Conventional wisdom has determined and definitively proclaimed that the surge has worked in Iraq. Further, it has decided that any politician (namely Barack Obama)must also agree with the determination 'they' have made. The media did the same thing with Hillary Clinton earlier, when they insisted she had made a mistake and had to renounce her earlier vote on the Iraq war. How many times can a reporter ask the same question and even demand that you agree with their conclusion. No other answer is apparently possible except 'the surge worked'.
Fortunately for me, nobody cares whether I think the surge worked or not. I, however, will tell you what I think anyway. First of all, what is 'the surge'. The surge has come to mean anything that has taken place that has caused positive developments in Iraq. This is a very strange definition. The surge has become a catch-all for progress in Iraq. With that definition, of course the surge has worked. I, however, still naively cling to the understanding that the surge consisted of 30,000 additional troops that were sent to Iraq. The truth is, under the original surge strategy, it is only a part of what is working in Iraq.
Have conditions improved in Iraq? Absolutely. Why? First of all, President Bush relieved Secretary Rumsfield of his duties. Secondly, the President finally decided to allow Secretary Gates and others to operate differently in Iraq. General Petraeus developed entirely different sets of strategies for continuing the struggle. Sunni and Shiite factions began to tire of the fighting and began to see their self interests differently, and of course 30,000 troops performed superbly. Also, by the way, we began to provide incentives, including financial ones to Sunni and Shiite leaders. Everything together has created a major turn around in Iraq for which we are all grateful. No one can be anything other than awed by the superb work that our troops have done that has contributed to the growing success in Iraq.
The question is, Why does everyone need to submit to the formulaic expression that the media has established as determinative? I do not believe the media does credit to itself when it develops its own talking points and refuses to acknowledge the complexity of the situation in Iraq and the totality of what has contributed to significant progress there. Again, the surge of troops is part of that progress. Why is that so difficult a nuance for the media to understand? Why do they insist that everyone must accept their version of the story?
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
The Tridentine Mass
I had occasion to attend a tridentine funeral recently. For the uninitiated that is the Roman Catholic Mass as it was celebrated prior to 1963 and for more than four hundred years prior to that. It is of course all in Latin and is said facing the wall. The mass was for the Mother of a good friend of my wife's. It meant a great deal to the family and I was glad the possibility of having this service was available to them. I do think it highlights the need to have choices available to meet the needs of all segments of the Church.
I might also reflect that this was the mass form that drew me to the seminary back in 1961. I loved the Latin, the music, and the ritual. I recall that when the altar was turned around and the vernacular installed while I was still in the seminary, I somehow felt cheated that I would be ordained and be unable to say the mass and intone the chants that I had expected to be part of my priesthood. Let me hasten to add, however, that the tridentine mass was not the only factor that had drawn me to the seminary and its demise certainly wasn't involved in my decision to leave the seminary in the late 60's.
Putting aside nostalgia for familiar rituals, a number of thoughts came to me as I watched the requiem mass unfold. First of all, the key word is watched. Whatever was going on at the altar had nothing to do with me. The priest and two altar boys came out of the sacristy, went to the altar and started mumbling something. Other than a little bell to let whomever was on the other side of the altar know that the priest had begun his thing, there was no acknowledgement of the people. When the priest went up to the altar you could see nothing but his back. You had no idea what was on the altar, or what he was doing. Whatever he was doing did not involve the peoiple. Throughout the Mass, the people were involved when the priest would turn around to say the Lord be With You (in Latin), and when he held the host over his head after the consecration. Of course there was a book in which you could read the English translation of what he was saying, but I ask you, if you are going to read the English translation what is the point of saying it in Latin in the first place? The people of course are completely cut off from the altar as the altar boys come and loudly shut the communion rail to let the people know just how separated they are from the altar.
The bottom line is that the Mass was an activity for the priest. I believe this is why as altar boys we would serve the private masses of the priest each morning. It really didn't matter whether anybody was there or not, since it was all about God and his priest. Maybe this was why I wanted to be a priest, since only as a priest could I get in on the good stuff. Talk about pray, pay, and obey; the laity were frankly nobody in the pre-vatican II church. Is this really the Church we want to go back to?
Do our Catholic people in this country really want to return to attending Mass each week in the Tridentine form? Even in our regular Sunday Masses, why is it that there is a movement to renew the separation of priest and people? Eucharistic ministers are kept a little further from the priestly activity in many parishes. The lectors generally do not read the Prayer of the Faithful anymore. That one seems strange since it is in fact the Prayer of the Faithful (our prayer). Other examples could be given.
There is and will always be an appropriate tension in our religion between the transcendance and immanence of God. Yet I believe most of Christianity in this country is predicated on being as close to our God as possible. Jesus is our brother, he comes to us in the Eucharist, before God we are all equal (including the heirarchy). Watching some consecrated priest perform a quasi magical ritual that allows us to gaze on God from afar does not seem the appropriate forum for general Catholic worship in our country today.
