The Power of Women

In the past I've always worried that no matter how much "equality" women gain in society, it's always really just men "letting" them have it, almost patronizingly...because at the end of the day, if we had to, our physical strength combined is much greater than theirs, and if all the men in the world got together, we could easily "revoke" any and all womens' equality. Institutions and laws only work by using men against each other when we have some investment in it, but at the end of the day women are just always going to be at a collective disadvantage because of their lower physical strength; their "equality" is always tenuous that way. If it came down to an actual battle, we could always take back whatever concessions have been made to women, we simply have the sheer physical advantage.
 But now, I realized, the structural reality makes things much more complicated. I also realized that it is really only maternal love that has protected the human race from being entirely women-dominated. Because...women ultimately rock the cradle. Women "control" infanticide basically. We tend to think of sex-selective infanticide or abortion being about killing of girls and having a disproportionate number of men. But then I thought of a sort of variation on The Lysistrata. What if the women in some polis (or the whole world) all secretly agreed to just start smothering male babies. Leave them at a ratio of only 1-to-5 with female babies. And then blame it on some mysterious disease (I pictured this happening back in ancient Greece or Rome where people were more credulous). Then women would come to predominate society and would have more strength even just physically (because they'd outnumber men, left at all mainly just for breeding, 5 to 1).
 Of course, we tend to associate polygamy with male dominance, but in this case it would be clear female dominance. The 5 wives would be able to overpower 1 husband. The only reason "oppressive" polygamy works is because of the "lost boys of polygamy" (ie, all the "extra" males who don't get women) being used by the men who do have wives as armies and enforcers to, essentially, protect the alphas from their own women. But if the surplus was killed off by mothers right from the start...women would have all the advantages, even physically.
 So: the continued existence of the male sex is pretty much entirely at the mercy of women. So to anyone who questions the power of women: just thank God that mothers still love their sons!

The Sublime

Everyone seems to be talking about Žižek lately.

Do I take him seriously? I don't know.

From his Wikipedia article:

There are also three modalities of the real:

• The "symbolic real": the signifier reduced to a meaningless formula
• The "real real": a horrific thing, that which conveys the sense of horror in horror films
• The "imaginary real": an unfathomable something that permeates things as a trace of the sublime. This form of the real becomes perceptible in the film The Full Monty, for instance, in the fact that in disrobing the unemployed protagonists completely, in other words, through this extra gesture of "voluntary" degradation, something else, of the order of the sublime, becomes visible.

Does any of that actually mean anything? The original reference in his works can be found here, for example, and admittedly it sounds somewhat more persuasive in context. Still, judge for yourselves. But I will say (and you know who you are)..."you give me reason to live!"

Something Simple

Like this perhaps:

More of My Liturgical OCD

I don't think I've posted this before.

One of my pet peeves about the Novus Ordo is the sometimes incomprehensible inconsistency whereby only certain parts of the Ordinary are sung, or where some things are spoken even though other parts are sung or chanted on a tone. The same thing goes for the use of Latin vs. Vernacular. I'm all for the use of the vernacular, and am perfectly comfortable with all Latin too, but what I absolutely hate is the random sprinkling of just a little token Latin that some parishes try to do (especially around Advent and Lent).

If one part of the Ordinary is sung, they all should be. No more spoken Gloria but sung Agnus Dei. Likewise, if one part of a logical grouping is in Latin, they all should be. No more vernacular Kyrie with Latin Sanctus or inconsistent stuff like that. Definitely not, like, a sung Latin Sanctus with a spoken Latin Agnus Dei, with a sung vernacular Kyrie, but spoken vernacular Gloria and Creed, etc (which I've actually seen!)

And for God's sake: if one of the Collects is chanted on its tone, they all should be. How many times at Mass do I have to hear the "Opening Prayer" chanted, but then by the time the Post-communion rolls around the priest merely speaks it as if he just forgot what he did at the beginning or ran out of steam?? With the readings too and the dialogue parts. No more arbitrary combinations of sung vs spoken, Latin vs vernacular! Certain combinations should be approved only.

At the Old Mass, of course, either everything is sung, or everything is spoken. There are no random arbitrary combinations. For either liturgy, I would propose the following schema for combinations of sung/spoken and Latin/vernacular:

Low Mass

1. All Latin

2. All Latin except for the Propers (ie, all unchanging parts in Latin). To be encouraged as eventually the most common form.

3. Mostly Vernacular but with Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, [Silent] Canon, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, and Ite Missa Est in Latin. Likely would remain the most common for a long time.

