Tyrants, Not From Love

On Hymnals, Communism, and Deus Caritas Est

It may seem like a long road to connect the topics above, but it's really not that far in the world of American Catholicism. This page connects - well, attempts to connect - the three. It begins with my fiddling before Mass.

Tyrants Tremble No More

My mother still attends my childhood parish, St. Michael's in the Pennsylvania town of the same name. When I visit my parents, I attend services there. They use the same hymnal that Calvert House uses, Gather Comprehensive, except that they have the red second edition and not the older green first edition. Before one Mass, I was flipping through to look at changes, and found one of my favorite songs, Robert Lowry's How Can I Keep From Singing (the link provides lyrics in English and ASL). You might be surprised that I like a 19th Century song. Well, according to his biography, Lowry was American, not high-church European, and the gospel tune is not designed for the nasty destroyer of music, the church organ. Just accept it. I also like Shall We Gather at the River.

I almost blurted something out loud. In the second edition, there are only four verses. The first edition, and other sources I've seen, have five. The following verse, verse 4, was missing:

One of the important lessons I've learned is that a conflict is rarely won with a giant strike or single event. Conflicts, like war, or intellectual struggle, are decided through many small changes, victories or defeats. It's why the American military spends so much time on platoon leaders, the low-level leaders that ensure the small victories. This change is a small victory for those that prefer eliminating religion from politics, the anti-Consciences I oppose.

I guess it's not surprising, really. The fundamentalist wing of Catholicism, mostly American Catholicism, has reduced faith, effectively discarding everything except fidelity over sexual issues. Combined with a heavy devotion to Mary, the Virgin, their church is the Church Vaginal. Tyrants? Well, do they have sex? Unless they do, it's tremble no more. This is the growing normative misstatement of Catholicism. The history of how this arose is interesting, though, and well worth a long digression.

The Three Sides of Church in Politics

For 40 or 50 years, there has been a conflict in Catholicism, about the role of the official church in political affairs. Interestingly, the two honorable sides in this battle are best described in anti terms: anti-Communists and anti-Kapitalists. The third side, the anti-Consciences, I'll return to later. First off, it's important to note that the anti-Communists were not mistaken. I was walking around Hyde Park last week and saw a young lady with the shirt "In Soviet Russia Shirt Wears You." Maybe it's progress that one can just make jokes about the Soviets, but that wasn't the case when I was younger. Communism - at least the brand practiced by the Soviet Bloc and China - was strong. That brand wants the State to be the only organization with power. As such, Communism strongly suppressed religion, including Catholicism. It also strongly encouraged birth control through abortion. Soviet Communism was not a valid system that Catholics could support. In Europe and Asia, Communism was strong, and many people (including Karol, before and while acting as Pope John Paul II) made valiant and heroic efforts against it.

Meanwhile, in South America and Africa, the threat was different. The problem was not state control of the economy combined with personal repression, the two facets of practiced Communism. Dictatorship was different. The personal repression, including kidnapping, torture, and murder, still occurred, but the economic system was crony Kapitalism, not state control. By Kapitalism, I mean enriching a small number of associates and leaders, while neglecting the material needs of the majority. Lots of Catholic leaders rightly opposed this system as well.

The Anti-Kapitalists, mostly in Latin America, wrote liberation theology, based on the many instances of Jesus mentioning the poor. Though liberation theology has much good, there were two troubling points. First, some liberationists considered the Catholic Church an official actor in government, which 20th century theology considers problematic. The Church's agenda, the offer of salvation for all, requires it to sometimes take political positions, but general government is not really a focus. Second, many liberationists adopted Marxist language. Some allied themselves with Marxists, since both opposed Latin American dictators and military rulers. A few even became Marxists.

Aligning with Marxism did not go over well in Europe, as you might expect. Europeans, including those in Rome, saw the liberation theology movement as dangerous and misguided, not noticing the different problems between Europe and Latin America. Since Europeans control the Roman Curia and the hierarchy, the political thrust of the church did not incorporate anti-Kapitalist thoughts, focusing on the anti-Communist work. It did pretty well.

Although Communism disintegrated fifteen years ago, old habits die hard. Or so it seems. The first encyclical letter from Pope Benedict XVI is called Deus Caritas Est On Christian Love. Joseph Ratzinger was not considered as anti-Communist as his Polish predecessor and former boss, but he absorbed some of the anti-Marxism. Although rumors from places like the excellent Whispers in the Loggia suggested that the document includes some ideas of John Paul II, the stated author is the former German army conscript. He felt it necessary to include a reminder that "Marxism had seen world revolution and its preliminaries as the panacea for the social problem: revolution and the subsequent collectivization of the means of production, so it was claimed, would immediately change things for the better. This illusion has vanished." Marxism appears three times in the document. Maybe this is just a victory celebration, but I don't think that. Benedict felt the need to keep fighting the last war.

