When this particular blog was started back in 2011 its stated purposes was simply to depict churches and not to otherwise comment. And, during the time this blog has been up, that's largely what it has done. Indeed, at this point it not only depicts the architecture of numerous churches around the west, but also religious houses belonging to several other religions. So, it's pretty much stuck to its task.
Perhaps inevitably, however, it strays from time to time with comments. Indeed, a blog on religious structures is going to have, at some point, a hard time not commenting on something with a religious theme. When we've done that, we have tried not to make proselytizing arguments of any kind, but rather comment on issues where issues appear. Frankly, in at least one case, we pulled back on one such draft item and never posted it as it had the appearance of going perhaps where it should not, if it was going to remain consistent with the theme of the blog.
Be that as it may, there are items from time to time that are commented upon as comments. And often they involve Catholic themes when they do, as we are Catholics. Indeed, the original about section of the blog, where it now states;
This blog is a collection of photographs of churches, and sometimes a bit more, that we find interesting. It isn't an attempt to catalog all the churches in any one town, or even of any one area in a town. The selection of churches featured is simply our own choice, based on churches we find architecturally or historically interesting for one reason or another.
it once stated:
This blog is a collection of photographs of churches, mostly Catholic, and sometimes a bit more, that we find interesting. It isn't an attempt to catalog all the churches in any one town, or even of any one area in a town. The selection of churches featured is simply our own choice, based on churches we find architecturally or historically interesting for one reason or another.
That turned out never to be true, actually as the very first 2011 set of photographs included more Protestant churches than Catholic ones.
Anyhow, quite often when we may have been tempted to comment on a supposed controversy it was as controversy that wasn't. A lot of the common comments a person hears on religious topics in general and Catholic ones in particular are wildly wrong as a rule. The often repeated story about the rise of the "None's", for example, is grossly misreported and actually doesn't amount to anywhere near as much of a story as its made out to be. Tales of Catholic dissention are typically fairly off the mark itself and indeed the concepts surrounding it are often not at all understood by the leadership of the Church within the Church, as perhaps best exemplified by the leadership of the German church which is strangely stuck in the liberal 1970s rather than the increasingly conservative 2020s.
Anyhow, if there's a lesson here it's that crises come and go, and often they go without having amounted to anywhere near as much as they were thought to be at the time of their onset.
All of which argues for not posting this comment here. But, as the saying goes, fools rush in . . .
The crises this time is a real crisis, although even right now the full dimensions and parameters of it are not known and they will not be until the crisis is over. And that crisis is, of course, the
Coronavirus Pandemic of 2020.
Switching from the general to the particular, I'm going to only address this in the context of the Catholic Church and explain my reasoning for doing so. All around the country churches have been adjusting to this change, with difficulty. A lot of churches of all denominations (and I'll bet this is true of non Christian religions as well) have gone to televised and Youtube services. Indeed, I visited with several friends, Catholic and non Catholic, who have experienced this with mixed results. But departing from that, for members of the Apostolic Churches this is a particularly difficult time for a variety of reasons all of which is based on the fact that they're understanding of the sacraments varies from the Protestant churches and even varies from those Protestant churches that are very closely based on the Catholic Church. The simple reason for that is that members of the Apostolic Churches are deprived of the core of their faith if they can't receive direct communication with their clerics.
When this crisis arrived here, the first thing that was done was the suspension of the "greeting", that being the handshake that was introduced into the Latin Rite after Vatican Two, borrowed from the practice of a greeting that is found in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches (interestingly those Protestant churches closely based on the Catholic Church followed suit and introduced it at the same time in some instances).
I frankly don't like shaking hands and wouldn't care of that practice disappeared forever, so I sure didn't miss that. At the same time, Communion from the cup was suspended in the Latin Rite. I don't know about the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church or the Orthodox, but I'd note that at least the Eastern Orthodox in Rome, Italy, at about the same time refused to alter the Eastern practice in which the Host is served from the chalice with a small spoon, a very intimate and distinct practice in the East. I frankly don't even know if there's a way that, in the East, that could be validly altered.
