You are browsing the archive for G. Scott.

#8 — Cathedrals

March 16, 2011 in Religion

Even those who know nothing about Catholic theology know about Catholic cathedrals. Religions in general have a way of inspiring great architecture, for sacred objects and sacred time requires sacred space. St. Peter’s, Notre Dame, Hagia Sophia, Canterbury, Chartres, Reims, St. John the Divine, Westminster Abbey, and seemingly countless others tend to be top tourist destinations even for non-believers. Everyone wanders in, looks about, and inevitably looks up — which, at least in the case of Gothic architecture, was the whole point.

Basilica of St. Mary

The scale is impressive enough, but for the faithful, cathedrals can be only grand, for they house the “body, blood, soul and divinity” of Jesus, according to the doctrine of the Real Presence. Whether one believes the doctrine or not is somewhat irrelevant: the designers, builders, and curators of the cathedrals did, and those attending services did and still do believe it. If one believes that Jesus is really present in the host (which is the heart of the doctrine of the Real Presence), then it’s only logical to build the best tabernacle imaginable to house said host.

DSC_4274

This goes a long way in answering the objection a friend from the States raised as we wandered in and out of churches in Krakow just K’s and my wedding. “How does this help anyone spiritually?” he asked. The Catholic answer is, “They weren’t built primarily for man but for God.”

DSC_4693

Whomever they were built for seems almost irrelevant when I’m standing in the middle of a soaring cathedral, wondering at the engineering required both to design and to construct such spaces.

View from the Crypt

#7 — Sacred Objects

March 15, 2011 in Religion

Breaking of the bread.
Image via Wikipedia

Among the elements that sets Catholicism apart from almost all other Christian denominations is the notion of the sacred embodied in the physical. There are a host of sacred objects in Catholicism, while Protestantism considers almost nothing on Earth sacred. Only God is sacred, say Protestants, and that was indeed one of the myriad motivations for the separation of the Protestant denominations from the Catholic church.

Having grown up in a Protestant group (though it would have never called itself “Protestant,” it was: if it’s not Eastern/Greek/Coptic/etc. Orthodox or Catholic, it’s Protestant), the notion of a sacred object was completely foreign to me. It smacked of superstition, of primitive belief that bordered on idolatry.

Websters.com defines sacred as follows:

  1. dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity
  2. a : worthy of religious veneration : holy
    b : entitled to reverence and respect
  3. of or relating to religion : not secular or profane

I grew up, I suppose, with only the second definition; the first definition is more Catholic, though.

In Catholicism, one can’t help but be overwhelmed by the number of sacred objects. At the top of the list is the consecrated host, but there are numerous others: the Bible is sacred, especially the Gospels. One will notice this immediately in the how the priest handles the volume of Gospels the priest uses in the Mass reading. Yet it’s not limited to the Bible and host: the church itself, the crucifix, the vessels used in Mass, the altar itself, rosaries, statues, and icons are all in their own right sacred.

This is where the Protestant accusation of idolatry arises, especially with the use of icons and statuary. It seems to be a direct violation of the commandments.  Yet Catholics aren’t worshiping these objects (except for the consecrated host — but that’s an entirely different theological knot)  and in fact condemns such as idolatry.

What I like about sacred objects is they force one out of normal routines and require a reverent  thoughtfulness. In a culture in which only radical individualism seems to be sacred, such thoughtful moments are welcome.

 

 

#6 — Polyphony

March 14, 2011 in Religion

Sacred music is without a doubt one of the most beautiful things Catholicism has given then world, and polyphony is the most perfect form of that music. Five, ten, fifteen, even forty individual melodies blended into a single composition that can only be described as angelic.  Strictly speaking, composers of sacred music did not “invent” polyphony, and many in the church at first balked, considering the harmonies superfluous. However, the vast majority of polyphony that I am familiar with is sacred in nature.

