Loading ...
The irony has become very old and tiresome by now, but it isn’t that often that it’s illustrated by someone as high-profile as Mark Shea, in a forum like InsideCatholic.com. So, one of the most frequently heard criticisms of traditional Catholics is that they’re angry, bitter and uncharitable. It’s by no means a totally unfounded complaint. But, for my money, I think the angriest of the angry trads are at least matched in unreasoned bitterness by the angry, bitter anti-trads. Shea has always been prone to bitter outbursts; it’s just one of his foibles. But his recent piece on “Angry Traditionalists” was really over the top, the kind of hateful, offensive language for which he ought to apologize, if only to salvage his own credibility. Like I say, what’s really absurd is the irony: his main contention is that Trads are scaring people away from the Church by their bitter, angry attitudes, but the piece itself is exactly the sort of rhetoric to make me think that “I wouldn’t touch the faith with a barge pole” if I thought that were at all representative of what the Catholic church is like.
Suck it up, Shea. Dealing with different sorts of people within the Church is tough for all of us, but this kind of self-indulgent ranting doesn’t help. Was there any chance in the world that a piece like this, absurdly exaggerating the faults of Trads and contemptuously dismissing their concerns (concerns which are shared by, among others, the Holy Father), would actually inspire positive change on anybody’s part? Nope, but that clearly wasn’t the point. His blood was up and he was in the mood for writing a hit piece. I absolutely know the feeling, but for the good of the Church it’s important to observe some ground rules. If you feel like fighting, aim for a real enemy. Play nice with your allies. Unless Mark Shea is a good deal less orthodox than he claims to be, Trads are allies.
For the most part, he just makes himself look foolish by missing the point entirely. Take, for example, this quote:
Here’s the thing: In the early Church, Christians did not huddle up and demand that those around them understand the things they care about. That’s because the command they had been given was “Go therefore into every nation, teaching them to observe what I have commanded.” They were a missionary Church conquering the world with love, not a Fortress desperately fighting to bring back the good old days. They didn’t hunker down, griping about how converts were screwing everything up, or complaining that things were better way back when, or talking as though faith, hope and love were wimpy symptoms of Kumbaya Catholicism. They endured real persecution of the “roasting on hot griddles” sort and not of the “having to sing ‘Anthem’” variety.
Yes. Being roasted on a hot griddle is probably worse than singing Anthem. But the real question is whether people who have been raised on Anthem will develop the sort of character that would make them able to withstand being roasted on a hot griddle. There are good reasons to believe not, but Shea evidently isn’t interested in hearing about them.
But the really irksome thing about the piece is that Shea constantly hits on the need for evangelizing; apparently this is one of the worst things about Trads, that they don’t “sell” the faith well enough. Well, sorry to be a pain but I just have to ask: what exactly is it that we’re supposed to sell? Anthem? We don’t do much good attracting people to our churches if we don’t have something worthwhile to offer them when they come. I addressed this to some degree in my post awhile back on Evangelical Catholics; it’s good, on one level, that we have people who are excited about spreading the Gospel, but if we really want to save souls, we need to put our own house in order, and one of the biggest things that needs putting in order is the liturgy.
But okay. Let me try to contradict my own statement by pulling something positive out of Mark Shea’s bitter rant. He says:
In much the same way that I think Muslims need to stop whining about how people perceive Islam and focus instead on why so many people have such similar perceptions, so too I think not a few Traditionalist Catholics should focus more energy on changing whatever it is in their sub-sector of the Church that leaves so many of us with such a bad taste in our mouths.
Okay. I take up the challenge. There can be no denying that Shea’s reaction is a common one; in fact, it is my experience that orthodox New Norm Catholics (that is, Catholics who assist primarily at the Novus Ordo) usually have a “bad taste in their mouths” after their first brush with traditional Catholicism, and are often more actively hostile towards Trads than very liberal Catholics (who are too far removed from them to care.) This is bad, because of course orthodox New Norms are the sort who should be our friends and allies, so why the bad reception?
Two reasons, I think. I’ll list them both here.
