Monday, October 07, 2013

Mystical not ascetic: a Traditionalist response to Pope Francis, Part 1


Update: to ease navigation here is the complete series of posts:
Part 1: what his disctinction 'Mystical' vs. 'Asectic' means

Part 2: why traditional Catholics can better accomodate this perspective than 'Neo-Conservatives'
Part 3: why liberal Catholics shouldn't feel too comfortable with it
Part 4: what is going on with the reference to the life and family issues.
Part 5: what to make of the worry that the Vetus Ordo suffer 'ideologization'.


Pope Francis' long interview with Fr Antonio Spadaro SJ for the Jesuit journals presents a challenge for Catholics attached to the Traditional Mass. It is a challenge which I think we can meet.

My concern, in this first post of a series, is to get inside the Holy Father's thinking, really to understand what he is trying to convey, which is not always on the surface of the words. It seems to me that his thinking in the interview turns on a distinction he expresses when he makes the puzzling remark:

“Ignatius is a mystic, not an ascetic.”

He had, however, already indicated what this distinction means.


"A Jesuit is a person who is not centered in himself. The Society itself also looks to a center outside itself; its center is Christ and his church. So if the Society centers itself in Christ and the church, it has two fundamental points of reference for its balance and for being able to live on the margins, on the frontier. If it looks too much in upon itself, it puts itself at the center as a very solid, very well ‘armed’ structure, but then it runs the risk of feeling safe and self-sufficient. The Society must always have before itself the Deus semper maior, the always-greater God, and the pursuit of the ever greater glory of God, the church as true bride of Christ our Lord, Christ the king who conquers us and to whom we offer our whole person and all our hard work, even if we are clay pots, inadequate. This tension takes us out of ourselves continuously.”
"... The mystical dimension of discernment never defines its edges and does not complete the thought. The Jesuit must be a person whose thought is incomplete, in the sense of open-ended thinking. There have been periods in the Society in which Jesuits have lived in an environment of closed and rigid thought, more instructive-ascetic than mystical: this distortion of Jesuit life gave birth to the Epitome Instituti.”
St Ignatius of Loyola
To put it perhaps too crudely, what Pope Francis has in mind is simply this. The mystic is a person open to the influence of the spirit, and that means he is conforming himself to Christ and is always ready to serve others. The ascetic tendency is legalistic, it is an attempt to keep things neat and tidy; it is closed in on itself.
I have never heard of a mystic who was not, in the ordinary sense of the word, ascetic. But Pope Francis is using both words in his own sense for his own purposes.
When Pope Francis looks at different movements in the Church he asks himself which side of this distinction is applicable to them. Vatican II, obviously, was an attempt to shift the Church more completely into the mystical mode. On the other hand:
If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists­—they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.”
It is not immediately clear who Pope Francis has in mind by the terms 'restorationist' and 'legalist'; it is best to try to understand the phenomenon he is talking about and worry about who, if anyone, represents this phenomenon later. There is such a thing as an inward-looking attitude. When talking about the Jesuits above, and elsewhere, Pope Francis has emphasised another, related, manifestation of this. In Brazil he warned:
"We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord."

In another sermon, he told newly ordained priests:

"Today I ask you in the name of Christ and the Church, never tire of being merciful. You will comfort the sick and the elderly with holy oil: do not hesitate to show tenderness towards the elderly. When you celebrate the sacred rites, when you offer prayers of praise and thanks to God throughout the hours of the day, not only for the people of God but for the world—remember then that you are taken from among men and appointed on their behalf for those things that pertain to God. Therefore, carry out the ministry of Christ the Priest with constant joy and genuine love, attending not to your own concerns but to those of Jesus Christ. You are pastors, not functionaries. Be mediators, not intermediaries."

The 'ascetic' side of the distinction, therefore, includes not only people stuck in the past, it includes people who approach the task of being a priest or bishop as just a job, people who look at the Church as just a human organisation, which must be defended, and whose rules are all-important. Because they look at things in a natural way, a merely human way, they are not open to the Spirit. They too want to keep things neat and tidy, in order to maintain bureaucratic efficiency.