Next, however, came the end of Public Masses.
And following this, has been controversy.
The suspension of Public Masses in our Diocese was thought to be limited, at first, to just that, and indeed that's exactly how the Parish Priest presented it. Public gatherings, he noted, would be stopped, including the Mass, during the emergency period noted by the Bishop, but everything else would go on. He'd do the Stations of the Cross and if people were there, so be it. He'd continue to hear Confessions as well.
This contrasted with the neighboring Diocese of Salt Lake, where by that time everything, including Confessions, had been stopped.
I found the thought of the Diocese of Salt Lake halting Confessions to be shocking, but the Diocese of Wyoming soon clarified and made it clear that its Priests were to do the same.
Now, prior to that clarification there were a few days of confusion. It was clear that everything had been stopped at one parish and not another as different Pastors no doubt interpreted the order in accordance with its spirit or letter. The Diocese soon made it clear, apparently, what was meant.
So all the sacraments (maybe) have been ceased, and not just here, but in most places. Maybe everywhere.
No Baptisms, no marriages, no Last Rights (apparently, but I'm not really sure, and apparently not everywhere), no Masses, and no Confessions (save perhaps by appointment).
But was that the right thing to do?
I really wondered right from the onset. I get it, and I particularly get it about the Public Masses. But I don't think this was done well, and frankly, in looking at it, I think there were real mistakes made in this approach.
I'm apparently note the only one as a real debate has broken out among deep thinking Catholics on these topics including those in the Catholic pundit class, the Canon Law class, and the laymen class. I've heard arguments on both sides, and frankly I'm in the camp that thinks the Bishops made real errors in their approach. Not only do I think that, but this is another area where the current American Bishops are really not measuring up. And there, it's yet another area where the lay members of the Church appear to be ahead of their Bishops in some things.
Interestingly, while I don't follow it, apparently the same debate and criticism is going on in Anglican circles. At least one critic who jointly follows Anglican and Catholic issues (which must make him an Anglo Catholic type of Anglican) is very much doing the same.
Phil Lawler, who writes at Catholic Culture, perhaps can be viewed as summarizing the loyal but critical laymen class. He's written at least two articles on the topic, including one entitled When Our Churches Open Up Again. In that article he addresses a variety of topics, starting off with this one:
Why did you forbid the
administration of the sacraments? For reasons of public health— and in many cases, because of
emergency government regulations— you were forced to curtail public ceremonies.
But were you forced to issue a blanket prohibition? Weren’t there ways to allow
some acts of public worship, with appropriate safeguards? Did you explore those
possibilities thoroughly?
Just a few months ago,
at the Amazon Synod, we heard pleas for the ordination of married men, based on
the argument that the faithful must have access to the
sacraments.
Why
wasn’t the same imperative felt during the pandemic: the need to take special
measures to ensure that the sacraments were available?
That really hits the nail right on the head.
The problem is that there's really no good reason for the way that this was done in some instances. Catholics were simply told that their Church was not going to provide sacraments. Any sacraments.
The degree to which this is a serious matter cannot be overstated. The sacramental life of the Church is very broad and not limited to Sunday "services". This provides the essence of the vast gulf between most Protestant denominations and the Apostolic faiths. Apostolic Christians can get by without Sunday Masses or Divine Liturgy (in the East), but they don't hold that things can generally be done by laymen and their understanding of Ordination is vastly different than that of Protestants.
Apostolic Christians hold the sacraments to be divinely ordained and only capable of being bestowed by a Priest. Baptism, for Catholics and the Orthodox, isn't a ceremony, it's a sacrament that changes the subjects relationship with God. Catholics and Orthodox baptize at birth due to the danger of death, to ensure that should that disaster fall upon an infant, they're sinless soul will go on to enjoy the full benefits of the next life. Catholics generally hold that an unbaptized infant is of course sinless and trust in the Mercy of God to provide for the departed child, but there's no definitive teaching on exactly what that means.