I first heard polyphony in “Man and the Arts,” a unique course I as an undergrad that blended a historical overview of art, music, and philosophy. Our professor played for us a portion of Thomas Tallis’s “Spem in Alium,” a forty-part Renaissance motet, and I was instantly addicted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G-_73qnTRo&feature=related

Listening to this makes it impossible for me to believe that we are merely bags of fat and chemical reactions.

#5 — Silence

March 13, 2011 in Religion

Catholicism has silence built into it. Silence in Catholicism is everywhere. Walk into any medieval church in Europe and the silence is almost audible. It’s as if the walls and icons of the churches produce their own silence.

The traditional Tridentine Mass has moments of silence, and that silence even made it into the Novo Ordo Mass: the priest holds the consecrated host up and is silent; he lifts the chalice of consecrated wine and is silent.

A chapel dedicated to the adoration of the Sacrament is silent.

Monks and nuns take vows of silence.

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes of three spiritual principles behind silence:

  1. As an aid to the practice of good, for we keep silence with man, in order the better to speak with God, because an unguarded tongue dissipates the soul, rendering the mind almost, if not quite, incapable of prayer. The mere abstaining from speech, without this purpose, would be that “idle silence” which St. Ambrose so strongly condemns.
  2. As a preventative of evil. Senica, quoted by Thomas à Kempis complains that “As often as I have been amongst men, I have returned less a man” (Imitation, Book I, c. 20).
  3. The practice of silence involves much self-denial and restraint, and is therefore a wholesome penance, and as such is needed by all.

Silence is indeed “needed by all,” particularly in today’s techno-world. It’s one of the great mysteries to me why so many people like the dazzle of multi-media mega-churches: these churches incorporate technology as liturgical baggage; it seems the church is to be a place of worship and contemplation that shuts out the world.

#4 — Location of the Pulpit

March 12, 2011 in Religion

In most Protestant churches, it’s always the center of attention. Front and center, the pulpit is the center of all eyes, all ears. In mega-churches, the stage has replaced the pulpit, but on the stage, there is a lectern of some sort, making it clear the high point of the service is the pastor’s sermon.

Willow Creek Community Church

Willow Creek Community Church

Protestants sometimes suggest that Christ is not the center of the Catholic Church, but it’s hard for them to make such an argument when the pastor is the center of theirs. The sermon is the center of the church service, and so the pastor’s personality, wit, or erudition is what ultimately brings congregants to this or that church. In mega-churches, it’s often a combination of the show and the sermon.

Catholic Church in Krakow

Catholic Church in Krakow

In a Catholic church, the pulpit is always to the side. The priest’s homily is not the reason people are in attendance, and as such, the pulpit is tastefully moved to one side.

#3 — Sacrality

March 11, 2011 in Religion

The Papal Altar

The Papal Altar (Photo: G Wong)

The sacred — an idea that, in the ancient world, was an everyday reality. To be sacred is to be “consecrated: made or declared or believed to be holy.” It’s only been in the last few centuries that this notion disappeared from the everyday life of Everyman.

In a Protestant church, the idea of the sacred is almost non-existent except in a historical, Biblical milieu.  The Ark of the Covenant was sacred; the showbread and the Holy of Holies were sacred; God’s name is, in some sense, sacred. But in the sense that time, space, gestures, words, or objects can be sacred, Protestantism proclaims loudly and, for its own part, definitively, “No!” Only God is sacred. Nothing on Earth is truly sacred.

The rest of the religions in the world beg to differ. And Catholicism (as well as the Orthodox East) in particular would argue that there is sacredness on Earth. Indeed, Catholicism is, in part, all about bringing that sacrality to humanity on a daily basis.

#2 — Community

March 10, 2011 in Religion

Saint Peter's Basilica, Vatican City, Rome

Image via Wikipedia

It was in an undergrad course on Shakespeare that I first began thinking of Catholicism as an inherently communal religion. Our professor, an ABD who later left academia for construction, was having doubts about Christianity and mentioned that of all options, Catholicism and its strong sense of community appealed to him most. I had no idea what he was talking about: I’d never thought of Catholicism, knew little more of it than Marian devotion, and had no clue how community might play an important part in a religion.