IMG_0340
Being Christ-centred: the 13th Station at the SCT Summer School
The challenge here for all of us is to ask ourselves: is the strategy I am pursuing within the Church mystical or, in Pope Francis' idiolect, ascetic? Traditional Catholics are subject to these temptations like everyone else. But it seems to me that the general tenor of the Traditional approach can be vindicated as genuinely mystical. What we need to do, to clarify what we are about to those who take on Pope Francis' way of thinking, is to demonstrate this.

Pius XI on Latin: Officiorum omnium

I've blogged about this briefly before; now, thanks to some very generous help from various Latinists, I can present the whole thing in English for the first time online. It is particularly important to keep in mind the consistent teaching of the Church on issues like this, as expressed in proper magisterial documents printed in the Acta Apostolicis Sedis. They can be ignored, of course, but they don't go away.

This document is referred to repeatedly by Bl. John XXIII's Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia (1962). Its importance lies not only in its content, but the fact that as an Apostolic Letter it is an act of the Papal Magisterium; many documents on this topic are Instructions, which are of lesser weight.

It helps to demonstrate the remarkable consistency of the teaching of the Church on the importance of Latin before, during, and after the Second Vatican Council: compare the above mentioned Veterum Sapientia, the Council's Decree on Seminary Education Optatam totius, and later documents such as Paul VI's Sacrificium laudis (1966) (also available in English only on the LMS website here), Bl John Paul II's Dominicae cenae (1980), the Congregation for Catholic Education's Inspectis dierum (1989), Pope Benedict XVI's Sacramentum caritatis (2007) and Lingua Latina (2012).

Most of these documents are not primarily concerned with the liturgy; Officiorum omnium doesn't even mention it. The concern is with Latin as an irreplacable foundation for a seminary education, opening the door to an immediate engagement with the Latin Fathers, the documents of the Church, Canon law, and an enormous body of theology, history, and literature.

For more on Latin in Seminaries, see the FIUV Position Paper 12: Latin in Seminaries.

Officiorum omnium can be downloaded in full here; below is a key passage.

Since Latin is such a language, it was divinely foreseen that it should be something marvellously useful for the Church as teacher, and that it should also serve as a great bond of unity for Christ’s more learned faithful; that is to say, by giving them not only something with which, whether they are separated in different locations or gathered into one place, they might easily compare the respective thoughts and insights of their minds, but also – and this is even more important – something with which they might understand more profoundly the things of mother Church, and might be united more closely with the head of the Church. It is clear that the clergy should, in advance of the rest, be very studious of the Latin language for both these reasons, not to mention others; for we do not here run through the estimations by which this kind of speech is recommended, that it is compact, rich, rhythmic, full of majesty and dignity. And you might say with wonder that it was ready-made to serve the glory of the Roman Pontiff, to whom the very seat of Empire came as by a bequest.

But if, in any layman who is indeed imbued with literature, ignorance of the Latin language, which we can truly call the “catholic” language, indicates a certain sluggishness in his love towards the Church, how much more fitting it is that each and every cleric should be adequately practised and skilled in that language! It is certainly their task to defend Latinity with all the more steadfastness, since they are aware that it was with all the more violence that it was attacked by the adversaries of catholic wisdom who in the 16th century shattered the accord Europe had in the single doctrine of the Faith.

Therefore – and this is something guaranteed by canon law (Codex Iuris Canonici can. 1364) – in the schools of literature where the sacred order's expectations reach maturity, we wish the alumni to be instructed very exactly in the Latin language. We wish it also for this motive, in case, when they later approach the higher disciplines that must certainly be both handed on and received in Latin, it happens that through ignorance of the language they cannot achieve full understanding of the doctrines, let alone exercise themselves in those scholastic disciplines by which the talents of youths are sharpened for defending the truth.


Thus the occurrence we often grieve over will happen no longer: - our clerics and priests, when, through neglect of the copious volumes of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church in which the dogmas of the Faith are presented, being both set forth very lucidly and defended invincibly, they have not put enough effort into the study of Latin literature, seek for themselves a suitable supply of doctrine from more recent authors; among these one can virtually say not only is a clear kind of speech and an exact method of arrangement generally lacking, but so too is a faithful interpretation of the dogmas. So it was that Paul warned Timothy: “Hold the form of sound words… Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called; which some promising, have erred concerning the faith” (2 Tim 1.13, 1 Tim 6.20,21). These words, if it were ever otherwise, are in these times especially relevant, since all over the place so very many have become used to hawking various erroneous fallacies, masked under the name and pretence of science. But who could show up and refute these fallacies without thoroughly mastering the understanding of the dogmas of the Faith and the force of the words in which they are solemnly expressed, in short without being skilful in the very language the Church employs?

