Dwight Longenecker's Blog, page 356

Anglicans--Welcome Home!

This week the Anglican Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham welcomes nearly 1,000 Anglicans including about 60 priests into full communion with the Catholic Church.  You can read some of their stories on The Anglo Catholic--the best blog gathering together events in the Anglican Ordinariate.



Pray for our brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion, and thanks for the warm and generous welcome those in England have received as they embark on this pioneering pilgrimage of unity. Welcome home!

Super Pig Super Pig Super Pig

Here is my latest article for National Catholic Register--on the new translation of the liturgy, and the opportunities is provides.

I Scream Therefore I Am

People wonder how a good God can allow suffering in the world, and that somehow the existence of suffering puts paid to the idea of a good God. If there is not a good God (the reasoning follows) there is nothing but a meaningless void.



But it seems to me that suffering (rather than proving that there is nothing) actually proves that there is  everything--including a good God. The turning point is this question: if there is nothing but a meaningless void, then why do we think suffering is bad? Well, we think suffering is bad because it hurts. When I burn my hand on the stove it hurts. But if the cynical nihilist is right, we should be matter of fact about it and say, "Putting your hand on the stove hurts because if you left your hand there it would burn up and so you have nerve endings which give you negative sensations so that you will remove the hand and not burn it up. Pain is therefore a simple biological response of self preservation. So what. Why make such a big deal about it. It's not nice, but that's life. Bummer. Bad stuff happens. Accept it and move on."



The cyncical nihilist could say the same thing about any form of suffering. "Six year old girl gets a hideous cancer and dies a slow painful death? There's disease around. It happens. It feels bad. Sure. Tough. That's the way of life in this jungle." Shrug shoulders, slurp slurpee, be glad it's not you. Move on."



But if we are even the slightest bit human, this is not our response. Instead we rage and weep and cry out against heaven. Pain hurts and suffering is suffering exactly because of it's insanity and unreasonableness. We don't mind so much when a serial killer gets cancer and dies a slow death, but we do mind when it happens to a pretty little girl. What gets us is not just the pain and suffering, but the irrationality and unfairness of it all. That there is suffering--yes--but that the innocent suffer drives us mad with rage and fury and grief and frustration.



However, this is exactly what makes the point that suffering--rather than being the big question--is actually the big answer. We rage and weep because of suffering because we know deep down that we are destined for something better. Our existential wail in the face of suffering is so deep because we know that we were made for infinite happiness. Our fury at the irrational evil of suffering is because we know deep down that there must be a rational meaning and a reasonable answer. The pain and suffering is our deepest awareness of our need--yea our demand--for joy.



Suffering--as terrible as it is--therefore validates our existence. My suffering affirms my eternal destiny. "This is so bad that it must point me to the good. My pain screams out to me and defines the joy I am lacking." How do I know I exist? How do I know my humanity? Because of my pain. The pleasures of this life are ephemeral, and may be produced within me through all sorts of illusory and self-induced phenomena. They are therefore untrustworthy as validation of my existence. But I do not bring pain onto myself. I avoid pain. Therefore, pain is the sensation that not only makes me believe in the existence of pleasure, but it also makes me believe in the existence of me. Pain validates me. Not "I think therefore I am" but "I scream therefore I am."



The cynical nihilist may still turn around and say, "That pleasure and reasonable answer you dream of  is an illusion. It is wishful thinking. There is no such thing. Pleasure, like pain, is simply an animal sensation.--a primitive instinct of survival." To which we reply, "Then why do I rage against the unreasonableness of it all? Why not simply whimper and crouch down and lick my wounds and run from the pain like a beast? Instead I rage against God for allowing this suffering and I demand an answer."



There would be no such thing as thirst unless there were such a thing as water. Man could not reason unless there was such a thing as Reason. We could not ask questions if there were no such thing as answers. This is why Christianity puts suffering right at the heart of our faith. We do not avoid it. We do not come up with philosophical or theological theories. We do not say that suffering is an illusion and that we must simply rise above it. Instead we behold the cross. We preach Christ crucified. We say, "Ecce homo--Behold the Man" and as you behold the man you behold humanity, and as you behold humanity you behold everything else.



