My wife and I were out of town this past weekend, visiting kids. We stayed overnight Saturday into Sunday, something we don't usually do on these trips. So Sunday morning, I rolled out of bed early (I rise early, my wife rises late), Googled "catholic churches near me", picked one out, and headed off to mass.
As always, it was quite interesting to observe what goes on in other parishes, in other dioceses. I won't bore everyone here with a full-length review. Suffice to say: the space was modern but quite beautiful, the priest was just fine, his homily was just fine, the musicians were pretty skillful although the cantor maybe not as prepared as she could have been, and the reader was considerably better than pretty good - I really admired how she proclaimed that 2nd reading, from Hebrews, to make it understandable. A lot of young families were present, which impressed me because it's a long-standing frustration of mine that our parish doesn't do a better job of appealing to the young families in our local community. After mass, at the church exit, some church ladies offered free frosted cinnamon rolls to one and all, which was a very nice touch.
In this particular diocese, it seems the guidance is: mask wearing is not required but is encouraged. More people than not didn't take the hint about putting on a mask, though. Mind you: this was in a state (Iowa) that, as of a few days ago, was one of the few states in which the rate of COVID infection still is climbing.
Those are just observations. For me, the key thing is, I found I was able to join into the spirit of the liturgy. I found it prayerful. Sitting in a pew is something I haven't done in quite a while. I'm usually in the deacon's chair or, occasionally, on the piano bench. It was nice not to have to do anything except what everyone else does.
It's important that all the elements I listed above - preaching, cantoring, accompanying, reading, presiding et al - be done competently. In my view, basic competence is the "core service" for those ministries. Every ministry requires one or more basic competences, and people without those requisite competences really shouldn't take part in those ministries. I suppose many people "rate" a parish on the competence with which those elements are done. I do, too: I don't think I could belong to a parish with dismal music or, say, ideological preaching every weekend. That basic competence is the baseline essential requirement, I think.
Let me just add: the music, the preaching et al don't have to be the very best quality. Not every parish can be the very best; only one parish can be the very best at any of these elements. But these elements have to be "good enough" - they have to meet a certain baseline of competence, and that competence should be within reach. Only a very few restaurants will earn three Michelin stars, and most don't try. But the most humble eatery can have good coffee and employ cooks who know how to cook an egg over easy. If eggs, toast and coffee are what you are able to do, then make sure they're good.
And when they're not good - something has to be done about it. A cook who burns the toast consistently or makes lousy coffee shouldn't be doing that job. And when the organist can't play to a basic standard of competence, then, to be frank, he shouldn't be permitted to play. He shouldn't be on the organist schedule. In my observation this is a common problem with Catholic worship: the reader who doesn't do public proclamation very well, the cantor who doesn't sing very well, and so on. These situations pose awkward difficulties for the people in charge of running and scheduling these ministries - especially when there is a shortage of volunteers already. But we can't settle for less than basic competence. We need to set and maintain standards. And we must commit to working with - and investing in - our volunteers to help them to develop their competence. Organists and vocalists can take lessons. Readers can attend workshops and be given one-to-one coaching.
So basic competence is necessary, but it's not sufficient: it's also important that these ministries be done spiritually. What does that mean? Fundamentally, it means that the minister must operate from a stance of faith.
The spirituality of ministry has both personal and a relational aspects. The personal aspect, I think we all intuitively understand: these ministries should be done by people who are believers (in spite of doubts and difficulties), and who are offering their ministries from spiritual motives. It's possible to hire a professional singer who can stand at a cantor stand to sing a song, but if it is not being sung from a spiritual heart, then it's not really communal worship. It's something else - perhaps a recital.
As for the relational aspect to spirituality: this is where I think we start to get away from the "science" of worship and into the "art". All of the elements we're discussing here - presiding, reading, leading song and so on - are related to one another, and all of them relate to the larger event of worship. Somehow, all of these elements have to form a cohesive whole, and the whole isn't a performance to be consumed; it's communal worship to enter into.
The minister exercises a great deal of control over the performance of her/his ministry. The minister often determines whether his/her ministry contributes to, or detracts from, the overall experience of worship. Often, it is the ego of the minister which can throw the worship out of balance.
At the mass I attended on Sunday, the cantor had a trained, rather operatic voice, and her microphone was turned up pretty loudly. She has a very fine voice (if you like that kind of thing; I usually do), but she was a little overpowering. It was a little out of whack - a little out of proportion to the whole. I'm not sure it was as subordinated to the overall worship as it could have been.
A minister must subordinate his/her ego to the larger project of worship. This does not come naturally! Anyone who has experience with performance and performers know that public performance can be an exercise in ego-stroking. In fact, public performance tends to attract needy people who seem to require repeated jolts of applause and approbation.
I think it's possible that the pre-reform mass is less susceptible to issues in this regard, because it had/has fewer moving parts. The priest basically did everything but the music, and unless it was a high mass, there wasn't much music, either. Everything was carefully choreographed and highly regulated.