I might also reflect that this was the mass form that drew me to the seminary back in 1961. I loved the Latin, the music, and the ritual. I recall that when the altar was turned around and the vernacular installed while I was still in the seminary, I somehow felt cheated that I would be ordained and be unable to say the mass and intone the chants that I had expected to be part of my priesthood. Let me hasten to add, however, that the tridentine mass was not the only factor that had drawn me to the seminary and its demise certainly wasn't involved in my decision to leave the seminary in the late 60's.
Putting aside nostalgia for familiar rituals, a number of thoughts came to me as I watched the requiem mass unfold. First of all, the key word is watched. Whatever was going on at the altar had nothing to do with me. The priest and two altar boys came out of the sacristy, went to the altar and started mumbling something. Other than a little bell to let whomever was on the other side of the altar know that the priest had begun his thing, there was no acknowledgement of the people. When the priest went up to the altar you could see nothing but his back. You had no idea what was on the altar, or what he was doing. Whatever he was doing did not involve the peoiple. Throughout the Mass, the people were involved when the priest would turn around to say the Lord be With You (in Latin), and when he held the host over his head after the consecration. Of course there was a book in which you could read the English translation of what he was saying, but I ask you, if you are going to read the English translation what is the point of saying it in Latin in the first place? The people of course are completely cut off from the altar as the altar boys come and loudly shut the communion rail to let the people know just how separated they are from the altar.
The bottom line is that the Mass was an activity for the priest. I believe this is why as altar boys we would serve the private masses of the priest each morning. It really didn't matter whether anybody was there or not, since it was all about God and his priest. Maybe this was why I wanted to be a priest, since only as a priest could I get in on the good stuff. Talk about pray, pay, and obey; the laity were frankly nobody in the pre-vatican II church. Is this really the Church we want to go back to?
Do our Catholic people in this country really want to return to attending Mass each week in the Tridentine form? Even in our regular Sunday Masses, why is it that there is a movement to renew the separation of priest and people? Eucharistic ministers are kept a little further from the priestly activity in many parishes. The lectors generally do not read the Prayer of the Faithful anymore. That one seems strange since it is in fact the Prayer of the Faithful (our prayer). Other examples could be given.
There is and will always be an appropriate tension in our religion between the transcendance and immanence of God. Yet I believe most of Christianity in this country is predicated on being as close to our God as possible. Jesus is our brother, he comes to us in the Eucharist, before God we are all equal (including the heirarchy). Watching some consecrated priest perform a quasi magical ritual that allows us to gaze on God from afar does not seem the appropriate forum for general Catholic worship in our country today.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Is Satire Dead?
How does one interpret the New Yorker's recent attempt at satire with its portrayal of Barack and Michele Obama? The Obama and McCain campaigns both condemned the cartoon, calling it tasteless, offensive etc. I did note that when Senator Obama himself was asked to comment he was careful to recognize the cartoon as satire and indicate that there were far more important issues to discuss than this attempt at humor. The best comment that I have heard came from Bill Bennett on CNN. He said that it was basically satire that failed. He went on to say that when you have to explain the cartoon as much as the New Yorker did, then the cartoon simply didn't work.
This current New Yorker cover brings a number of thoughts to mind. First of all, there can be no question that seeing this cartoon is jarring and can almost not be seen as anything other than offensive at first glance. Perhaps if some of the elements had been left out, such as the burning American Flag or the portrait of Osama Ben Laden, the effect may not have been so dramatic. I also believe that if it had been one of several equal opportunity cartoons inside the magazine there would probably not have been such an uproar. As others have noted, one major problem is that there is no context provided within the magazine. There is nothing to provide perspective as to the intent of the cartoon, and its relationship to the issue's political articles. Finally, I also believe it is another illustration that we are in the dog days of the campaign when the smallest story becomes a major event because nothing really significant is likely to happen until the conventions.
There is no doubt that politics has become too serious. Every statement is put under the microscope and examined for any negative connotations that can be mined. Yet it is not altogether true that humor cannot still be effective. Saturday Night Live and other late comedy shows seem to work most of the time. Candidates have all made use of such forums to present a more human side of themselves. Some of the candidates actually do a pretty good job. The key for comedians seems to be to treat everyone equally. The key for the candidates seems to be to make fun of themselves, and essentially show that they can 'take a joke'. Unfortunately, the New Yorker magazine was blatantly unsuccessful by every reasonable standard in achieving acceptable humor except in their own minds. Of course, I guess if the rest of us were as smart as regular readers of the magazine we might not see any problem.