It wasn’t until I attended Mass for the first time in Poland and read Milosz’s The Captive Mind that I understood. Milosz wrote of the wisdom of the Catholic church in its community prayer, pointing out that kneeling and crossing oneself often preceded faith and in fact led to faith. I, in my atheism, understood this to mean that religious belief is a question of collective suggestion. Reading Peter Berger’s Invitation to Sociology only further strengthened this belief. Yet Berger himself, in A Rumor of Angels goes to great lengths to point out that something that seems to explain faith naturally does not preclude the supernatural. In other words, faith might very well be a product, to some degree, of a physically encouraged collective consciousness, but that fact alone doesn’t disprove its legitimacy.

Attending Mass put it all in perspective. Seeing everyone moving together, gesturing together, speaking together, had a profound impact on me. The sense of unity and community was literally palpable.

I thought of the vast difference between this voluntary sense of community and the forced May Day parades that everyone behind the Iron Curtain were expected to revel in.  I could explain the Catholic community’s success and the wishful Communist community’s failure in secular terms: after all, I could reason, the why’s and where’s of the gestures and motions of Catholicism are long since forgotten in the mists of antiquity whereas the germination of the Communist community lingers in the historical memory. There seemed to be something more, though, something ineffable.

Perhaps something divine?

#1 — Lent

March 9, 2011 in Religion

Ashes imposed on the forehead of a Christian o...

Image via Wikipedia

Today is Ash Wednesday, and all throughout the blogosphere, people are writing about their Lenten sacrifices. I’ve decided to give Lent a try this year, but for today’s post, what I’m giving up is not as important as what I’m incorporating.

I’ve been fairly negative about religion for much of my adult life. I thought I’d make an effort to be positive about it for a change. And since, by proxy with K, the religion I know best is Christianity, specifically Catholicism, I thought I’d embark on a daily posting schedule throughout Lent focusing on the positive things I see in Catholicism. Forty days, forty things I like — even love — about it.

The logical place to start is Lent. The act of giving up something, of making a lengthy sacrifice in one’s convenience, seems nothing short of healthy. We tend to get stuck in routines, habits, and even addictions, and to take some time each year to break out of those confines forces us to look at our life from a new perspective. It highlights how some things have become so habitual that we’re only aware of them through their absence.

Lent forces deliberation. Imagine, for example, that one decides to give up sugar. This is a monumental undertaking in today’s processed-food world, for there’s sugar in everything unless you buy and make it fresh. Imagine that one sacrifices caffeine. Morning and afternoon habits must disappear.

Lent simply forces awareness, and in our technologically-numbed culture, I can think of few things more valuable.

Returning to the Survey

January 23, 2011 in Religion

Jesus is considered by scholars such as Weber ...

Image via Wikipedia

The Pew Forum’s survey on religious knowledge is in the news again. I don’t know if Douglas Todd of The Vancouver Sun is just now hearing about the survey results or has simply been percolating thoughts for months on it, but he wrote an article about it that was published yesterday. It beings:

It does not exactly inspire confidence about the future of North America to learn that atheists and agnostics are less ignorant about religion than most Christians.

The United States is the most religious, most Christian, developed nation on the planet. The Bible infuses American politics. But, paradoxically, the rate of religious literacy south of the border is dismal.

Todd’s article essentially outlines concerns  Boston College professor Stephen Prothero has written about in a his book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – and Doesn’t. The concerns could be summed up in two succinct sentences:

  1. “[T]wo out of three Americans believe the Bible has the answer to all of life’s important questions.”
  2. Among these same Americans there is a deep lack of literacy about what the Bible says, as well as about other religions.

Where, then, comes the supposed knowledge about the Bible? I suggest two co-solutions to this problem.

