Three Secrets

Reading through some of the letters of S. Bernadette Soubirous this morning I was reminded of just how little I know of the faith. It wasn't some great theological truth that I'd missed but rather one of those small details of our common story as Catholics that I'd either never known about or perhaps forgotten over the years. S. Bernadette mentions to one correspondent about three secrets that Our Lady gave here during the initial fortnight of visions at the grotto. Now I knew about the three secrets of Fatima (let's not go there) but I seem to have missed this part of the Lourdes story despite multiple viewings over the years of Song of Bernadette. Anyhow a quick Google search and, yes, it was confirmed. This was part of the story that I should have known about. Apparently the three secrets were personal, pertaining to the Saint herself. According to one source she was even bound not to reveal them to her confessor.

But I still wonder what they were?

Drama for it's own sake

My main email account is attached to one of those multinational service providers who give you a summary of the 'news' every time and anywhere you log on to collect email. I must say that I've been totally underwhelmed by the on going saga of two ersatz celebrities (famous for being famous and nothing else). To be honest I actually haven't looked beyond the headlines but the essence of today's story seems to be that HE broke a finger nail and SHE didn't rush to his hospital bed side immediately. It really is making news out of nothing, filling otherwise unsellable space on a web page, and rather 'gilding' the lily as far as what is actually important. However the world loves it and it sells copy.

I wonder, just wonder, whether we in the religious blogosphere are actually heading in that direction. I mean we are absolutely nowhere near the stage where the reporting that Cardinal Broccoli has opted for an expresso rather than his regular machiatto (and hence he has a health scare and will probably not be papabile) but I do wonder if we've started evaluating ourselves in rather worldly terms, i.e., unless we are in the midst of a 'drama' we are really not doing our job. Do we over interpret what is the rather rasping sounds of the rusty mechanism of Church life as being indicative of some great conspiracy rather than the symptoms of average human incompetence? Unfortunately this seems to be some peoples whole lives. Time to take a reality check. With a few notable exceptions most blog entries are read by a handful of people (as are the comments) serving the needs of a small group of well meaning people with similar interests. But when your entire life just becomes an existence of some alter ego in cyber space then that is really sad.

Perhaps one day some cyber traddies could try opening their front door, try walking down the road, and horror of horrors, actually try to meet some of the other faithful after Holy Mass. It's an imperfect world.

Scruples

Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof:

but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed.

S. Matthew 8

I’m sure you’ve heard the pious diagnosis more than once; ‘he has scruples’. Sure, we can have reservations about things, we can be wary about something, we can be cautious about many things (we probably should be cautious about a lot more) but to really have scruples is a pretty debilitating thing. It means we find ourselves in a spiritual corner totally unable to move, paralyzed by our own fears of what might happen. It’s a problem that confessors frequently come across. Luckily in traddiedom, at least in sane traddiedom, there’s a pretty healthy attitude to dealing with sin. Don’t procrastinate; just go and deal with it seems to be the attitude. Getting tied up in scrupulous knots seems to be more the domain of the pious neo conservative who desperately tries to keep the faith without the aid of the traditional ‘props’ and spiritual counsel. It’s a very lonely path.

However there are those people who just cannot conceive that they could actually have been forgiven of some imaginary or real sin. I heard recently of a devotedly pious person racked with guilt over not attending Mass because they lived under the misapprehension that if they couldn’t go to communion then they shouldn’t attend Holy Mass. Similarly the confessors manuals always warn us of those penitents who can’t get it into their heads that an absolution covers all sins even those you have honestly forgotten. But here we often wander into the realm of the pathological and all the priest can do is encourage the penitent back onto their ‘meds’. But back to the theme of this Sunday’s Gospel.

Yes, ‘Lord I am not worthy’ should be the cry of every believer. Certainly none of us have a right to any of the sacraments. Yes, we need to be very careful about receiving Holy Communion. The sacrileges of our days, fuelled by the catechetical neglect of half a century, have created a scandalous situation which the devil exploits. We are only required to receive Holy Communion once a year. But equally so it is simply by a word from the Lord that our souls can be healed and we become worthy again for him to enter under of roofs. We shouldn’t make a big thing about it, we shouldn’t procrastinate, we should just get on with it. Then our souls can be healed.

And now we are one...

And so we come to the first anniversary of this blog. It's strange how things seem to go in circles. (see here). Many thanks to all who have contributed during the year, to those other blogs who have been the spring boards for some of the meanderings found on these pages, and to you the readers for your prayers. If you want to make a gift could you do it in the form of some prayers for some friends who are teetering on the banks of the Tiber at the moment. Please pray especially for the clergy and religious among them that they might be able to see beyond the glorious aesthetic monster of modern Catholicism to the real beauty of truth.

Burnt again!

I really should have known better than to get involved. I was invited to take part in a small conference to do with something vaguely traddie and, after some thought, agreed to help out. Oh dear! You see the sons of mediocrity within the traddie movement are always hiding around the corner ready to pull anything down that might might question their undoubted position as arbiters of what is just, right, and unfortunately good taste. I hold very little faith in good taste indeed, when it becomes the yard stick of orthodoxy, I smell a sacristy rat. Today I received a message that some of the sons of mediocrity are slightly miffed that the conference is not as they had conceived it. It was the first that I'd heard that they had ever been involved but then the organisers must have known that I would have steered a wide berth had I known.

