, on the other hand, am not always a gentleman, and my comments will continue to reflect this accordingly as well. For example, if Archbishop Flynn himself prefers the Arlington-Harrisburg program, then why on earth isn't that the program authorized by the archdiocese?
Ah, one chalks it up to the mysteries of life...
Building upon Mitchell's post below, I want to show another example of the dangers from within.
In 1992, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J. published a book entitled Catholics and the New Age. The subtitle is: How Good People Are Being Drawn into Jungian Psychology, the Enneagram, and the Age of Aquarius. And he ought to know. The book is about how he was drawn into New Age teachings while he was studying to be a priest and after he was ordained. He finally saw through the mumbo jumbo and came to understand how dangerous these teachings are. The scariest part was that Catholic priests, religious, convents and liturgists were giving their assent, even encouragement, and in some cases, forcing the faithful to accept these teachings and practices.
There has always been danger and false teaching from within the Church; what better place for the Enemy to launch a campaign in the war against goodness, against God. However, we must stand firm and fight and shout out loud when we see abuses taking place. We must be vigilant in trying to see how the Enemy uses seemingly logical thinking to lead us astray. But it can be dangerous unless we are firmly grounded in our faith; unless we spend time in prayer, read the Bible (especially the Gospels) and become familiar with Church teaching such as the Catechism and papal encyclicals, we can be drawn away and perish.