The Root Causes

Very few people still subscribe to the ideals of Marx, as the debate has changed. To illustrate the new question, I will cite Archbishop Ramzi Garmou, the Archbishop of Tehran in Iran, as quoted in The Word from Rome from a conference to discuss charity. Archbishop Garmou was a little unhappy about the gathering. He felt the conference "has not tried sufficiently to define the causes underlying inhuman situations of poverty." One such cause, he said, "is the policies of countries with economic, military, and scientific power, seeking to impose their priorities on others to protect their selfish and illegal interests."

That's a rather strong comment, and Cardinal George of Chicago was startled. To defuse any possibility of geopolitical messiness, my bishop reminded the audience that if the United States would disappear instantly, Iran would still have poverty. That's correct, yet misses the question. We can, and should, debate specific questions of justice. Benedict writes "the direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful. As citizens of the State, they are called to take part in public life in a personal capacity." That seems simple enough. The Church reminds us citizens of the principles, and provides examples, and some charity. The State establishes a more just order.

Yet we're faced with a problem here, that officials of the Catholic Church have not always stood on the side of justice. The Iranian made a sly dig about current geopolitics. In this case, however, the Church has been extremely suspicious about American motives, repeatedly opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The past has not always been so kind. Some of the problem, as Benedict admits in section 27 of the encyclical, has been a slow response to the changes of the industrial revolution. But a lot has been outright support of the evil men. For example, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano, supported the murderous Pinochet dictatorship in Chile. Perhaps one could potentially defend that support in geopolitical contexts. Similarly, perhaps one could defend support of the Franco regime in Spain, or other Latin American governments. Perhaps. Yet one can never defend personal intervention to attempt to delay Pinochet's trial for human rights violations. It is sin. In the same way, failure to consider the needs of others is sin. It's time to consider what the needs of others are, and how we consider them.

Reviewing the Encyclical

It's weird, picking this up several months later, to look at what I was trying to say. The worldwide response to Deus Caritas Est has been good. Most of what I've seen has focused on the first part, looking at love, and not on the second about the state and charity. (To me, the most interesting note of the first part is the lack of philia, which deserves different consideration.) One rumor suggests that the second part was started by JPII, and adapted by B16. That would make some sense, given the change in tone. The Benedict papacy differs from the John Paul II ways. And, as much as I'm surprised by writing this, it's better overall. With distance, the effects of the Polish Pope become more evident. Maybe sometime I'll ponder those more fully. For now, I'd like to finish off this topic: review the encyclical on the function of the state and the concept of Marxism, then look at the misreadings of the anti-Consciences.

In Deus Caritas Est, there are three criticisms of Marxism or Marxist strategy. To take one, section 31 states that "Part of Marxist strategy is the theory of impoverishment: in a situation of unjust power, it is claimed, anyone who engages in charitable initiatives is actually serving that unjust system, making it appear at least to some extent tolerable. This in turn slows down a potential revolution and thus blocks the struggle for a better world. Seen in this way, charity is rejected and attacked as a means of preserving the status quo." This idea is mistaken; as is written, "one does not make the world more human by refusing to act humanely here and now." Marxism and its influences are not Christian and not fully human. John Paul II and Benedict spent much time dealing with the problems. They're still turned that way, anti-Communists still.

But what about the problems of anti-Kapitalism? Karol knew little of those problems, of Latin America and Iran. Joseph Ratzinger, a rich German professor, knows even less. No criticism of greed, capitalism, or avarice appears; nothing about dictatorship, nothing about Kapitalism. The words "culture of death" appear in section 30, but nothing about Western economic systems.

Benedict is a very smart man about what he knows, but it's important to remember that encyclicals are not universal catechisms. Encyclicals are papal letters composed to inform the church on some matter of importance. An older Benedict, B14, distributed the first in 1740. Encyclicals are not the more formal papal bulls, and general tradition makes them not infallible. (Not all bulls are error-free either, which is a good thing given Ad Exstirpanda, the 1252 decree from Innocent IV permitting torture upon heretics. I should clarify that this torture was not supposed to result in bloodshed, mutilation, or death. It's about the same as President Bush's definition, I suspect.) Faithful Catholics are expected to understand and apply the advice of a pope. It's important to note that this is "advice of a pope". It's the advice of a man. Yes, this man has great credentials, lots of training, years of experience, won a partially representative election, and leads a worldwide organization. Yet he still has biases and gaps. He's still imperfect and limited.

The Anti-Consciences: A Small Example

The problem is that there is the third group, that neglects those last two sentences. I call them the Anti-Consciences, because they don't believe in their own inner voices. They don't believe that others have sense. Heck, they don't even believe in their own sense - they want the authority, the church authority, to tell them everything. It's fundamentalism. In this land, the act of ordination instills moral superiority, apparently, not the schooling and internal holiness. It leads to a strange juxtaposition, the State as enforcer of morals, but only specific morals, it seems. Generally those morals have to do with sex. After my Lenten series on dating, I don't want to dip back into this realm. I'll just repeat Benedict's words from the encyclical, "Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed." There's way too much confusion for me to sort it out right now.