Here, we say, "Is the question and the answer. Here in the crucified one you find humanity in all its reality, and that reality is suffering. Here is the Alpha and the Omega. Here is the desire and the destiny. Here is the humanity and the divinity. Did you want to understand the riddle of suffering and human existence? Contemplate the crucified one. As you do you will not only come to understand the riddle of suffering and human existence, but you will also come to understand that the Good God you longed for is far stranger and disturbing than simply a grandfather in the sky who is there to take away your pain.



This is why we say that on the cross Jesus Christ not only bore the burden of mankind's sin, but that he also shows us the action of God in the world. There God himself--the truly innocent one-- gathered up all of the world's pain and suffering and sin and darkness and evil and mysteriously takes it on himself, and shows us that suffering is at the hear not only of our existence, but of his existence too, and that through suffering we find our authentic selves and learn how to become all that we were destined to be.



The answer is there, but it is not an answer that can be easily explained or explicated. It is not an answer that can be analyzed or disposed of. It is an answer that is a mystery, for a mystery is something that can be experienced even if it cannot be explained.

Good Friday

[image error]

The Face of God

Paul Badde's book The Face of God makes a good read for the Easter season. It is a spiritual detective story of sorts in which Badde explores the claims for the image of Christ at Manoppello being the original veil of Veronica.



The mysterious image is imprinted on a transparent piece of cloth, and the image of the Lord is visible from both sides. The history of the image is contradictory and unsubstantiated and there is virtually no history documented from before the Middle Ages.



This is one relic that is both difficult to accept and difficult to reject. On the one hand, the image looks, on first inspection, to be obviously painted. You can see what seem to be brush strokes and fairly crude shading on the face. On the other hand, the image is truly marvelous. It turns out to be imprinted on an amazingly rare fabric called 'byssus' or 'sea silk' or 'mussel silk'. The stuff is woven from the filaments some mussels spin out to anchor themselves to the sea floor. It is extremely fine--like gossamer-- and in ancient times it was extremely precious. It is an ancient fabric with a royal connection. It has been found in the tombs of pharaohs and is still extremely rare and unusual.



Furthermore, byssus can best be described as 'woven threads of mother of pearl.' Therefore it is waterproof and flame resistant while still being very fine and transparent. It is also extremely tough. Also, like mother of pearl--it is resistant to dye and paint. In other words, you can't paint on it. Therefore if it is a man made image, then the image of Manoppello has been produced using a technology unknown even to the few experts in mussel silk who still survive.



Going against the image are the opinions of experts who routinely reject it as a medieval artwork. The problem is, no one has found anywhere any medieval artwork that remotely resembles it. The other 'Veronicas' are, on inspection, ordinary paintings on board or fabric. There is simply no other known artwork painted on byssus, and the only icons of Christ that resemble this one could very well be later copies of this astounding original.



The last thing which is difficult to ignore is the contention that the image of Manoppello matches perfectly the image on the Shroud of Turin. When the two are superimposed they make a perfect match. Or do they? Do they fit perfectly as they are, or have two reproductions been enlarged or reduced in order to make them fit?



Like the Shroud itself, there is an intriguing elusiveness about the image of Manoppello. Just when you think you have de-bunked it some other strange and fascinating details is discovered which makes you think again. Just when you have decided that this is a supernaturally produced image of the risen Lord Jesus Christ something is discovered which undermined the history, calls into question the theories and makes you pull back.



Whatever it is, the image of Manoppello is intriguing and absorbing. Badde's book is professionally written by a life long journalist covering Vatican affairs. It's well researched, balanced and objective. However, like the renewed and never ending interest in the Shroud of Turin--I have a feeling that this story will run and run.



My recommend? The Face of God is an excellent book and a must read for Easter.

Holy Thursday

AmChurch in Decline

Here's an article stating what we already knew: the Catholic Church in America is declining in numbers. Apparently one in ten Americans are ex Catholics. If they formed a new denomination it would be the third largest in America.