This current New Yorker cover brings a number of thoughts to mind. First of all, there can be no question that seeing this cartoon is jarring and can almost not be seen as anything other than offensive at first glance. Perhaps if some of the elements had been left out, such as the burning American Flag or the portrait of Osama Ben Laden, the effect may not have been so dramatic. I also believe that if it had been one of several equal opportunity cartoons inside the magazine there would probably not have been such an uproar. As others have noted, one major problem is that there is no context provided within the magazine. There is nothing to provide perspective as to the intent of the cartoon, and its relationship to the issue's political articles. Finally, I also believe it is another illustration that we are in the dog days of the campaign when the smallest story becomes a major event because nothing really significant is likely to happen until the conventions.
There is no doubt that politics has become too serious. Every statement is put under the microscope and examined for any negative connotations that can be mined. Yet it is not altogether true that humor cannot still be effective. Saturday Night Live and other late comedy shows seem to work most of the time. Candidates have all made use of such forums to present a more human side of themselves. Some of the candidates actually do a pretty good job. The key for comedians seems to be to treat everyone equally. The key for the candidates seems to be to make fun of themselves, and essentially show that they can 'take a joke'. Unfortunately, the New Yorker magazine was blatantly unsuccessful by every reasonable standard in achieving acceptable humor except in their own minds. Of course, I guess if the rest of us were as smart as regular readers of the magazine we might not see any problem.
Friday, July 11, 2008
What Does It Mean to be Catholic
In the 1950's being Catholic primarily meant not eating meat on Fridays. There was also the perception that as a Catholic you could go out on Friday night and commit just about any sin in the book, then go to confession on Saturday afternoon and you were all right with God again. Many Protestants that I knew developed this impression of Catholics, but I think there were also more than a few Catholics who operated under this belief as well. I'm sure older Catholics could come up with many other signs of Catholic Identity within the pre-Vatican II church. You might also want to check out my earlier blog, "Growing Up Catholic in America" of June 25.
There is a renewed interest these days within some quarters of the Church to reestablish some sense or sign of Catholic identity. Given the dubious signs of identity mentioned so far I'm not sure how felicitous a prospect that may be. The best sign of Catholic or Christian identity I can suggest is that they will know we are Christians by our love. Maybe not so glamorous, but difficult to criticize, even though it is not so easy to accomplish.
I guess my major question about the pursuit of this identity is to what end? If the goal is to return to practices such as the Rosary, Benediction and Forty Hours (questionable theologically), devotion to the Saints and Mary, fine. For those who find these practices uplifting or meaningful they should certainly be available. But are these the kinds of things that make one Catholic? My concern about seeing oneself as Catholic is its immediate implication of exclusion or isolation from others. Taking it a step further, it can be seen as somehow making one or one's faith superior to others.
It is important to note that we have many identities. First of all, we are human. We are Americans. We are Marylanders or New Yorkers. We are Baseball fans. The list goes on and on. We all acknowledge ourselves as attached to our various identities within different contexts. All of these identities including our Catholicism are important parts of who we are.
Clearly, there is something comforting and safe about belonging to a group, and all of us benefit by membership in a variety of organizations at work and in the community. It is equally important, however, to recognize our connection to those who may not be part of our church or club. It is important to remember that we share with others our humanity, our citizenship, our concern for our children and their future, and a desire to help build a better neighborhood and environment for all of us. As Catholics we share the same creed with all other Christians as we attempt to find God, goodness, and meaning in our lives. It might be good for all of us to be careful about separating ourselves from each other. It is actually our connectedness to each other that makes it possible for us to work towards creating a better world for all of us to live in whether we be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist.
There is a renewed interest these days within some quarters of the Church to reestablish some sense or sign of Catholic identity. Given the dubious signs of identity mentioned so far I'm not sure how felicitous a prospect that may be. The best sign of Catholic or Christian identity I can suggest is that they will know we are Christians by our love. Maybe not so glamorous, but difficult to criticize, even though it is not so easy to accomplish.
I guess my major question about the pursuit of this identity is to what end? If the goal is to return to practices such as the Rosary, Benediction and Forty Hours (questionable theologically), devotion to the Saints and Mary, fine. For those who find these practices uplifting or meaningful they should certainly be available. But are these the kinds of things that make one Catholic? My concern about seeing oneself as Catholic is its immediate implication of exclusion or isolation from others. Taking it a step further, it can be seen as somehow making one or one's faith superior to others.
It is important to note that we have many identities. First of all, we are human. We are Americans. We are Marylanders or New Yorkers. We are Baseball fans. The list goes on and on. We all acknowledge ourselves as attached to our various identities within different contexts. All of these identities including our Catholicism are important parts of who we are.