Friday, October 04, 2013

Daily Celebration of Mass

IMG_1551
Mass for the Dead: the Latin Mass Society's annual Requiem in Westminster Cathedral.

The Congregation of Clergy's document encouraging the Daily Celebration of Mass which I blogged about here still isn't on their website in English, though it is there in Italian, German, and Spanish.

The Latin Mass Society has had it translated into English now in full (and I am grateful to the blog commenter who produced a draft and sent it to the LMS Office) so you can download a pdf here - it is only two and half pages long. My favourite passages are below.

'Holy Mass is ‘the source and summit’ of the whole of the priestly life; from it the priest draws supernatural strength and it feeds the spirit of faith of which he has the most absolute need in order to conform himself to Christ and to serve Him worthily. In the same way as the manna in Exodus, which was collected every day, the priest has a daily need to drink from the fountain of grace, the sacrifice of Golgotha​​, which is represented sacramentally in the Holy Mass. To omit such a daily celebration—except only where it is not possible—means to deprive himself of the principal food required for his own sanctification and for the apostolic ministry of the Church, as well as to risk indulging in a kind of spiritual Pelagianism, which trusts more in the strength of man than in the gift of God.'
...
'The priest's pastoral charity—which as a rule can only reach the faithful travellers (viatores), transcends in the Holy Mass the boundaries of space and time. Celebrating in persona Christi, the priest is completing a work that exceeds the dimensions of the efficacy of human action, limited as this is by its own time and space and the history of its effects, and extends beyond the boundaries of what is humanly attainable. This applies, in particular, to the value of Christ’s merits, which in the Holy Mass are offered back to the Father on our behalf, and on behalf of many. Among the ‘many’ for whom Christ offered himself once and for all on the cross, and continues to offer himself on that sacramental Golgotha ​​which is the altars of our churches, are also the faithful departed, who are waiting to enter into the eternal vision of God.' 


IMG_1748
Mass for the Dead in St Benet's Hall, Oxford

Thursday, October 03, 2013

Big events coming up

IMG_1098
Last year's Mass in Aylesford

This Saturday, 5th October, is the Aylesford Pilgrimage:
Sung Mass at 1.30pm celebrated by Fr Marcus Holden, followed by devotions. Aylesford Priory is a restored Medieval Carmelite Priory and the international centre of the Brown Scapular devotion. Click here for a map. There is a coach from London: book here.


Saturday 12th October is the Rosary Crusade of Reparation, which starts from outside Westminster Cathedral at 2.15 and proceeds to the Brompton Oratory where Benediction is celebrated. More details here.


IMG_1270
Procession for the Oxford Pilgrimage
Saturday 19th October is the LMS Oxford Pilgrimage: Solemn Mass in the Dominican Rite at Blackfriars, St Giles, Oxford, at 11am, accompanied by the Schola Abelis and the Newman Consort with Chant and Polyphony; this is followed by a procession to the site of the four martyrdoms of 1589, and Benediction. Click here for a map.

Saturday 2nd November, All Souls:
The annual LMS Mass in Milton Manor will take place at 11am; it will be sung by Fr John Hunwicke, and accompanied by the Schola Abelis and the Newman Consort with Chant and Polyphony. Click here for a map.

For the first time ever, there will be a Mass in the Extraordinary Form in the St Thomas More Chapel in Oxford's Catholic Chaplaincy, at 3pm. It will be sung by Fr Daniel Seward of the Oxford Oratory.

Saturday 23rd November: LMS Annual Requiem in Westminster Cathedral,
a Pontifical High Mass at 2pm; it will be celebrated by Bishop John Arnold and accompanied by members of the Cathedral Choir.

What can he mean?

From Pope Francis recent interview with the Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari.

"Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good."

"... Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."

If we want to understand what someone is saying, it is a good idea to use the charitable assumption - which is also a rational assumption - that it isn't completely loopy. At least, from the point of view of the person speaking.

