Anamchara

HARRY POTTER AND GOD

THE GOOD AND THE BAD IN HARRY POTTER

I saw the latest installment of Harry Potter last night and thought it the best of this series of movies.  Mature themes dealing with death and the consequences of our actions as well as beautiful cinematography and a surprising burst of good acting from the main characters make this a film worth seeing.  But that doesn't mean that all is well at Hogwarts.  Lev Grossman in a great article in this week's issue of TIME, Harry Potter and God, sums up the problem I've always found in the books and the movie.

At the end of this film, Harry Potter says something like this as he's standing with all the students who support him:  "We have something that Voldemort doesn't."  The problem is, What is that something?  J.K. Rowlings really doesn't have room for metaphysics in her books.  There is no real need for God.  And there's the rub.  Harry's good because she says he's good.  Voldemort's bad because she says he's bad.  But why?  What governs this literary and cinematic universe?  That's why Lev Grossman in his article posits that the one who dies in the last book will really be God, because there is no need for a Supreme Being in Harry Potter's universe.  (What a suprise for God?!) That's just fine with our secular culture, but in the end, it's not going to sit well with those of us who like our myths deeper, touching eternal verities.

As those who read this blog know, I'm not one to condemn outright literature or film that doesn't march lock step with Christian values.  There is much that is good in Harry Potter.  But not enough, I think, to really make this creation a classic.  J. K. Rowlings says that everything good in Harry Potter comes from love, but love that is not rooted in Eternal Love, namely God, degenerates into sentimentality and risks being used by us selfish humans who often do what we want and then say we act out of love.  Enjoy the film, relish the last book, but keep your wits about you:  there is a God even if Harry hasn't discovered Him yet.

VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE CHURCH

CDF PUBLISHES:  RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH

Yesterday, June 10, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published the above document.  See it here:  CDF document.  It provoked a storm of protest from non-Catholics and secular media.  Most assuredly it did not sit well with cafeteria Catholics who have embraced relativism.  Yet, the document said nothing new.  It simply restated the age old belief that the one, true Church subsists only in the Catholic Church.  The two crucial linch pins of this are apostolic succession, which traces the Church in an unbroken line back to Christ and the apostles, and a unity with Rome, the see of St. Peter.  The basic teaching is that the one Church of Christ subsists fully only in the Catholic Church.  Elements of the Church are present and operative in other churches and ecclesial communities (the Protestant groups), but not fully.  Yet, Christ can use those communities as instruments of salvation.  It's kind of technical, but that's why the teaching of the Church uses the word "subsists" instead of "is."  Parts of the Church's elements of sanctification of truth are found outside her structure.  In other words, there is great value in other denominations, but there is not the fullness of truth.

Look, if you believe that truth is relative, that is, we can make our own truth, then you will have problems with this document and this teaching.  But like the X-Files says, "The Truth is out there!"  Not in me.  As Catholics, we do not believe in multiple truths.  What many in our culture aren't going to like about this document is that it seems to say that Catholics are better than anyone else.  Nothing could be further from the truth!  On the contrary, because we possess the fullness of the Church, we need to act with more faith, more virtue, more courage--we have to behave more responsibly because of the tremendous gift we have been given.  This leads us to humility, not pride.

Yet, relativism says that man can make his own truth and his own god.  Many believe that one religion is as good as another.  We reject that notion because it is simply a variant of the temptation in the Garden of Eden, namely, that we ourselves can be gods, we ourselves can create truth.  We cannot.  A lot of sturm and drang, sound and fury, in the media over all this.  But the Pope is just proclaiming what the Church has always proclaimed.  The blinding light of Truth can be painful, but at least it's Light rather than the murk and muck of grey ambiguity and confusion.  Thanks to Pope Benedict for restating what it is we truly believe.

MOTU PROPRIO ON THE LATIN LITURGY

  MOTU PROPRIO ON THE LATIN LITURGY:  WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

So I waited until the embargo was lifted from this document in order to comment on it and if I can say just one thing let it be this:  Everyone, take a deep breath and relax.  The Pope did not just undo Vatican II, nor did he equate the Roman Missal of 1962 with the Roman Missal of 1970.   The Mass as celebrated around the world for the past nearly forty years remains the ordinary way most folks will experience the Liturgy.  The Pope has made it easier for those who are especially attracted to the Tridentine Mass (1962 style) to experience it, but here's the buzz:  expect a flurry of excitement and then a continuation of the Liturgy as most Catholics have known it for the past several decades.  In fact, this document may even help the vernacular Liturgy be done with more grace and transcendence.

A close look at the Motu Proprio shows how the Pope wishes to enable those who have a close affinity to the Tridentine Mass to experience such a liturgy. 

• First, he allows priests to celebrate a private Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962 without a congregation when they wish with the exception of the Triduum (Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday).
• Second, he allows the faithful who spontaneously request to attend such a Mass, even though it is private.

Hopefully that will take care of the need, but if not then:

• Third, if there is an established group in a parish that has an affinity for that liturgy, the pastor is to provide them an opportunity to experience that liturgy publicly in a way that does not conflict with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish.  Mass on the weekdays and one Mass for the Sunday Obligation is permitted, as well as special occasions.  Bumping an Novus Ordo Mass for a Tridentine one does not seem to be envisioned.  These Masses would be in addition to the ordinary parish celebrations.
• Fourth, a pastor is to accede to the request of parishioners for other sacraments to be celebrated in Latin according to the pre-Vatican II rites.
• Fifth,those that say these Masses must be "worthy" and not "impeded by law".  Looks like while the Bishop will have nothing to say about who can celebrate a private Mass, he will have much discretion to determine who is "worthy" to celebrate a public one.  That will ensure that the Latin liturgy will be done correctly.
• If a pastor or parish cannot accomodate a real need, the Bishop can set up a new parish to handle such a need.
• Finally, if all else fails, contact Rome and Rome will try to help.

Obviously, some overly zealous priests and laypeople might interpret this as a roll back the clock moment.  Nothing could be further from the Pope's mind.  He says in his introductory letter to the bishops that experiencing the Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962 entails some knowledge and understanding of Latin, something which will not be very prevalent.  The Pope, basically, is granting a favor.  He wants those who love the old Liturgy to enjoy it without being on the fringe.  But at the same time, he wants to allay fears that Mass "as we know it today" is done for.  Not a chance.  He's saying the Church is big enough to have two experiences of the same Mass.  While there are not gazillions of people clamoring for the Latin Liturgy, there are enough that, for the sake of unity, he wants to make them feel at home again.  Will that make others feel less at home?  Hope not.  Whether you are conservative or liberal, don't use this decision to divine the future direction of the Church.  Pope Benedict isn't seeing it that way, so why should any of us?  Let's see how this all plays out, and if everyone keeps their wits about themselves, doomsday scenarious and restorationist talk will never concretely materialize.  Instead, all of us who love the Catholic faith will worship the same Christ, whether in Latin or the vernacular.