Big deal. Statistics can mean anything. In fact, the other Christian communities are also in decline. Is this the fault of the bishops? The clergy? the catechists? the liberals? the conservative? Is the decline the fault of Vatican II or the fact that Vatican II didn't go far enough? Is it the fault of the Novus Ordo  Mass or the rise of the new traddies in the church?



It's all much bigger than that. The decline in the numbers of Catholics practicing the faith has much more to do with the huge social revolutions that took place within the last century culminating in the upheavals in the 1960s. Philosophical, moral and ethical earthquakes took place in the twentieth century that were bound to overturn the Christian establishment.



What to do about it? I don't think there is much we can do about it. When the rot sets into a society, unless there is a true outpouring of the Holy Spirit which supernaturally turns things around, you might as well try to stop the Titanic sinking.



Instead of wringing our hands about the demise of American Catholicism perhaps we had better look on the bright side. Catholicism is still the largest single Christian grouping in the USA by far. Catholics still have political clout and are arguably, the only Christian group that does. Our pro life movement is young and energetic and strong. Young Catholics are enthusiastic about their faith, and the global picture for Catholicism is even more encouraging.



To get a picture of the future church read The New Christendom by Philip Jenkins or Future Church by John  Allen. There you will learn that the future of Christianity is vibrant, young and poor. But why should that surprise us? From the beginning the Church was the church of slaves, immigrants and the dispossessed. We were wrong to wish it otherwise.

There Be Dragons

There Be Dragons looks fantastic! The website for the movie is here. For those of you who are not yet in the loop, the film traces the events of the early life of St Josemaria Escriva. Caught up in the drama of the Spanish Civil War--in which priests were being murdered, convents and monasteries burned and religious slaughtered, Josemaria--a young priest at the time faces life risking decisions.



From the trailer, the production values of the film look excellent. Also, pretty impressive is the fact that Roland Joffe, who directed The Mission, is on board as writer and director. The fact that such an eminent film director, and a self professed agnostic, is making the film helps put to rest the idea that the film is merely an Opus Dei propaganda vehicle. When asked about this possibility Joffe said, "It's too expensive to be simply a response from Opus Dei to the DaVinci Code (in which the villain is not only an  Opus Dei priest, but an albino assassin)



I'm afraid most movies about saints are very worthy and also very dull. Most often they lack any strong plot line, or the plot line is obviously fabricated to add action and conflict. Budgets are notoriously low, acting is often lame and the director and writer rarely solve the biggest problem for movies about saints--namely--"Motion pictures are--ummm pictures that move. So how do you show the greatest struggles and battles any saint goes through--which are inner battles and spiritual conflicts?" Consequently so many worthy religious movies show the hero kneeling before a crucifix and talking out loud to Jesus.



The trick is to embed the saints' struggles within a larger, external conflict, so that the external conflict between good and evil becomes the metaphor for the saints' inner conflict. This is why Man for All Seasons works--because St Thomas More's inner conflict in becoming a saint is reflected in the outer conflict he has with the king. Studying St Josemaria Escriva within the conflict of the Spanish  Civil War is therefore a very promising idea, and I can't wait to see the film and will review it here.



The film comes out at the beginning of May. In the meantime, talk up the movie. Make sure you buy tickets and take your family. Here is a mainstream movie that features a heroic story of a Catholic saint. Let's get bums on seats and make this movie fly!

OLR Servers

(Click to Enlarge)

Servers after Palm Sunday High Mass at Our Lady of the Rosary, Greenville, South Carolina

The Vicar on Girl Scouts

Guest blogger, The Rev'd Humphrey Blytherington is Vicar of St Hilda's, Little Snoring with All Saints, Great Snoring. He is a graduate of Plymouth University. He completed his studies for the ministry at Latimer Hall, Durham. He is married to Daphne and enjoys home brewing, model railroading and is an avid member of the Great Snoring Morris Dancers.





I don't know what you lads think of this, but I was just buttering my toast yesterday morning and reaching for the marmalade when She Who Must be Obeyed harrumphed behind the Daily Telegraph--as she is wont to do. She pointed out an article that says there are now more girls joining the boys scouts than boys. That's a bit rum, I must say.