1) Trads really can be a pain sometimes. It’s just one of those liabilities that reactionary groups tend to have. They’re so tired of the I’m-okay-you’re-okay approach to the faith, and so allergic to the soft-pedaling of important issues, that they sometimes forget their manners. This is a real problem, and we should try to work on it, but the truth is, this is always going to be a weakness of the traditional movement, for as long as it continues to be a “movement” (which, contrary to what Shea implied in some of his ominous remarks, is not going to end by the trads losing all their battles and dying out — it will die when the Church restores order to the point where there’s not much to yell about anymore. Happily, we’re already moving in the right direction.) It’s the sort of movement that attracts some forceful personalities and a few crazies — not nearly as many as Shea implies, mind you, but a few. I’m not saying we should shrug our shoulders and accept this, but we aren’t going to be able to just “fix” it either, any more than you can put an end to rude people in sports chat rooms or fights on school playgrounds. It happens. It will continue to happen. Sorry.
2) People who have always (or for a long time) considered themselves good Catholics get a little defensive when somebody else suggests that there’s something wrong with them. It’s kind of insulting, when you’ve been in the game for awhile, to have somebody come along and suggest that you’re really a lightweight. Of course, we can see a thousand examples of how normalcy (by what you’ve come to accept as societal standards) isn’t any guarantee of okay-ness. But it’s our natural instinct to think that, if most of the people we know are down with X, X can’t really be all that bad.
Hmmm… I had some other thoughts I was going to share in this post (of course all culminating in a glorious conclusion), and I wanted to discuss strategies for bringing people like Shea around, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to cut this one short. I wrote most of it last night… then I had a really bad day today and got pulled away from my to-do list, but now tomorrow I’m heading out on a week-long trip so if I don’t post this now I never will. Might as well post it now then. Sorry for the lack of closure… I’ll make it up to y’all in a week or so.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
In reading this essay, one thing I thought to myself was, “If Shea is writing this, he is doing it for a reason”. And the reason is one that you insinuate here: he is writing this precisely because the “trads” are not going to die out anytime soon. 1,962 years of Church history are not going to be wiped out by forty years of experimentation. At best, he is relying on modern man’s tendency towards historical amnesia. Maybe it will work for others, but not for serious Catholics. If, even as a teenager growing up in liberal California, I could figure out that the Tabernacle used to be on the altar, or that the Mass was not always celebrated on a plain table, other Catholics twenty, thirty, and a hundred years from now will be able to figure out the same thing. Try as much wishful thinking as you want, but the traditonalist critique is not going anywhere anytime soon.
Another thing to mention is that his history is bad: surely he knows, among other things, about the Donatists? The early Church was ever and anon closing ranks, naming heresies, splitting into (and resolving) factions.
I used really to like Mark Shea, but he at some point got so annoying that I could no longer read what he wrote. It’s too bad. I sometimes fear he’s just gotten his sensus Catholicus, on a few issues, out of whack : for instance, he decided at some point that the Liturgy wasn’t worth fighting over, and should just be endured if execrable. No one who has had the grace of a good liturgical life could ever simply give up on liturgy, the center of Christian prayer; which made me conclude that he has been badly served by the modern Church and, a defensive type, doesn’t want to blame the churchmen who are responsible — since, after all, *he* turned out ok — and instead shoots the messenger.
Thank you for writing this. And thanks for the reference to “evangelical Catholicism.” That phrase makes me crazy and it’s always presented as a positive, now by John Allen of NCR and, of course, by Fr. Newman in Greenville, SC. What struck me about Fr. Newman’s “Eight Principles of Evangelical Catholicism” is its privileging of the Word at the expense of the sacraments. And the Eucharist is nowhere mentioned by name.
Anyway, it’s good to read an assessment of Mark Shea’s piece that really gets it together. And Prof. Vasquez’ response is great also.
Well, it’s just sad to see Shea getting his back up about this. Lots of people bristle at their first contact with more traditional liturgy; as I said, I think it’s a natural defensive reaction to the suggestion that everything you’ve been doing is off. But reasonable people can come around in time to a more nuanced view — the trouble is that “taking a stand” the way he’s done now makes him that much harder to bring around.
Anyway, I’ve got a plane to catch… thanks for the comments, y’all.
