May 06, 2008
Why Is Christian Art So Lame These Days?
(Jimmy Akin)
That's a question that's worth asking.
I mean, it isn't as if Christian art has always been lame. A visit to the Sistine Chapel or a read through Dante or a listen to Mozart will tell you that.
But for some reason, right in the here and now, an enormous amount of Christian art--whether visual, literary, or musical--is just really, really lame.
And it's not driving the culture the way it used to.
Instead, it feels like a shallow copy of secular culture.
That's something explored in a recent article at Salon.Com. Here's the money quote:
For faith, the results can be dangerous. A young Christian can get the idea that her religion is a tinny, desperate thing that can't compete with the secular culture. A Christian friend who'd grown up totally sheltered once wrote to me that the first time he heard a Top 40 station he was horrified, and not because of the racy lyrics: "Suddenly, my lifelong suspicions became crystal clear," he wrote. "Christian subculture was nothing but a commercialized rip-off of the mainstream, done with wretched quality and an apocryphal [sic] insistence on the sanitization of reality."
SOURCE [WARNING: There are a few just plain gross references in the article.]
The article largely focuses on culture schlock in Evangelical circles, but we all know the same thing is true in Catholic circles, as the insipid folk-esque musical spoutings of Oregon Catholic Press or the chunky abstract patterns that pass for stained glass windows in many parishes reveal. Those are just cheesy ripoffs of secular music and secular art (and dated ripoffs at that.)
So why isn't contemporary Christian art better than it is?
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Art | Permalink | Comments (79)
May 02, 2008
15-year-old guest blogger on B-16 youth rally
(SDG)
SDG here with a belated guest blog post from a 15-year-old who saw B16 at the youth rally. His excitement is palpable. The Church belongs to the young!
This weekend I was blessed to be able to visit the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, on his first Pastoral Visit to the United States. People flocked from the far corners of the Americas to see the Vicar of Christ. They came by the thousands hoping to catch a glimpse of the Pope. They stood on street corners in expectation of a momentary view as he drove by. Those who saw him will tell you that it is a meeting, even if for only a second, that they will treasure for all their lives.
But why did they come to see him? What did they see in the Vicar of Christ that inspired them to come from all around the globe to just to hear him?
The Pope made a visit to America, but those who watched on TV, or listened on the radio, or actually saw him, would say that they came to see him; that America came to see the Pope. People throughout the Western Hemisphere flocked to the Holy Father; it was not the other way around. The Pope came to bring the Truth to us; instead the Americas came to find the Truth in him. People have always been in search of happiness and many times they look in all the wrong places. They search for happiness and truth, for they are one, happiness is found only in the discovery of the Truth, and the discovery of the Truth begets happiness or more correctly joy and peace. Many, however, look for these two things in the world and fail to delve into the unknown glory of the realm of the Spiritual. People came to see the Holy Father because they saw in him both happiness and Truth.
In turn, the Holy Father was eager to share the Truth with us. He came with a message that called all Christians throughout the world to Holiness, a message that called us to Christ. He brought Hope to many who had lost Hope. At the Youth Rally he called the future Church of America to truly live their freedom. For freedom is not the right to choose between good and evil, but the ability to do good. He called the young people to silence, to meditation. He called them to find their vocation, to discover what God has planned for them to do in their life on Earth. He asked them to seriously consider the religious life.
And the young people of the Western Hemisphere responded with cheers of “We Love You Benedict”. They became so loud, that the Pope in his eagerness to get his message out, had to raise his hand and calm the crowd. Every time he stood up, or sat down, or spoke, he was greeted with cheers. The Pope showed how much he loved the children on the steps of Saint Patrick’s in his embrace of a small baby, and the youth showed their love for their Leader in their cheers and in their presence.
Benedict returned to Rome, the capitol of Christianity, on Sunday night, April 17th. However, his message and his image will be engraved upon the hearts and minds of all those who saw him forever. He now is thousands of miles away in Italy, but for those who saw him on TV, heard him on the radio, or were there with him, he will never leave.
Viva Le Papa!
