|Freakish? Perfectly normal people at the LMS Conference|
Here's something she says:
In short, liturgical issues need to be disentangled from the interpretation of Vatican II issues.
What is peculiar about it is that she presents this as part of her sociological observations about the failings of traditional Catholics. Ok, she's worked out a complex interpretation of the Council in which these issues can be 'disentangled' (though I wish her luck doing that when the Council is actually talking about the liturgy). If she wants to run this line, that's her affair, and other writers will criticise it. What is downright weird is her suggesting that people who disagree with her are obviously and morally in the wrong. She does this even while conceding that, well yes, 'there is an overlap between the two'. Right, so the matter is one of a delicate set of distinctions which are strongly contested by 'some theologians': for which, read, an awful lot of people who aren't called 'Tracey Rowland'. But the ordinary traditional Catholics in the pew, who haven't heard of Tracy Rowland, are, she implies, to feel ashamed of themselves for not agreeing with her. They are letting the side down.
She has a vivid mental picture of how discussions of the Council during coffee after Mass go. On the one hand, she suggests, of the traditionalists:
Their world-view would be shattered if they suddenly realised that for twenty-seven years John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger laboured to present Catholics with a wholly different understanding of the Council ...
On the other, she says of the non-trads:
they probably are people who can distinguish between the genuine Conciliar reforms and what Cardinal Ratzinger called the "rationalistic relativism, confusing claptrap and pastoral infantilism" which was marketed as the fruit of the Council in the 1960s and 70s.
In other words, the trads haven't even noticed that Pope Paul VI has died and that his successors had a somewhat different take on things, but the people who wander in from the street have read all of Cardinal Ratzinger's works and have higher degrees in theology.
I'm sorry, this is just loopy. I've talked to a lot of trads, and a lot of people who've wandered into celebrations of the Traditional Mass off the street, and I've seen many interactions between the two, and I can tell Prof Rowland that the Trads are infinitely better informed than the newcomers. Most Catholics know nothing - NOTHING - of substance about the Council or the liturgical reform. (37% of American Catholics, remember, don't know even that the Church teaches the Real Presence.) Most haven't caught up with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. It's the trads who start making distinctions and citing Church documents in these discussions. Their position as an embattled minority has forced them to become well informed. Obviously, their failure to agree with Tracey Rowland on highly complex and controversial issues is unforgivable. But she should ask a few people in the average Novus Ordo parish what they think of the 'Trinitarian Christocentric interpretation of the Council', and see how far that gets her.
What she is doing is nothing more or less than negative stereotyping. It's not big and its not clever. It is rude, uncharitable, uninformed, and stupid.
The other area in which her desire to judge outruns the information she has about her victims is the matter of clothing. The nub of it is: are those who attend the Traditional Mass less well dressed than the average Novus Ordo congregation? Well, has she seen an average Novus Ordo congregation?
Let's take a little step back. First off, as Rowland appears dimly to apprehend, the world of clothing, particularly clothing for women, and particularly in the English-speaking world, is going through a profound crisis, like every other aspect of our culture. The result is that only a small minority of people are what you might call 'well dressed', in the sense of wearing clothes which are beautiful in themselves, practical, modest, flattering, well made, appropriate to the occasion, and not such as to strike the onlooker as outlandish. Most people wear clothes which are ugly and unflattering; the extreme, but ubiquitous, example, being jeans and t-shirts. Such clothes are supposed to convey the impression that the wearer is too cool to bother with formal attire. They are part of the same anti-formalist ideology which has afflicted the liturgy, the ideology which says that formality is inauthentic. Wake up, Tracey: these are not separate issues. Martin Mosebach has traced the connection between the liturgical issue and the general cultural issue.
In this context most people, when not required by work or a special occasion to dress more formally, look a mess, not by accident, but on purpose. People with a very acute sense of style and very good looks can still look fabulous, but the kind of judgments such people make about the details of their 'relaxed' clothing are a complete mystery to nearly everyone else.
Add to this general situation an almost total collapse of regard for female modesty, and you have a cultural catastrophe. You can witness that catastrophe by walking into a Novus Ordo Mass anywhere in the English-speaking world on a warm day. Australia, I understand, has many warm days.
|More normal people at the Family Retreat|
Ann Krohn, the Convenor of the Australian Catholic women's network called Anima, has suggested that a distinction can be drawn between a 'smart retro look' which can even be avant-garde, and the Amish puritan style...
If Prof Rowland needed Ann Krohn to point out that 'retro' can be fashionable, she has obviously been living under a stone for the last twenty years. But notice that, for her, it can be justified if it can in some way be 'avant-garde'. What if we don't want to be avant-garde? What if, like Martin Mosebach, we have a cultural analysis which rejects what he calls 'the senile avant-guardism of 1910'? The relentless rejection of the past and of formalism which has been reprised in art and fashion over and over again since before the First World War? Are we to be trapped in this sterile ideology forever?
Rowland says patronisingly:
the problem here seems to be that members of traditionalist movements often lack a hermeneutical framework for cultural analysis.
What sort of 'hermeneutical framework for cultural analysis' does Rowland have? It is prettty obvious that, as far as clothing and fashion is concerned, she doesn't have a clue. Is it relevant that, as I was so lambasted for pointing out in my original post, she was badly dressed when making these remarks? I'm afraid it is. It is not a matter of personal abuse, it is a matter of understanding. Does she understand the issues? No, she does not.
Why should she? She's a theologian. There is a long tradition of female academics who evince simple disdain for their personal appearance. I just don't expect them to lecture the rest of us about fashion.
To return to the central point, if we are not applying double standards, the question is whether those at the Traditional Mass are generally worse dressed than those at the Novus Ordo. What we find, what Rowland herself says, is that there is something noticeable about the former, they are bucking the trend a bit. Once we realise that the general trend is a disaster, we won't want to assume, as Rowland does, that anyone not following it slavishly is worst dressed than everyone else. The way they are bucking the trend is by making an effort in the direction of modesty. Could Rowland find it in herself to acknowledge that, in the current climate, this effort is both a good thing, and heroically difficult?
It doesn't follow that the ladies at the EF are invariably well styled. It is extremely difficult to find clothes which are both modest and good in every other way - and affordable. Can we cut them a little slack here? Just a little? Can we acknowledge that they are making a sacrifice for the sake of morality?
But finally, they can look pretty dreadful and still be superior, all things considered, to the people in the average OF congregation, who have given no thought either to modesty or to style. Who include people in jeans and t-shirts, quite possibly jeans cut short with nail scissors, accessorised with flip-flops. They don't exactly put up stiff competition in the fashion parade. Rowland finds them acceptable because they conform to the utterly debased standards of modern culture. Are these really the only relevant standards?
|Two members of the Guild of St Clare|
For present purposes, it suffices to say that Rowland's response is completely unhelpful. It is unhelpful because it is crassly uninformed, as well as grossly uncharitable. It is one of those attempts, which are so wearying, of intellectuals who recognise some of the importance and truth of the liturgical tradition trying to distance themselves from the little people who actually do their best to live that tradition in the very difficult conditions of the modern world. She doesn't want to get involved and help them do it better: that would tarnish her. She just wants to look down on them from a great height and ridicule them.
I'll leave the last word to Fr Glen Tattersall, who ministers to Traditional Catholics in Melbourne: the real ones, not the ones who inhabit Tracey Rowland's fervid imagination.
To see and hear some English traditional Catholics, watch our 'vox pop' video interviews with some of them, such as this one about the Walsingham Pilgrimage.