I did not agree 99 percent of what Shea writes. He was over the top, and frankly stupid…for the most part. Your post and reaction are, frankly disappointing
I think you might want to take some note of your own statement about “[G]ood Catholics get a little defensive when somebody else suggests that there’s something wrong with them.” You got that right Being a orthodox Catholic I take offense at being labeled by trads with such cute terms as “New Norm Catholic” (that’s a new one to me) or “Neo-Con Catholic” or any other cute little pejorative that you come up with to imply that I am, somehow, less Catholic than a trad. Drop the Neo- stuff okay? I’ve tried to keep a positive attitude towards trads even when I’ve met the occasional crazy, because I realize every group has them. In general I like the trads I’ve met, and it is because of them I explored more into our traditions and have come to realize how much we’ve lost. This site has generally been helpful in me gaining a high regard for tradition and traditionalists. This post hasn’t.
I get it from the progressives too because they seem to think that they are the embodiment of the Church and people like me should follow them. Not likely, I follow the heir of Peter. And frankly, the current Pope makes a heck of a lot more sense than the progressives and is presenting us with a feast as oppose to the Happy Meal Catholicism I been subjected to most of my adult life.
So it may be a good idea to stop the name calling, and yes, the whining and start helping. To use your phrase, suck it up, and I would suggest offer it up. You aren’t the only ones sick of the the “You’re okay, I’m okay” brand of Catholicism. It comes down to what are you going to do about it?
Sorry, to say it, but go ahead, stay away from the “Novus Ordo” parishes and let them have the battlefield. Keep driving 2hrs or whatever you do to the oh so perfect EF parish that you prefer. It’s still a ghetto. Nothing will change unless you come out of the Bunker and help those of us who are trying to bring the reform of the reform that Pope Benedict calls for.
You want order restored? how about coming to help with the clean up? Time to come down from the ivory tower, and stop telling all of us what we should be doing to make you happy and start putting your mouth, money and energy into cleaning up the mess like the rest of us poor misguided neo-Cons. It takes devotion, patience, humility (countless hours of confession when we don’t have either), and prayer. And it can be very frustrating at times…but that’s the way things are. At least no one is asking us to get burned at the stake or jump on a nice comfy griddle!
Pax
I can’t help but feel, CPT Tom, that you’re venting a little frustration against me for things that aren’t my fault. I did apologize for not managing to finish the post, so you never got the full message. But this is a problem worth discussing — how to get people over the defensive hump. It’s not about gratuitous whining or feeling superior.
As for the bit about helping with clean-up, what makes you think I don’t? Helping build up traditional communities is part of the “clean-up”. So is teaching sound philosophy to undergraduates. We all try to do our little bit. I’m sorry if yours is among the more unpleasant.
As far as names go - we’ve been through this before. I need names to refer to different groups, not for the sake of name-calling but for the sake of being clear. I wrote on this at some length a few months ago; if I weren’t on a plane right now I’d send you the link but I think the post was from last Lent sometime and is called “The necessity of naming”.
Wow, CPT! Way to go, raising the level of civility in this debate!
Your uncharity in this matter is notable. Do you know, sir, whether we’re in an ivory tower or are doing our best to help in the ways you suggest?
I also would like you to reconsider whether covering yourself with the papal mantle achieves what you think it achieves. Pope Benedict recognized that the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated; time was, not long ago, that persons like yourself — following, they devoutly said, Peter, who at the time was John Paul II or, earlier, Paul VI — would scream at trads in much this same way for wanting that old Mass that Vatican II did away with; “look”, your dopplegangers said, “the pope doesn’t allow it, so why should anyone go to it? If the new Mass is good enough for JPII, it’s good enough for me!”
The whole point of being traditionally minded — which the Church ALWAYS should be, and that includes ALL Catholics, not just the “trads” — is not to be held hostage to the fads and passing fancies and latest comments made by the current Pope or curia; but to recall as best as possible not just what was good enough for Pope X, but good enough for … St. Ignatius, or St. Therese, or Pope Pius XII.