Instead, I'm going to concentrate on one small but very visible portion, issues of structured worship. Here's a representative quote from a representative Anti-Conscience clergyman that I once knew:
The answer came back, "we are the Church." Nope, sorry, we are not individually or collectively the church. We do not get to decide what is right or wrong or what the truth is. Truth is not based on what we might feel about something or what we might like. Jesus himself is the truth and our task is to listen, to learn and to receive his grace.

Stirring words, yes. Did this apply to the Resurrection? Acts of Torture by American forces in Abu Ghraib? The single issue of many Catholics, Abortion? Of course not. It's a defense of one man's idea of liturgy, decorum, and proper dress. Of particular interest are the tunes of Mass. As the Father writes, "From now on the conversation is on the text, or the conversation is over."

I'm not sure why I'm doing this, because it's basically pointless (the basic concept of Anti-Conscience life is not reason), but let's rebut this argument by looking at those texts. From the official instructions for services, "In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop." This states that there are options in music. Furthermore, the United States bishops wrote a document with guidance (though not approval) on suitable liturgical songs, Music in Catholic Worship. Let's read carefully, like in section 34 - "Music for the congregation must be within its members' performance capability. The congregation must be comfortable and secure with what they are doing in order to celebrate well." Adding here from Section 28, "Good music of new styles is finding a happy home in the celebrations of today. To chant and polyphony we have effectively added the chorale hymn, restored responsorial singing to some extent, and employed many styles of contemporary composition. Music in folk idiom is finding acceptance in eucharistic celebrations."

The Priest complains that his congregants have asked for "upbeat" music. Reading Section 61 of the Music document here, I receive instruction: "The entrance song should create an atmosphere of celebration. It helps put the assembly in the proper frame of mind for listening to the Word of God. It helps people to become conscious of themselves as a worshiping community." Even more bluntly, section 40 quotes from the Official Roman Curia, the Congregation for Divine Worship, "All means must be used to promote singing by the people. New forms should be used, which are adapted to the different mentalities and to modern tastes." There's a caution here, as "Celebration" has a Catholic theological term and doesn't let me jump to a carnival or festival. On the other hand, "modern tastes" is pretty explicit.

Then, the Code of Canon Law in Canon 212, Section 2 informs me "Christ's faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church. They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church." Putting this together, informing my sacred Pastor about my mentality and modern taste is my duty at times. It is also for people at the other parish. I'm glad to see that past statements are well within Canon Law.

The Tension

Astute readers, those that follow the links, will note that Canon 212 has a Section 1. There is a tension between the two parts of the same instruction. "Christ's faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church." Unlike many Anti-Consciences, I will present evidence discounting my position. (Is this a snide remark at my opponents and enemies? Perhaps. I've heard too many selective quoting incidents, much more often by the Anti-Conscience side. From experience, it's a deserved comment. Instead, my canon link is from a group that supports Ecclesiastical Court lawsuits against politicians. Filing a Denunciation is pretty extreme.)

The impasse is reached.

I used a short paragraph to indicate this.

It's important to note that Pope Benedict is not an Anti-Conscience in Deus Caritas Est. For that matter, I wouldn't call him that in general. On the contrary, section 29 explicitly mandates effort. "The mission of the lay faithful is therefore to configure social life correctly, respecting its legitimate autonomy and cooperating with other citizens according to their respective competences and fulfilling their own responsibility." Laypeople are supposed to configure and cooperate with others, which requires thought and tact.

Benedict further stresses his position, the Anti-Communists, by chiding liberation theologists. Not only does the Church not have all the responsibility, Benedict doesn't want the Church to have it. "The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State," section 28 reads. "She [the Church] has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper."

The Summary

I've taken a long road, one of the difficulties of writing this in spurts over seven months. Let's summarize. I discerned three practical lines in Catholicism: Anti-Communists, Anti-Kapitalists, and Anti-Consciences. I introduced the Anti-Consciences via two illustrative examples about music, a revamping of a song I like and an appeal to "pay, pray, and obey". I fall under the Anti-Kapitalists, if that wasn't obvious from my dissection of the opposition using official church documents.

The last pope and current pope are Anti-Communists, as I pointed out through the words of Deus Caritas Est. This confuses the Anti-Consciences, particularly in the US. In America, the Cold War led the parties to divide based on economics and communism. Republicans wound up with the old traditionalists, "God and Country". It's easy to not distinguish the groups, but that's not reality. There is a difference. From the top, the papal documents, religion has a role in politics, in the ordering of society, more than on just personal moral issues. We don't get to eliminate the uncomfortable song verses.

Tyrants tremble no more was written January 12. The Official Church and the Root Causes was written in late January. Reviewing the Encyclical was written in June. The remainder was written in August and September.