Friday, March 29, 2013

Exsultet - Liturgie de la Lumiere - Happy Easter!

I love this version of the Easter Proclamation, Exsultet, from the Easter Vigil, 2008, at the Basilique-Cathédrale Sainte-Marie et Sainte-Réparate de Nice, France.  So I am reposting it from last Easter.


The Easter Vigil liturgy is the most beautiful liturgy in the Roman Catholic Church. This post at CatholicCulture.org walks us through the Easter Vigil, and includes the words to the Exsultet:


For more information about the Exsultet and its history, see:

Friday, March 22, 2013

Benedict XVI on Sacred Music

Cornelius Sullivan
March 23, 2013
Saint Cecilia and the Angel, Carlo Saraceni, c. 1610,
 Oil, Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, Rome

Pope Benedict makes the case against dumbed down music in Church because it is music to praise God. He brings to this discussion equal expertise in knowledge of proper liturgy and a thorough knowledge of culture in general. As with his gentle hand in guiding the Church toward reverential liturgy and his balanced interpretation of implementing Vatican II, he honors tradition and at the same time encourages creativity. He understands that Sacred Music praises God. Formerly, the orientation facing the altar was correct for praising God rather than the stance of a concert where
everyone sings. 

There are times, for example after Communion, where the music was appropriately hushed and distant for that time of quiet personal prayer, not with an “in your face” ever present aggressiveness demanding attention. And everyone singing, priest and congregation, should not be an end in itself.
As Pope Benedict said

Active Participation –“Wherever an exaggerated concept of "community" predominates, a concept which is (as we have already seen) completely unrealistic precisely in a highly mobile society such as ours, there only the priest and the congregation can be acknowledged as legitimate executors or performers of liturgical song. Today, practically everyone can see through the primitive activism and the insipid pedagogic rationalism of such a position which is why it is now asserted so seldom. The fact that the schola and the choir can also contribute to the whole picture, is scarcely denied any more, even among those who erroneously interpret the council's phrase about "active participation" as meaning external activism.” 1
If there is any feeling that art or the liturgy should be made to  match young people’s sensibilities, one should heed the advice of Flannery O’Connor on the duty of teachers to educate and elevate taste. For a student, “His taste should not be consulted; it is being formed.”

Pope Benedict has contributed greatly with his inspired instructions on the use of Sacred Music in the Liturgy. 

Development in Sacred Music- "An authentic updating of sacred music can take place only in the lineage of the great tradition of the past, of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony." 2

Trent and Music- “In the West, in the form of Gregorian chant, the inherited tradition of psalm-singing was developed to a new sublimity and purity, which set a permanent standard for sacred music, music for the liturgy of the Church.… Church music and secular music are now each influenced by the other. It is clear that these opportunities for artistic creativity and the adoption of secular tunes brought danger with them. Music was no longer developing out of prayer, but, with the new demand for artistic autonomy, was now heading away from the liturgy; it was becoming an end in itself, opening the door to new, very different. ways of feeling and of experiencing the world. Music was alienating the liturgy from its true nature. At this point the Council of Trent intervened in the culture war that had broken out. It was made a norm that liturgical music should be at the service of the Word; the use of instruments was substantially reduced; and the difference between secular and sacred music was clearly affirmed.”  3 

Sacred vs. Performance –“Whether it is Bach or Mozart that we hear in church, we have a sense in either case of what Gloria Dei, the glory of God, means. The mystery of infinite beauty is there and enables us to experience the presence of God more truly and vividly than in many sermons. But there are already signs of danger to come. Subjective experience and passion are still held in check by the order of the musical universe, reflecting as it does the order of the divine creation itself. But there is already the threat of invasion by the virtuoso mentality, the vanity of technique, which is no longer the servant of the whole but wants to push itself to the fore. During the nineteenth century, the century of self-emancipating subjectivity, this led in many places to the obscuring of the sacred by the operatic. The dangers that had forced the Council of Trent to intervene were back again. In similar fashion, Pope Pius X tried to remove the operatic element from the liturgy and declared Gregorian chant and the great polyphony of the age of the Catholic Reformation (of which Palestrina was the outstanding representative) to be the standard for liturgical music.