A final note: trying to “fix” things in the Church can lead to a bad state of affairs in the spiritual life. The reason we unreasonable trads often travel distances to worship is precisely because we have figured out that, without having a stable spiritual life and the graces of the sacraments, we will not be able to help “fix” anything. If we were already holy, we wouldn’t need so much help; but we are still beginners, and hence it is very humility that provokes us — at least, this is the best reason we have — to make sacrifices to find a place where we can worship in a way that allows us peace and rest in our prayers.
I spent several years as an organist at the least bad Parish in Ithaca, doing my best to help “clean up” — but when I arrived at my current domicile and was able to begin living a proper liturgical and spiritual life with solid priests and worthy, serious liturgies, I began to see how much I had missed while striving so hard under the yoke of the Diocese of Rochester.
So lay off, buddy.
CPT, while uncivil prose, has a point. A common one in fact. I’ve heard it from many conservative Catholics.
What needs to be emphasized is that the virtues and graces that Catholics strive for in the Pre-VII culture and Post-VII culture *are the same*. The great difference is that the means to attain them are more streamlined in the Pre-VII culture (”streamlined” is a poor word choice, I know). c.f. St. Ignatius, St. Alphonsus, St. Catherine Drexel, et al.
The greatest gift to anyone’s spiritual life is an proper introduction to spirituality and liturgy of the EF. The rewards of the EF are not ours to relegate. Remember, they were handed down to us through no merit of our own. This is just speaking from my experience.
This name calling, new-norm, nomenclature business only obfuscates this point and is counter-productive. “Judgment of souls” is not a gift of the Holy Ghost. Soft language doesn’t make it right. The same message comes across if the nomenclature was “mal-formed” and “rightly-formed” Catholics, just a little harder to swallow.
My solution would be *NOT* to refer to people (Souls), but to cultural trends in the Catholic Church, which influence the Faithful. Don’t the problems start with the higher ups making poor pastoral choices? Isn’t
the remedy to purge cultural trends? By focusing on an abstract concept, we could treat Souls in the most charitable way, as Faithful striving for grace and virtue and let them through grace grow in their spiritual life. What better aid than the EF of the Mass. If someone is not striving to improve, that is their business, not ours. We’re only messengers.
Sorry, that last comment was mine.
Clara,
You, I think again, are quite right(as always). I am venting. Which I am sorry for. I’ve had a very frustrating few months in my parish, and it has bothered me more than I suppose I realized. There is also plenty of defensiveness to go around, apparently I have contracted a bit of it too. Please accept my apology for broadsiding you.
Ambrosius:
Since you have been in this Diocese, you know what a liturgical sewer it is. You may even understand my frustration. Don’t assume you understand who I am, nor who my “doppelgangers” are. You couldn’t be more wrong about me or what persons are like me. From the sounds of it, you have no idea.
We as Catholics do have a duty to the Church, and, yes even the pitiful Norvus Ordo parish we may be unfortunate to live in. We have the obligation I believe to try our best to improve things when they don’t measure up. My parish there is a possibility of doing that. Will it work…I don’t really know. I am inclined to leave it in the hands of our Heavenly Father. It seems to me this is what we should do. That is what I choose to do even though there are times it can be frustrating. That’s why we are called to prayer and at times to confession. Both renew me and give us strength to continue the fight.
It may surprise you, but we probably agree on quite a good many things, not the least of which is that the Church should be timeless and not held hostage to fads or novelties. Which makes me even more sorry for offending you.
Peace be with you.
I think that I have at least gotten passed the rhetoric of “getting your hands dirty” and “suffering with the rest of us” when it comes to these issues. The problem is that going into the fray to help make things better can often just make you worse. If you are a serious, involved Catholic in the average parish, the priest (usually with good intentions but hopelessly overworked) will probably say, “Oh, why don’t you join one of our ministries?” Next thing you know, you’ll be handing out Communion next to some woman in jeans who wears too much lipstick. Or maybe you’ll end up on a worship committee, or if you get yourself into enough trouble, you might be ordained a permanent deacon so you can preach the sermon instead of Father. My point of course is that “getting involved” when it comes to the current Church is precisely the problem. Hence, the traditionalist critique and the “holier than thou” attitude. When given the attitude of “love it or lump it” who can blame some people for fleeing? It’s clericalism-lite, and it feels so good (not).
