Posted on 06/13/2003 8:40:22 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
A condensed version of this article was originally published in New Oxford Review (May 2003)
The National Catholic Register printed an article written by Leon Suprenant (president of CUF) regarding kneeling for Communion in its January 26 issue. In it, Mr. Suprenant basically sympathizes with those who desire to kneel before our Lord, even lamenting the excesses of those who are trying to stamp the practice of kneeling out altogether. However, he essentially asserts that while all of this is unfortunate, it is irrelevant. U.S. Catholics are, in fact, not genuinely free to kneel for Communion. In conclusion, he writes, "Catholic worship allows ample room for diversity of expression, but when it comes to gestures and postures at Mass, if Simon (Peter) says stand, we stand. If Simon (Peter) says kneel, we kneel. Anything else is a recipe for liturgical anarchy and ultimately a divided church."
In this statement, Mr. Suprenant clearly conveys that he believes the foundational issue is one of obedience and loyalty to the Holy Father. He then builds on this foundation by asserting that the only proper response is assiduous compliance. Finally, he completes his edifice with a series of other related conclusions and defenses that logically follow.
When a foundation is flawed, the superstructure often accentuates the error, making it more evident to the eye. Therefore, let’s examine Mr. Suprenant’s edifice from the top down.
For instance, he writes: "From biblical times to the present, kneeling has been considered not merely a penitential posture in the Church but also a posture of adoration and profound reverence." He also notes that Cardinal Ratzinger has powerfully championed kneeling as a “particularly expressive means of adoring Our Lord.” Mr. Suprenant even concedes that “those who favor kneeling for Communion can offer many compelling theological and practical arguments to support their position.” I concur.
However, he then goes on to state, "Yet, standing is also considered a reverential posture . . . we stand at several key times during the Mass, such as the proclamation of the Gospel." Perhaps it is the salesman in me, but I sense a “bait and switch” in progress. Notwithstanding his valiant attempt to amplify the pious implications of standing ("standing is also considered a reverential posture . . . we stand at several key times"), I do not believe that Mr. Suprenant would contend that standing is as reverent as kneeling, even for modern American Catholics.
Regardless, he forges on: "The bishops, then, were left with choosing among two legitimate ways of physically expressing reverence during Communion and selected one. The Church desires uniformity in bodily gestures and postures as a sign of unity among members of Christ’s body . . . ” I find the descent from the celestial peak of "adoration and profound reverence" (kneeling) to the comparatively mundane valley of "legitimate ways of physically expressing reverence" (standing) almost palpable. And, from the confused and conflicted tone and thrust of his article, I suspect Mr. Suprenant does too. Perhaps he cannot bring himself to publicly acknowledge it because of the troubling ramifications to his foundational assumption, or the fear of unintentionally encouraging his readers to adopt a spirit of disobedience. If the latter, I can understand and appreciate such concern, to a point. But I disagree that the solution is to magnify this fear so as to effectively muzzle and handcuff all orthodox Catholics.
Additionally, I find the assertion that the bishops were almost righteously pursuing "uniformity" untenable. The truth is, the body of Mr. Suprenant’s own article provides ample material for much of my contention: "...other more significant deviations from the rite are ignored or even encouraged and mandated by local Church officials. One example is the Eucharistic Prayer, where the norm in the United States is for the faithful to kneel, yet some priests and bishops routinely require the faithful to stand, which inevitably leads to confusion, cynicism and conflict." I agree. Only, I would substitute "many" for "some.” And there are other occasions in the Mass where uniformity is at least an equally valid concern and yet most deviate from it. As such, I believe it strains credibility to the breaking point to suggest the bishops felt compelled to focus like a laser beam on the issue of kneeling for reception of Holy Communion out of a universally high regard for uniformity. Frankly, I have become convinced that the bishops who promoted and supported this change consider kneeling to be an embarrassing testimony against and obstacle to their utopian vision of a minimalist "Amchurch."
Notice, too, that there seems to be a deafening catechetical silence in relation to bowing one’s head before receiving our Lord, per the new "norm.” Furthermore, we are still “graciously permitted” the option to receive Communion on either the hand or the tongue . . . for now at least. Where exactly is the burgeoning pastoral desire for liturgical uniformity in these examples?