“A clear distinction was made between liturgical music and religious music in general, just as visual art in the liturgy has to conform to different standards from those employed in religious art in general. Art in the liturgy has a very specific responsibility, and precisely as such does it serve as a wellspring of culture, which in the final analysis owes its existence to cult.” 4

“Not every kind of music can have a place in Christian worship. It has its standards, and that standard is the Logos. If we want to know whom we are dealing with, the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit, we have to remember that it is the Holy Spirit who moves us to say, ‘Jesus is Lord’ (Cor 12:3). The Holy Spirit leads us to the Logos, and he leads us to a music that serves the Logos as a sign of the sursum corda, the lifting up of the human heart. Does it integrate man by drawing him to what is above, or does it cause his disintegration into formless intoxication or mere sensuality? That is the criterion for a music in harmony with logos, a form of that logike latreia (reasonable, logos-worthy worship)…” 5

1. "In the Presence of the Angels..." Adoremus Bulletin, Vol. 2, Nos. 6-8, Oct-Dec. 1996). 
2.. Speaking in the Sistine Chapel following a tribute concert to Dominico Bartolucci, June 24, 2006.]
3. The Spirit of the Liturgy (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), pp. 146-47
4. Ibid, p. 148
5. Ibid, p. 151

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

If two lesbians, why not two sisters?

This was the question posed by the Burden sisters in England. See posts above for September 18, 2010 ("Treat Us Like Lesbians!") and April 30, 2008.  In addition to the question of why the Brave New World of "marriage" should be limited to two people (so discriminating against polyamorists), there is the question posed by siblings like the Burden sisters in England and this author from New Zealand of why such "marriage" law should exclude two people who live together in a loving committed, interdependent relationship which is not sexual. What is the state's interest in privileging sexual relations over sibling relations in these circumstances, where there is in principle no possibility of children coming from the relationship? The great virtue of Hawaii's reciprocal beneficiaries law was that it did not exclude non-sexual relations. It did not assume or require that two people living in a committed reciprocal relationship be having sex. It addressed some of the problems of such relationships (hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.) without mimicking or hijacking marriage. Here Carolyn Moynihan, Deputy Editor of MercatorNet, takes up the question with reference to her own situation.

Carolyn Moynihan

lesbian weddingNew Zealand’s Marriage Act 1955 does not define marriage; no-one then thought it necessary to define what was self-evident, anywhere. As the agitation for same-sex marriage grew, however, the United States federal government passed the Defence of Marriage Act in 1996 defining marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, a move ratified by the majority of states.

In New Zealand that did not happen and marriage revisionists have seized the initiative to define marriage in a way that would accommodate same-sex couples. A bill for this purpose was introduced last August by Labour Party list MP Louisa Wall.

This piece of legislation, passed by two-thirds of MPs after its second reading debate last Wednesday, is meant to ensure that our marriage law is "not applied in a discriminatory manner."

The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill "will make it clear that a marriage is a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity," says the preamble. "It will ensure that all people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity will have the opportunity to marry if they so choose."

That sounds about as inclusive as you can get, doesn’t it? But even this version of marriage law discriminates against certain classes of people. I cannot, for example, marry my sister. A schedule to the bill excludes me from marrying a sibling, a grandparent, parent, child, grandchild and a list of in-laws. This list of prohibited degrees of marriage is carried over from the Marriage Act 1955 -- purged, of course, of brother, sister, mother, father and all terms which imply that the human race is either male or female.

But why could I not, in the brave new era of marriage equality, marry my sister? What is the difference between us and two lesbians who present themselves to a marriage celebrant? Neither couple can produce a child, so the customary reason for “siblings” (brother and sister) not being able to marry or even have a sexual relationship -- a genetically impaired child -- is irrelevant.

Advocates of this law change insist that marriage is all about love, commitment and stability. I believe the relationship between me and my sister meets that description. We love each other and have lived together for over 20 years. We are committed to each other and care for each other, jointly own our home, have wills favouring each other. We have cared for dependent relatives and also, at one stage, an unrelated young girl. Neither of us has her own children but we are still capable of raising a child, should we feel so inclined.

What part of Ms Wall’s definition of marriage as “a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity” does not fit us?

Perhaps it is the “union” bit. However, although it is supposed to define marriage, the term itself is undefined. What does marital union mean in an era of same-sex love? Does it have to involve sexual attraction? It is necessary to say at this point that my sister and I have no sexual interest in each other. It is conceivable that sisters might -- as a student told an attentive select committee at a hearing on the bill, "all forms of attraction exist" -- but we do not. Is our sisterly love therefore less worthy of public recognition in the form of a marriage certificate than the love of two lesbians who are romantically involved?

An affirmative answer to this question has to explain what is the public interest in what two women who are not blood relations do together in bed. Remember, my sister and I have a loving, committed, stable relationship in which we share our lives and goods -- equal, I am sure, in those respects to any settled lesbian couple.

To repeat: what is the public interest in the romantic desire and sexual activity of two women? I suggest there is none.
Marriage is associated with romance because romance is the kind of desire that aims at bodily union, with its potential to beget children. Partners of the same sex cannot achieve such a union no matter what they do. Strictly speaking, therefore, they cannot achieve sexual union at all. They can have sexual encounters in which they give each other pleasure and, no doubt, produce a feeling of being more united, but this is quite a different thing from the organic union that a man and a woman achieve in sexual intercourse -- particularly when it results in the conception of a new human being.

