|
|
The anxiety of some Catholics and Jews that wider celebration of the pre-Vatican II Mass promotes a Good Friday prayer for the “conversion of the Jews” (NCR, July 20) is unfounded. That prayer in the 1962 Missal was superseded by a revised Holy Week liturgy in 1965, even before the new Vatican II liturgy was introduced in 1970. A decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1965 approved revisions that deleted “conversion” from the title “Prayer for the Jews,” and omitted such objectionable words as “blindness” of the Jews, or the wish to “take the veil from their hearts.”
Instead, the revised prayer recalls God’s “promises to Abraham and his seed.” This revised prayer was in general use only between 1965 and 1970, so not surprisingly its existence has often been overlooked. But it is deplorable that Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League did not check his facts before issuing a hasty news release stating that the papal decision was “a theological setback” and “a body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations.” While the 1965 revision was an improvement over the ancient prayer for the Jews, it is still inferior to the prayer in the Vatican II liturgy of 1970, which better reflects the church’s links with Judaism. As one active in Christian-Jewish and Polish-Jewish relations, I believe the 1970 prayer should be used in all Good Friday services, both in Latin and the vernacular.
CHARLES CHOTKOWSKI
Fairfield, Conn.
Pope Benedict’s decision allowing the use of Latin should call for outrage from every intelligent Catholic. This “give me that old-time religion” approach to liturgy is an undoing of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. That council never intended to create a structure whereby two forms of the Roman rite would simultaneously exist. Pope John Paul II originally gave permission to use Latin on a limited basis in 1984 despite the nearly unanimous opposition of the world’s bishops.
Do we really want to go back to the Tridentine rite of 1563? Do we want a liturgy that places emphasis on expiation of sin instead of the paschal mystery emphasizing resurrection? In the Tridentine rite, women are excluded from the sanctuary. The rite can be used for all the sacraments except ordination. In the baptismal rite, parents say nothing. There is no catechumenate program preceding baptism. Priests who celebrate Mass according to this rite can use the old lectionary, which had only a one-year cycle of readings. This decision of Pope Benedict will lead to the gradual dismantling of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. That “old-time religion” may have been good enough for our forebears, but it isn’t good enough for Catholics of the 21st century.
MARIE & BOB FEHRIBACH
Sterling Heights, Mich.
* * *
It is difficult to understand why the Latin Mass would receive this new encouragement under the banner of tradition when it contradicts a major principle of the fathers of the church, that Christians must be able to understand the prayers and the readings. For this reason, St. Jerome was commissioned by them to translate the Greek Bible into the common Latin of the West. But now that Latin is a dead language, it is puzzling and troubling that a wider welcome of the Latin Mass should be announced when it is sure that with the exception of a rarified congregation most Christians will not understand the prayers being offered, a breach in the traditions guiding the church fathers of the West.
(Sr.) WENDY COTTER, CSJ
Chicago
* * *
I take issue with Sr. Joan Chittister’s article, “The Latin Mass: The laity will decide” (NCR, Aug. 3). First, it is the 1962 rite that is being made available to those who want it. It is not being imposed on anyone. And, rightly or wrongly, Catholicism has always regarded everyone, not only Jews, who do not subscribe to its teachings as objects of conversion. The Second Vatican Council did not alter that position.
Second, the priest does not celebrate the Eucharist with his back to the people; he faces in the same direction as the people. Latin is the universal language of the Catholic church, and here in Dublin, with the influx of immigrants in recent years, there is a need for such a language, as English can no longer be claimed as the public vernacular. All we have to do is follow the rite with our missals, which should contain the appropriate translation.
At many of the cabaret shows that substitute for the Mass in some parishes, the celebrant is certainly the focal point of the process, where the body and blood of Christ was the focus of the old rite, which the sister decries. To bolster a weak and inaccurate argument, Sr. Joan drags in by the scruff of the neck a few vague, tired old feminist pointers. I agree that the 1962 rite is not everyone’s cup of tea, but, please, let those of us who find it a powerful aid to communing with the Almighty have it. We do not seek to coerce anyone else.
GERRY McARDLE
Dublin, Ireland
* * *
The latest outburst from Joan Chittister at least sheds some light on the stakes as perceived by the Vatican II liturgy supporters. As I read it, anybody who seeks transcendence and mystery in their liturgy, via the Latin rite, is less Catholic than those who believe that the Vatican II rite “grapples with life from the point of view of the distance between life as we know it and life as the Gospel defines it for us.” May I remind Vatican II aficionados that we have nearly two millennia of saints who somehow were able to engage with the world in the way of the Gospel despite a Latin Mass. Their spirituality apparently wasn’t “privatized.” And what if it were? Finding strength, solace and comfort with one’s God is no sin, except of course to worshipers of Vatican II. It was a great council but its promise has mostly fizzled as the hierarchy reasserted its position and power. Consequently, I don’t much care whether I look the male celebrant in the face or in the back. And having a couple of girl servers or women reading a Gospel passage or two doesn’t exactly reflect equality for women in the church. Reinstituting the Latin rite will not bring down the church as some fear. But intolerance for others’ preferred forms of spirituality just well may.
BEV SCHLOTTERBECK
Annandale, Va.
Your article on the tenure denial of Norman Finkelstein at DePaul University (NCR, June 22) missed an opportunity to explain how a Catholic university applies its basic values and due processes of justice to reach a decision critical to a faculty member’s academic career and the university’s integrity in promoting those values. With presumed accuracy, the article characterizes the tenure applicant as one who “excoriates those who oppose his research as fools, idiots and liars.” DePaul would be false to its mission were it to disregard this public insult of academic colleagues, conduct directly opposed to its Vincentian values.