4. All Vernacular except for [Silent] Canon (#4 to be discouraged and phased out eventually.)

Note: A "partially sung" Mass, as is common in the Novus Ordo, should be allowed, but classed as a Low Mass. In other words, the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, and Ite Missa Est may be sung by the congregation while the priest reads them, even though the rest of the Mass and the Propers be merely spoken. This would replace the former principle of allowing the singing of hymns during Low Mass. However, it is only to be allowed if those parts of the Ordinary are sung in Latin. In other words, the all vernacular #4 (which would be discouraged and to eventually phased out soon enough anyway) would always remain an entirely merely spoken Mass.

High Mass

1. All Latin

2a. All Latin except for the Propers. The Minor Propers are encouraged to use a melody recognizably similar to and adapted from the Graduale melody; each country should approve an official "Vernacular Graduale" for this purpose. The Minor Propers may also use, however, a simpler unofficial melody for the vernacular text. They may even be chanted on a tone or adapted to a small set of stock-melodies, though this is not to be considered ideal.

2b. All Latin except for the Lessons and Collects (chanted on their tone nonetheless). Minor Propers in Latin according to the official Gregorian melody from the Graduale. Psalm verses associated with the Minor Propers may be chanted on their tone in the vernacular. This is for the parish that still wants/needs the longer Propers in the vernacular, but is willing to take the shorter Propers in Latin for the sake of maintaining the authentic Gregorian melody.

3a. Mostly vernacular but with Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, [Silent] Canon, Agnus Dei, and Ite Missa Est in Latin. The Minor Propers are encouraged to use a melody recognizably similar to and adapted from the Graduale melody; each country should approve an official "Vernacular Graduale" for this purpose. The Minor Propers may also use, however, a simpler unofficial melody for the vernacular text. They may even be chanted on a tone or adapted to a small set of stock-melodies for the first few years of the transition.

3b. Mostly vernacular but with Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, [Silent] Canon, Agnus Dei, Ite Missa Est, and Minor Propers in Latin. For the parish that still wants/needs the longer or less-memorized texts in the vernacular, but is willing to take the Minor Propers in Latin for the sake of maintaining the authentic melody. Thus, if this combination is to be done, it should only be if the true Gregorian melody from the Graduale is used for the Minor Propers. Psalm verses associated with the Minor Propers should, however, be chanted on their tone in the vernacular.

(A hypothetical #4, all vernacular except for the Canon, should not be allowed for High Mass)

So there are six acceptable internally consistent language combinations ranging from All Vernacular [except canon] to All Latin. And, really, there are only three main combinations (seeing as All Vernacular is being phased out): All Latin, Latin with Vernacular Propers, and Vernacular with Latin Ordinary.

Options 2b and 3b wherein the Minor Propers are in Latin even though the other Propers are in the vernacular for the High Mass are merely variations of 2a and 3a for the sake of maintaining the Gregorian melody, thus requiring the Minor Propers to be treated separate from the others and put in Latin. Such combinations do not exist in the Low Mass because they only make sense in a situation where the Minor Propers are going to be sung. When they are going to be spoken anyway, it makes no sense to separate them linguistically from the Major Propers.

You will also notice three acceptable internally consistent singing combinations. Two Low Mass options: all spoken, or spoken with sung Ordinary. And the one High Mass option: all sung (with the various options for the melodies of the Minor Propers).

At least, I think, some sort of set combinations like this would make things a little less arbitrary. If I have to sit through one more Novus Ordo with a random Latin Sanctus (and no other Latin), or where what is sung and what is spoken has no particular logic behind it...I'm going to scream. I know there is this idea that "some is better than none" when it comes to Latin and music in the Mass, but sometimes that isn't really true. If you can't even make the matching parts match...don't even bother. I also always want to shout that if people can stand the Agnus Dei in Latin during Lent, that probably means they could handle it all year!

In Feudal Times...

A friend brought up this quote from John Steinbeck's East of Eden in a conversation after Mass today, and I thought it was funny for a variety of reasons. I've highlighted one of them (the anti-clerical one):

Some men think big and some think little. Samuel and his son Tom and Joe thought big and George and Will thought little. Joseph was the fourth son-a kind of mooning boy, greatly beloved and protected by the whole family. He early discovered that a smiling helplessness was his best protection from work. His brothers were tough hard workers, all of them. It was easier to do Joe's work than to make him do it. His mother and father thought him a poet because he wasn't good at anything else. And they so impressed him with this that he wrote glib verses to prove it. Joe was physically lazy, and probably mentally lazy too. He daydreamed out his life, and his mother loved him more than the others because she thought he was helpless. Actually he was the least helpless, because he got exactly what he wanted with a minimum of effort. Joe was the darling of the family.

In feudal times an ineptness with sword and spear headed a young man for the church: in the Hamilton family Joe's inability properly to function at farm and forge headed him for a higher education. He was not sickly or weak but he did not lift very well; he rode horses badly and detested them. The whole family laughed with affection when they thought of Joe trying to learn to plow; his tortuous first furrow wound about like a flatland stream, and his second furrow touched his first only once and then to cross it and wander off.