The first is the nature of the religious knowledge most American Christians deem truly necessary. It can be summed up in one word, a name: Jesus. This makes sense at it’s core: Jesus is, of course, the founder as well as the central claim of Christianity. However, I get the feeling that most Christians in America stop there. “Accept Jesus,” feel good about it, get a booster shot every Sunday morning (and Wednesday evening), then return to “real life.”

I am not questioning the sincerity of these Christians. I am simply suggesting that they don’t feel a need to know beyond a knowledge of Jesus. And their church and culture at large doesn’t encourage them to do so either. What results, then, is a religious belief that has formed in a historical vacuum.

The other solution is that religious literacy is tied to a broader, general literacy. Americans, by and large, are not illiterate in the traditional sense — they can read. We are, however, culturally and historically illiterate. One can hardly expect religious literacy, which covers sweeping tracts of land, time, and ideas, when the average American has trouble placing Afghanistan on a blank world map.

What are the prospects for change? Since literacy requires turning off the television, stepping away from Facebook, and putting down the cell phone, I’m not very optimistic that this will ever change.

The Sound of Respect

January 2, 2011 in Culture

A friend posted a link some time ago to Anthony Esolen’s article at InsideCatholic.com about The Sound of Music and how it would resonate (or rather, fail to resonate) with today’s culture. The article begins,

Recently my family and I watched The Sound of Musicfor perhaps the twelfth time — probably the last great musical that Hollywood ever produced. It made me wonder if I could list the reasons why such a movie could not now be made. These reasons I offer below; but it seems to me that they can all be united under the single assertion that the intellectual, imaginative, and emotional palette of the American people has suffered a terrible constriction, a reduction to the tedium of lust and greed and the thirst for power. It is not so much that Hollywood would not make a movie like The Sound of Music as it is that the people themselves would be hard pressed to understand it. (Inside Catholic)

He lists a number of reasons:

  1. The movie takes for granted that some things are holy.
  2. There is such a thing as innocence — and it is not the same as ignorance.
  3. There are such things as children, thank God.
  4. There are such things as boys and girls, and men and women.
  5. Today, no one can sing. No one knows why people ever sang.

Many of these reasons are fairly convincing, and all of them are clearly argued (even if one doesn’t agree with the conclusions). I myself watched the film again a few weeks ago, and I tried to imagine my students’ reactions to the film. Much like Esolen, I came to the conclusion that many of them would find it incomprehensible. There’s one more reason, though, that Esolen hints at but never directly discusses. Most contemporary young people would not get the gist of the film because the idea of submission and respect toward authority (even when it seems unfair) is completely foreign to many of them.

The first time such respectful submission occurs is when the abbess suggests to Maria that monastic life might not be where God’s leading her. Maria protests, giving all the reasons why she she feels she must stay. She grows animated, slightly frustrated, and very insistent. The abbess brings her to complete silence simply by calmly saying her name: “Maria.” The young Maria grows silent instantly, demurely responding, “Yes, reverend mother.” And that’s it. The end of the discussion.

Many young people today would not respond thus to an adult no matter who the adult was. They have rights, see, and they are equal to adults in every way — except paying bills and providing for a family. Many would see Maria’s reaction as cowardly, as a lack of self-respect. Others would simply say, “I’d just turn around and walk of…”

The next time we see this type of submission it is even more tellingly dated. Captain von Trapp blows his whistle to summon the children, who form a straight line and march down the staircase in time to von Trapp’s whistle’s chirps. For most intents and purposes, they’re in the military, and that’s the point: no warmth, no real family ties, just the appearance of discipline.

Maria is horrified, and rightfully so. It is the one time she truly stands up for herself.

I could never answer to a whistle. Whistles are for animals, not for children. And definitely not for me. It would be too humiliating.

Clearly, she is also defending the children against humiliation, actual and potential. She gets away with it, but not without von Trapp commenting on it. But the children? They’re undoubtedly humiliated by the treatment, and they long for a true relationship with von Trapp. Indeed, that is the whole point of the film. But there is no sign of disrespect, only painful hope in the children’s eyes. “Perhaps if we get it right, father will notice us,” their body language seems to say. I’m not suggesting that we go back to a time when children were meant to be seen but not heard. However, the other extreme is too prevalent today.