In my own case, I haven’t been to a traditional Mass in over a month, and I usually just go to the Dominican priory in Berkeley. I don’t like it, and I am certainly not going to “get involved”, but on a good day, it’s not so bad.
Anybody see this at WDTPRS?
“As a priest in my 83rd year I have to make a confession. I implemented the Pauline reforms without understanding or sensitivity. I did it relying on the advice and coercion of my bishop and diocesan authorities. As I did it I witnessed the hurt and pain of many of the devout, so many of the ardent became lukewarm, many lapsed. I thought I acted rightly but in my 59 years of priesthood I recognise that that which we hoped for has not come to pass.
I do welcome a careful reappraisal and assessment of what has been done since my ordination, especially by the younger clergy. In order to do that they must learn something of the spirituality that brought men of my generation in vast numbers to the seminary.
In short I welcome this Merton initiative.
Incidentally, in the solitude of my retirement, since last September, I have relearnt the Mass of my youth, it brings me great consolation. It is the Mass I have not celebrated out of obedience since 1970.”
Fr P O’Rourke
Well, I for one can admire the tenacity of people like CPT Tom trying to stick it out and fight the good fight. I can also perfectly respect someone giving up and realizing they’re better off just sticking to the back pew until more hospitable pastures can be found. Sometimes the former may do some real good, though given a choice I think we should choose the thing that will be most spiritually healthy for ourselves and our families. Sometimes there isn’t much choice, though, and then too there are obviously great saints who have willingly endured hostile conditions for the sake of saving souls. We do what we can.
Franciscus was evidently not convinced by my necessity of naming post. But I really must protest the implication that the coining of terms for groups according to liturgical attachment is inherently judgmental; I don’t wish for it to be, and in that post I all but begged the people attached to the Novus Ordo to suggest a name for themselves that would not be offensive to them. None of them made a suggestion. None of them suggested anything.”New norm” is admittedly my creation, picked for lack of anything better because so many objected to the more straightforward “Novus”. The idea is to combine what seem to be the most significant features of the liturgy in question — that is is somewhat discontinuous with tradition but that it is also currently the normative or “ordinary” form. It seemed at least a fair name, but I’d gladly change my usage if people agreed on something else. What I won’t agree to do is try to break down barriers, or whatever, by refusing to find sensible ways of speaking about differences that obviously exist. The suggestion to talk about trends and not people strikes me as unhelpful, in the first place because a trend IS just something done by a lot of people, but also because we sometimes just have reason to classify people.
Though this isn’t the case for Franciscus or CPT Tom, I think some of the yelling about names is really just a manifestation of latent anti-trad prejudice. There are lots of names for us — traditionalists, Trads, Latin Mass Catholics, “Rad Trads” — but when we name them, it’s like a group of mutants or freaks coming up with a name for non-mutants. It implies a kind of equality, as though their liturgical attachments might actually signify something about them. Well, it might. Let’s agree on a name and then we can discuss it.
I know these are rather pedestrian, but what about “regular” ( as in “usual”) or “normal” (as in “conforming to the standard”) Catholics for those who attend the OF? Maybe they’re just bland enough to please those who were offended, but also vague enough to allow for some nuance by the user. And then the simple “traditional” Catholics for those of us who attend the EF.
CPT Tom: Take a “vacation” at the EF every once in a while; you won’t be sorry.
CPT Tom, I’m wondering if “Mainstream Catholic” would be offensive to you since you are in the main stream and encourage others to remain there. If not offensive, perhaps this would be the term to adopt.
Regarding angry traditionalists, anger isn’t necessarily bad as in Our Lord’s example in the Gospel, nor is it all that bad in the case of Peter using his sword. We are in a battle as we claim in the prayer to Saint Michael and battles are not always pleasant. Not too many saints even could remain perfectly chivalrous gentlemen like Saint Louis of France while engaged in the Crusades. How many would be scandalized today to hear Saint Steven shout at the high priest and council, “You stiffnecked and uncirmumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost…”? Our Lord’s judgment was not so harsh against the hot or cold, in fact He preferred people to be one or the other but not lukewarm. Give me the sword swinging blustering defender of the Faith over the “peace and love we’re all the people of God” crowd.
