 |
| The Great Organ at Harrow, a symbolic font of theological reflection |
I mentioned in a recent post that I regularly read the blog New Liturgical Movement because it often
contains some very fine historical scholarship on the development of the
Liturgy. Historical Scholarship—not
necessarily sound theology or advisable pastoral practice—but the sort of
historical detail that a trivia master like myself can store in his little
brain and pull out from time to time, Sheldon Cooper style, to amaze and
mystify his friends over a beer and even occasionally, very rarely actually, stun
a room of Jeopardy fans.
So recently while checking out to see what NLM was offering on its platter of esoteria, I cam across a link to Katholik Krazy blog, One Peter Five and an article by a
“noteworthy traditional Catholic
scholar” under the nom de plume of
Benedict Constable. (Why do these
neo-traditonalists always adopt the persona
of a member of the House of Lords.
They’re never a Joe Podgorski or a Mike Capone. Benedict Constable, good Lord, it just sounds
like someone who for eight years was buggered behind the organ pipes at Harrow
before going on to serve as an equerry to the Duke of Kent. But I digress.) Professor/Doctor/Canon/Mr./Viscount/ Whatever
Constable published an essay on the unsuitability of women to serve as lectors
at Mass (and by extension, I would imagine, the Reader at Solemn Vespers—or
simple vespers. Or even Compline.) He sets the tone for the article in the
opening sentence.
Given that Catholic churches throughout the world
swarm with lay liturgical ministers of both sexes,
Catholic churches “swarm”
with lay liturgical ministers? Well that
tells us right off the bat what the root of the problem is. At the core, it is not that there are ladies
“within the (no longer existent) rails"; it is that there are laity treading
shod on the holy place. So keep that in
mind; we will come back to it.
And Benedict goes on
First,
the ever-increasing number of parishes and chapels in which the Extraordinary
Form is celebrated have reintroduced all over the world, to the relief of
traditionally-minded men and women, the custom of male-only service in
the sanctuary.
So banishing women from the sanctuary, or better put, admitting
only men to the sanctuary, gives his
Lordship and others like him “relief.” I
am curious to know why. Does the sight
of women on stage similarly trouble him?
How about at the beach? Is he
somehow or other repulsed by the sight of women at the beach? In the classroom: what does he think of women
professors? Does he have to compete in academia with women or is this
“noteworthy traditional Catholic Scholar” in some academic cloister to which
only male scholars are admitted? Just
asking. He is saying something here
about more than liturgy, but about his own psycho-sexual comfort zone. But he continues;
But the very
experience of this once-universal practice necessarily prompts Catholics to
raise the question of why it “had” to change at all, and the related question:
Is the Church better off for the change, or, as with communion in the hand
while standing or communion under both kinds, worse off?
So it is not only women serving at the altar, but the wider
issue of liturgical restoration including communion in the hand and standing to
receive Holy Communion. (I say
restoration rather than change because standing for Communion and placing the
Eucharist into the hand of the receiver are not changes but the restoration of
practice in the early Church.)
He then returns to his bugaboo about lady parts and those who
have them:
Third, now that
the evil fruits of a disordered feminism are far more apparent in society and
in the Church than ever before,
“The evil fruits of a disordered feminism.” Now I will admit that there are feminisms
that are “disordered” and even bizarre even as history can show us—and we can
even see today in the way women are treated in some societies such as the
sexual violence against women in ISIS—theories of masculinity that are
disordered and absolutely evil. But what
precisely for our distinguished scholar makes a feminism “disordered” and with
“evil fruits.” Is it when a woman
approaches the voting booth? Is it when
a woman heads a major Catholic Institution such as an Abbess or as President
and CEO of Catholic Relief Services? I
am just asking because apparently it is a sign of out of control estrogen when
a woman presumes to read from the Book of Wisdom.
Ok, here’s a good one.
Especially in our
times, when confusion about sexuality is rampant, how we conceptualize and
implement male and female roles in the Church cannot fail to have huge
ramifications in our theological anthropology, moral theology, and even
fundamental theology, extending all the way to the inerrancy of Scripture and
the trustworthiness of apostolic Tradition.
Confusion about sexuality is rampant… well, I suppose it is but it is fascinating
how various scientific studies, especially in the field of genomics, is both
clearing up much of our confusion and revealing that sexuality is far more
complex than who has a penis and who has a vagina. Of course this new information is frightening
to many because it threatens to undermine the legitimacy of various prejudices
as well as to shine light in under their own nailed-shut closet door. It was also much simpler in the days before
scientific studies revealed that people of African origin had the same mental
capacities as us white folk. Of course,
when you hear some of these neo-trads pontificate how polyphony is “superior”
to Gospel music you realize that not everybody got that message either.
And yes, gender studies and genomics are going to have dramatic
effect on our theological anthropology and our moral theology. As for its undermining inerrancy of
Scripture, that would be true only if you were some kind of a snake-handling,
strychnine drinking krazy from the mountains of Tennesse who rejects the
various forms of scholarly biblical criticism that interpret the scripture in
its historical, cultural, and linguistic setting. For those of us who have embraced modern biblical
study, we aren’t finding a problem. Same
goes for the trustworthiness of Apostolic Tradition. For those who grasp the difference between
Tradition and traditions it really is no problem. But then the neo-trads have always confused
Tradition and traditionalism. Reminds me
of one of my favorite quotes, this one from Jaroslav Pelikan:
“Tradition is
the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.