Unfortunately, at this point in the article, Mr. Suprenant not only picks up the liberals’ mantle, but also their argumentation. He writes, "Doing one’s ‘own thing’ during Mass diverts attention away from Christ and instead focuses attention on oneself." Lamentably, this reproof is directly out of the liberal, heterodox handbook, How to Stop Kneeling Communicants. This is the “nuke” that liberals have come to trust in order to make conservatives toe their line. It follows the sections entitled, "Some May Trip and Fall Over Those Who Kneel” and "Kneeling Causes Undue Communion Line Delays” and it is just as invalid.
Mr. Suprenant is likely unaware of it, but inextricably embedded within this argument is an emotionally manipulative psychological ploy to play on every committed Catholic’s deep desire to be humble and obedient. But the truth is, the argument is false. Kneeling does not equate with "doing one’s own thing.” Neither does it "focus attention on oneself.” In and of itself, the essence of kneeling is diametrically opposed to that mischaracterization. It is only the abusive errors and excesses of liberal deacons, priests and bishops against kneeling communicants that distort and mutate an objectively submissive, traditional and humble action into a disruptive and “attention getting” occasion. As such, I consider Mr. Suprenant’s assertion akin to blaming a rape victim for “drawing attention to herself.”
Although I concede that there may conceivably be some individuals who choose to kneel for selfish reasons, I have yet to actually meet one. I can at least testify that from the very first time I was led to kneel until the present, it has had nothing to do with exerting my personal will and individuality and everything to do with gratefully and submissively receiving the grace of a particularly poignant awareness of being in the presence of Almighty God, before whom all knees will bend (Rom 14:11, Isaiah 45:23). And if you bother speaking to almost any kneeling communicant, you are most unlikely to find a rebellious, prideful spirit, but rather one who esteems the fear of God more than the false traditions, machinations and respect of men (Mark 7:6-9).
By the end of the article I was admittedly frustrated. Mr. Suprenant comes remarkably close to reaching logical and consistent conclusions only to allow his foundational assumption to pull him and his readers back in the end. Cumulatively, I believe all of these superstructural inconsistencies and distortions testify convincingly to the defective foundational assumption upon which they were built. With this as a backdrop, however, we can begin to directly examine Mr. Suprenant’s assertion that the foundational issue is one of obedience to the Holy Father.
When one attempts to discern the wisest response to a situation, accurately apprehending the full context is critical. Unfortunately, Mr. Suprenant effectively approaches this situation as though it occurred in a vacuum. He acknowledges that kneeling is an ancient Catholic practice, yet he ignores the process by which we went from kneeling to standing in the first place. Was this change the result of an organic, submissive, and gradual development from the laity? No. Did the Vatican independently impose this change? No. Did those who initially made the change, including the destruction of altar rails, do so without any explicit support either from the second Vatican Council or the Vatican itself? Yes. I contend that these questions and answers illuminate a lacuna in Mr. Suprenant’s thinking, a lacuna that has implications far beyond the issue of kneeling for Communion alone. Furthermore, by neglecting to fully examine the genesis of this situation, Mr. Suprenant effectively leaps into the middle of an ongoing family feud, appoints himself as father and prematurely declares a victor.
Entirely irrespective of examining Papal motives and prudence, I believe there is convincing evidence that the Holy Father has consciously granted Catholics more latitude in the fight for the pastoral direction of the Church than Mr. Suprenant believes. I believe we must acknowledge that the past three Popes have effectively embraced an approach to pastoral and disciplinary matters that is more circumspect and patient . . . more liberal than many orthodox Catholics are comfortable with.
Before dismissing this position out of hand, please consider the evidence. Since Vatican II, and indeed, in the very documents of Vatican II, the Church has clearly been urging the laity to take a more "adult" seat at the discussion table, so to speak. The truth is, Popes also listen to the sensus fidelium: US. It’s a two-way street.
There are several other observations I would offer in support of this proposition:
1) The permissive, passive pattern of approach the Vatican has taken with respect to issues such as liturgical translations, altar girls, communion in the hand, church deconstruction, the reorientation of the priest toward the congregation, etc. Conversely, the Vatican has proven it can draw the line when it considers it necessary (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the excommunication of recently “ordained women,” The SSPX and Ecclesia Dei).