This post isn't a paean to the old mass. I'm an advocate of the reformed liturgy. But we should recognize that as we introduce ministries and people, we add variability. To put it bluntly: there are more ways we can screw it up, or at least make it really irritating to be a part of. But when it all comes together: it's glorious.
On Sunday, I felt like I did some real praying. All the elements came together pretty well. It really was glorious.
When we are away from home, I enjoy going to Mass where we are visiting, and checking out how other people do it. As someone who is involved in music in our parish, I always like getting ideas for some good songs that we haven't sung to death.
ReplyDeleteI am pretty tolerant of other people's imperfections, because the Lord knows I have plenty of my own. But there are certain things that get on my nerves. You mentioned a cantor who had an overpowering voice, one of my peeves are lectors who have a grating quality to their voice. But I suppose that's not something they really have control over. Definitely an ideological homily is a killer for prayerful worship for me, and I don't really care if they are coming at it from the "right" or the "left". Fortunately I haven't run into much of that.
A couple of times I have tried to channel Francis and talk about the importance of caring for our common home in the face of climate change and other threats. A few other times, again channeling Francis, I have talked about immigration. In these instances, it's always perceived as ideological, even though I try to stay apolitical. As soon as I say "climate change", people turn on their Fox News filters. But of course, Francis himself apparently is an ideological topic now, with EWTN apparently against him.
DeleteOne thing I don't talk about very much is abortion. I've given one homily in 17 years with abortion as a theme, and that was because Cardinal George instructed all preachers that weekend to talk about it, so our pastor at the time kindly assigned the deacons to preach that weekend.
Don't you love it (not!) when you get "assigned" a topic to preach on.
DeleteLast month, my wife and I were on the road. We went to Sunday mass in Charleston, WV, in the co-cathedral or some such. Very pretty church. The priest was a visitor, had grown up in town and attended the high school across the street from the church. Now he is a priest of the "other Charleston", the one in South Carolina. Although I haven't watched EWTN in many years, and all told have probably watched less than an hour of it in the history of its existence, he struck me as the kind of guy they would put in front of a camera there. He was very much a know-it-all, and wanted everyone to know how smart he is. And he went on and on and on. It was all a little trying.
ReplyDeleteSeveral times during the year we will get a visiting priest who is raising funds for this or that mission society. Often that is a gig they are doing in retirement. Most of them are nice (they get a better collection that way). But we had one awhile back who kind of let the deacons and the servers know what they were doing wrong. And he preached too long.
DeleteOur parish recently changed pastors. I miss the old guy but I like the new guy. Haven't noticed any big changes. I appreciated his mention of Teilhard during one of his sermons. Hard to tell about new changes since we're still disrupted by the pandemic. I wish the new pastor well.
ReplyDeleteJim, I appreciate your attempt to communicate the threat of climate change. I recently ordered a book called "Saving Us" by climatologist Katherine Hayhoe. The book is about communicating the urgency of climate change to people who are resistant. She is an evangelical Christian and often puts her talks in a religious context. When I get the book, I'll look for advice that might help you. Heck, I'll send you the book if it looks useful.
ReplyDeleteStanley thanks! I am ways open to fresh ideas and suggestions.
DeleteRitual and Community: What I've Learned in the Parishes
ReplyDeleteBy Bishop Kenneth E. Untener
This was a talk at a 1998 NPM region conference. It used to be on their website but I saved a copy. He was bishop of Saginaw but has since died.
We have a wonderful ritual today, but it does have three problems. The part of the assembly that we call the "congregation" gets to do very little of that ritual; much of the ritual that is done is not understood by many members of the assembly; and much of the ritual that is done is not done very well. Apart from these three problems, of course, it is all wonderful.
Untener came to this conclusion from videotapes. He would have 6 priests and himself videotape one of their week Masses. They would view and discuss how to improve them; then repeat the process.
There are at least four major ritual languages "spoken" at Mass: silence, movement and gesture, the spoken word, and the musical word. How much of each of those languages do the members of the congregation get to "speak" in an hour-long Mass?
There is very little silence at Mass, though shared silence is one of the most communal experiences there can be, and silence is a wonderfully unifying language. After a reading, or after communion, or after the invitation to pray, when the ritual books call for shared silence, there is very little of such sharing. In fact, reviewing the videos with a stopwatch, I have counted at most sixty seconds of such silence at a Mass.
There are many movements and many gestures during the course of a Mass, but the congregation gets to move very little. By my calculations, from joining in the Our Father through the exchange of the peace and processing to communion, the members of the congregation normally get to join in about three-and-a-half minutes of movement.
As concerns the congregation's direct involvement in the spoken word (which I have timed with a stopwatch): If there is a creed, the congregation gets to speak for a total of ninety seconds. If there is no creed, fifty-eight seconds. That includes every "Amen," every "Lord, have mercy," every spoken word assigned to the congregation.