Gradually he eliminated himself from every farm duty. His mother explained that his mind was in the clouds, as though this were some singular virtue.

When Joe had failed at every job, his father in despair put him to herding sixty sheep. This was the least difficult job of all and the one classically requiring no skill. All he had to do was to stay with the sheep. And Joe lost them-lost sixty sheep and couldn't find them where they were huddled in the shade in a dry gulch. According to the family story. Samuel called the family together, girls and boys, and made them promise to take care of Joe after he was gone, for if they did not Joe would surely starve.

Triumphalism Triumphant

I thought this was pretty cool, even if the attitude strikes me as sort of...wrong (click the image to enlarge):

What I've Been Saying All Along

A reader recommended this article:

The Will Know We Are Traddies By Our Love
Steve Skojec

Over the course of the seven years I've been writing on Catholic topics, I made no attempt to hide that I was flirting with, then later became, a "traditionalist" Catholic. The process was, for me, a surprising one, since despite my liturgically conservative tastes, my first few exposures to the Gregorian liturgy left me cold.

To be fair, I also didn't like beer or coffee until I'd tried them countless times, and I used to think Livingston Cellars' Red Rosé was good wine. As we mature, our tastes evolve, and we come to appreciate the complexity and subtlety of the finer things in life. From a personal standpoint, I've always been the sort who likes to share these epiphanies, introducing anyone I can to a favorite bottle of wine, a favorite cheese, the most impressive beer, or the best coffee I can find.

It's the same with the liturgy. When I stumbled on this ancient and venerable form of Mass of the Roman Rite and saw it with new eyes, I shared it every chance I had. I argued for it, defended it, got angry at those who sought to demean or suppress it, and generally kept my verbal sword at the ready for any challenge to this newly discovered ecclesial treasure. I even blogged for a time (tongue-in-cheek) as "The Evil Traditionalist," poking fun at those who painted the Traditional Latin Mass crowd with a broad, derogatory brush.

Over time, the arguments grew old. You can only spend so many hours in comment boxes, or start so many heated debates at family gatherings. The pope liberated the Traditional Latin Mass from the false shackles with which it had been kept from the faithful, and my life became simpler and less concerned with "traditional apologetics." The heady days of doing battle for the Faith faded from memory, and I focused more on being a Catholic husband and father than developing my reputation as a liturgical pugilist. However, as I settled down and sheathed my blade, I became gradually and uncomfortably aware of something: A lot of traditionalists really are jerks.

In a way, I was lucky. As someone who came to tradition shortly before it was cool again, I was able to soften my stance before the bad habits became too deeply ingrained. But for those who had suffered being abused and marginalized for decades, the transition must be hard. Can you imagine having the Mass that you grew up with taken away and replaced with something alien and unfamiliar? How do you think it would feel to be treated as though you are schismatic for simply clinging to the Catholicism of your youth? Would you appreciate being called a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a Pharisee for holding to your traditions and devotional practices? And how would you like to be marginalized, forced to drive 50 miles just to get to a Mass held at 1:30 in the afternoon in a parish that doesn’t want you there, and where it’s impossible to build real community because it’s local to none of the attendees? It’s as if everything these people knew about Catholicism was suddenly gone and replaced by a cheap imitation, and when they expressed their dismay, they were met by smug replies that Vatican II "did away with all that."

Many, shellshocked by such treatment, had become hardened veterans of GIRM warfare by the time Pope Benedict freed the old Mass. And so, young advocates of traditional liturgy like me found ourselves heading to worship God every Sunday in the company of individuals who, as often as not, seemed dour and judgmental. They spoke in effusive terms when they described their Mass, but appeared pained when they actually attended it. No smiles ever seemed to touch their lips, and they would glare at women (like my wife) who would at times forget their chapel veils, or wear makeup, or fail to provide some means of instant corporal punishment at the first sign of a squirming toddler. In short, they had become terrified of novelty, and accustomed to betrayal, they had seemingly lost the capacity for joy.

That joylessness became the traditionalist brand, and they spread it everywhere they went. From the condemning, anonymous masses who pass judgment on all things Catholic on forums like Angelqueen to the rantings of The Remnant; from propositions that the solar system is Geocentric to the pamphleteering Fatima Crusaders to the seemingly endless discussions on whether it's ever appropriate for women to wear pants, the attitude of many of the "trads" we encounter is often petty, conspiratorial, uncharitable, or out of touch with reality. Sometimes, it’s all of the above.