2) Canon Law: Under Title I of the Obligations and Rights of All the Christian Faithful, Can 212-2 and 3: "The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church. In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful . . . "
3) John Paul II has written copiously on the central role of the laity in relation to the renewal of the Church, the "new springtime.” I do not recall a similar focus in relation to the role of the ordained.
4) Even in the presumably less tolerant, more authoritarian days of Trent, a more sophisticated and nuanced view of loyalty and obedience.....even to the Vatican.....existed: "Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See- they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations." (Melchior Cano, theologian at the Council of Trent).
5) Hans Kung, Richard McBrien and a host of other priests who remain in good standing, publicly pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-contraceptive, pro-homosexual "Catholic" politicians and leaders, all of whom also remain Catholics in good standing. How many excommunications have we witnessed over the past 40 years?
It is clear that the liberals have perceived this implicit and explicit invitation to actively fight for the pastoral direction of the Church and have jumped at it. And as a result, that direction has tended steadily leftward for the past 40 years.
Now, rather than denying the uncomfortable reality that Catholics have been granted such latitude or merely tearing our robes over it, I believe wisdom dictates that we should accept and engage it head-on. Perhaps we should start by better understanding exactly how our adversaries have managed to be so successful. While such information can be immensely useful in order to directly battle them, there is another purpose. There may well be certain things we can safely adopt and adapt for our own use. Entirely attributing the success of liberals to the shameless, guileful manipulation of our poor, helpless Pope is overly simplistic and frankly, insulting to the Holy Father.
Aside from things we rightly reject and object to, the truth is, much as Christ complained, these “children” are better organized, more energetic and shrewder than we are. They have long understood their role in the ideological battle for the pastoral soul of the Church, engaging it with gusto. They have creatively and patiently managed to control Catholic schools at all levels, seminaries, and even the hierarchy to a large degree. And once there, they effectively set about propagating their views even further.
Conversely, the vast majority of basically decent, God-fearing “conservative” Catholics have been relatively impotent, conserving very little, including their own numbers. I believe the excessive predominance of Mr. Suprenant’s approach to the fight may be the primary reason why. Fortunately, there are a few encouraging signs that more of us are beginning to respond with shrewdness.
In fact, I believe that Cardinal Medina issued his official reprimand of the kneel-a-phobes precisely because he wanted the rest of us to finally understand what liberals have known for some time: we need not fall on our swords so readily. I believe that Mr. Suprenant has not fully comprehended all of the implications and nuances of the following passage from Cardinal Medina’s letter:
“Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds . . . In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor centuries-old tradition, and is . . . completely appropriate . . . the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness.”
The Vatican is certainly not known for indiscriminately throwing words together. I contend that the words “even” and “permitted” strongly imply that the Vatican was not entirely enamored with the adaptation the U.S. bishops requested. The evidence suggests that the U.S. bishops sold this to the Vatican as though it merely reflected universal practice. However, the record is clear that the Vatican had persistent misgivings (with good reason), which led it to insist on the insertion of verbiage designed to protect kneeling communicants.
This view is further buttressed by the rest of the quoted section above, which very clearly conveys the Vatican’s profound respect for and endorsement of kneeling for Holy Communion in general. Cardinal Medina’s letter also strongly implies that kneeling is an immemorial tradition that the Vatican never intended to revoke by permitting the U.S. adaptation. In fact, I am in the process of addressing this issue from a canonical perspective with the indispensable help of the St. Joseph Foundation. We hope to solicit even further clarification for the sake of those like Mr. Suprenant.
Nonetheless, in light of the evidence, I contend that Peter has already made sufficiently clear that we retain the freedom to kneel, should our personal conscience and piety so lead us. As such, I respectfully request that Mr. Suprenant either acknowledge that one may validly kneel in good conscience, or at least refrain from asserting that humble obedience to Peter requires one to stand. I believe this is more in line with the clear and full import of what the CDWDS recently wrote.
Again, while I understand Mr. Suprenant’s fear of promoting disobedience, I believe the evidence proves that his fear is misplaced and unreasonably magnified. Perhaps squarely facing the reality that innumerable souls continue to be mortally threatened by the manifest, successful, and ongoing efforts of “liberals” to force a mask of insipid, impotent, faith-depleting pastoral practice over the true, radical and transforming face of Catholicism will help to balance it out. Like it or not, the Church is not pastorally infallible, She is doctrinally infallible, and She may suffer such successful and prolonged sieges. The deeply troubled pontificates of Vigilius and Honorius exemplify this truth. As Christ’s hands and feet on earth, we must shrewdly and zealously engage the battle.