Posted by SDG | Permalink | Comments (18)
April 25, 2008
One Compliment Too Many
(Jimmy Akin)
I want to thank Mark Shea both for calling my attention to a set of loony criticisms being made against me and for defending me against said loony criticisms.
Here's a key excerpt from Mark's blog:
One reader, for instance, prophesies (on the basis of nothing whatsoever) Jimmy Akin's looming apostasy. Why? Because Gerry Matatics has apostatized into nutty sedevacantism and, if you've seen one convert, you've seen 'em all:
I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts that if Benedict lasts another decade or is succeeded by a like minded pope, some of the lay apologists that are trashing Gerry now will be jumping ship themselves.
There's NO WAY the Jimmy Aikens are going to sit by while Rome says things like: "pro multis means for the many", "the Mass of Pius V was never abrogated", "Protestant Churches are not true Churches."
Jimmy's accuser has a far higher regard for his own mind reading powers than the actual record warrants. But when you are engaged against an enemy of the faith as slippery as a convert, accuracy is of secondary importance. So you can just sling such prophesies, even when they are contradicted by known facts and ignore requests to document, for instance, a single place where Jimmy has ever dissented from the Church's teaching on our relationship with Protestant ecclesial bodies. The main thing to remember is that converts aren't *really* Catholic.
Now, I'll be the first to concede that the critic has a point that in the cases of some converts, the conversion hasn't "stuck." In other cases, it hasn't proceeded far enough, and the convert has retained undue elements from his prior religious affiliation. (Just as somemany cradle Catholics leave Catholicism or adopt false elements of other religious traditions. Both converts and non-converts have free will, and many are willing to use it inappropriately.)
I can't speak for such converts. In my case I have tried to rigorously assimilate the Catholic spirit. My religious reading matter consists principally of official Church documents, the Bible, the Church Fathers, and Catholic authors who are almost wholly from pre-Vatican II days.
I really don't read much, if any, "convert lit." While it's a historical fact that I am a convert, I don't walk around every day thinking "I'm a convert." That's not what is central to my identity. I think of myself as a Catholic, and days can go by where I don't even think about my conversion.
I certainly don't make a point of it, except on those rare occasions when someone asks be to tell my conversion story. And I daresay that most people who hear me on the radio or read my writings don't even know that I'm a convert until it's pointed out to them.
I don't wear my conversion on my sleeve, because I don't think it's anything to be particularly proud of. It is a miracle of God's grace, and the credit for that goes to him, not me. On my part, I just want to be a faithful Catholic now that I am one.
So when I read about the critic's linking me to Gerry Matatics, I just rolled my eyes. Not all converts to the Catholic faith are cut from cloth made of the same unstable molecules as Gerry Matatics. Such cloth may be an important asset for Mr. Fantastic and the Fantastic Four, but there are converts and then there are converts.
I was particularly struck by the critic making claims about me that are just loony and that in no way reflect my views.
I mean, I believe that "pro multis means for the many", I believe that "the Mass of Pius V was never abrogated" (certainly if you include the Missal of 1962 as an expression of it), and I believe that "Protestant Churches are not true churches" because they lack validly ordained bishops. The technically correct terminology for them is "ecclesial communities," which is the language used for them in various Church documents.
So I was very pleased to see Mark rebutting these claims and citing posts on my own blog in refutation of them.
A big CHT to Mark!
But he did give me one compliment too many. In response to the critic's claim that I had changed my view on the translation of pro multis after Cardinal Arinze wrote a letter clarifying its translation in the liturgy, Mark writes:
So: according to my reader, Jimmy Akin held a private opinion but altered it when it seemed to him that the Magisterium was against him. Wow! That *is* evil! See how converts just blend in with Real Catholics[TM] by submitting their judgment to the teachers of the Church? They're like chameleons!
While I wish to be quite submissive to the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, I can't claim that I changed a private opinion in this case.
Somehow in rad trad circles I got the reputation of changing my mind on the translation of pro multis, when in reality I always supported a literal translation of it like "for many."
Why?