If Pope Francis is taken as saying that, seeing that each person has a view of the good, we should help each person to achieve what each person wants to achieve, without further qualification, this would be completely loopy. It would just lead to this.


It seems fair to assume that each side in the Crusades, as in most wars, were 'moving towards what they thought of as Good', and indeed moving with commendable vigour. But the resultant bloodshed was not something we should be promoting.

It is perfectly obvious that this isn't what the Holy Father had in mind. Nor would he approve, say, assisting the Nazis to achieve their goal, which they regarded as good, of a Jew-free Europe, or Lenin's goal of strangling the last king with the guts of the last priest, and so on and so forth.

Since he didn't mean that, what did he mean? There must be some implicit assumptions which limit the scope of the notion of 'good'. For example, on the Catholic assumption that Natural Law is written on our hearts, or even on the less substantial Aristotelian assumption that all men seek happiness, what we (really, truly, deeply) think is good is the real good, and not a false good. Aristotle said that those seeking happiness in something degraded or immoral were trying to use a flawed means to get to the genuine good (the happiness which would satisfy all their desires). St Thomas Aquinas said that you can never convince yourself completely that something degraded or immoral was the real good, there would always be the little voice of Natural Law nagging you that this wasn't right, so in a broad sense immoral action (leaving aside misunderstandings and ignorance) was never rational or fully conscientious. The wicked always act against their conscience.

These kinds of views are, of course, completely at home in the Catholic tradition, so it would not be surprising at all if the Pope agreed with this - quite the opposite. So what he might be saying is: we should be encouraging people to seek the true good, regardless of what they think they think is the good, because what they really think is the good is the true good.

This kind of view is, of course, compatible with a pretty robust approach to getting people to adopt and remain in the Catholic Faith.


Now we can be pretty sure he didn't mean that either. Again, this would be a matter of attributing to him various assumptions about religious freedom, prudence, and the Geneva Convention on Torture, which it is eminently plausible that he holds.

Of course he doesn't mention these assumptions in the interview, any more than he mentions the first set of assumptions.

The most we can really be sure about is that what he meant falls somewhere in the logical space between:

Proposition 1: We should help people to achieve what they want, however degraded or immoral that is, even if it involves killing the innocent, torturing people etc..

and

Proposition 2: We should get people to embrace the true Good, revealed to us (and to them) by Natural Law and Divine Revelation, even if that involves killing the innocent, torturing people etc..

The limits on what he might mean that I have just given derive entirely from the assumptions I have (charitably and rationally) attributed to the Holy Father, and not to the words he actually spoke. So what exactly do these sentences in the interview reveal about the Holy Father's thoughts?

Nothing.

Attempts to place him at a specific point along the spectrum of opinion are likely to turn into eisegesis: reading into him what we want to see. If other statements of his are clearer, well let's look at those instead. Tying oneself into knots to give a 'conservative' interpretation, or getting carried away with a loopy liberal one, is no use to anyone.

One thing I can conclude: that it is compatible with the respect due to the Holy Father's exalted Office to suggest that these interviews are generating more heat than light.

Wednesday, October 02, 2013

Pope Francis is not going to change the teaching of the Church

IMG_4310
Carrying the Papal flag on the Latin Mass Society Walsingham Pilgrimage

I am still catching up with Pope Francis' long interview and the various reactions to it. The Sensible Bond has a very interesting analysis. I have a very simple observation to make: whatever we make of the tone or what is left unsaid or all those (very interesting) things, we must hold onto the reality that this is not a prelude to the Holy Father changing any of the teaching of the Church.


He says as much himself. Referring to his remarks on the aeroplane back from Rio about homosexuals, he says that it is completely in line with the Catechism. You look at what he said, the actual words, and he is right, it is. It was taken as indication of a revolutionary change of teaching by the secular liberal press, but it wasn't. It was just one aspect of the Catechism's teaching, which Pope Francis wanted to underline.