There is one on what dying in a state of mortal sin means, however, and unlike some Protestants there's no view that a person can just get right with God once, or perhaps again and again, and it'll be okay. Apostolic Christians don't believe that once a person is saved, their salvation is guaranteed, it can be lost, and they therefore take very seriously Christ's commission that his Apostolic ministers could bind and loose, forgive and not forgive. Hence the institution of Confession.
Many would point out, and have in other context beyond that, that a Catholic can make an act of "Perfect Contrition", and the Pope has pointed this out in this crisis. But, while my view may be a hard one, an act of "Perfect Contrition", in which a person prays their guilt and is perfectly sorrowful and repentant of it, is not easy to do. Indeed, the Church does not require Perfect Contrition for Confession. Merely being concerned about the impact of sin in the next world is regarded as sufficient for a Catholic to receive absolution in Confession. Perfect Contrition is obviously much better, but it's not regarded as necessary. To receive remission of a person's sins when Confession is not available, Perfect Contrition is required.
The suggestion of Pope Francis in regard to this is nice and pastoral, but it frankly will be taken by many as an adoption of the Protestant view. "Well, I said I was sorry so God forgives me and that's good enough". Not hardly, in the Catholic view. Indeed, most Confessors will relate that certain sins are confessed extraordinarily frequently in spite of their serious nature, and some seriously religious Catholics confess the same ones again and again. Simply saying we'll all get through this and get back to normal doesn't acknowledge that what we are going through is extraordinary and some people are going right to the grave with their sins unconfessed.
Indeed, suggestion that a person simply adopt an attitude of Perfect Confession reduces the seriousness of sin in the way that secularized Christians take it, which is the polar opposite of how the Apostolic Churches view it. Contrary to fundamentalist Protestant Christians, Apostolic Christians do not hold that there's a vast number of rules (although they're frequently criticized by Protestants who don't grasp what Apostolic Christians believe), but they do hold that there are sins that are very serious. Unlike at least one local Protestant minister who takes the view that St. Paul's admonitions are mere suggestions, Apostolic Christians don't.
A suggestion that achieving forgiveness is really easy all on your own, while not intended, ignores that Apostolic Christians have always strongly held that achieving forgiveness of sins is easy, but it usually requires a Priest. Now some will accidentally assume the opposite, and beyond that, in at least much of the U.S., there are no scheduled Confessions as it is.
There's still resort to scheduled private Confessions but people are likely to be hesitant to take that step, particularly in the Latin Rite where not having to do a face to face Confession is protected by Canon Law. Beyond that, there's a large number of basically observant Catholics who are in the practice of confessing once a year, prior to Easter. Indeed, when I was a kid, the common belief was that a person had to Confess during the Easter season.
At least Dr. Edward Peters believes that its not possible for a Priest's right to hear Confessions to be suspended, which is not the same, I'd note, about cancelling regularly schedule Confessions. He notes:
1. Some bishops think they can suspend the celebration of Confession in their diocese or otherwise forbid their priests from hearing confession and granting absolution because of the pandemic. I think this is wrong.
All pastors have “faculties” (i.e., necessary but, in all respects relevant here, sufficient authorization) for Confession by law (c. 968) and most other priests (e.g., associates) have faculties by formal grant of their bishop (c. 969); once acquired, moreover, such faculties remain effective unless, say, the pastor is removed from office (c. 975, which assumes the process for pastor removal outlined in cc. 1740-1747 has been applied) or the bishop has revoked the grant to a specific priest “for a grave cause” (c. 974, which assumes that “pandemic” satisfies as ‘grave cause’ to strip priests of their faculties for Confession, a claim for which I find zero evidence in the literature).
In our Diocese I believe private Confessions, i.e., ones scheduled with the Priest privately, can still be done. This would suggest that Last Rights would likewise be available here, as those are always done just that way.
