EDITORIAL Liturgical police must not deter reform
Fast on the heels of Mother Angelicas criticism of Los
Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahonys pastoral letter on the Sunday Mass comes a
nine-page statement from Adoremus, covering much of the same ground but in
greater detail and without the outright call for disobedience among Angeleno
Catholics.
Adoremus, which has taken upon itself the task of monitoring
liturgical abuses in the church, faults Mahony for a variety of
theological and liturgical gaffes, but its bottom line is that the cardinal --
by placing more emphasis on the Eucharistic assembly than on the sacrificial
character of the Mass -- has in effect denied the doctrine of the real
presence.
Frankly, the idea that Mahony, the centrists centrist, would
reject in writing a core Catholic doctrine is faintly ridiculous, noteworthy
only as an indication of how far factionalization has gone in 1990s
Catholicism, when someone with whom you disagree is not just wrong, but a
heretic to boot. This kind of over-the-top criticism veers close to
self-parody.
Unfortunately, we cant laugh it off entirely, because
however absurd, such quick-response attacks on liturgical reform can have a
chilling effect on innovation elsewhere. This is so especially because the
Roman curia has exhibited a predisposition to take right-wing criticism of
officials and practices more seriously than complaints from other quarters in
the church.
How many other bishops will be willing to publicly commit
themselves now to significant liturgical reform, since doing so seems
tantamount to drawing a big red bulls-eye on themselves for an Adoremus
and Mother Angelica-style smear campaign? How many dioceses and parishes will
decide to play down liturgical change or put it on the back burner in order to
avoid confrontation?
The question is especially urgent in light of the recent gathering
of 14,000 Catholic teenagers in Kansas City, Mo., for the National Catholic
Youth Conference (NCR, Dec. 12). These young people proclaimed in myriad ways
how much they ache for a more vibrant, dynamic, energizing experience of
church, how much they want to gather on Sunday not just for a theologically
correct repetition of ritual, but for a true celebration. They want to feel the
presence of God, both in outstretched human hands and in symbolism that invites
them to enter into the divine mystery. They yearn for music that stirs the soul
and moves the body and for roles in the liturgy that involve them in meaningful
ways.
Moreover, these are not just the aspirations of the young. Most
Catholics share the sense that our Sunday gatherings need more fire and
passion, more celebration and more participation. The Sunday liturgy is the
touchstone of what it means to be Catholic for most of us, and no cause has
more ardent support among Catholics of all shapes and sizes than making our
gatherings as alive as possible.
Of course, theres room for tremendous disagreement as to
what achieving that end entails. Those fond of pre-Vatican II forms of
liturgical expression deserve to be heard as much as anyone else. To the extent
that groups such as Adoremus want to play a constructive role in crafting
liturgies that nourish and inflame the spirit, their contributions are most
welcome.
Lamentably, however, that has not been their role to date.
Instead, they have styled themselves a sort of theological police force,
monitoring even the slightest deviation from approved norms for hints of
heresy. One gets the sense that only the Tridentine Mass would satisfy their
standards, and even then theyd follow along in their rubrics looking for
deficiencies in pronunciation and/or execution.
One could, as Capuchin Fr. Gregory Coiro did in an interview with
NCR (page 4), point out the hypocrisy of such legalistic criticism from
followers of Mother Angelica, whose own televised Masses contain deviations
from the General Instruction on the Roman Missal. Such a rejoinder is indeed
justified by the facts.
But in this kind of tit-for-tat exchange, the broader point can be
obscured. Catholics are crying out for liturgies that touch and inspire them.
Designing such liturgies is a pressing and difficult task, one that must be
carried out fully conscious of all the cultural, generational and practical
exigencies involved. Whatever one thinks of the specifics of Cardinal
Mahonys pastoral letter, he has at least started the right
conversation.
One wonders why Mahonys brother bishops have not been more
vocal in denouncing the divisiveness of the liturgical police. Mother
Angelicas own Bishop David Foley of Birmingham, Ala., for example,
downplayed the significance of her remarks, saying, I dont think
its the first time that bishops have been accused of heresy by people in
the church. Such timidity is the episcopal equivalent of a green light
for more bullying to come.
Catholics, lay and ordained alike, should signal in whatever ways
they can their rejection of narrow visions of liturgy that make any kind of
flexibility or innovation suspect. We have centuries of tradition to guide us
in ensuring that our liturgies are firmly grounded in sound theology. The more
urgent task today is to carry that tradition forward in creative, affecting
ways when Catholics come together to celebrate. May we not be deterred.
National Catholic Reporter, December 26,
1997
|