Conservative and traditional Catholics have got used to decoding the drivellings of liberals who are conducting a campaign to change the teaching of the Church; I have written often enough about this on this blog. Basil Loftus does it all the time; Elena Curti's article about the ordination of women is a good example as well. Curti never said that the Church should change her teaching and ordain women; she offered various practical, cultural and theological considerations in favour, mostly in the mouths of people she'd spoken to, and she offered not a single line presenting the case for the other side of the debate. It is easy to see what conclusions she wants her readers to draw. Why, we may ask, was she not more open? Because she is writing in a 'Catholic' periodical, and she wants to win the argument without exposing herself to charges of open dissent. Such charges would embarrass the Tablet's Catholic friends, it would make it easier for people to object to its being sold in churches, it would cut it off from the Catholic readership it wants to influence. So there are strict red lines about what you can say openly and what you can only hint at. Even though the hinting can be pretty unmistakable.

IMG_4215

Now, when we battle-scarred Trads look at a text like Pope Francis' interview, our finely-tuned antennae are waggling away trying to pick up the coded messages in between the lines. This has become second nature. But the point I want to make here is that we aren't dealing with a Basil Loftus or Elena Curti (or even an Austen Ivereigh, though exactly what he thinks I leave to anther day). We are reading the words of the Supreme Pontiff. This makes a difference not because what he says off the cuff in an interview is infallible (it isn't), but because he has supreme authority in the Church, and if anything can be changed, he can change it. So if, like our typical Catholic dissident, he thought a teaching could be changed, and wanted to change it, he need not fear being branded a heretic for proposing quite openly that it be changed - heck, he could sign a decree and change it forthwith.

The point is that if Pope Francis appears to be beating about the bush and not quite saying what some readers long to hear, but instead dropping hints and what not, he is not doing this for the reasons that Elena Curti does it. She does it because, although she is convinced that the changes would be right and good, she wants to keep within the limits of acceptable dissent to maintain the fiction that she is writing in a Catholic newspaper. If Pope Francis is doing it, he is doing it for the opposite reason - in fact, he is not doing it at all, he is doing something quite different, which just has a superficial resemblance to the dissident stuff. If Pope Francis can't quite bring himself to say that homosexual acts can be morally permissible, it is not because he thinks they are but wants to keep his head down. It is because he knows that this is something which can never be taught. He knows that the immorality of homosexual acts is irreformable teaching.

IMG_4232

Curti strains and strains to convey the message that women can and should be ordained, by saying everything which can be said in favour of it without quite coming clean about her own position. Pope Francis' great effort is to do the opposite: to say everything (for want of a better word) positive, nice, about homosexuals (and on the other issues), not to give the impression that the teaching is going to be changed, but precisely because he knows it never will be, and so we have to make the best of it.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily a good strategy. There are dangers of misunderstandings, even of raising false expectations. But it appears to be the Holy Father's strategy. It is, in fact, a familiar one, associated in my mind with the members of an older generation of liberal, now gone to their rewards, who quite sincerely took the basic teachings of the Church so much for granted that they felt free not to talk about them very much, but to accentuate the positive. We find, in fact, that kind thing suggested by Bl Pope John XXIII, in his opening speech to the Second Vatican Council.

IMG_4234Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations. Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against an dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts of life. They are ever more deeply convinced of the paramount dignity of the human person and of his perfection as well as of the duties which that implies. 

This might not be the most realistic assessment of the world in 1962, but Pope John was no heretic. I am sure it never crossed his mind that the 'medicine of mercy' might cross over into re-writing the teaching of the Church to leave out the awkward bits.

I am convinced that Pope Francis would die rather than say that marriage is not indissoluble, that homosexual acts are not gravely sinful, or to deny any of the other hard teachings which the Church has received from Jesus Christ. That is not just a figure of speech: I am quite sure that he would suffer martyrdom for these truths, if it came to that. This is something conservatives and liberals alike need to keep in mind.

IMG_4253

Tuesday, October 01, 2013

Babies in Church: a rant about a rant

Sunday shoes.
I have just finished reading 'The Banished Heart' (2nd ed, 2010), by the idiosyncratic Australian academic, Geoffrey Hull, an interesting but, in my view, a flawed book. I hope to write a review of it somewhere. A side-issue is a footnote Hull wrote on p321, referring to the problem of noisy children and infants in church. I want to take violent exception to this, but I should emphasise that this is only a footnote, and hasn't determined my overall judgement of the book (and shouldn't determine anyone else's).

