You Take 16 Nuns And What Do You Get?

How to complete the phrase making up the title to this post so that it matches with the song made famous by Tennessee Ernie Ford?  In the circumstances, I suppose something like:  "An undersized, dubious Catholic sect."  How's that?

It's unusual for me to post about the Church twice in a single month, but I find myself fascinated by the news about 16 Spanish nuns, of the Order of St. Clare or "the Poor Clares", who have declared themselves separated from Rome and their putative superiors in the well-established Catholic hierarchy, thereby becoming a self-described sect.  The Church has had a number of sects and heretics over the centuries, but this one must be remarkable at least for its small size and the fact that it's made up of nuns.

Instead of the Pontifex Maximus (as I enjoy calling the Pope) and their duly appointed bishop, the nuns have pledged their allegiance, as it were, to a person who calls himself a bishop, Pablo de Rojas Sanchez-Franco, who was excommunicated by the Church in 2019.  The declaration or manifesto of the nuns in which their schism from the Church was announced makes it clear that they object not only to the current occupant of the Throne of St. Peter, but to all of those who have sat in it since Pius XII.

From these facts it may be inferred that the sectarian nuns are very conservative Catholics, or traditional Catholics, or perhaps best described as Catholics who utterly reject the reforms which have taken place since 1958, when Pius departed this sinful world.  And if what we read about the manifesto is correct, that certainly is the case.  I'll admit I haven't read it, and must do so.  In fact I will do so now, if I can locate it via Google.

Well, perhaps not.  It seems to be 70 pages long, and I'm having trouble finding it.  I'll read the letter to which it's attached instead.

No, I won't.  As far as I can ascertain, both the manifesto and the letter are only available in Spanish.  Perhaps there'll be a translation someday.  No doubt I won't be interested in reading it then.

There are indications in some articles I've read that the manifesto may echo criticisms of clerics of the Church's authorization of the blessing of same sex marriages.  It's uncertain whether that's true, as it may be the person who wrote the articles merely refer to that as an example of dissent in the Church.  The nuns presumably condemn this practice as well, by implication if not expressly, its authorization being given post-Pius XII.  Regardless, it appears the Sisters complain that in general, Catholic pastors have failed their flocks, leaving them exposed to the (homosexual?) wolves.

What we see here may be another example of the claimed tendency of modern Catholics to desire a return to the "halcyon days" of the Church, i.e. the days pre-Vatican II, which has been remarked on by some as I noted in a prior post.  If that's the case, this desire goes beyond the aesthetic (and perhaps sentimental) preference I have for the old forms and rituals of the Church, which I think is understandable given the dreariness of its current ritual.  It is instead, I think, a sign of a sort of atavism among Catholics.  There is it seems a desire to revert to the past, not only as to form but substance.

I wonder if this desire is a sign that many of us today seek certainty more than anything else.  Certainty of thought and doctrine, even if that means disregard of what's taking place, perhaps even the disregard of what facts and reason indicate or suggest is true, or regarding the nature of the world with which we must interact.  Adherence to a doctrine already established and unquestionable creates a sense of comfort and stability, lacking in our all-too-interesting times.  It also instills a sense of fellowship; those who accept the doctrine and the lore are part of a community, no longer alone in the face of seeming chaos.  

What can compete with such a sense of solace?

  

Catholics Get Back To Where They Once Belonged

I saw an interesting article while browsing the news on the Web today.  Buried among the stories regarding student protests (but are they, really?) and the trial of America's Trimalchio for payoffs to a porn star was a story which claims to describe the rise of traditional Catholicism in these Not-So-Very United States.  Can it be so?

Perhaps.  Those who've indulged me by reading this blog with some attention will know of my sentimental fondness for the ceremony and ritual of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as it existed before, and even for a time after, Vatican II.  It seems that others are fond of them as well, and miss them or seek in them something they've been unable to find in the bland proceedings which take place each Sunday hosted by the local churches.

It seems to me that something not necessarily bad, but stupefying, happened as a result of the reforms of Vatican II, in this country at least.  I don't pretend to any knowledge of what took place elsewhere.  But here it seems that Tom Lehrer was right when he said that the reforms were being made in an effort to make the Church "more commercial" (as he noted in introducing his song The Vatican Rag on the TV show That was the Year that Was).

There was the switch from the recitation of the liturgy in Latin to English, of course, but other reforms were made as well.  For example, the priest said mass on an altar, which consisted of something resembling a large table, facing those attending the mass.  Prior to Vatican II, the altar was as shown in the picture above and the essential portion of the mass devoted to the transubstantiation of the water and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ took place with the priests facing the altar with their backs to the worshippers.

The idea was, I think, to make the worshippers participants rather than observers and make the mass and the Church more popular, as it was believed people were leaving the Church.  So, the clergy was to encourage involvement of laypersons in arranging the ceremony, and did so.  Whether as a consequence of that or of the efforts of priests and clergy as well, the music accompanying the ceremony was replaced by other music considered more popular, and the language of the liturgy itself was changed, not merely to English but to an English it was believed would be more comprehensible and less challenging, in other words more "modern" than "old fashioned."

Perhaps it was an effort to make the Church more "popular" rather than more "commercial" but I think that the result was the same.  It seems to be an axiom of marketing of products in our economy that the pitch to sell be aimed at the "lowest common denominator."  A formula was arrived at for that purpose.  There was to be nothing unusual or exotic.  Songs sung and words used were commonplace, and sometimes even maudlin or cheesy.  Attending mass became more and more a like watching a sitcom, or to put it more kindly a drama of some kind.

Instead of becoming interesting to more and more people, the Church became less and less compelling, less worthy of interest.  It was much the same as everything else.  

What it seems the Church forgot, I think, was that people don't want religion to be like anything else.  There's an expectation that it be different.  There's a view that those of a particular religion should be distinguishable from others--that they form a community, devoted to certain beliefs.  This is desirable as it is establishes the difference between believers and others.  It makes the followers of a particular religion special.  The best way of making a religion and its adherents distinct and a separate, presumably superior, community is through ritual and ceremony.

It seems to me that the apparent tendency towards "traditional Catholicism" is a result of these expectations and desires.  The Tridentine (Latin) mass was certainly exceptional, and some (like me) probably think it remarkable and even inspiring.  The old music was beautiful and ornate, not mundane imitations of bad rock or country songs with references made to Jesus and love.  The ritual, the incense, the chiming of the bells, the solemnity of the Eucharist, must seem quite attractive now in comparison with the tepid performances which have been endured so long.

What I find concerning, though, is that "traditional Catholicism" which may be making a comeback includes old doctrine and forms which express not the beauty of the old ritual but the repressive aspects of the Church.  That women are now beginning to wear hats or little lace hair coverings as they did in Church before Vatican II seems to single them out due to their sex, and in an oppressive fashion.  Requiring that only men be priests, and they be celibate, is much the same in that respect; the claim that men only be priests because the Apostles were all men makes no sense.  They weren't women, true, but neither were they priests.  Early Christianity owed much to the participation of women and they were very involved in its spread.  Only later did it begin to imitate Judaism and reduce their status.

There are various problems with Catholic doctrine, and I would find a resurgence of belief in them disturbing, but I can understand why the old ritual and ceremony that distinguished the Church before Vatican II is seeming more and more attractive to religious believers.