And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a
bad name.”
Our friend goes on to explain that since the Word of God is the
seed and the male is the one who sows the seed, while the female is the one who
receives the seed, it is fitting that the reader—the sower as it were—be male
while the ladies should content themselves to sit in the congregation and be
inseminated. This doesn’t quite clarify
the role of the men in the congregation—since they can’t all be readers. Are they too then to be recipients of the
“seed” scattered over them by the man at the ambo? Hmm.
But I forget, Benedict spent all that time behind the organ pipes at
Harrow, he is not uncomfortable with men being recipients of the seed. I mean, really, have you ever heard anything
so stupid? Do you really think this is
what Jesus had in mind in Matthew 13?
Let me cite just a few quotes from the article that give us some
insights as to where this whackadoodle is coming from:
If males ought
to be priests, then males ought to be lectors, servers, ministers of
communion, and so forth, because all of these are roles of giving, of acting
upon, while the response made by the faithful is always one of receiving
and of being acted upon. This, of course, is the very point of the
metaphor of planting or sowing the seed versus taking it into the womb of the
ground where it germinates and bears fruit.
it
should be said that Holy Mass is not a moment of private prayer or a Scripture
study, but a public liturgical act offered to God by Jesus Christ the Eternal
High Priest, at the hands of ministers who are conformed, more or less perfectly,
to the image of this High Priest.
it
should be said that denying that ministers in the sanctuary need to be
conformed to the Eternal High Priest as regards their human constitution
amounts to a denial of the mystery of the Incarnation, in which the Son of God
became not just human (homo), but a man (vir). Hence, although a
lector need not be ordained, it is fitting that the lector be ordainable, that
is, one who is of such a nature as to reflect the concrete personal identity of
the Incarnate Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth.
When the Church,
for her part, needs a ruler, teacher, or sanctifier, she chooses and appoints a
man, for no one else can represent the face, the voice, and the hands of
Jesus Christ… it is strictly a matter of who may formally act in His person (in
persona Christi), when making present His redemptive action upon us
who receive its fruits.
Since only a man
can be the image of Christ in His total incarnational reality, Christ chose
only males to exercise His priesthood at the altar of sacrifice, as
foreshadowed by the priests of the Old Covenant.
What we see here, is that
the author is totally ignorant of the ecclesiology which the Church teaches in
the Second Vatican Council. To this
“noteworthy traditional Catholic scholar” the ministers at the Mass: the
acolytes, lectors, and others in the sanctuary are extensions of the (ordained)
priest. He does not understand that all
who serve in the Liturgy—including those members of the assembly—do so by right
of their baptism and not in persona
sacerdotis. Furthermore, he sees
that only the priest “represents” Christ and fails to understand that the
assembly itself—the entire assembly including the ordained priest(s)—are there
not merely as “representatives” of Christ but as the true Risen Body of
Christ. Christ is not present by
“representation” but is there in his Real Presence as his Body the Church. Furthermore, it is not only the priest who is
called to be “conformed” to Christ but every Christian at his or her baptism is
given this vocation. This is not to deny
that the sacrament of Orders confers on the priest a unique charism not shared
by all the baptized but it is to contextualize that charism within the
community of the Church and not to make it a possession of the priest independent
of the entire Communion of the Church.
In other words, this guy doesn’t know jack about ecclesiology, the
theology of Holy Orders, or the theology of Baptism. His Christian anthropology is way off. And when it comes to his Christology, he is
in formal heresy. I can only wonder if
his cited hero, Saint Thomas Aquinas, is in heaven laughing his glorified rear
end off or weeping in despair for being cited as an authority by this wingbat. But
wait, it gets worse (or better, depending on your sense of perspective). He (I
can only presume the author is a man; it pains me to think that a woman would
be so imprisoned in self-loathing to hold these ideas) writes:
The Church allows
married couples to have relations out of motives of lust so long as they remain
open to life, but that is hardly the ideal of conjugal intimacy. Thus, merely
because something is allowed does not mean it is, or should be, encouraged.
For, as the Apostle says in a similar context, “‘All things are lawful for me,’
but not all things are helpful” (1 Cor 6:12).
For those of us who have
not spent our school days being “entertained” behind the organ in the chapel,
there is a via media between “motives
of lust” and “open(ness) to life.” Those
of us who are not hopelessly baffled by human sexuality believe—if indeed we
have not experienced it—that there is such a thing as longing for union with
one’s spouse, a desire for true communion with the other which is expressed
most profoundly in love making. There comes
a time for most of us where we have moved beyond the rages of lust and seek to
both give and receive this foretaste of the heavenly bliss which is at the
center of the Sacrament of Matrimony.
Perhaps Benedict Constable is a wizened old celibate who has spent his
life fighting off temptations once so easily yielded to at Harrow, but celibate
or married, if he were a sexually well adjusted person he would never have written
that passage. Indeed if he were a well
balanced individual he would never have written this article.