Because I'm a student of languages, because I prefer literal translations to dynamic ones, and because that's what the literal translation of pro multis just is.
I've certainly made no secret of my disapproval of all kinds of squishy translations--even "official" ones--of Bible verses, Church documents, or liturgical texts. This one is no different. I prefer and always have preferred a literal translation of the original text.
Thus upon my first hearing of the letter from Cardinal Arinze dealing with the subject, I wrote THIS:
Hallelujah!
This is something I've really been hoping and praying for. I've even thought about writing Cardinal Arinze and imploring him to do this, because the release of the new translation of the Mass is the perfect opportunity to do this, and with B16 in office, the pope would have the sensitivity to the issue to realize how much benefit this change would be.
I was therefore DEE-lighted when a reader e-mailed this story from Catholic World News:
Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules
[SNIP]
The only reason that there has been any confusion regarding my view of the translation of pro multis is that some rad trads have been running around babbling that the translation of pro multis as "for all" renders the consecration of the Eucharist invalid.
It doesn't.
And so, as an author writing on liturgical subjects, I've made exactly the same points that Cardinal Arinze makes in section 2 of his LETTER:
2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to "for all", as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula "for all" would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).
Yet for some reason, certain rad trads have represented me as holding a different interpretation of the matter than Cardinal Arinze and then changing it when his letter came out.
This is pure, unadulterated horse leavings.
I have always held that pro multis is best represented with a literal translation, and devoutly wished that the Church would change the approved English translation to reflect this, while also holding the points that Cardinal Arinze makes above.
So before everyone congratulates me on being willing to submit my judgment to that of the Church on this point, allow me to note that this is one compliment too many. I've always held the views I do on this subject and was delighted to see the Church endorse them.
I also advise critics to read my writings more carefully next time, and not to trust unreliable sources.
(P.S. Also thanks to Mark for spelling my last name right.)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (39)
April 24, 2008
Meet the Next Doctor of the Church
(Jimmy Akin)
Probably.
I mean, it's not certain, but at this point it's probable.
Why do I say that?
And who am I talking about?
If you don't recognize his picture, it's John Henry Cardinal Newman.
As to why is it probable, well, he is to be beatified.
If he is beatified, it is likely that he will (at some point) be declared a saint.
(NOTE: There is already an investigation underway of a possible second miracle needed for sainthood.)
If that happens, it's a dead certain lock that he will be named a doctor of the Church.
Why?
Because Newman's writings made the kind of important theological contribution to Catholic teaching that doctors of the Church make.
In particular, his theory on the development of doctrine helped the Church in a very important way by allowing theologians to better articulate the manner in which doctrine progresses, how something can be implicit in one age and made more explicit and precise with the course of time. He also did important work on the doctrine of conscience and other subjects.
Newman's theological contributions are so substantial that if you look at the index of people cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and if you eliminate all the saints and popes, you're left with basically three names: Newman, Origen, and Tertullian.
At least those three get mentioned more than anybody else in the not-a-saint, not-a-pope category.
Tertullian will never be a saint, because he died a schismatic.
Origen is undergoing something of a rehabilitation, as can be seen from the kind of treatment B16 gave him in his series of Wednesday audiences on early Christian figures.
But Newman is the closest to being given the title "doctor."
It may even happen at the same time as his canonization, should that be forthcoming.
MORE ON NEWMAN.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in The Church | Permalink | Comments (77)
April 21, 2008
If Jesus Were Dead, He'd Be Turning Over in His Grave
(SDG)
SDG here with a numbingly depressing note about how representatives of two ancient Christian communities spent yesterday, Palm Sunday of Holy Week on the Julian calendar used by many Eastern Churches. Here's the lede:
JERUSALEM — Dozens of Greek and Armenian priests and worshippers exchanged blows in Christianity's holiest shrine on Palm Sunday, and pummeled police with palm fronds when they tried to break up the brawl.
The "holiest shrine" in question would be the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. So, yeah, in honor of the beginning of Holy Week, on the day of Jesus' Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, dozens of Christian priests and worshipers brawled at the site of Our Lord's victory over death and evil — and pummeled police with palm fronds.