Discipulus: I don’t think you understand–I await the day of the bullwhip, of the tables overturned and the heretics driven out I long for the Church triumphant, and I detest the Peace and Justice masses and lingo that abound here. But…that isn’t happening in this diocese until we get a new Bishop. 2012 we are due a new bishop and I really hope he is cut from the mold of Burke or Flynn and is able to clean house. Meanwhile those of us of orthodox mind do continue to push back and try to bring what we can. Its not that I want folks to be mainstream, no. I want us all to be just Catholics again, and have that unity built on the Traditions, truth and teachings of the Church. If that makes me mainstream then so be it.
Meg: This summer I spent a week in Chicago at the Chant Intensive given by the Church Musicians Association of America. It was a week of learning and singing Gregorian Chant finished off with a mass by the Canons Regular of St John Canissus, that our group sang the music for. It was wonderful…50 devout Catholics who all sang beautifully who are either starting Scholas or already leading them. It was incredible. I also make sure that on occasion I go to the EF. You are right, I’m not sorry, It brings grace, sanity and peace into my life every time I go.
Peace to all of you…we each do what we can and how we can.
Yours in Christ,
–Tom
I don’t think terms like “normal” and “ordinary” would work so well for this purpose, just because they’re adjectives that we use all the time. People would be likely to get confused in many contexts, not realizing that we were talking about liturgy. Ordinary with respect to what? they will wonder. For similar reasons, “Novus” worked okay as long as you left it in Latin, but if you were to translate it to English it would be confusing. New Catholics? Are we talking about converts? Newborns? What?
“Mainstream” is better, though it possibly could fall prey to the same problem. But that’s a term that we use less often in everyday speech, so it could possibly work.
To be honest, my preference is still for “Novus.” It’s so straightforward, simple, and easily applicable to many things. My husband and I have been using it without rancor to refer to all sorts of things, as in, “Our flight is too early to make it to the traditional Mass. Which Novus shall we go to?” or “She likes the traditional Mass, though her son is a Novus priest,” or “I think X is the best Novus parish in the city.” The priests in the parish where I was baptized used the term that way, which could be where I picked it up, but at any rate, since it’s obviously just a shortening of the name of the rite with which the group is identified, I don’t see why it should be considered a grave insult. It remains, however, that multiple people have complained. So I’ve tried to find something else to accommodate them, but what would really be nice is if actual members of the group would help pick something. The term could hardly be insulting if it was chosen by people to whom it applied.
CPT Tom, Thank you for the clarification.
Clara, somehow the name Novus will always get a negative reaction. I’m not sure why and I’m not really for using another name. It’s kind of like the word Jew. Have you noticed that you can’t say, “He’s a Jew,” without giving offense to someone, even if he is a Jew? The same applies for people from Puerto Rico; they don’t like to be called Puerto Ricans anymore.
What your examples illustrate, though, Discipule, is that people often want to change their name when the group they belong to is disliked by many. Some use it hatefully because they genuinely dislike the group; because of them, it starts to sound like an insult and they want a new name.
It never helps. At worst you get a trend of name-cycling that leaves everyone confused, as in the homosexual community. Better to stick with the most straightforward, I say.
I use the term Novus primarily as an insult.
I think ordinary is probably the best. It is accurate, and has no judgment.
My problem is the with the notion that NO Catholics are “fully Catholic,” whatever that means, while the rest of the Catholic world is behind them. Prof. Vasquez is right: if you do ask for the Gregorian Rite, the pastor will put you on a committee, one of the “busy” routines that passes for communion with God. The NO, while in and of itself can be harmless, is surrounded with fluffy activity that in no way encourages our participation in the sacrifice of Christ. It’s analogous to the Protestant mega-churches, which offer everything but God.
“…if I weren’t on a plane right now I’d send you the link…”
This comment is more or less entirely off topic but, what airline do you fly that lets enables you to use the Internet in-flight?
I wasn’t actually in the air. I was on the plane, but we were still sitting on the ground waiting for clearance to take off, doing systems checks, and all that garbage that they always have to do.