Congregational participation in the sung word varies quite a bit from parish to parish and from liturgy to liturgy. But, generally, if there is a sung Gloria, most members of the assembly get to sing for eight to nine minutes. By far, then, the biggest ritual entrée that most of the assembly has to what is going on is the music.
In sum, then, the total amount of time for direct participation by the congregation--actually "doing" any kind of ritual "language"--in a whole hour- long Mass is about thirteen or fourteen minutes.
Now that we have livestreaming and archived Masses for many parishes we have a wonderful opportunity for clergy, lay ministers and just people in the pews to review and critique them and suggest improvements. And we can review not only our parishes but others. Develop some bench marks for good liturgy, and steal some ideas from other parishes.
ReplyDeleteOur diocese has a set of links for parishes who are livestreaming. The list is very incomplete. I have found many more by going to the list of parish websites.
I was always intrigued by the ancient practice in Rome and elsewhere of stational churches. The Pope would celebrate Mass at various churches beside the main ones, e.g. during Lent.
I have begun to do some virtual scouting quickly sampling some Masses. A lot of parishes livestream their Saturday evening Masses then archive them as the weekend Mass.
We will likely keep our practice of celebrating Sunday Mass with the monks of Meinrad since sing Vespers with them each day. It is like they are our parish now.
However I am thinking of also celebrating Saturday evening Mass with various parishes. Partly a revival of the stational church idea. Partly a practice of walking with the whole diocese during the diocesan phase of the synod which will take place from October to April. Perhaps I will do a series of posts for the Cleveland Commonweal site. In New York prior to the pandemic there was a newspaper column that visited churches much like other columns visited restaurants.
The defect of a critique from a church visitor is the visitor attended one mass on one particular Sunday. Some things, like the architecture, don't change much over time. But the human elements - the presider, the preaching, the music, the musicians, the readers and so on - change all the time. Not only do different people do them from one mass to the next, you will not get consistency from the same people doing the same things over time. A preacher will knock it out of the park one weekend and bore everyone silly the next. A singer will be on his game one weekend and "pitchy" the next.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, all of us have little quirks and mannerisms which can be really distracting and irritating at first, but over time, one becomes used to them. As we get to know one another, we get past the quirks.
Worship presupposes repetition and stability. The same people, with all our irritating quirks, gather week after week after week. It becomes a community, even if not everyone knows every single other person. But the secret visitor isn't a member of the community. Things that the "regulars" don't notice anymore, because they've seen or heard them so many times, like the presider's flop sweat or the reader's foreign accent, jump out at the visitor.
Jim, you are right that consistency varies a lot from time to time, even with the same people. Plus you have the Saturday evening crowd, the 7:00 AM crowd, and the late Mass crowd. It's surprising how many people come to the 7:00 AM. It's a silent Mass as far as music. They'll put up with some music on Christmas and Easter, but don't spring it on them the rest of the time.
ReplyDeleteI'm not on board with critiquing parishes like restaurants. They're supposed to be worship communities. Part of worship is what one's self puts into it.
My husband and I are night owls. If that weren’t the case, I would be part of the early, no music crowd. I prefer silent prayer:and disliked most of the music at my Catholic parish. Not because of the music itself, but because it is usually an unwelcome interruption. But the music interruption was not as bad as the bells before the consecration. When they brought those back I was horrified. They were as welcome as a train whistle, totally destroying the contemplative prayer moments before communion. Thankfully, no bells before the consecration at the EC parish.
DeleteBut my husband liked our Episcopal parish precisely because of the high quality of the music- great choir, mostly traditional hymns, but good ones. And the mostly consistent high quality of the homilies, so rare in our RC parish. Even I like most of the hymn choices. Or I did. The former music director died ( not Covid) , and I have no idea how good the new one is. The choir is not back yet. They are thinking of starting a handbell choir that avoids the spreading germs issues when needed. We haven’t been since they reopened for in person ( with masks, and social distancing). . We also don’t follow the livestream. The two priests we really liked have gone also - one to retirement and one to be pastor of a church in the Outer Banks. They have two part- time interim rectors now while they begin the search process for a new permanent rector. But if I want to watch a service I watch the Washington National Cathedral- usually morning prayer.
Especially for Jack
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/10/05/science-benefits-religion/
Anne,I would prefer that they not ring the altar bells before the consecration, either, I find them distracting. The servers really ring them with gusto, though, so they must like them. I do like the church bells that they ring for the Angelus.
DeleteKatherine , Church bells outdoors are completely different. I usually love them but I’m wondering how the neighborhood near the Washington National Cathedral liked them on Tuesday - a special tolling of the bells to memorialize the 700,000 Americans who have died of Covid. They rang a single bell 700 times in a row, one toll for every 1000 Covid victims.
DeleteAnne, that WaPo article is interesting. Glad to know that ritual has therapeutic benefits. Of course, I would say that those consequences are nice but unintended. For Catholic ritual, the real point of it is to offer thanks and praise to God, and to be holy. The sense of well-being, longer life, compassion, peace et al are nice, too.