Clearly, there is something comforting and safe about belonging to a group, and all of us benefit by membership in a variety of organizations at work and in the community. It is equally important, however, to recognize our connection to those who may not be part of our church or club. It is important to remember that we share with others our humanity, our citizenship, our concern for our children and their future, and a desire to help build a better neighborhood and environment for all of us. As Catholics we share the same creed with all other Christians as we attempt to find God, goodness, and meaning in our lives. It might be good for all of us to be careful about separating ourselves from each other. It is actually our connectedness to each other that makes it possible for us to work towards creating a better world for all of us to live in whether we be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Taking Another Look at Hillary
At last a few commentators are daring to say that Hillary Clinton could still be chosen as the Vice Presidential candidate for Barack Obama. I have heard positive comments from Pat Buchanan, David Gergen, and Chris Matthews. Why is it that so many for so long have considered the possibility as unlikely to impossible? Could it have something to do with media dislike of the Clintons? There are so many positives to this coupling as mentioned in my blog of June 2nd, "Vice President". The fact that these positive factors have been ignored by the media for so long seems to be more of a media issue than an issue of whether Senator Obama would seriously consider this so-called Dream Ticket.
Can it be that the joint appearance in Unity, New Hampshire finally opened some eyes? First of all they look good together. Secondly, no one could bring the excitement to this ticket that Hillary Clinton brings. Finally, the concern about foreign policy experience is not best answered with a vice presidential candidate. Senator Obama would be well advised to surround himself with the generals who were working with Hillary, as well as members of the Clinton Foreign policy team. If he wants Joe Biden, bring him on as a visible advisor, who could be understood as being Obama's future secretary of state.
Bring on the dream ticket.
Can it be that the joint appearance in Unity, New Hampshire finally opened some eyes? First of all they look good together. Secondly, no one could bring the excitement to this ticket that Hillary Clinton brings. Finally, the concern about foreign policy experience is not best answered with a vice presidential candidate. Senator Obama would be well advised to surround himself with the generals who were working with Hillary, as well as members of the Clinton Foreign policy team. If he wants Joe Biden, bring him on as a visible advisor, who could be understood as being Obama's future secretary of state.
Bring on the dream ticket.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Anglican Conflict
Religion New Service documents the conference of 1000 conservative Anglicans in Jerusalem. They have taken steps to disassociate themselves from Anglican Churches who espouse liberal views such as ordaining of women and gays, and blessing same sex unions. I don't think I would be accused of being a conservative by many, but I found one comment very instructive. Bishop Martyn Minns of Virginia asked the question in an NPR report, "What are they going to do to us?" He noted that we do have freedom of religion.
I would make two points. There is no way to challenge the operation of one's Church without challenging it. As I have said on other ocassions, unless you let yourself be heard, no one will know that you disagree with what is going on. Acquiescence is really not acceptable if one feels that an issue warrants speaking out. Organizing for protest and resistance is necessary at all levels of laity, clergy, and heirarchy. The power to make change is there, but like minded people need to come together to force the issue. Of course financial pressure is always an important tool.
Secondly, and really more importantly, it is time to pursue a big tent posture. Maybe that's why I have some sympathy for the conservative Anglicans. The Church needs to be big enough to include those of varying positions. Condemnation and ostracism brings no one closer to God. Church communities can be in union with the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope of Rome and have different operational procedures. A Church that doesn't want to ordain women doesn't have to, as long as they respect the right of other communities to do so if they choose. There is no reason why those who want a Latin Mass cannot coexist with other parishes, or parish members, who prefer more modern worship. Of course there are non negotiable core issues, like maybe the Nicene Creed. But, too often the issues are not truly doctrinal, but relate more to power and control. The goal should be to help people come in contact with God and grow in union with His or Her love and mercy. As my previous blog entry noted, there is more than one route to the truth. We can do better, and we can be better Church, of whatever denomination.
I would make two points. There is no way to challenge the operation of one's Church without challenging it. As I have said on other ocassions, unless you let yourself be heard, no one will know that you disagree with what is going on. Acquiescence is really not acceptable if one feels that an issue warrants speaking out. Organizing for protest and resistance is necessary at all levels of laity, clergy, and heirarchy. The power to make change is there, but like minded people need to come together to force the issue. Of course financial pressure is always an important tool.
Secondly, and really more importantly, it is time to pursue a big tent posture. Maybe that's why I have some sympathy for the conservative Anglicans. The Church needs to be big enough to include those of varying positions. Condemnation and ostracism brings no one closer to God. Church communities can be in union with the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope of Rome and have different operational procedures. A Church that doesn't want to ordain women doesn't have to, as long as they respect the right of other communities to do so if they choose. There is no reason why those who want a Latin Mass cannot coexist with other parishes, or parish members, who prefer more modern worship. Of course there are non negotiable core issues, like maybe the Nicene Creed. But, too often the issues are not truly doctrinal, but relate more to power and control. The goal should be to help people come in contact with God and grow in union with His or Her love and mercy. As my previous blog entry noted, there is more than one route to the truth. We can do better, and we can be better Church, of whatever denomination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
