|
|
I am writing in response to the articles by Fr. Giles Dimock and Alicia Hernon in the March 27 issue of the Concourse. Since I have no illusion that the Latin Rite is the only one in the Catholic Church (those who know me, including Fr. Giles, know that I especially enjoy Eastern liturgies and devotions), no one can accuse me of shunning diversity. The catholicity of the Church was one of the chief reasons I became a Catholic. And yet I intend to defend Noelle Hiester. Ignoring Hiester's quotation from Inaestimabile Donum, which is the essence of the debate, Fr. Giles instead speculates about the article's motives. He implies that she accused the campus priests of laziness, though her article said nothing like that. Hiester also did not protest the offering of Communion under both species; rather, she proposed that we be willing to sacrifice a little more of our time for Christ. When I was an Episcopalian, there were never more than three ministers of the eucharist at the cathedral I attended, yet we always received under both species, and it never took an "excessively long" amount of time. The services were typically shorter than the Sunday liturgies here. My conclusion, therefore, is not to assume that Hiester opposes communion under both species or that she demands that all priests be present for all liturgies. She seems only to be saying that all Catholics should be willing to give up time for the sake of obedience, which is clearly based on biblical principles (Luke 9:23-24) and hardly controversial, much less "sectarian" or "legalistic." Alicia Hernon's article on the subject also contains flawed argumentation. Hernon says, "I see no place where the Church says extraordinary ministers cannot be used regularly, therefore I see no abuse." But in Roget's Thesaurus, "extraordinary" is listed as synonymous with "irregular, uncommon, unusual, and un-customary." "Regular" is synonymous with "ordinary, common, frequent, and customary." One would be hard-pressed to choose two more opposed words. Surely the Church meant something particular in using the term "extraordinary"? It may be "arrogant" to say "I know how the Church should be run," but is it arrogant to say that the Church does, and has directed her members--lay and religious--accordingly? Finally, I find it striking that the March 27 articles which argue that Hiester's tone was judgmental contain so much ad hominem argument. Fr. Giles' article uses words like "divisive" and "sectarian" to describe Hiester and others, and Hernon's article calls Hiester arrogant, disrespectful and legalistic. Can't we avoid personal accusation and discuss the issues themselves?
Cat Clark, Senior theology major
I greatly appreciated Adam Tate's bringing up the issue of charismatic spirituality on our campus because I think it is an issue that has caused great division and confusion among our students. In the shuffle, it is easy to lose sight of what the charismatic gifts really are and where they came from. No one can deny that God has used these gifts to completely change our campus, so they are an important part of what makes the life at Franciscan University different from any other place on earth. I do not think that the notion that a person's spirituality should not affect their celebration of the liturgy is a Catholic idea. The spirituality of Catholics in Africa is not going to be the same as those in Rome; a Mass said in a cloistered Carmelite convent will differ from one celebrated in a Catholic elementary school, but all can be perfectly in line with the Church's directives. To suggest that the entire world should celebrate the liturgy in exactly the same manner would greatly rob our Church of the marvelous diversity found among the peoples she embraces. Secondly, I do not think that using the charismatic gifts can be described as a spirituality at all, in the sense that Mr. Tate described it. Throughout the New Testament spiritual gifts that would be characterized as "charismatic" today are spoken of as gifts for the whole Church (see, for instance, 1Cor. 12:7-11). These gifts were given to the apostles and to Our Lady on Pentecost, when the Church was born; they were used by the early Christians as part of the sacraments of initiation, and they inspired the apostles to spread the gospel throughout the world. These gifts are at the heart of our Church! In Fanning the Flame, a study on the baptism of the Holy Spirit in relation to Christian initiation, the authors cite the testimony of three Doctors of the Church, Cyril, Hilary and Chrysostom, to demonstrate that "the baptism in the Holy Spirit is not a matter of private piety, but of the official liturgy, and of the church's public life. Historically, the baptism in the Holy Spirit is integral to those initiatory sacraments which are constitutive of the church, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist. In this sense, the baptism in the Holy Spirit is normative." These gifts are for every Catholic, because this life in the Spirit is not one spirituality of the Church, but the spirituality of the Church. With this understood, I would say that not only should all spiritualities be welcomed into the liturgy, but charismatic spirituality especially should be embraced by all Catholics, as it was in the early Church. This may be difficult for some to accept, because in our classification of "traditionalists" and "charismatics" we have stereotyped and created prejudice which has bred division. The truth is that we should all be able to describe ourselves as both "traditional" and "charismatic," since the charismatic gifts are among the traditions of the Church! Just as we are all called to be open to devotion to Mary or to the Sacred Heart, we are also all to be open to the gifts of the Spirit. This obviously does not mean that we are required to take each of these facets of the Church and incorporate it completely into our spiritual lives; but it does mean that to be truly Catholic we should be open to all the gifts the Church has to offer, even those that may not be particularly to our liking. I cannot end without addressing the comment about music on campus made by Mr. Tate in his article. As a former member of Music Ministry on campus, I had to laugh a bit when I read his admonition about the lack of organ music at campus liturgies. There is one small detail that he may not realize: to have organ music, one must have an organist. And among college age students, indeed even in the population in general, organists are in scarce supply. Fr. Ron has offered many times to teach anyone who wants organ music how to play the organ, but there haven't been any volunteers that I know of in the seven years I have been associated with FUS. We do however, have an abundance of guitar players, which is because the guitar is one of the easiest instruments to play and sing along to, hence the many guitar-led masses. Here is a challenge to take what one reads in Church documents and know that reality does not always match up to the ideal. In closing, I would ask that we let go of stereotypes and see that the charisms are gifts, not invented by man or drummed up by his emotions, but given to us all by God, who means to use them to draw us closer to Himself and to each other.
Alicia Hernon, Class of '94
Why 'charismatic spirituality' belongs at the heart of our communal life Though he obviously tried to be fair in his article on charismatics, traditionalists and the liturgy, and though he says he used to be a charismatic himself, I cannot help thinking that Adam Tate must not really understand what the renewal is all about. The charismatic renewal is not a private spirituality developed by men as a means of expressing their faith. Rather, it is mainly something God has done--a grace He has poured out in order to renew His Church. It is, first and foremost, an inward grace: a gratuitous, overpowering and very intimate certitude of God's presence, His love and His saving power, which is often (but not always) accompanied by extraordinary spiritual gifts, such as those that appeared among the early Christians after Pentecost. For at least two or three recent decades, this grace has been offered in gigantic measure and on a gigantic scale to practically anyone who showed himself willing to receive it. And, in this way, the personal renewal of untold thousands became a sort of informal "movement" in the Church. Those who shared the experience naturally began to congregate together, in places where they could freely express their jubilation, exercise their "gifts," and live our their new faith without reserve. Steubenville became one of those places. But Franciscan University was not only a place where the charismatic river of life could flow freely, so to speak, but also a place where its characteristic unruliness could be channeled and harnessed; made to stay inside the safe banks of orthodoxy and Catholic tradition; kept from flooding and destroying otherwise fertile ground. In my opinion, this is one of the most obvious of divine purposes for our campus: that it be a place where the astonishing power of the charismatic renewal can be matured through the life of the mind and chastened by the disciplines of Mother Church, in a way that multiplies it's fruitfulness by pruning its "luxuriance." This is not to say that everyone at Franciscan University ought to be a card-carrying member of the charismatic renewal, nor that unless they are, they are not living a full life in the Spirit. Nor does it necessarily mean that all our services ought to be conspicuously charismatic in style. But it does mean that to deliberately suppress the renewal, or to banish every expression of it (as Adam Tate proposes) from the liturgies, which are the heart of our communal life, could amount to a rejection of a divine gift, and a betrayal of the specific mission of our University. Of course, part of the right "disciplining" of the renewal might include keeping certain of its manifestations out of the liturgy for various reasons, either doctrinal or prudential, and it would be stubbornness on the part of "charismatics" if they refused to listen to legitimate concerns about distractions or unfitting behavior or unworthy music at our liturgies. But this sort healthy "pruning" and perfecting of our liturgical life is something different from a wholesale prohibition against the expression of charismatic spirituality at Mass. Particular behaviors may be duly criticized, but a gift from God should be carefully cherished.
Kathleen (Healy) van Schaijik, Class of '88
I continue to read the University Concourse with great interest, and was particularly impressed with the tone and content of the most recent issue, specifically with the civility, reason and balanced approach of Father Giles, Alicia Hernon and Susan Creel Fischer in approaching their subject matter. Father Giles was always a level head on campus when I attended the University. (Mrs. Fischer preceded my arrival and Mrs. Hernon attended after I graduated.)
Christopher P. Wright, Class of '87
© The University Concourse, May 6, 1997 |
