Untitled Document

The Spirit of the Liturgy by Ratzinger (continued) I was delighted that he has studied and knows the anthropology of religion. It surprised me that he readily applied that study to Catholic worship. His logic is fairly easy to follow. I have no doubt that he is a wonderful teacher. He writes clearly and purposefully. This book would be very helpful to teachers in gaining insight into why Catholics worship as they do. He loves Catholic tradition, and that suits me just fine. He has wonderful insights into scriptures, which I found helpful and delightful. (I loved his theological insight as to why "the curtain in the temple was torn" when Jesus died on the cross.) However, he insists on certain liturgical practices that even he admits will never be implemented, and, as a matter of fact, were abandoned early on for practical reasons, like facing east as we pray! But he spends too much time on that just to make the point that a crucifix makes a good substitute!

It isn't that I disagreed with Ratzinger on anything, but I knew that he was intent on shoring up details of worship (like kneeling, tabernacles, chant, etc) to put the brakes on a liturgical reform that he sees as continuing and dangerous. I guess that's where I first disagree with him. I don't see the widespread abuses about which he is concerned. In fact, what I see as a return to, what he even admits is inadequate, the pre-Vatican II spirit of worship as the greater danger we face. Sloppiness in worship is not just the provenance of "reformers," it is also quite apparent among those who are inclined to restore old practices.

Part of the problem is his, many times on target but sometimes over the top, critique of modern culture and society. He canonizes certain cultural eras, but sees ours as wholly deficient. I know this is ridiculously reduced, but he states that our culture is nihilistic and a culture of death; whereas, earlier eras were more noble, purposeful and about life. Really? Let's see. Perhaps we are today throwing gladiators into some coloseum somewhere to fight to the death for spectators' entertainment. Maybe the pope still leads armies into rampaging and pillaging as they did in the Middle Ages! Perhaps bishops still do kill each other on their way to some church council as they did during the fourth century! We, no doubt, have many problems, but today's society and our culture does possess some goodness, nobility and purpose. And that culture can contribute to our worship, as cultures have throughout the ages.

I Know This Much Is True by Wally Lamb. A great read, and "thanks" to my niece, Amy, for recommending it. One day she will have the time to post her own book reviews here at Open Book. Right, Amy? Let me get two things off my chest about this book that annoyed me, nothing major, but still annoying while it lasted. The first is Dominick's unnecessary pick-up truck crash: too many things going wrong on the same day, and the crash served no purpose. The second is the silly use of Italian in old Domenico's memoirs. The Italian words, were for the most part, cognates. Some of the phrases were great in Italian, but the "fotografo" and "stretto" and many other words were cheap and added nothing except needless distraction. Which reminds me of another annoyance, Lamb's over-use of italics. Stop it, already!

Now for the good parts. Lamb's meticulously considered plot is superbly executed. Not being a great fan of psychological dramas, I was enthralled by Lamb's ability to weave a great introspective and multi-layered story. This baby was thought through! I marveled at his ability to make tangents and non-sequitor mental processes so thoroughly engaging and in service of the story.

But more to the point is Lamb's ability to make me think about relationships, mental health, struggles, conflicts, belief and unbelief in my own life. It reconfirmed my own conviction that what we consider to be the most personal and private is at the same time most universal. Love/hate, hope/despair, refinement/crudeness, spoken/unspoken, beauty/ugliness: that's all of us. Back to the story, Thomas and Dominick are identical twins. The former a paranoid schizophrenic and the latter a successful, everyman. Lamb uses the twin device to uncover the internal conflict, sickness, distorted reality that all of us keep well-hidden from public view. All of us!

Armegeddon by Max Hastings. If you cannot stand details this book is not for you! I grew a bit tired of the Monday morning quarterbacking, but Hastings certainly drives home the point that wars are uncertain, and well-laid out plans are necessary but immediately subject to change. Egos and personalities prolonged the war against Nazi Germany, but it is easy to second guess. I was most taken by the atrocities of the Soviets, often lost amidst the devastating Jewish tragedies. It reminds me yet again that we have somehow come to the point where our guilt over anti-semitism has obliterated the equally tragic death and suffering of many times more than the 6 million Holocaust victims. Yes, "Never forget," as Jewish survivors declare, even the deaths of gentiles!

Why the Rest Hates the West by Meic Pearse. Very disappointing. I was looking forward to understanding the minds and hearts of anti-Americans abroad, particularly in the developing world. Instead I was treated to one man's crusade to reconstitute the traditional family. As worthy as that goal may be, it hardly answers the questions I brought to this reading. But I should have known better before I purchased the book. His credentials hardly qualify him as an expert on the subject of why the rest of the world hates America.