It is that organic, conjugal union that defines marriage, and its potential to generate children that creates the state interest in marriage. The state needs marriages to produce new citizens and to ensure that they grow up into decent, law-abiding citizens. It is all too evident in New Zealand's poverty and abuse data how disastrous it is for children and society when marriage culture breaks down.

If the good of existing children were the main issue in recognising same-sex relationships there might be reason to revise existing laws regarding adoption and civil unions, but it is not. We have been told repeatedly that this bill is about the good of same-sex couples, with or without children, about their right to have their love equally recognised by New Zealand society.

At best, this is a purely sentimental claim. It is not rational. There is no more reason for the state to bless the romantic relationships of couples who cannot unite sexually than there is for it to bless the affection of two sisters. In a sane world marriage law would discriminate against both.

Carolyn Moynihan is deputy editor of MercatorNet
A slightly different version of this article was published in the New Zealand Sunday Star Times, March 17.  Copyright note from MercatorNet:

This article is published by Carolyn Moynihan and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

Monday, March 18, 2013

The Postmodern Pope





March 18, 2013
By Cornelius Sullivan

Rome
He cares about the poor. But he rejects the Marxist Liberation Theology meta-narrative where “the poor” are a class. He knows and has helped poor people in familial ways as individuals. For Pope Francis the beauty is in the details, the white cassock, the small car, riding the bus, carrying his own luggage.

This Pope is not an ideologue who has a vision for a new world order. It’s the Gospel, the Gospel lived locally. Subsidiarity has been a Catholic theory or organizing principle that says that political and economic matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. The question is, since the encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891 by Pope Leo XIII, has there yet been an example showing how to live it?

I have a more positive attitude about Postmodernism than some Catholic thinkers today who link it inextricably with relativism and deconstruction. 

I was at Rhode Island School of Design in 1989, as the Berlin Wall was coming down, and had the privilege to know a Polish film critic who was teaching a class in “Post Modernism in the Visual Arts”. (As a marble sculptor who also painted, I suffered through Modernism where Clement Greenberg and his Theory of Flatness reigned, Painting and Sculpture must be separated for purity. And “Sculpture was what you backed into when you were trying to get a good distance for viewing an abstract painting.”)

In visual art Postmodernism meant not just a reaction against Modernism but freedom. We could paint our sculpture and the figure returned to painting and sculpture. Derrida's and the post-structuralist’s philosophy and deconstruction had a superficial influence on Postmodern Architecture in its fragmentation, but Postmodern Architecture’s freedom from the tyranny of Modernist aesthetics was more important. The Modern architects did not care if you knew the building was a church or an apartment building or even if you knew where the door was. They knew better, and they were making great abstract form. Postmodern architecture took some ideas from Route 66 with its shoe store in the shape of a shoe, and meaning became clear, a church could look like a church.

Modernism has always been wedded to the meta-narratives. The housing for the poor was for “the poor”, never considered as suitable for or accommodating to individuals. Charles Jencks in his best selling book, The Language of Post-Modern Architecture (1977),   




described modernism as dying on 15th July 1972, at precisely 3:32pm when the demolition of the Pruitt- Igoe development in St. Louis occurred. The building, a modernist post-war social housing project, was constructed to provide cheap and affordable housing to promote equality and a fair society.

Less than twenty years on, the failings of the modern utopian ideal are showcased in this demolition. It became a place of crime and violence. The place had no human scale, there was no privacy, there were no architectural features promoting human dignity. And yet, the architects were arrogant in thinking that they knew what was best for “the poor”.

Postmodernism is suspicious of the promises of technology.

A friend wrote after the conclave “Some naive people see it as a victory for left/"social justice" tendency because they equate concern for the poor with government programs and redistribution.” They may be disappointed. Look at the localism of the way that Pope Francis lives the Gospel.

The wonderful drawing at the top by Beppe Giacobbe is with the article The Priest Came from The New World to Give Back Faith to Old Europe by Gian Arturo Ferrari in the Sunday edition of the Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera. (I did not notice at first the subtle world map on the scooter.)

Ferrari emphasizes that Papa Bergoglio is a priest and that he is from the New World. He recalls that Montini (Pope Paul VI), Wojtyla, and Ratzinger were Europeans in culture and in vision of the world from the war and cold war years. He says on the other hand, Bergoglio has simplicity, honesty, and humility, and he is a Jesuit like the ones who converted the Indians in the AmericasEurope is in decline, not only religiously, but also geopolitically. It is bleary eyed and no longer has the clarity of vision that was once its glory. And pessimism is the work of the devil.