Daphne said this is what always happens: the girls push to join the boys' clubs and eventually they get in and take over, and before long the boys leave. I think she has a point. When I was a lad the altar servers were all boys. Then they let the girls in, and in no time at all serving at the altar became a girly thing and the boys dropped it. Same thing with the choir. Used to be boys and men. When they let the girls in the boys took off.



Daphne said, "Seems a bit odd that the girls always have to barge in on the boys' clubs, but none of the boys ever want to join the girls' clubs." I see what she's on about. I mean, you never do hear about boys wanting to join the girl guides and men lining up to join the Mother's Union or getting together a petition to be able to join the Women's Institute. I mean it just doesn't happen.



It's all rather worrying. Daphne went on to point out that the same thing is happening in the Church of England. It used to be one of the top notch professions being a vicar. Now we've opened the door to the ladies our ranks are filling up with well meaning women going around doing good. An awful lot of them are lay readers who go off to do part time theological training and end up slipping on a dog collar and being non stipendiary ministers and rather muddling things up. Don't get me wrong. I'm not one to be opposed to women's ordination, but the whole thing is making me think. I was talking with Fr. Giles over at St Barnabas about it and he said that he and his Anglo Catholic friends had predicted it all along.



"Look here," he said, "The clergy fraternal used to be jolly wheeze where we fellows would hang out and discuss business and share a few jokes, and now it's gone all serious and pious with these sincere women and their attempts to change the world. What male undergraduate in his right mind wants to join a profession which is now not much more than a ladies prayer circle?" Well, I think that's a bit extreme, but to tell you the truth lads, poor old Giles is utterly fed up and I think he's about to tootle off to the Romans along with some of his folks.



What I mean to say is, I'm not for a moment suggesting that I'm opposed to women's ordination, however I did bounce some of my thoughts off Lavinia at Archdeacon Huffington-Post's garden party and she nearly went apoplectic. Steam coming out her ears. That sort of thing. Said women had made such strides to equality and were at last taking their rightful place alongside men. I didn't realize it, but Daphne had sidled up by that time and after a sip of sherry said, "It's a Pyrrhic victory my dear. What's the point of women taking their place alongside men if all the men do is opt out and leave it to the ladies?  There's nothing new in all this--just a case of women wanting to wear the pants in the family."



The Archdeacon didn't intend to have fireworks at the garden party, but my dear fellows, you should have seen the sparks and fur flying! Lavinia taking Daphne to task for converting to the Church of Rome and Daphne, bless her heart, holding her own with considerable fortitude and dignity. She seemed to have the upper hand too, I might add. Finally she rose above it all and simply said, "Women priests are an absurd and odious innovation. The Holy Father stated it quite clearly: the Catholic Church doesn't have the authority to ordain women as priests. Rome has spoken. That settles it."



At that point Lav stomped off and said, "Well, then thank God I'm not a Catholic and never want to be." Now this made me think lads. It really did. I mean to say, I'm not one to become a Roman by a long stretch. It's too foreign. Too much kissing the bones of saints and climbing mountains on your hands and knees and all that sort of thing. But I do think that a clergyman in the Church of England--or a clergywoman for that matter--ought to have respect for the Catholic Church, and even old Canon Farnsworth used to say that the Church of England is the Catholic Church in England but reformed, and we ought to at least want to be a bit Catholic in some sort of way shouldn't we? Rev Lav was awfully forceful, and I have to be truthful--not a little unpleasant, and it's made me think.



On the drive home Daphne made a few more points until I changed the subject. She's been reading all these books on Catholic apologetics--most of them American it seems. Keeps asking me where the Church of England gets its authority. Rather tiresome her taking it all so seriously. She was much better when she stuck to the odd Agatha Christie or Dick Francis for her bedtime reading. Now she keeps asking me these questions and I've got to go digging through my old theology books to find some answers. It's not always easy I must say. I do wish she'd leave it alone for a bit.



Enough about me lads. Sorry to unload, but there it is. Another half of lager shandy? You know, if you don't mind I'm just about to tootle off home, but before I go I wonder if you'd mind awfully getting me a little nightcap? A double would be smashing. Single malt please. That Glenmorangie is just the ticket. No. No ice.