DeleteEveryone's experience of the Mass is different because we each bring to the experience of a particular Mass very different experiences, frameworks, and perspectives.
ReplyDeleteMass is ritual, something that we do over and over again. That is both part of its attractiveness and also part of its challenge. As human beings we have a preference for moderate levels of novelty and complexity. We seek to avoid both shock and boredom. Father Taft used to say in his liturgy courses: “the people have a right not to be surprised or confused.”
Overall during the liturgical year the Mass has for most people a moderate level of complexity with changes but predictable changes from Sunday to Sunday, season to season, year to year.
Within the overall level of the moderate complexity the Mass ritual especially since Vatican II the Mass has a great range of novelty especially in homilies and hymns.
We should be sharing our very different experiences at Mass and not assuming that other people are experiencing what we are experiencing. We should be listening to other people understanding their positive and negative experiences of homilies and music. Otherwise we don't really share our experiences. We might as well be at home watching the Mass on a screen. In fact it might be even better community for a group of people to watch the Mass on the screen, then replay it to discuss their varied experiences. Or to go to Mass together and then adjourn to a home for snacks and "post game" sharing.
Homilies
ReplyDeleteTheoretically we could have a different homilist or a different type of homily for each Mass. The challenge is to have enough consistency that we have moderate novelty but not so much consistency that we are completely bored. The homilist’s style of presentation, the modulation of their voice, etc. tends to bring a lot of consistency, in fact it often puts me to sleep.
The tone of a homilist is often consistent, Some preachers are always upbeat, some always melancholy (we are all sinners trudging through life), some always learning a new lesson in life. So I often feel I am hearing the same homily again and again just using different words.
In fact I could count on one hand the number of homilies that I can remember. That says that very few were novel.
While a homilist may knock it out of the ball park for most people one Sunday and bore most people the next Sunday, the reality is that a homilist in the same homily to the same congregation will knock it out of the ball park for some people while being boring for many or even most.
In a group discussion of any homily, the important questions are why some people think it was particularly valuable and others did not found it helpful or even found it repulsive. Even more important are suggestions about how they would do it better.
Also the congregation likely has a great effect on the preaching by the same homilist giving the same homily. I found this out in my first year of college teaching. I taught the same course three times to different students. One class loved the course so much that they wanted to take it again. The other class was bored stiff. In the first class I had some interesting students whose questions and interaction with me made the class interesting for everyone. In the other class no such luck, they all sat there. We were all bored.
While few homilists converse with the congregation, subtle effects are likely. If one has the complete attention on an audience it all becomes very quiet. You could hear a pin drop. On the other hand to the degree you do not have people’s attention, they will begin to get fussy and noisy and distracting to each other.
Other things are important, e.g. the acoustics. I along with many other elderly people simply can't hear the homily because our hearing is getting poorer. When I visit my Catholic ENT specialist and he asks me about problems of hearing. I always answer only the homily at Mass and then we both laugh. Not going spend money on solving that problem. Actually I can hear my pastor because he always speaks loudly and slowly. The two young associates speak too quickly. The two deacons too softly. When Betty speaks to me and I do not understand, I usually wait for a few seconds, often my brain processes the sound and I then understand what she is saying.
Music
ReplyDeleteThe novelty and complexity of music are mostly in the mind and experience of the listener.
As we hear a new piece of music, our initial impression of it is likely to be very influenced by its similarity to other music that we have heard. When I was in college I got a recording of the Missa Luba (African Mass) that had the Latin Mass set to African rhythms. Of course the Latin was very familiar and helped me to appreciate the African rhythms. On the reverse side of the record were native African songs. At first I did not appreciate them very much and mostly played the Latin side. But after trying the African side again and again, I came to really like it, in some ways even more than the Latin side.
When I was young there were the “payola” scandals on radio. New music that is played again and again is more likely to shoot to the top of the charts in popularity. It was found that record companies were paying disk jockeys to play their songs again and again.
When a new song is introduced to the congregation it is usually only after the choir has rehearsed it again and again. If the choir wants the people to sing it, they would be wise to use the song as a choral prelude, or as an offertory song sung only by the choir before they invite the people to sing it.
While playing a song again and again leads initially to greater pleasure, later on its leads to boredom. So actually it is better to put it aside for awhile. If one then comes back to the song it will be heard with renewed pleasure. This underlies much of concert life. We like to hear the classics again and again but usually with a fresh interpretation or performance.
Unfortunately choirs get bored with music much quicker than the congregations because they practice and perform it again and again. This is particularly true for music directors and accompanists who may do several Masses a weekend. That means that just about the time the congregation really learns a new song and can enjoy singing it, the music director and choir move on and the congregation is stuck with another new song.
