Only posts tagged with: Liturgy | Display all
Jul. 13 at 9:59pm
We were out of town this week, so we got to see how the other half lives—that is, people who aren't fortunate enough to belong to our home parish.
At first, we enjoyed the variety. One priest preached about how great it is to be 70, because you can finally say whatever you like: what do you have to lose? It was a solid homily, even if it did include more about Lois Lerner and the IRS than I was expecting.
Then, the next day, there was the much more ancient priest, the one we’re always startled but happy to see still alive and kicking each year, who radiates a really glorious indifference to conventional wisdom. Speaking about people who try to …continue reading
Nov. 16, 2011, at 6:00am
To help prepare the faithful for the new translation of the mass, our parish priests have lately taken some time out of their homilies each week to read part of an official document (I don't know where they got it) explaining what the most significant changes are, and why they were made.
The section read this week included a change made to the words of institution:
The previous translation of the Mass referred to Jesus' blood having redemptive value "for all." The new translation replaces the words "for all" with "for many."
"For many" is apparently closer to the Latin text of the mass, and also in greater continuity with the Tradition. More importantly, it
…remains closer to Jesus' …
I agree about academic endeavors being the best cases available. I think it's something about there being a shared endeavor, plus geographical proximity.
We really miss the comraderie of college and grad school and professional life in academia.
I guess I'm not ready to give up yet on the possibility of something emerging—something that takes due account of all that's been learned through trial and error over the last couple centuries.
Jul. 30 at 4:53pm | See in context
Thanks, Katie. I, too, have been preoccupied with this question for the past 25 years, and I've taken note of communities gone bad, as well as a few successful ones. I really have to conclude that communities, like happiness, have to be a side effect of something else, and not, well, "intentional." Another thing I've been watching for 25 years is how Catholic families keep their grown kids Catholic--or how they lose them--and I've concluded that the ones who succeed are the ones who have had larger communities for their children to grow out into when the family is no longer enough.
The best "something else" for a Catholic community to arise from, besides a religious order and its charism, seems to be academic endeavors: Catholic homeschool co-ops and small Catholic schools and colleges. It's why we sent two daughters to Trivium School, even though they could only come home on weekends. It's why we've encouraged our older kids to take on debt if it's the only way they can get a Catholic liberal arts education that won't even get them a good job when they graduate. It's the best we can do, but we're still starving.
Jul. 30 at 4:45pm | See in context
I should be done with the editing by the end of August, so I hope it will be out (as an e-book) soon after that.
Jul. 27 at 9:13pm | See in context
I was an MBA student in Juan Antonio' fabulous course, with Max sitting in as a doctoral student... So, where can I find this book?
Jul. 27 at 5:18pm | See in context
Thanks for the response, Devra. It's true that western countries are going to struggle to plead poverty, certainly in the case of food, of which I agree we throw too much away. What I would say is that it's possible to be rich in certain commodities and poor in others.
I would say most wealthy westerners are time poor and energy poor. There are personal choices that might make that easier, but if the working culture is a 50 hour week in one's profession, it takes a strong personality to resist that. These are the people on whom the responsibility falls to help the poor materially, but they are simply exhausted. Paradoxically, it's the more conscientious among them, who might be inclined to do more with the right encouragement, who most resent the implication that they aren't doing enough. Reaching them with the right narrative is a huge challenge.
Jul. 26 at 9:29am | See in context
Rhett, I have read the Tolstoy story--it's a good one. My husband actually used to use it on his business ethics class! It's about how a good man, given the opportunity to own as much land as he can walk around in a day, finds himself "needing" more and more, and...it doesn't end well. I urge everyone to read Tolstoy, who of course tells it better.
The government is so unwieldy and corrupt and beholden to special interests that it will never act like Joseph in Egypt, I don't think. I don't know that it's capable of handling wealth well enough to stockpile for those in need, or for our own future necessities. When it does help those in need, it does so with fictional money, or money borrowed from our great grandchildren, as far as I understand.
What we as individuals can do is also an important question. There are two aspects: being detached from what we do have, and realizing that giving to those in need is an obligation, not something beyond the call of duty. Pope Francis has been "convicting" me (as the Protestants say) on these two points lately.
Jul. 25 at 2:12pm | See in context
I do realize it's not that simple--that there are, for example, predators who are getting themselves appointed guardians of children so that they themselves will be allowed to stay. But when you see pictures of toddlers sleeping on the floor of detention centers posted by one side and pictures of malicious-looing older teenagers covered in gang tatoos posted by the other, you wonder whether we can't do better than an all-or-nothing approach.
Jul. 25 at 2:02pm | See in context
On the other hand, I realize I'm arguing agaisnt a straw man here, or at least against people other than the ones in this conversation. No one here is saying simply "Go back where you came from," nor are any of us implying that there's an absolute shortage of goods and services to go around. As Katie points out, we still need to address the injustice of law-abiding, taxpaying citizens being accursed of ungenerosity for resisting the burden imposed by those who disregard and break the law.
Also, of course, the ad-hoc lawlessness of the way this is being addressed can only make our country more like the chaotic and dangerous ones that people are fleeing. This is a (presumably) unintended consequence of actions taken in the name of compassion, and the last thing the world needs is more well-intended policies which actually make things worse for their intended beneficiaries and everybody else.
I'm still wondering whether we lack the will or the ability to distinguish between innocent people who would qualify as refugees and people who are obviously gang members or drug dealers or terrorists.
Jul. 25 at 1:58pm | See in context
David, that's a fair point, about the distinction between saying "you're not welcome here" and wishing to spread the burden of extra obligations. That's exactly the kind of distinction, in fact, that could help the conversation be more fruitful. The impression you usually get is, on one side, people who generously want to allow poor children to share in our educational and medical resources and, on the other, the "go back where you came from" crowd. The fact that our birth rate in America (and so much of the West) is so unnaturally low makes it especially problematic to talk as if there's just not enough of anything to go around. Following that assumption to its logical conclusion, we'd end up telling all our own "extra" unborn children "you're not welcome here" and "go back where you came from," too. And when we consider how wasteful we, at least in America, typically are with the riches we have, the position becomes even more distasteful. It's said (and it sounds plausible) that the typical American family ends up throwing out 40% of their groceries each week, either because we leave them on the plate or let them go bad.
Jul. 25 at 1:01pm | See in context
Shalom Rhett. Thanks for the recommendation. I've not read the story but I'm happy to admit we probably need fewer things and less space than we think we do. At the same time, we do make promises to other people based on what we think we need and what we think they need - those are probably over-estimates, but at the point in time when we've made a promise, people are going to feel let down if it isn't seen through. Okay, if you go too far down that road, you end up with a Salome/Herod scenario - she wants something totally unreasonable, but he's sworn an oath to her and that's all that matters. But - if parents have sent their kids to a school expecting an all english-speaking environment, and suddenly the area becomes popular with immigrants from eastern europe, who are still learning the language, and as a result the teachers have to devote the lion's share of class time to bringing the kids up to scratch, I'm happy saying that's unfair on the parents. They sent their kids to school based on a set of reasonable expecations which haven't been met.
Jul. 25 at 11:20am | See in context
Copyright: The Personalist Project 2014 | Contact us
519 North High Street, West Chester, PA 19380