The Case for Democracy by Natan Sharansky. As a big believer in democracy (and capitalism, for that matter), I picked up this book hoping for a better case. Sharansky convinces me that Arabs and Muslims are not only capable of democracy, they also want it, need it, long for it. Fine, but he could have down that without his autobiography predominating the whole book. At times the book more resembles an apologia for decisions made and an extravaganza of self-righteousness. I know Sharansky endured great tribulations in the Soviet Union, but he should have titled the book: The Case for Admiring Me and Blaming Others.

The Reformation by Diarmaid MacCulloch (2003) This is not a timid work. The density of historical data is at times tiring, but it is well worth the slog. MacCulloch concludes his writing by observing that the Reformation will continue well into the future of Christianity, which admits a rather expansive view of what we generally think of as a done-deal. But he's obviously right, if only because a living religion evolves. Conversely, the Reformation didn't drop out of nowhere but had centuries of development that led to Wittenburg Cathedral (a well-publicized but not first act of reform). Well into the book (p. 527) MacCulloch curiously states one of his purposes: "If Britain has a role to play in modern world politics, it may be to interpret the pervasive and exuberantly assertive (some might say strident) culture of Protestant religion in the US to a Europe that has begun to forget what the Reformation meant." Perhaps, but it is obvious that he is fascinated by American religious zeal. By the way, he convincingly observes that American Roman Catholicism in its behavior and attitudes is a subset of the American Protestant religious scene. He's right about that, and, in my opinion, that is the essence of internal Catholic struggles. It is a struggle that will intensify over the next several decades.

Before that, let's take a look at the book.There are few throw-away sentences in this rather long book. It is packed with details that are, with few exceptions, helpful in appreciating the larger picture of the opening years of European modern history and beyond. Because the Reformation and ensuing Counter-Reformation are very complicated with their uneven and surprising development in hundreds of regions and cities of Christian Europe, it is not difficult to become somewhat bewildered. I have no doubt that those who lived through the Reformation experienced that bewilderment in spades. The to-ing and fro-ing of religious sentiments through the years and lands, often devolving into ugly mayhem, must have driven folks half-mad. And knowing that much if not most of the chaos had much to do with money and power, with religion as an important but tradeable commodity, it is difficult to get one's arms around the essential movements. That is made all the more impossible from our perspective when we recognize that the central dividing issues of the Reformation are no longer in question for most believing Christians. What makes it all very sad is that the bitterness and butchery was avoidable even at the very dawn of the reforming movements.

MacCulloch has it in for the Jesuits. They do not fare well in this account. Capuchins are mentioned frequently but without much detail. The Jesuits appear as unscrupulous zealots. Both Capuchins and Jesuits are noteworthy for their innovative and unconventional approach to reforming the Catholic Church from within. In fact, I was amused that they attended Protestant services incognito to gather tips on substance and tactics for preaching. At times these guys were too unconventional for Catholic hierarchical tastes.

Speaking of Capuchins, historically noted for their beards, the friars apparently had their reasons for sporting facial hair. Though MacCulloch does not make any such connection, I can only believe that the friars had cultural reasons for not shaving. MacCulloch notes that many former Catholic priests, who became Protestant clergyman, took great pride in growing beards. Virility and manliness were at issue. Celibacy and all-male communal living sometimes allowed for doubts on that score. Cultivating a beard was a lot easier than working on prominent guns, pecs and abs, I guess.

Erasmus, "who laid the egg that Luther hatched," looms large in Protestant and Catholic thinking of the time. Both sides used him. Despite his obvious failings, I am even more in admiration of this man from Rotterdam. He is my guide for Catholic Essentialism. We'll talk about that some day.

I'll expand on this at Cast Your Net, but I must mention the notion of predestination. It was a central dividing issue at the very start of the Reformation, and it's one of those topics that no longer divides. Even Luther backed down. Predestination was about God having chosen before all time which humans would be eternally saved and which would suffer eternal damnation. That seems to us to be cruelly far-fetched, believing as we do now that God intends for all to be saved. I easily dismissed the notion as an oddity of their times. However, I have reconsidered. Along with many other pre-modern religious ideas, I have come, albeit tentatively, to believe that we moderns have adopted predestination as a near-future reality. In brief, for most of its history Christianity has focused its attention on the eternal future. Recently we have in wholesale fashion re-tooled much of Christian ideology to make sense of our pre-death, or near future. That is where predestination is indeed firmly held, in my opinion. Whether we speak of "nature vs. nurture," genetic predispositions, psychological development, or political structures, we may believe that God has not predestined us eternally, but we do believe that our near future is determined by many uncontrollable factors. Otherwise, how could the ideology of victimization take such a firm grip of our culture? There are many other examples, which we'll lay out at some point. As a final point, Luther's stand against "salvation through works" and for "faith alone" seems to resonate with the dismantling of any sort of meritocractic advancement.