It's moments like these that I begin to understand why some quite reasonable clergy want nothing to do with traddies. They've discovered through bitter experience just how nasty people can be when mediocrity lays ownership to something which is not actually theirs and then somebody else comes along with a lace alb to spoil their Gothic party. Our little local problem is just symptomatic of the wider movement at the moment. When a local tat merchant becomes the sole arbiter of the traditional rites then you've got trouble. When a cleric believes himself to be the only proper interpreter of tradition in his area then you've got trouble. When a traddie organisation tries to lay claim to jurisdiction over all celebrations in their country then you've got trouble. When a couple of battling minor traddie curial officials actually impede the supplying of the traditional rites to the faithful- then you've got trouble. I could go on. Whilst the movement may not be particularly way laid by gin and lace at the moment (although that aspect is not unknown) backbiting is alive and well and it is strangling progress. Here ends the rant.

More than a contract

Three Miracles! For centuries the Fathers of the Church have spoken of the tribus miraculis of this time of the year. The star leading the Magi to the Manger; the descent of the dove at the Baptism in the River Jordan; the water being changed into wine at the Wedding at Cana. Each, in it’s own way, proclaiming the Divinity of Christ. But it’s this last miracle which has a few extra secrets- other aspects, that we shouldn’t forget.

The miracle of the changing of the water to wine is perhaps the most fleshly of Christ’s miracles. It is the spiritual teaching that the physical can be good, that celebration itself is not necessarily a thing to be avoided- that a bit of a ‘knees up’ doesn’t hurt- that Puritanism is not a Catholic virtue. Of course if we give in to the temptation of Jansenism, in all it’s forms ancient and modern, we could walk a somewhat safer path in this life- but that does not seem to be the Lord’s plan. We are left with decisions to make in life- of learning to know where to draw the line.

In the musical Fiddler on the Roof there’s an exchange between Perchik, a rather idealistic young liberal jew, and Hodel, the daughter of a decidedly orthodox family. It runs something like this;

Perchik: There's a question... A certain question I want to discuss with you.
Hodel: Yes?
Perchik: It's a political question.
Hodel: What is it?
Perchik: The question of... marriage.
Hodel: Is this a political question?
Perchik: Well, yes. Yes, everything's political. Like everything else, the relationship between a man and a woman has a socioeconomic base. Marriage must be founded on mutual beliefs. A common attitude and philosophy towards society...
Hodel: - And affection?
Perchik: Well, yes, of course. That is also necessary. Such a relationship can have positive social values. When two people face the world with unity and solidarity...
Hodel: And affection?
Perchik: Yes, that is an important element! At any rate, I... I personally am in favour of such a socioeconomic relationship.
Hodel: I think... you are asking me to marry you.
Perchik: Well... in a theoretical sense... yes. I am.
Hodel: I was hoping you were.

You see for traditional Judaism marriage was little more than a political alliance, a civil contract between two families. With our Lord’s blessing on the Wedding at Cana marriage itself was lifted from being merely the contractual meeting of two families, a political alliance of expedience, to becoming the sacramental union of two beings under God. This is an earth changing difference. We, of course, know nothing of this bride and groom themselves on their wedding day. We know that it was at Cana, we know there was a chief steward and waiters, we know that the Blessed Virgin Mary and disciples were present so we can presume that it was some sort of village affair. Beyond that we know nothing. As the story is told by S. John, the wedding itself really falls to the background, perhaps deliberately, stripped of any unnecessary detail, as the miracle itself is brought to the foreground.

There’s something very ‘un-pc’ about this miracle. There’s little doubt that the aiding and abetting others in the consumption of alcohol would not be received well in some quarters today indeed we can be surprised that this portion of the Gospel didn’t get cut out by the Protestant Revolutionaries as they slashed their way through Holy Writ in the 16th century. What’s more it would seem to have been good quality wine. It would require multiple health and safety checks these days indeed it would require an extensive risk assessment from a qualified insurance company before any diocesan committee would dare to authorize such a miracle.

There’s something wonderful about the Lord’s first public miracle being to assist people to rejoice in the celebration of a sacrament. Here is the miracle almost hidden in the story- What had been a civil contract became the revelation of the Sacrament of Matrimony. No longer purely an agreement between clans, no longer just some civil arrangement for mutual benefit of the couple or the stability of society. Not just the blessing of some transient attraction but the perpetual union, in this world, of a couple. Let us give thanks to the Lord for his great things he has done for our souls. (Ps. 65).

Concelebration, again.

It must be that time of year. A spate of dubia and musings on the problems associated with 'concelebration' are crawling their way around the web. Actually after the last few days I'm rather surprised that it, that is 'concelebration', exists at all. The amount of interbillious attacks that I've heard between clergy would make it seem that there wasn't enough communion of charity between the clergy to warrant the continuing of this clericalising fantasy. Fr Blake provides some thoughts. Fr Z deals with one practical aspect. But what of the spiritual aspect?

I suspect much of the rationale for this purely modern practice exists to cloak indolence. Lazy clergy would rather not have to bother with the arrangements for their own Mass when they can 'piggy back' onto somebody else's efforts. Admittedly they've never really thought about it and just accepted it as the norm. Those who do wander from the social conformity of concelebration soon discover a particular kind of clerical bullying, not so much from the bishops, although that is not unknown, but rather from fellow clergy. There seems to be a herd mentality, especially amongst religious, that seems to be scared that if they let this 'lone celebration' business get out of hand they all might find themselves having to confront their Lord and God on their own one day. Heavens! It might even mean going to Confession.

And here is the greatest tragedy of an unchecked descent into false antiquarianism which is the modern practice of what really amounts to simultaneous celebration. (More than one stipend applied must mean more than one Mass being said.) It is the personal spiritual loss to the priest. The daily approaching the altar, without a crowd to try and hide your sins among, is a much more demanding task than the late dash to the sacristy whilst making a mental note of an intention. The individual responsibility before God, indeed the personal relationship with the Saviour, has been weakened by the overriding communitarian aesthetic which feeds the practice. It really does need to be brought to heal. In the words of a laywoman, an old friend of mine; 'I want to go to Mass - not something imitating a cookery course'.