He ends by proposing that there is a message of hope for Europe and Italy. Pope Francis will “have a great gift for everyone, whether believers or not.”

home (c) 2013 by Cornelius Sullivan

Thursday, March 14, 2013

"Francis, Rebuild my Church!" - God

Fr. Robert Barron's first thoughts on our new pope.

Pope Francis - They Chose Well







Habemus Papam

The South Americans, the Italians, and the journalists think the Cardinals chose well, the surprise Pope, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina.

He is a simple pious man who lives the Gospel. He is a Jesuit who lives like Saint Francis of Assisi. As an outsider, he can be a reformer. He was the runner up to Cardinal Ratzinger in the conclave in 2005, so it is said. He was being used to block Ratzinger and he said, do not vote for me. In 2002 he dodged the move to bring him to the Curia in Rome. So, he has been known by the Cardinals for some time.

I did not expect white smoke but decided to take my camera and go out anyway for an evening passagiata just before 7. Ten blocks from Saint Peter’s there was a bus stopped in traffic. Suddenly, all the doors opened and everyone ran out toward the basilica. In the piazza everyone was smiling, it was a sight such that I had never seen before. I wished I could freeze time and take a picture of every face. Standing behind me were three men speaking English. A young priest from Milan, an older man from Australia, and another young man from Brazil. The priest said to me, “This is family, this is a family event. We are together here, we are from three different continents.”


Running.

Then the surprise announcement of Cardinal Bregoglio came, he would be Pope Francis.  I had heard of him. The crowd turned quiet and subdued but only for a time. Then chants of Viva Francesco! and Viva Papa! filled the cool air. It had rained for a week. Gulls circled the cupola of the church as we waited. Then the rain stopped just before the new Pope appeared. Just in time, umbrellas came down so we could see. Today is my first day of sun in Rome.

I had heard a great deal about the Cardinal from Argentina. On Saturday evening walking home late down Via Borgo Pio, the street that leads directly to the Santa Anna Gate into the back of the Vatican, half way down the street, there was a wine bar restaurant with the door open, a man singing and playing a guitar, and a sign painted on arched glass above the door, Enoteca Amor Divino.  It was like a living room or dining room with bottles on the table. I did not see a menu. You poured your own glass. If the wine that you wanted was not yet opened, you opened it.

 After a while the owner of the bar stood behind a large Italian man at the head of a big table of ten people. The woman with the big man had just sung with the guitar man in a trained classical soprano voice. Riccardo, put his hands on the big man and said in English, “He combines Sean Connery and Padre Pio. He combines the sacred and the profane. The saints are always connected to the earth…. I knew we would talk.

When we did talk it was about the sacred and the profane, I was reminded of the Titian painting in Museo Borghese of Sacred and Profane Love.  Later, I said to him, “I noticed that the sign over the door says “Winebar Divine Love” and the menu says “Enoteca Amor D Vino”, which is “Enoteca Love of Wine”. He said, yes, the sign painter made a mistake!” I said, “God tricked you.” He shrugged and said, “Yes, but I like God.”


AMOR DIVINO


Amor D Vino

We agreed to meet the next day and I would interview him about Vatican things. We went to a little park across the street. I sat and wrote by the fountain. He stood in front of me so he could have space to wave his arms, pace, and move.

Mr. Della Chiesa (from the Church) is middle aged, a photographer, an energetic, charismatic man who is passionate about ideas. About the Curia and the conclave he said, “It begins, the politics, we want this, and we want that,…then when they give up. That is the God moment.” He continued, “To clean up the Curia, well, to clean up a room, you have to empty it first.”

I was trying to understand his ideas, they were in good English mixed in with Italian phrases for emphasis. He said, “We need a new era, a Post Humanism, a new Middle ages.” He talked about how man has tried to become God with machines. This is where he talked about Cardinal Bergoglio as a holy man. I could not connect all the dots but his passion and clean heart were apparent. It sounded like a repudiation of Enlightenment ideas that have privileged progress, science, and world order over some more human values that he mentioned, like honesty, simplicity, and humility.

Is he an Italian Post-Communist Hippy or a bar man secular saint?  The night after the election he saw me on the street coming to see him and he ran to me, took my hand and would not let go, and said, “I told you, I told you.” He did not stop smiling.

Then he told me that he lived downstairs from Cardinal Ratzinger for eight years at Piazza della Leonina Citta, 1.  He said the Cardinal was the “kindest man I ever knew, gentle and reserved.” He said as Pope, Benedict bore his cross and suffered greatly because he was so shy. He said that he did not think that Benedict gave up his office from weakness because he is a German who lived through the war and that his generation never would give up. He said we must look at the Pope’s words, “I wish forgiveness for my weakness.” And, “The Cardinal always asked about my family, my children and my mother.”

home (c) 2013 Cornelius Sullivan