The background is that this chap likes going to the Traditional Mass. He's just written that at the Ordinary Form there can be a problem of children making a distracting noise during Mass. Cue a footnote: Note 2.

A true sign of the times, this problem is by no means restricted to the Novus Ordo. One of the many crosses Western Catholics must bear today is the ghettoization of the immemorial liturgy. Deprived of a normal psychological structure and ethos, Latin Mass centres fatally attract a lunatic fringe, including fanatical young couples of bohemian temperament and a robust sense of entitlement who are given to losing themselves in pious meditation at Mass while their offspring tyrannize the congregation with noise and fidgeting that is not occasional but constant. The simultaneous presence of responsible parents who charitably refrain from bringing babies to church services and whose older children are impeccably behaved in cold comfort, given that in any duel between silence and noise the latter is always the victor.

Does Hull have children of his own? No. (Silly question, perhaps.)

My sympathy for Hull's sensitivity to noisy youngsters disappeared rather abruptly when I read the words 'responsible parents ... charitably refrain from bringing babies to church.' Hull thinks it irresponsible and uncharitable to bring babies to church: the sensitivity, or lack of it, of parents to the noise their babies make, and their ways of dealing with it, are beside the point. Babies should not be there at all.

IMG_0008
Children at a traditional Baptism

Adding to the sheer weirdness of his little rant about babies is that he apparently thinks that it only applies to the Latin Rite. Or did he just fail to put two and two together, when he included in a list of deplorable Latinisations to be noted in Eastern Catholic Churches, the fact that 'Ukrainians outside Europe no longer give Holy Communion to babies after their baptism' (p300).

Right. So Ukrainian Catholics not only may but should take their babies to church; Latin Rite Catholics who do the like are being irresponsible and uncharitable. Well - lead me to the nearest Ukrainian Catholic church!

What people like Hull need to get into their heads is that taking babies to Mass is not some self-indulgent habit like chewing gum or failing to recycle their tins which parents can be encouraged to break. Parents take their babies to Mass for one overwhelming reason, to which the rest of the discussion has to make way.

THEY. CAN'T. LEAVE. THEM. BEHIND.

Who is going to look after the babies, Dr Hull, if parents gaily go off to church without their under-5s? Does he imagine we all have nursery maids? (Who work on Sundays?) Bearing in mind that he is talking about the Traditional Mass, even a married couple who were prepared to go to different Masses to fulfil their Sunday obligation, which is itself problematic, would almost never be able to find two EF Masses near them at different times on a Sunday.

IMG_4503
And another one.

And how does Dr Hull imagine that the 'impeccably behaved' older children he has observed got that way? The normal and reliable route to such good habits is their attending Mass frequently, with both their parents, from the very earliest age. Hull is deluding himself if he imagines you can take a 6-year-old who has never been into a church before to Mass, and expect him to know how to behave. You can't reap where you haven't sown.

I believe, in fact, that parents have an advantage in the Extraordinary Form in teaching their children to behave, and I was delighted to read this the other day, from a self-professed non-trad who has started going to the Traditional Mass.

Besides which, my two-year-old was way better-behaved than he has been at the Novus Ordo, and I’m sure that’s because he picked up on the reverent and serious silence, rather than looking at a guy his grandfather’s age rocking out on a guitar and thinking “aw man, it’s party time up in here!”

The same goes for the parents themselves: whatever their previous experience and habits, parents who start going to the Traditional Mass are encouraged to take their crying or over-excited children outside, not by dirty looks from the likes of Dr Hull, or for that matter by hectoring by priests, but by the atmosphere generated by the liturgy itself. It is not just an empty phrase to say that 'the liturgy is a school of prayer'.

IMG_9576
I think he may have spotted Dad in the choir loft.

A note to childless Mass-goers. First of all, it is a huge advantage if both parents are present; one can take a child outside while the other stays with the remaining children. Pity the parent with a small child, or children, in Mass on his or her own. Second, it is mistake to take a child out of Mass with too small a provocation, because taking him (/her) out (and trying to bring him back in) is itself somewhat disruptive, and the ultimate point is to teach the child to be quiet in Mass, and not to teach him that he'll be allowed outside to play if he makes any kind of noise. I'm afraid that, if you want the butterfly, to some extent you have to put up with the caterpillar.