If I were a new music director for a parish, I would invite the people to rate all the hymns that have been used in the last year or so for familiarity and liking. If I were going to introduce new hymns I would invite the congregation to one or more hymn sings in which I would invite them first to listen to a hymn and then attempt to sing it, and then have them rate the hymn for liking and ease of singing. I would plan the whole year at one time developing a schedule built around peoples preferences for old and new music to provide optimal levels of novelty and complexity.
The famous BBC broadcast of a Service of Nine Lessons and Carols on Christmas Eve is built around an ideal balance of complexity and novelty. The Lessons are always the same. Many of the hymns are the same. All those sung by the people are the same. Many sung by the choir are the same or are rotated around a few year cycle. Each year there is ONE new composition. And often they do a old NEW composition
When our group introduces a new song we sing it the first time as a prelude or Communion meditation. That at least gives the congregation a chance to hear it before they sing it.
Delete"The novelty and complexity of music are mostly in the mind and experience of the listener."
DeleteChurch music is interesting because there are two stages of creativity to it.
The first stage of creativity is done by the composer and the lyricist. They are the ones who craft a new song. Once it is written down and published, their creation is stable and permanent. The printed page doesn't change. In theory, every performance of the piece is the same.
The second stage of creativity is done by the accompanist and the song leader. They are the ones who interpret what the composer and lyricist created. Their interpretation is transitory and ephemeral. Unless it is recorded, it lasts only for a single performance.
The same dynamic applies to classical music. Beethoven created the symphony, but the New York Philharmonic's interpretation of it can be quite different than the Cleveland Orchestra's.
As an accompanist at mass, I may play for two or more masses on a weekend. We typically do the same hymns and songs at every mass. But the individual "performances" may vary quite a bit. For example, accompanying a cantor is different than accompanying a choir - with a choir, I may have to emphasize a certain vocal part (e.g. a descant [a sort of counter-melody] by the high voices) to support that vocal section in a difficult passage. Even from cantor to cantor, I might do different things: some cantors need the melody reinforced, while with others, I am freer to embellish and improvise a bit.
FWIW - popular music, at least during the rock era, is a bit different. Often, the composer is the same as the performer. And an individual recording - essentially, a single performance - becomes widely disseminated and popular; it becomes the baseline standard of that song. The band Queen sang songs with lush harmonies. These were easier to do well in the studio than in a large concert venue. Their studio recordings became the public's baseline understanding of the piece. Consequently, people who attended Queen concerts would report that the songs sounded quite different "live".
This popular music dynamic also gives other artists the opportunity to do a "cover" version of an already-popular song. The cover artist imparts her/his own fresh interpretation - in a sense, the new artist is resetting the public's baseline understanding of the song. Then that new recording also becomes, as it were, encased in amber.
Jim - “ For Catholic ritual, the real point of it is to offer thanks and praise to God, and to be holy.”
ReplyDeleteCan’t say that I’ve ever seen the “holy” part in any Catholics I know, including daily mass goers. Maybe you understand the meaning of ‘ holy” differently than I do.
Hi Anne - if you mean that Catholics don't strike you as notably holier than people of other denominations/churches/faiths, then I won't tell you you're wrong. I'm not sure how much a person's holiness is perceptible to others, although I do think it shines through in some individuals. It's primarily an interior disposition (which, to be sure, should lead to external, social consequences).
DeleteI do think that living a sacramental life sanctifies us. I know I can tell the difference about myself, e.g. if I've been neglecting the sacrament of reconciliation for a while. I don't know whether that internal dynamic has an outward manifestation which others can perceive.
It seems to me that a “holy interior disposition” would always shine through. There is a lot of piety in view in churches, especially in Catholic Churches, which present a lot of opportunities for public piety (rosaries, adoration, benediction, daily mass etc). But I can only think of one pious (active);Catholic that I have known in my now long life who might also be holy. I have known three other people I think of as being holy - one is a non-churchgoing christian who was raised Orthodox. One is a former Catholic who is now agnostic. One was a boy who became a man who was “holy” although raised as an atheist. He died tragically young, 32 ,in a bicycle/ truck accident, one month after getting married. His goodness came through everything he did from when he was a young child until he died.
DeleteIf Catholic sacraments are meant to make people holy, it seems to me that they are a failure.
But, you may indeed feel a difference when you go to confession. For a while, anyway. I suspect that is a psychological reaction, and generally not really life changing. You might experience the same thing with regular sessions with a good therapist.
I have found that daily centering prayer has a powerful effect. It did change my life 20 years ago. People who knew me well from when I was young even commented on it. But I stopped the daily practice when the black veil of unbelief descended on me about 10 years ago - overnight. I am trying again because I think that only daily CP might help me believe again. I know that it makes me a better person, which is a good reason to persist all by itself. I have actively resisted it though, and am working to overcome the resistance. Even my sporadic periods of CP now help me be a better person - for a while. But when I slip again, so does whatever movement towards being more “holy.”
