Anti-Catholic MASS at CUA
The business about allowing the NAACP on campus, after an initial courageous stand against this pro-abortion organization, is indeed disappointing. However, I suppose we should get used to having our nation's so-called premier "Catholic" university let us down on important matters. I had to do a double-take last December when I read in THE CATHOLIC STANDARD that Leonard Bernstein's composition, MASS, was going to be offered at Catholic University in April 2004. While the STANDARD offered a glowing article about the work, some of us felt that the performance was nothing short of blasphemous.
The fact that CUA would sponsor it is ample evidence that our national Catholic institution for higher learning is still manipulated by modernists and dissenters. There is even a hint of this in the article when the dean of the music school, Murry Sidlin, (who has conducted MASS seven times himself), states: ""MASS is a great work of faith that encourages young people to question issues." Since the context is the sacred liturgy, can there be any doubt that the subject of contestation includes Church teaching and ministry?
Has everyone forgotten the controversy about it back in 1971? Later, in 1972, when the work was performed in Cincinnati, the Archbishop forbade Catholics to attend. It was viewed as a cause for serious scandal. When it premiered in Vienna in 1973, the Austrian bishops protested against it.
This new production in Washington, D.C. was preceeded by a week-long symposia where scholars discussed MASS against the backdrop of issues prevalent during the 1960's. Sorry, but the Eucharist is our most precious inheritance, it should not be manipulated or abused to further debates in cultural and social issues.
Granted, parts of the composition are beautiful; however, the drama is anti-Catholic, regardless of the fact that it was a tribute to the Kennedys and the JFK Center for Performing Arts. Bernstein, himself a Jew, did not really understand or believe in the mystery of the Mass or in the sacred calling of the priesthood. He projects his own prejudices into the character of the celebrant, creating a doubting husk of a man where there should be one of prayer and faith.
[The composer was a man with a restless spirit, haunted by demons that would propel him to leave his wife at the end of his life to cohabitate with his gay lover.] How could he possibly understand the Mass as a participation in the heavenly wedding banquet? Is it any wonder that he did not appreciate the analogy of marriage in the liturgy, with the priest in the role of Christ as groom and the Church as his bride?
A priest is set apart from other men in his obedient and celibate love, a love that focuses upon God and is expressed in sacrifice and in service of God's people. Bernstein's priest is simply out of touch and increasing distant from the people (chorus). A priest is an "alterchristus", another Christ, making our Lord and his saving activity present in the Eucharist and other sacraments. Bernstein's priest, on the other hand, has merely been given a God-like status by the Church establishment. A priest is a teacher of souls, sharing the faith given by Christ and passed down from the apostles and preserved in the living Church. Bernstein's desperate priest is a vehicle of dependence, controlling people with religious dogma and traditions, instead of helping others to find lasting meaning in these sources of revelation. The Catholic Mass places us in solidarity with Christ and with fellow believers around the world and in eternity. Bernstein's Mass is one of upheaval and division; a revolution ensues, first against the priest and then between the people in the chorus.
The celebrant tries to regain order by smashing the holy vessels. The faithless priest says:
"I mean, it's supposed to be blood...
"I mean, it is blood...His...
"It was...
"How easily things get broken...."
"Supposed to be blood"? Back in the 1960's, the anti-establishment message of the work was clear. Bernstein was no friend to Nixon or his republican administration or the Vietnam War. I have to wonder if the current production did not also seek to make a political statement against the Bush administration and the newest war in Iraq? In any case, religious dissenters would be just as quick to promote this production. It readily fuels anti-clericalism, particularly given recent scandals, and would win accolades from the proponents for women priests, married priests, and the like. Most importantly, the composition is a stunning disrespect to the real presence of Jesus in the blessed sacrament.
Given the times, I was not surprised that many people slapped down $50 a piece to see this false caricature of the Mass with a counterfeit priest and a communion prop while failing to go to the real Sunday Mass at their parishes with a genuine priest and Eucharist. And, while donations of charity are always appreciated, tickets are not needed and the admission, like God's grace, is free.
The fact that CUA would sponsor it is ample evidence that our national Catholic institution for higher learning is still manipulated by modernists and dissenters. There is even a hint of this in the article when the dean of the music school, Murry Sidlin, (who has conducted MASS seven times himself), states: ""MASS is a great work of faith that encourages young people to question issues." Since the context is the sacred liturgy, can there be any doubt that the subject of contestation includes Church teaching and ministry?
Has everyone forgotten the controversy about it back in 1971? Later, in 1972, when the work was performed in Cincinnati, the Archbishop forbade Catholics to attend. It was viewed as a cause for serious scandal. When it premiered in Vienna in 1973, the Austrian bishops protested against it.
This new production in Washington, D.C. was preceeded by a week-long symposia where scholars discussed MASS against the backdrop of issues prevalent during the 1960's. Sorry, but the Eucharist is our most precious inheritance, it should not be manipulated or abused to further debates in cultural and social issues.
Granted, parts of the composition are beautiful; however, the drama is anti-Catholic, regardless of the fact that it was a tribute to the Kennedys and the JFK Center for Performing Arts. Bernstein, himself a Jew, did not really understand or believe in the mystery of the Mass or in the sacred calling of the priesthood. He projects his own prejudices into the character of the celebrant, creating a doubting husk of a man where there should be one of prayer and faith.
[The composer was a man with a restless spirit, haunted by demons that would propel him to leave his wife at the end of his life to cohabitate with his gay lover.] How could he possibly understand the Mass as a participation in the heavenly wedding banquet? Is it any wonder that he did not appreciate the analogy of marriage in the liturgy, with the priest in the role of Christ as groom and the Church as his bride?
A priest is set apart from other men in his obedient and celibate love, a love that focuses upon God and is expressed in sacrifice and in service of God's people. Bernstein's priest is simply out of touch and increasing distant from the people (chorus). A priest is an "alterchristus", another Christ, making our Lord and his saving activity present in the Eucharist and other sacraments. Bernstein's priest, on the other hand, has merely been given a God-like status by the Church establishment. A priest is a teacher of souls, sharing the faith given by Christ and passed down from the apostles and preserved in the living Church. Bernstein's desperate priest is a vehicle of dependence, controlling people with religious dogma and traditions, instead of helping others to find lasting meaning in these sources of revelation. The Catholic Mass places us in solidarity with Christ and with fellow believers around the world and in eternity. Bernstein's Mass is one of upheaval and division; a revolution ensues, first against the priest and then between the people in the chorus.
The celebrant tries to regain order by smashing the holy vessels. The faithless priest says:
"I mean, it's supposed to be blood...
"I mean, it is blood...His...
"It was...
"How easily things get broken...."
"Supposed to be blood"? Back in the 1960's, the anti-establishment message of the work was clear. Bernstein was no friend to Nixon or his republican administration or the Vietnam War. I have to wonder if the current production did not also seek to make a political statement against the Bush administration and the newest war in Iraq? In any case, religious dissenters would be just as quick to promote this production. It readily fuels anti-clericalism, particularly given recent scandals, and would win accolades from the proponents for women priests, married priests, and the like. Most importantly, the composition is a stunning disrespect to the real presence of Jesus in the blessed sacrament.
Given the times, I was not surprised that many people slapped down $50 a piece to see this false caricature of the Mass with a counterfeit priest and a communion prop while failing to go to the real Sunday Mass at their parishes with a genuine priest and Eucharist. And, while donations of charity are always appreciated, tickets are not needed and the admission, like God's grace, is free.
posted by Father Joe Jenkins at 10:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home