The children long for attention from their father, but how do they get it? Through insolence? Through rebellion? No — by playing childish pranks on the nannies hired to care for them. Many attribute student disrespect to attention-getting measures. Perhaps that’s true. Yet the need to make such a hypothesis is just more evidence of the incomprehensibility of the film. Today’s neglected children go about getting attention from adults in an entirely different manner than in the idyllic times of pre-war Austria.

Another scene that might well be almost impossible for modern viewers to understand is when the children fall into the water after one of their day trips. Maria has gained the children’s trust, and they show their childlike nature around her. There’s mutual respect and even love. Von Trapp steps back into the scene with his whistle, and all returns to “normal”. The children snap to attention and grow silent immediately.

If there is ever a time in the film to protest their father’s callous behavior, this is it. The children could protest about their treatment, pointing out how much they’ve learned with Maria and reminding their father that they are, after all, just children. Indeed, they fell into the water due to their childlike excitement at seeing their father: they all stand excitedly, rock the boat, and fall in. Von Trapp begins by yelling and humiliating them, but the children say nothing. Not even a respectful, “But father…” Not a word. Again, this is not a model of my own parenting, but such complete submission to a parent (or any other adult)  is, in my experience, a rarity these days. It is also at this point that the only semblance of disrespect appears: Maria tells von Trapp the truth about his children and their longing for him.

She finally sheds her modest submission and stands up, not for herself, but for the children.

von Trapp: Is it possible, or could I have just imagined it? Have my children, by any chance, been climbing trees today?

Maria: Yes, captain.

von Trapp: I see. And where, may I ask, did they get these. . . .

Maria: Play clothes.

von Trapp: Is that what they are?

Maria: I made them from the drapes that used to hang in my bedroom.

von Trapp: Drapes?

Maria: They have plenty of wear left. We’ve been everywhere in them.

von Trapp: Are you telling me that my children have been roaming about Salzburg dressed up in nothing but some old drapes?

Maria: And having a marvelous time!

von Trapp: They have uniforms.

Maria: Forgive me, straitjackets. They can’t be children if they worry about clothes

von Trapp: They don’t complain.

Maria: They don’t dare. They love you too much and fear–

von Trapp: Don’t discuss my children.

Maria: You’ve got to hear, you’re never home–

von Trapp: I don’t want to hear more!

Maria: I know you don’t, but you’ve got to! Liesl’s not a child.

von Trapp: Not one word–

Maria: Soon she’ll be a woman and you won’t even know her. Friedrich wants to be a man but you’re not here to show–

von Trapp: Don’t you dare tell me–

Maria: Brigitta could tell you about him. She notices everything. Kurt acts tough to hide the pain when you ignore him, the way you do all of them. Louisa, I don’t know about yet. The little ones just want love. Please, love them all.

von Trapp: I don’t care to hear more.

Maria: I am not finished yet, captain!

von Trapp: Oh, yes, you are, captain! Fräulein. Now, you will pack your things this minute and return to the abbey.

Yet she says not a single word about how the captain treats her. Her protests are completely selfless. Of course Maria doesn’t return to the abbey, just yet. Von Trapp hears the sound of music — literally and figuratively — and the music mends his wounded soul. She has saved the family, yet remains on the periphery, by her own choosing. It’s a private family moment, and it’s not her place to intrude. In short, it’s not respectful.

Many today don’t have this sense of respect so clearly illustrated in the film. Respect is not something one has automatically by being an adult or being in a position of authority. It’s something to be earned, and any perceived disrespect — a teacher telling a student to stop talking, for instance — provides free license for whatever (verbal language or body language) the individual might deem necessary to “defend” oneself. Respect has become a token, if that, and in such a world, a film filled with unquestioned, unconsciously-given respect is utterly incomprehensible.