Anne - yes, I do think there are saints among us, and that it's pretty clear who some of them are. I am sure you're right that people from different backgrounds and faith histories can be that way. I'm also sure you're right that prayer is one of the ways we draw closer to God (which is how I think of holiness). I am happy to hear that centering prayer has "worked" for you in the past, and I definitely encourage you to stick with it, not only because you think it makes you a better person, but because it also will improve your relationship with God.
Delete"But, you may indeed feel a difference when you go to confession. For a while, anyway. I suspect that is a psychological reaction, and generally not really life changing. You might experience the same thing with regular sessions with a good therapist."
DeleteYes, sometimes I feel a difference. Sometimes there isn't a "feeling" aspect to it. I've learned through experience that feelings aren't a trustworthy barometer of my relationship with God. But the age we happen to live in is very much a feelings-and-emotions (and pleasures-of-the-body) age. As a card-carrying conservative, I could go on and on about how it has infected our politics :-). I think it's almost not too much to say that, in our age, emotion has usurped reason from its throne.
When I mentioned that I'm aware of my own "interior state" during periods when I've neglected the sacrament of reconciliation, I was referring, not so much to how I feel, but rather the impact of sinfulness on my relationship with God. It's something I'm aware of. I don't think that translates to 'how I feel', but agree that there is some sort of connection between our relationships and our feelings.
Feelings get a bad rap sometimes. They are discounted as not really meaning anything. But they are part of who we are, including our relationship with God. I'm not talking about feeling holy, because I don't think "holiness" is a feeling. We don't even know if we are, in fact, holy.
DeleteJim, I agree with you when you said, "I do think that living a sacramental life sanctifies us."
I decided to look up "holy". It is ordinarily linked to the "divine" or "sacred". Except when it's used as an "intensive" as in "holy smoke" (to use one of the polite examples). But it seems to me that if people become "holy" in their interior lives, it should spill over into their public lives in some way. Some of the saints worked for the poor, for the ill. They did things to improve the lives of others in very tangible ways. But not all who do those things are Catholic, or christian, or even religious in any way. Yet they do God's work - holy work. Some, contemplative types maybe, might help people through their thinking and writing. They might inspire ordinary people by sharing their interior "holiness" with others.
DeleteI don't think that going to mass makes many people holy, nor do the sacraments result in holier people, at least not that I've observed in more than 70 years of life. If being "holy" is only for one's own satisfaction, producing a feeling (yes - a feeling) that one is closer to God than before, is it really "holy"?
I don't get the whole "reason is better than feeling" prejudice held by some. I think that we are meant to use our minds (our reason), but I also think that the Spirit speaks to us through out feelings, more than through reason. I tend to think of God in terms of Spirit (the creator). Those who ignore their feelings and intuitions in favor of what they think is unemotional reason very often don't understand what they should be understanding in many cases. Relying on reason (intellect) alone seems almost a contradiction to faith.
How are people "sanctified" by sacraments? What do you even mean by that term? Is it something that is just reserved for the individual, that they "feel" sanctified by doing certain things(sacraments)? I have known Catholics who go to confession frequently because they want the "sanctifying" grace. Most sacraments are conferred only once or less, but confession and eucharist can be done every day if someone wants. The confession buffs seem to think that God's grace comes in different strengths - "sanctifying" grace is sort of like high test gasoline and they go for regular fillups. But isn't ALL of God's grace - available to all, everywhere and all the time - equally "good" and powerful and "sanctifying"? It all seems somewhat transactional in a way.
Anne, we've still got free will, even if we go to Mass and confession all the time. We have to let ourselves be changed by grace.
DeleteWe become more holy by drawing closer to the Trinitarian God. The mainstream Catholic understanding is that we do this, above all, by participating in the Paschal Mystery. Notice that we've already arrived at baptism and communion. Sacramentally, we unite ourselves to God.
DeleteI happen to think there are many paths to holiness. Those paths have become pretty well-marked over thousands of years. We can grow in holiness by immersing ourselves in God's word. We also can do it by serving others - especially the poor and marginalized. Also by proclaiming the Good News. Also by uniting our suffering to Jesus' suffering. Also by being open to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Also by exercising our gifts for counsel, comfort and understanding. Also by being peacemakers. Also by freely embracing poverty and simplicity in our lives. Also by teaching others. I am sure there are many other paths; these are top of mind.
"I don't get the whole "reason is better than feeling" prejudice held by some. I think that we are meant to use our minds (our reason), but I also think that the Spirit speaks to us through out feelings, more than through reason. "
DeletePerhaps the Spirit does speak to us through our feelings. But so does Satan. I don't think I'm prejudiced when it comes to feelings. But as I mentioned, I think feelings are unreliable.
What I do think is reliable is wisdom - of which Christianity is a great repository. It is through our reason that we're able to access wisdom.
My feelings tell me that it would be intriguing to take my secretary out after work, buy her a few drinks, and "see what happens". My reason, accessing reservoirs of wisdom, tells me that is a really foolish idea that is liable to screw up my life irreparably.
My feelings tell me it would make me feel great to shoot the neighbor's dog which poops on my lawn. My reason tells me there are better ways to handle the problem.