Judging from my own experience, the level of noise generated by a family goes in waves over time according to the ages of the youngest children. Small babies are usually (not always) easy to deal with. It is when the start to crawl and walk that they become harder, they can't understand why they can't wander about at will. By the age of three or four you can get them at least to whisper their demands, complaints, and mutual recriminations to you. And then you can start explaining what is going on, get them to cross themselves, stand for the Gospel, look at the Elevation, and so on. But by then, of course, there may well be another newborn baby on the scene.

IMG_9921
Children at the Family Retreat. They all came to Mass too, obviously.

And this is the reality of family life. You don't have to be 'fanatical' or 'bohemian' to be living with a child under five for a decade - three children spaced with 3-year gaps will do the trick. And over a decade, life has to go on. You have to go to Mass, and you have to do it as a family. You have to address the spiritual needs of the older children, which includes a liturgical catechesis. And you have to have a spiritual life of your own.

It is not a prison-sentence, it is a wonderful, hugely rewarding time. But while it is perfectly reasonable for other Mass-goers to expect you to do something about a child who is being seriously disruptive, parents equally deserve understanding and support, while they train their children how to behave in church. You can drive them out of Mass, Dr Hull, but only if you want to be a member of the last generation of Catholics.

Finally, here is a description of how a Catholic family deals with a small child from one of my favourite authors, Fr Bryan Houghton. The narrator of the book is a cradle Catholic; Houghton himself was a convert, so it is not his own experience he is talking about, but what he had observed as a priest in the pre-Conciliar period, of the way small children were dealt with in Mass.

I learnt to say my prayers at my mother's knee -- and I still say the same ones each night. But I learned to pray when I was dragged off to Mass on Sundays. Something was altered with Mummy and Daddy. They did not talk to each other or even look at each other. Mummy usually fiddled with a Rosary. Daddy thumbed intermittently a Garden of the Soul which one of my nephews still uses. My eldest sister, Gertrude, who became a Benedictine nun, knelt bold upright with her eyes usually shut. As I looked around it was the same with all our other relatives and neighbours. What was most unusual was that nobody paid the slightest attention to me. Even if I pulled Mummy's skirt, she just gently pushed me away. I once tried to climb on Daddy's back; he lifted me off and put me under the seat. That, too, was strange: although I was in my Sunday best, I was allowed to crawl about the floor provided I did not make a noise. Funny little boy that I was, I realized perfectly well that something was up.


2010 10 03_7674
Looking at the action of the Mass from the Choir Loft

Over there at the altar was Father Gray, a stern old man. I used to hide in the lavatory when he came to visit us. He was dressed in brightly coloured clothes and looked like a fat butterfly. Most of the time he said nothing. He was looking the other way and paid as little attention to Mummy and Daddy as they paid to me.

I do not think I was a particularly precocious child but I was certainly very young when I tumbled to the fact that all these people were praying without saying prayers, as I did. Children are imitative: I too wanted to pray without saying prayers. I opened up to my sister Gertrude. "Just sit quite still, like a good boy," she said. "You are too small to kneel. Keep your hands still as well, on your thighs. Try not to look round and keep your eyes shut if you can. Then just say 'Jesus' under your breath, slowly but constantly. I'll prod you when you say 'Thou art my Lord and my God' and you can say it with me."

That, mutatis mutandis, is I suppose how we all learned to pray. The point I am getting at is that the Mass itself was our school of prayer. It was there that we learned to be self-effacing, detached, recollected and to adhere to the Divine Presence. It was also as Mass that the simple faithful practise prayer throughout their lives. They may have known little theology but they prayed as theologians often do not. Moreover, the simplest of them attained to heights of prayer and sanctity far beyond me.

Mitre and Crook (1979) pp168-9

Update: It is interesting to read of the participation of children in the liturgy of the Old Testament: thus. We frequently see references to 'everyone', and 'from the least to the greatest'; it is not immediately clear if this included small children. But the Chronicler makes it unambiguous:

2 Chron 20:13: 'And all Judah stood before the LORD, with their little ones, their wives, and their children.'
'Omnis vero Iuda stabat coram Domino, cum parvulis et uxoribus et liberis suis.'