It also seems to me that some of us have a tendency to fall into the imprudence of promoting a lesser good at the expense of a greater good. The attacks on Michael Rose and Goodbye, Good Men! by the National Catholic Register, Crisis and one or two others are recent examples, in my opinion. I believe that while these publications may have had legitimate criticisms, their timing was poor and the intensity of the response was not proportional to the alleged offenses, especially given the staggering scope and implications of the entire work. This kind of "friendly fire" does far more damage than the fire of the liberals. As Richard McBrien, the liberal's liberal put it, attacks on conservative Catholics "by moderate conservatives are far more effective than by moderate progressives." That's straight from the horse's mouth.
Some have the gifts and calling that tend toward battles from without. They tend to concentrate on things like evangelization and outreach. In this, such individuals share in the spiritual tradition of great Catholics ranging in disposition from the very gentle St. Francis de Sales and St. Vincent de Paul to the more assertive and confrontational St. Paul and St. George. I would suggest that Mr. Suprenant is called primarily to such battles from without, and leans heavily toward the first disposition.
Conversely, some members of the Church Militant have the gifts and calling that tend toward battles from within. They tend to focus on the Church’s internal matters, such as the authentic preservation and/or reform of Catholic spiritual and intellectual traditions. In this, such individuals share in the spiritual tradition of great Catholics ranging in disposition from the very gentle St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross to the more assertive and confrontational Dietrich von Hildebrand, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Catherine of Siena, and St. Jerome. These traditions are all invaluable. They are also complementary and interdependent.
Of course, there are times when the Spirit may press one into different duties when necessary. For instance, St. Paul powerfully engaged the battle from within when he “opposed Peter to his face” over a very important pastoral practice Peter engaged in that had the practical effect of subverting true doctrine (Gal 2:11-14). And certainly, each general spiritual tradition and disposition has limits beyond which, one errs.
However, we cannot prudently adopt a “one size fits all” mentality. As sacred Scripture tells us “All wisdom comes from the Lord . . . who knows her subtleties? To whom has the discipline of wisdom been revealed? And who has understood the multiplicity of her ways?” (Sirach 1:1-8)
I believe it is clear that the Church has been under an especially fierce attack from within for many decades. Pope Leo XIII was granted a vision in which the future Church was subject to the power of the Adversary in an unusually intense way. Pope Paul VI even warned that the “smoke of Satan” had entered the Church.
Under the cloak of such darkness, it can be difficult to discern friend from foe. Therefore it is imperative that we learn to recognize and appreciate one another and our various indispensable duties and tactics. Only then can we mount the kind of shrewd, savvy and coordinated defense necessary to defeat this adversary. Unfortunately, as I believe I have illustrated in this article, some who tend to engage the battle “from without” have yet to master that discernment, especially in relation to those who tend to more shrewdly and aggressively engage the battle “from within.” And as a result, we suffer many needless casualties from "friendly fire".
In conclusion, let me state clearly that I believe Mr. Suprenant is a praiseworthy Catholic brother. It is my firm hope that in spite of the great difficulty and stress we each suffer while engaging the Adversary, God will enable us all to reach a better understanding and appreciation of one another. Or, as St. Paul expressed with so much more power and beauty: “I implore you then . . . as God has called you, live up to your calling. Be humble always and gentle, and patient too, putting up with one another’s failings in the spirit of love. Spare no effort to make fast with bonds of peace the unity which the Spirit gives. There is one body and one Spirit, just as there is one hope held out in God’s call to you; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But each of us has been given a special gift, a particular share in the bounty of Christ.” (Eph. 4: 1-7)
Michael Forrest
CAI Personnel Director and Apologist
P.S. After this article was written, the Vatican issued another clarification, in which the following sentences have made things abundantly clear: “While this Congregation gave the recongitio to the norm desired by the Bishop’s Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.”
Has anybody asked Sister Lucia whether she stood or knelt for Holy Communion from the angel at Fatima and whether she received on the tongue or in the hands?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.