With palm fronds. Christopher Hitchens couldn't have scripted it better. Or James Carroll, for that matter (talk about Constantine's sword). Here's ashes in your eye, brother! I've got an olive branch and I'm not afraid to use it! Think of Charlton Heston's John the Baptist in The Greatest Story Ever Told, combat-baptizing the Herodian soldiers trying to arrest him, thundering "Repent! Repent!" while forcibly ducking them in the Jordan — and weep, for the accidental parody is hardly more absurd than the reality.
Yesterday was also, incidentally, the last day of Pope Benedict XIV's visit to the United States. I can imagine someone supposing that I as a Romanist might derive some sort of satisfaction from the spectacle of two separated Eastern communities brawling on the other side of the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. It depresses the snot out of me. Partisan churchmanship has no place here of all places. The shame is all of ours. I would almost rather let Hitchens have his way and demolish the site altogether, denying it to us all rather than seeing Jesus' will for unity mocked and defied at the very site of His victory.
Almost. The Sepulchre belongs to all future generations of Christians, and our failure to follow Christ now is no license to deny them their patrimony. But dang, it's galling.
Added: A further twist of the knife: Although Catholic, Greek and Armenian communities uneasily coexist at the Holy Sepulchre, none of them controls the main entrance. Instead, two local Muslim families retain the keys, and come twice a day to open and close the doors. This has apparently been the situation for centuries. I've heard it said that the Muslims retain custody of the entrance to keep peace among the Christian communities; and while that might be an excuse, I wouldn't be surprised if there were truth in it too. God help us.
Ut unum sint, Lord. That they may be one.
Posted by SDG | Permalink | Comments (46)
April 18, 2008
Constantine’s Sword… or James Carroll’s Axe?
(SDG)
While Pope Benedict rocks New York in his own comparatively low-key fashion, a documentary adaptation of ex-priest James P. Carroll's Constantine's Sword, which takes a few jabs at B16, opens even more quietly in the Big Apple.
Your Decent Films guy is on the case. GET THE STORY.
P.S. YHT to Heart, Mind & Strength host Greg Popcak for the sound bite in the post title.
Posted by SDG | Permalink | Comments (44)
April 16, 2008
A Pope for the Internet Age?
(Jimmy Akin)
Pope Benedict's trip to the United States is obviously a focus of attention right now.
I'd like to CHT the reader who e-mailed a link to THIS STORY by Peggy Noonan.
In it, she reflects on the personal styles of JP2 and B16, and offers a number of insights, among them this:
A Vatican reporter last week said John Paul was the perfect pope for the television age, "a man of images." Think of the pictures of him storm-tossed, tempest-tossed, standing somewhere and leaning into a heavy wind, his robes whipping behind him, holding on to his crosier, the staff bearing the image of a crucified Christ, with both hands, for dear life, as if consciously giving Christians a picture of what it is to be alive.
Benedict, the reporter noted, is the perfect pope for the Internet age. He is a man of the word. You download the text of what he said, print it, ponder it.
Actually, I don't print it. I have my text-to-speech engine read it to me and then ponder it, but I get the idea.
Now if the Holy See would only get the perfect web site for the Internet age.
Unfortunately, not everyone is as appreciative of B16 as Mrs. Noonan.
Stephen Prothero, the Chair of the Department of Religion for Jesuit-run Boston College, for example, ISN'T:
Young American Catholics treated John Paul II like a rock star. Yes, he was socially and theologically conservative, but at least they could relate to the guy with the "Popemobile" and the smile and the energy to travel to some 130 countries during his 26 years at the Holy See. But can they relate to Benedict XVI? And can he relate to them? What can a pope who is an academic theologian first and foremost offer young Americans, save for dogmas they don't believe in and rituals they do not understand? Is he coming to scold us? Or to hug us?
We are about to find out.
Actually, someone should scold Stephen Prothero, but it should be someone other than B16.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there's LOTS OF COVERAGE OF THE PAPAL VISIT FROM EWTN.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Benedict XVI | Permalink | Comments (57)