Years ago, when I first became enamored of the traditional Catholic liturgy, a friend of mine who enjoyed going to the Extraordinary Form (but wasn't committed to it) asked me a pointed question: "If traditional Catholics have this great treasure, as they say they do, shouldn't it make them the happiest people you know? Shouldn't their joy over so beautiful a liturgy be overflowing, and thereby draw others in to find out what they have that's so great?"

That's an important point. I do believe that those of us who have been drawn to the majesty and solemnity of the ancient liturgy have a pearl of great price that should make us excited to be Catholic, and to share the goodness we've found with others. We should be happy at Mass, friendly to our fellow parishioners, welcoming to those who are new, and understanding to those who don't yet see why we make so much effort to be a part of something so outside the norm.

Condemnations, judgments, specious arguments, and morose dispositions do no favors for our cause, or its future. We've got something great going on, and it's about time we acted like it.

Forgiving Our Fathers

They're On To Us!!

From my Stat Counter, click on the image to see it large:

Servanthood and Freedom

A reader sent me this article, "A Word to Neurotic Christians" from another blog, that some of you may find helpful:

"Be both a servant, and free: a servant in that you are subject to God, but free in that you are not enslaved to anything – either to empty praise or to any of the passions.

Release your soul from the bonds of sin; abide in liberty, for Christ has liberated you; acquire the freedom of the New World during this temporal life of yours. Do not be enslaved to love of money or to the praise resulting from pleasing people.

Do not lay down a law for yourself, otherwise you may become enslaved these laws of yours. Be a free person, one who is in a position to do what he likes. Do not become like those who have their own law, and are unable to turn aside from it, either out of fear in their own minds, or because of the wish to please others; in this way they have enslaved themselves to the coercion of their law, with their necks yoked to their own law, seeing that they have decreed for themselves their own special law – just when Christ had released them from the yoke of the Law!

Do not make hard and fast decisions over anything in the future, for you are a created being and your will is subject to changes. Decide in whatever matters you have to reach a decision, but without fixing in your mind that you will not be moved to other things. For it is not by small changes in what you eat that your faithfulness is altered: your service to the Lord of all is performed in the mind, in your inner person; that is where the ministry to Christ takes place."

St. John the Solitary, Letter to Hesychias, 25-28.

I have entitled this post, in part, “A word to neurotic Christians.” We all suffer from our personalities, that cluster of fears and fearlessness, of anxiety and over-confidence, of false images and hopeful dreams, guilt and cares – and our “religion” is often lived out precisely in that arena. My meager understanding of modern psychology uses the term “neurotic” to describe those who tend to take more responsibility upon themselves than is appropriate. Those who take too little responsibility are far more difficult personalities – falling generally somewhere in the category of “narcissists.” Neither is the path of true freedom as a Christian.

The “neurotic” path can seem extremely religious, precisely because of its deep sense of responsibility. Those of us who are “neurotic” always feel responsible. The troubles of the world are not something we ignore – and the closer the troubles come to our doorstep the more responsible we feel. Many clergy are neurotic – if we didn’t care so much we would never have yielded ourselves to this level of responsibility. Sometimes – even often – those reponsibilities crush us.

The words of John the Solitary seemed particularly appropriate to many in our modern age. Not satisfied with striving to keep Christ’s commandments, we create laws for ourselves, our internal rules, which hound us and persecute us and grind us into dust (greatly driven by the enemy of our faith as well as our own proclivities). Frequently, we give more weight to these self-made laws than to the true law of Christ (love).

We establish a rule of prayer (sometimes without so much as the blessing of a spiritual father). Our failure for even a few days (sometimes just one) can send us into such a spiritual funk that rather than repent, we simply quit.

Most of us would never be so hard on another. We find ourselves able to extend mercy to all but ourselves – or we extend mercy to ourselves where we should be strict and strict with ourselves where we should be merciful.

John the Solitary’s words (from the early 5th century) demonstrate how unchanged the inner life of human beings has remained despite the passage of time. The outward concerns of our culture are perhaps little more than phantasmagoria, while our inner lives remain the same. And thus his sane advice to our modern neurotics continues to read true.

There is indeed a marvelous freedom vouchsafed us in the mercy of Christ our God. His liberty is often more than we are willing to grant to ourselves. And thus we remain slaves – indeed worse than that – we become both Pharaoh and slave.

But the freedom that is ours in Christ abides forever. It is not an idea nor an ideal, but the truth as it has been established in Christ. Thus, if we err, and submit ourselves again to a yoke of bondage, our true liberator remains by our side, speaking a word of liberty and calling us to the life of the Spirit which is manifest in the life of love.

Many of us are tormented by the continuing process of life that confuses us and returns us to various yokes of bondage. But the good God, who loves mankind, is persistent and steadfast. He will not yield until every yoke of bondage is destroyed and we are established in His true freedom.

Glory to Christ who has made us free!