My feelings tempt me to enter fake orders into the system at work to allow me to hit my quota and earn a commission for the month. Reason tells me not to do something which could result in my being fired and possibly charged criminally.
Some fascinating comments Jim. It seems that you think that only people who are Christian, maybe only Catholic Christians, can be holy. That rules out those 5 billion not-christian people in the world now, as well as all of the billions of not-Christian/ not-Catholic people who came before us. I don’t think that Christian belief or practice are required for holiness though. You say that there are many paths to holiness - I agree. But while proclaiming the gospel might be one for those who believe in Christianity, most of the others are found among all the world’s people, including the more than 5 billion who aren’t christians.
DeleteI don’t believe in a literal satan, so it’s tough to discuss your examples of “ feelings “ leading you astray. Frankly, my feelings have never led me to want to hurt another, including dogs that poop on my lawn. My feelings have never led me to want to cheat at work, or with an attractive man. If “ reason” is the only thing stopping this behavior ( reason appearing to be fear of getting caught or in trouble with the criminal justice system) the problem is far deeper than “ feelings” and blaming Satan is ducking one’s own responsibility.
One would really need to spend some time in self- examination to understand why so many of one’s feelings are prompting one to do harm, stopped only by the “ reasonable” probability of being caught and punished.
Wow. Just wow. My understanding of the role “ feelings” plays in discerning God’s will for us is diametrically opposed to yours. I think that “reason” often prevents us from doing God’s will ( so impractical to sell all we have and follow him”, after all) and that feelings often give us the push we need to do God’s will.
So many different ways different people interpret the same words.
"So many different ways people interpret the same words." That covers a lot of territory. For instance some of the feelings Jim describes above I would describe as temptations. And everyone has them. It's just that different people are tempted in different ways. Granted that human beings can get into enough trouble all on their own. However I'm not prepared to write off that they get encouragement from the worse angels. And hopefully the temptations are countered by the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Which is how I would interpret some of the feelings described by Anne which prevent one from wanting to do harm.
DeleteYes - we all face temptations. We have free will and can decide how to approach them . Blaming the devil, or fallen angels, is a cop-out.
DeleteSome rely on “reason” - better not, because if I’m caught, there will be hell to pay. Others rely on their “ feelings “ - even though I could get away with it, it might hurt someone and I would “ feel” pretty awful if something bad happened .
The biggest failings I see in the “conservative” movement are lack of empathy and absence of compassion. Those are feelings. What triumphs way too often is “reason” - I can pay people less, and cut their benefits, and it will improve profits and push up the stock price. After all, most of my employees have no other viable option for jobs. . If I improve the bottom line in my department I’ll probably get promoted and a raise. And nobody will really be hurt because they will still have a job - not firing anyone, after all. No empathy, no compassion, no “love thy neighbor “. Love is also a feeling, one that we can choose, just as we can choose to respect our feelings of empathy and compassion. Maybe if they had those feelings, along with “feeling” a little guilty about doing what the company expects of them even though it really does hurt lower level employees, they would heed the voice of the Spirit, rather than the voice of reason that tells them to maximize profits and get that promotion. After all, Susie is off to college next year and.....
It seems to me that many of those whom we call “ saints” abandoned “reason” and listened to the Spirit, speaking to them through their “feelings”. Francis of Assisi is probably the best known example of this. Ignatio of Loyola may be another. His discernment process includes teaching people to heed their feelings, whether they are feelings of “ consolation” or “ desolation” - after deep prayer and meditation of course. Should someone become a Jesuit priest? Nothing immoral or evil about choosing to be a priest - but is it Gods will? The candidate’s “feelings” may provide the answer.
Back in the day, the comedian, Flip Wilson, popularized a phrase that is with us still. His use of it highlighted the emptiness of the popular excuse used to pass the buck on one’s personal responsibility for bad behavior - the devil made me do it.
I don't believe that the devil can make anyone do anything. However if the fallen angels had wanted to sabotage Christianity, the sex scandals would be a pretty good way to do it. Unfortunately all they probably had to do is sit back and watch the train wreck.
DeleteCan't respond to everything, so just a few miscellaneous thoughts:
DeleteYes, I intentionally constructed those scenarios (getting the secretary drunk, shooting the dog, etc.) to illustrate that our impulses and emotions easily can lead us into the mire. My view of human nature is pretty pessimistic: those impulses are hardwired into us as a result of The Fall. Jesus calls us to act in many ways that are contrary to those hardwired emotions and impulses. The sacramental life provides us with strength to resist those emotions and impulses. And faithful discipleship means adhering to a moral code that regulates that hardwired behavior.
Anne, I note that at some point you stopped talking about reason and started talking about "reason" - the quotation marks presumably indicating some debased form of reason that provides a rationale for greed or cowardice or some such. I don't think you're all wrong! Our fallen nature has indeed twisted our ability to reason. Christian faith purifies reason.