MacCulloch wants to believe that an idea or batch of ideas was the primary force behind the Reformation. He contends that "monarchs, priests, nuns, merchants, farmers, laborers were seized by ideas that tore through their experiences and memories and made them behave in new ways." (p. 107) These ideas, especially a restatement of Augustine sotierology, were indeed powerful vis-a-vis the corrupt practices of the Church of Rome. In those ideas folks sensed liberation from the greed and abuses of religious and political agents and structures. In the end, however, I am not convinced that MacCulloch believes his own idealistic appraisal.

It is an undeniable fact that both the Reformation and ensuing Counter-Reformation would have been isolated to tiny spots in Europe had it not been for civil enforcement. It is astonishing that ordinary folks went one way or the other, sometimes repeatedly, without much protest or enthusiasm. It all depended on what the duke or king required of them. And what the duke or king required more often than not derived from political goals rather than religious conviction. For their part, religious leaders on both sides were eager to gain the favor of those same political leaders not because they were zealous for souls but because they wanted to control the discussion and its outcome.

That observation leads me to caution those who are determined to affect another Counter-Reformation in the Catholic Church, noting its great sixteenth century success and longevity. Persuasion in these days must be performed without the assistance of civil authorities. Today's counter-reformationists face a formidable task, or, as I believe they have, determined that the only alternative is to start from scratch with a tiny faithful remnant of fanatics. Moreover, I also sense among these same agents for change that they are, similarly not terribly zealous for souls but for control of the discussion and its outcome. For many of them it is far more important to ensure their own stranglehold on ecclesiastical ideology than it is to assist in the salvation of men and women. In fact, they betray their motivation when they actively seek the construction of a faithful remnant. Sadly, I think I hear them cheer as many choose to abandon, normally by disaffection, the Church these zealots want us to believe they love. No, its their own vision of that Church they love; it is their ignorant and nostalgic view of what the church must again become to which they are devoted.

Much the same can be said and even more strongly for some non-Catholic Christians. But that is for another day.

A History of Britain I, by Simon Schama. This guy really knows how to write history. This account of British history from 3000BC to 1603AD is an exciting read. So much of our take on the British is about their aloofness and supposed sophistication. But Britons have had a tough time of it throughout their history. There has been an endless series of battles, invasions and brutality. More generally this account brings a freshness to me for re-assessing long-held observations not only about British history but human history as well. For instance, I thought feudalism was defeated by individuals of greater intellect or spirit. Perhaps, as Schama contends, it was the Black Death that destroyed the oppression of feudalism. Even the Reformation possibly has its roots in the plague. As a temporary measure the church allowed lay people to absolve sins and administer the last rites in areas where the dying exceeded the number of available priests.

Erasmus, by Johann Huizinga. Listen to Erasmus on the subject of the life and teachings of Christ: "We are in the presence of holy things; here it is no question of eloquence, these matters are best recommended to the world by simplicity and purity." Huizinga notes, "To Erasmus the great problem of Church and State and society, seemed simple. Nothing was required but restoration and purification by a return to the original, unspoilt sources of Christianity. A number of accretions to the faith had to be cleared away." After reading this biographical account I look forward to getting my hands on Enchirdion militis Christiani and his Moriae Encomium, the Praise of Folly. I must admit to an uneasy satisfaction in his critique of scholasticism. Erasmus contends that we make a big mistake by relentlessly submitting the mystery of God to human rationalization. I could not agree more. Religious intellectuals deprive faith of its wonder, power and appeal by parsing it to death. Could anything be more useless than hyper-intellectualized faith? Yes, we must fully use our intellect, but dissecting the Mystery inevitably leads to encroaching and inevitable inquisitional oppression.

Like everyone, Erasmus was a man of contradictions: bold and weak, selfless and selfish. That makes him all the more appealing to me. Until his dying day he was convinced that the Christian world did not have to splinter. In that he may have been blind to the political realities that overtook the Reformation. And, yes, his powers of analysis, though fully engaged as he looked about, were probably not as effective in introspection, but he was on target in many respects.

My curiosity about Erasmus has turned into admiration.