Something of Intellectual Substance

If you have any interest in the intersection of religion, politics, and public life (especially if you're of the Catholic persuasion), you really should consider subscribing to the magazine First Things. The issues are almost always chock full of insightful, thought-provoking, and intellectually challenging pieces. The first place I turn to upon receiving a new issue is Richard John Neuhaus' section called "The Public Square." Here's a sampling of Neuhaus nuggets from May (sub req):

Neuhaus writes on the return of the practice of ad ­orientem (facing the liturgical East of the rising sun, meaning the Rising Son) worship to the liturgy and quotes Father Jay Scott Newman's comments on the role of the priest:

"Both of these are true because the primary meaning of active participation in the liturgy is worshipping the living God in Spirit and truth, and that in turn is an interior disposition of faith, hope, and love which cannot be measured by the presence or absence of physical activity. But this confusion about the role of the laity in the Church's worship was not the only misconception to follow the liturgical reforms; similar mistakes were made about the part of the priest. Because of the mistaken idea that the whole congregation had to be 'in motion' during the liturgy to be truly participating, the priest was gradually changed in the popular imagination from the celebrant of the Sacred Mysteries of ­salvation into the coordinator of the liturgical ministries of others. And this false understanding of the ministerial priesthood produced the ever-expanding role of the 'priest presider,' whose primary task was to make the congregation feel welcome and constantly engage them with eye contact and the embrace of his warm personality. Once these falsehoods were accepted, then the service of the priest in the liturgy became grotesquely misshapen, and instead of a humble steward of the mysteries whose only task was to draw back the veil between God and man and then hide himself in the folds, the priest became a ring-master or entertainer whose task was thought of as making the congregation feel good about itself."

I immediately recognized the line that talked about "eye contact" and "embrace of his warm personality." Our priest (a known First Things reader himself) had referenced the same quote (and made a self-deprecating comment about his own warm personality) himself in his homily last Sunday.

The next Neuhaus nugget touches on the subject of homilies:

Catholics priests routinely claim that people today have a short attention span. Maybe they do--for the kind of preaching to which they're accustomed. They have a long enough attention span for many other things that interest them. I don't think we want to suggest that Protestants are genetically disposed to greater attentiveness. To preach interestingly does not mean to be theatrical but to provide something of intellectual substance. In my experience, people are intensely interested in what Christianity teaches, and why. Which is to say they are intensely interested in doctrine. I see from time to time Catholic homilies and homiletic aids on websites and elsewhere. I am sorry to say they are usually an embarrassment--moralistic tripe joined to vacuous uplift and a cute story. I do wish seminaries would stop teaching priests to lean on anecdotes and story illustrations. The really interesting stories, to be interestingly explicated, are in the biblical readings. Go read St. Augustine's homilies to see how that is done. Not everybody is going to be a great, or even a very good, preacher. Expectations are higher among Protestants. Catholics come to church chiefly for the Mass and, as often as not, put up with the homily. But priests should not take advantage of lower expectations by trying the patience and insulting the intelligence of their people.

We don't need the priests to entertain us during the homily. But they should not be afraid to make an effort to engage and challenge us to think.

Finally, Neuhaus on the notion--espoused in a recent Washington Post piece--that Americans have left the Church because its hierarchy has been too "authoritarian" and "overanxious":

There is not a wisp of self-criticism in this wearily familiar complaint of adolescence coming on its sunset years in unrelenting resentment that its "creativity" in destabilizing, confusing, obfuscating, and undercutting Catholic faith and life has not received uncritical parental approval. Just imagine what might have been accomplished were it not for that authoritarian hierarchy and mean father figure in Rome.

Don't be surprised to see "Mean churches suck" bumper stickers soon.