Your description (caricature, actually) of conservatism made me smile, because my conservative's description (or caricature, but not by much) of liberal policy is that it's driven purely by emotion and is almost entirely devoid of reason and wisdom. But maybe this is a topic for another thread.
"I don’t believe in a literal satan, so it’s tough to discuss your examples of “ feelings “ leading you astray. Frankly, my feelings have never led me to want to hurt another, including dogs that poop on my lawn. My feelings have never led me to want to cheat at work, or with an attractive man. If “ reason” is the only thing stopping this behavior ( reason appearing to be fear of getting caught or in trouble with the criminal justice system) the problem is far deeper than “ feelings” and blaming Satan is ducking one’s own responsibility."
DeleteI don't need to introduce Satan into those scenarios - and in fact I didn't. Nor do I need to introduce conscience into the process of talking myself out of following those bad impulses. There are reasonable, rational grounds for not engaging in fornication, gratuitous violence or fraud. They're all imprudent (I think "foolish" was the word I used), whether or not they actually would make me feel guilty. I think you're right that fear of getting caught can dissuade many people from doing foolish things. Fear is an emotion, so let's agree that emotions sometimes can help us (and FWIW, I haven't maintained anything here that would contradict that). But fearing consequences also is entirely reasonable - in fact, we might wish that more people would be more rational about thinking through the consequences before acting irrationally.
Well, you did imply that Satan might have a hand in it - “ Perhaps the Spirit does speak to us through our feelings. But so does Satan.” If satan can speak to us through feelings, there is nothing stopping satan from speaking through “reason” either.
DeleteBut I don’t think Satan has anything to do with any of it. I don’t think Satan exists as a literal person, or fallen angel or whatever which is why I suggested it might be difficult to find common ground for discussion of reason and emotions and the respective roles they play in our moral decision making.
People find it quite easy to do immoral and evil things without a push from Satan.
I don’t agree that liberals never use reason. Fir example I have put forth the data from international comparisons on how many ways the liberal policies in most European countries produce better outcomes in both social/ cultural outcomes ( including lower rates of abortion) and in economic outcomes when compared to the US. Yet conservatives not only refuse to look at the evidence - use reason - they get very emotional about the reality, denouncing these governments as being “ socialist” (which they are not, demonstrating inexcusable ignorance of basic economic definitions), They do their best to arouse negative emotions like hate and fear in their conservative constituents. So immigrants are going to take all the jobs, and providing universal health care that is considerably more efficient and much cheaper than the mess we have in the US, while covering every American, is a threat to them. They scream “ socialism” about pretty much every progressive policy proposal. It’s completely irrational - without reason - and purely emotional. And then there are the COVID and vaccine issues, which conservatives have used to arouse extreme emotions, inciting fears with zero basis in scientific fact - a denial of reason. When you read polls that show a majority of registered Republicans actually believe that Biden lost the election, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you can’t suggest that it’s liberals who don’t use reason.
I also think that allowing emotions such as empathy, compassion, and love of neighbor should be considered in designing policy - something liberals do, but conservatives shun.
One more example of the increasing absence of reason in the thinking of many conservatives - while zero liberals give any credence to QAnon conspiracy theories, ~25% of Republicans believe them.
DeleteA couple of more comments - Jesus calls us to act in many ways that are contrary to those hardwired emotions and impulses.
DeleteMost people in the world, of all religions, follow a moral code, and have an internal impulse to try to do the right thing. Most of the people in the world are not christians.
The sacramental life provides us with strength to resist those emotions and impulses.
I'm sure it does for some people. Not so sure it does for ALL Catholics, or even most Catholics, based on my experience. Some of the least Jesus-following Catholics out that I have known are "devout" Catholics. I also know plenty of people who do not belong to churches with sacraments who show plenty of moral strength to resist bad impulses, and plenty of positive moral strength that leads them to lives of compassionate service. Jim, you really need to open your eyes to the rest of the world. You might find that there are a lot of very good people out there who don't happen to be RC.
liberal policy is ... driven purely by emotion and is almost entirely devoid of reason and wisdom.
I addressed the hyperbolic statement that you made that liberal policy is driven "purely by emotion" already, and provided just a couple of examples of how the GOP (not so sure they are actually real conservatives these days) politicians and base seem to be out of control on being driven by emotion, abandoning reason in the process (along with most moral principles). There are many other examples of the abandonment of reason in the GOP these days.
Then there is wisdom. You imply that the liberals do not demonstrate wisdom in making policy, with the unspoken implication that "conservatives" (whoever they are these days - the legitimate conservatives have mostly left the GOP) do demonstrate "wisdom".
Well, you didn't define what you mean, but..... my take on this is that there is no wisdom whatsoever being demonstrated by political leaders in either party. I can't think of any pundits, academics, or religious leaders either who are offering "wisdom" to our nation in any form. While some liberals still demonstrate reason, few Republicans do. And nobody in either party demonstrates wisdom.