The article emphasizes the charge of violation of academic freedom and the “uproar” among faculty and students caused by this tenure denial. Most observers would consider the intense interest and clash of opposing views generated by this decision as a sign of a healthy academic environment that encourages debate, not an “uproar.” Faculty with questionable qualifications for tenure often find instinctive feelings of support for an underdog, particularly if the faculty member’s views are controversial. In such instances the charge of violation of academic freedom is a red herring.
The acid test for judging the presence or absence of academic freedom rests in a due process that provides peer judgment of faculty, completely open and informed deliberation of the evidence for and against tenure. The faculty of the department of the applicant, persons in the best position to judge his academic qualifications, submitted their evidence and opinion. A university-wide faculty committee selected by the university’s faculty council recommended that tenure be denied. The university president accepted this recommendation. The fundamental issue in this decision was whether the faculty member’s public conduct is supportive or destructive of the Catholic and Vincentian values of this university.
(Fr.) JOHN T. RICHARDSON, CM
Nairobi, Kenya
[Fr. Richardson is emeritus president of DePaul University.]
Your relentless pounding of Cardinal Roger Mahony contradicts the tone of the reconciliation editorial (NCR, Aug. 3). You certainly are not showing the way.
ROBERT M. KRAUS SR.
Akron, Ohio
* * *
I was grateful to read the editorial about South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission as an approach to healing the wounds caused by sexual abuse within the Catholic church. That commission is an example of restorative justice, which recognizes that all members of the community have been hurt by a crime and all members need to play a role in healing.
Using the spiritual discipline of compassionate listening as taught by the Compassionate Listening Project, a peace group that works on Jewish/Palestinian reconciliation, and with the help of a survivor named Paul Fericano and several dedicated parishioners, I started an Abuse Listening Group in my parish last May. We have helped one clergy abuse survivor and one other survivor to tell their stories and seek help. Other parishes can do this too. On Sept. 22, I will be bringing together survivors, parishioners and professionals for a screening of the film “Hand of God” at a symposium on healing the wounds caused by clergy abuse here in the archdiocese of Portland in Oregon.
“Hand of God” filmmaker Joe Cultrera will participate, as well as Olan Horne, a Massachusetts survivor whose story is told in the book and movie, “Our Fathers.” Symposium participants include a lawyer for clergy abuse survivors in the recent bankruptcy as well as parishioners involved in setting up the listening group in my parish. Maybe we ordinary parishioners can help a frightened Catholic leadership find the path of restorative justice to heal our whole community.
VIRGINIA JONES
Portland, Ore.
Regarding Laura Lloyd’s article on Christopher Hitchens (NCR, Aug. 3): Ms. Lloyd apparently cannot comprehend why so many Americans are buying and reading Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Although the book is a national bestseller, nowhere in her article is there even a hint of taking Mr. Hitchens’ work seriously. Instead of analyzing why his antireligious arguments are so compelling to American readers, she settles for name-calling. The only opinions worthy of her article reduce author Hitchens to an amusing rant, calling him arrogant and a heavy drinker, a self-centered grouch and so on. Ms. Lloyd even included the expert opinion of a bookseller who did not bother to read the entire book.
Mr. Hitchens is not the only casualty. Fellow atheists Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are also casually dismissed as unsophisticated pseudo-intellectuals. So why are these books selling so well? The answer: American readers are passive consumers who want amusement and cannot handle a true intellectual or spiritual challenge. Perhaps Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are popular precisely because they use accessible language to help us understand a world where those who claim to be the most religious are often the most dangerous. After all, it is through the accessible language of journalism that most of us have learned about suicide bombings and diocesan cover-ups of child rape.
EDUARDO ANTONETTI
Lords Valley, Pa.
* * *
Christopher Hitchens and I had a half-hour conversation on July 12 on the syndicated “Interfaith Voices” radio program hosted by Sr. Maureen Fiedler of the Quixote Center. My problem with Mr. Hitchens is not so much with what he doesn’t believe as with his blanket, uncritical assault on all religion, progressive as well as fundamentalist/extremist, and his failure to offer any positive alternative. We are all believers in some things and disbelievers in whatever conflicts with what we do believe. In a pluralistic society and world beset by serious problems (global warming, resource depletion, deforestation, desertification, the growing gap between the superrich and everyone else, racism, xenophobia, deficits in social justice, civil liberties and democracy), it is imperative that progressive Catholics, Protestants, Jews, humanists, Muslims, Hindus and others work together to the maximum possible extent to promote the many values we share. Ben Franklin got it right more than two centuries ago when he wrote, “We should then cease to reproach each other with what was done by our ancestors, but judge the present character of sects or churches by their present conduct only.”
EDD DOERR
Silver Spring, Md.
Letters to the editor should be limited to 250 words and preferably typed. If a letter refers to a previous issue of NCR, please give us that issue’s date. We reserve the right to edit all letters. Letters, National Catholic Reporter, PO Box 411009, Kansas City, MO 64141-1009. Fax: (816) 968-2280. E-mail: letters@ncronline.org (When sending a letter via e-mail, please indicate "NCR Letters" in the subject line. We've installed a new spam filter on our letters e-mail account. If it's not clear to us that yours is a letter, we might delete it.) Please be sure to include your street address, city, state, zip and daytime telephone number
National Catholic Reporter, August 31, 2007