A lot of this could have been easily addressed by the Bishops by providing, when they dismissed their parishioners for that last Public Mass, that the presiding Priest was authorized to give a General Absolution. Regarding General Absolution, Lawler noted:
If the precepts of the Church are important, why didn’t you address them in your public statements? Catholics are under a solemn obligation to attend Mass on Sunday. When you made it impossible to fulfill that norm, did you assure the faithful that they were dispensed? A diocesan bishop has the authority to allow for general absolution. When you forbade sacramental confessions, did you encourage your priests to offer general absolution?
The Last General Absolution of the Munsters. This famous painting depicts a real event during World War One in which a Catholic Chaplain gave General Absolution to an Irish unit from Munster, many of whom were killed in the battle occuring minutes afterwards.
General Absolution is a long established practice in which a Catholic Priest can forgive sins, often to a collection of people, immediately prior to some event for a grave reason. The penitent is obligated to confess the sins they would have confessed next time they go to Confession, but the forgiveness is real and should the person pass before that next Confession occurs, it's a good and valid Confession.
General Absolutions are really common in warfare but they can be authorized for other reasons. For some reason, it didn't occur to the Bishops to authorize their Priests to given General Absolution for those who were at Mass that last Sunday. They no doubt thought that things would be opened back up in a couple of weeks.
When they weren't, they should have authorized the Pastors to give General Absolutions even if it meant violating the Governor's orders.
Being called to be a Priest is called, no matter what a person might think, to a certain type of heroism. Indeed, it's worth noting that right now an Antiochian Orthodox Priest is being considered for the heroic deed of hearing Confession during the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu Epidemic even thought that ultimately cost him his life. Another example would be St. Damien De Veuster, the Belgian priest who died ministering to lepers who became afflicted with the disease himself in the course of doing that.
St. Damien De Veuster shortly prior to his death.
That may sound harsh, and the point isn't that Priests should go out and get killed in the epidemic. . .but Christ did provide that we were to minister to the sick and that entails risk.
Right now, in contrasts, Pastors are responding differently and in a confusing manner. One local Priest immediately started a Youtube channel which is excellent, with his Sunday Mass going up Saturday night, no doubt recorded at his Saturday Mass of anticipation. It's excellent. The Diocese has its televised Mass which it has had for years, but which compares poorly, but at least is there. The two other local Parishes are silent so far, including one that was clearly being turned into a Parish with a dedicated Hispanic ministry. What do those Parishioners do now?
A lot more need to be done, if even only to have all the Parishes on Youtube. But its more than that which is cried for, and part of that is providing the sacraments that would normally be provided, save except for the Public Masses. If that entails risk and heroism, well being a Priest isn't a normal job.
The Bishops, who are Priests, should know that. American Bishops haven't looked all that great in recent years and few have looked heroic (although some have). This was an opportunity for them to really rise to the occasion. So far, few have.
A few have even suspended the Lenten obligation of meatless Fridays. This is really going a bridge too far. Latin Rite Catholics once had meatless Fridays all year long, imposed as a law of the Church during that period during which that amounted to a real penitential sacrifice. Suspending what little remains of this when it entails sacrifice once again suggests that we really shouldn't have to suffer at all for our Faith.
Indeed, right now, the Faithful are, but because of duties being suspended, not the reverse. And the Church has looked as if it has sort of checked out during the crisis, much like movie theaters that are closed for our safety.
Some of this is necessary. Not all of it is. This wasn't well done.
It was Cardinal John Henry Newman who observed that "to know history is to be Catholic". While no doubt some would dispute that, there's a large element of truth to it. Unfortunately, the Church here seems to have forgotten its own history. The history of Apostolic Priests who endured sickness to minister to their flocks is a strong tradition of the Church which seems to have been suspended during the COVID 19 crisis. It's certainly a legal action by the Bishops, but the history of such prior actions should give a person pause. As theologian Dr. Edward Peters has observed, the Papal suspension of sacraments during the early Reformation spawned crisis in England was also legal, but the action did not bear fruit and arguably the opposite was the case.
Of course, all of this was done just a couple of weeks ago. There's time to adjust course. And with it looking like much of the country will be shut down longer than originally thought, this would be a good time to do that.
