The Vigil Night, and Twelve More Days

What ever happened to the Twelve Days of Christmas?

Despite it being a thin year, I wanted to purchase at least a few gifts for those closest to me. As such, it was impossible to avoid drifting -- at least a few times -- into the commercial madness of an American Christmas.

Then it hit me: It is entirely possible -- and entirely American -- to have both the shallow and deep forms of Christmas, all wrapped up into one beneficial whole.

After all, Christmas shopping is a fundamental part of our economy: it provides jobs, encourages innovation, and affects our finances for the remainder of the year. We're a generous country, and so we give and (hopefully) benefit from our giving.

Yet when all is purchased and wrapped and prepared, what then? What is the meaning beneath the commercial hoopla?

Commercial interests desire to sell you things -- they do what must be done to turn a profit. It is not their responsibility -- or the responsibility of the media -- to confer meaning on your life. You should be smart enough to do that yourself.

We can look to the old traditions to help us bring meaning to this time of year. I don't say this to be a traditionalist or a reactionary, but out of the simple fact that traditions -- like old folk songs and Carols -- accumulate a historical baggage which gives them power.

To link with the past -- in the present -- gives us roots. It gives us power. It brings a deeper meaning into our homes. Who wouldn't want that?

Keep in mind a simple fact: despite Christmas Carols on the radio and decorations in the store, Christmas does not BEGIN until the 25th. From there, the season lasts until the celebration of three kings -- which screams in the face of those who toss their Christmas trees on the morning of the 26th.

Right now, we're still in the midst of Advent, a time of quiet, preparation, and soul-searching.

In my family, we observe the old "Vigil" (Wigilia) tradition which is still celebrated throughout Europe. Christmas Eve is a hushed time, full of candles, low lights, hummed ancient carols, and a meatless evening meal which is itself a work of art. Secular music is forbidden, patience is the byword.

The presents purchased, the secular is now shut out and the sacred brought in. The home is a panoply of smells while things boil, fry, and bake. The day is largely approached as a fast, only to be broken with the Wigilia meal when the first star appears in the sky. Before the meal, wafers are exchanged between family members, along with heartfelt words and wishes for the upcoming new year. A prayer is said, including a brief requiem for those who had departed. At every table, an empty plate is set for the possible wayward traveler -- or the family member far away.

It's all so darn anti-modern that I can't help but write about it each and every year. Ther eis meaning here, and there isn't a telemarketer or shopping mall that can diminish it on this particularly sacred evening.

Things wind down into the night, people drift off to sleep, candles flicker slowly. Then, somehow, rousing one last burst of strength, the house erupts into activity as everyone prepares to depart for the midnight Mass. After Mass, with Christmas fully in-swing, we never hit the sack before a few glasses of rum-laced egg-nog are consumed.

I'm not saying everyone should celebrate our kind of Vigilia. I am saying, however, that there is no reason to make this a "bowling night," or a time for Chinese Food and rented movies. This is the most sacred night of the year, and our family traditions should reflect this.

Keep your trees up until the feast of Three Kings, if you can. Keep the lights burning, and the carols playing. Christmas goes until the 6th of January, after all! Why shouldn't we celebrate the entire time?

It's deep. It's edifying. It brings meaning to the season. And it's a heck of a lot of fun.

...And so I wish you all a silent night, a holy night, and an evening where all is calm and bright.
I'd write more, but I have to go help in the kitchen.... :)

Left-Wing Agenda Erasing our History

Can you erase history to justify an agenda?

Today, I am profoundly frightened. You see, generally, when you mention anything about a "left-wing agenda," you're brushed off as a loony conspiracy theorist. Yet it's all around us. A few weeks back, a friend in Poland tipped me off to an amazing story which I have since sat on, wondering if the American or even the English press would pick up on it.

Nope.

So here it is: The new Oxford Junior Dictionary no longer has references for words like "monk," "chapel," "bishop," or "nun." When this incredible bout of anti-Christian censorship was discovered, a representative countered by citing things such a "dropping Church attendance in the UK."

Mind you, I'm not surprised. I'm fully aware of the leftist agenda, and I know that it's a short step between historical revision, legal acceptance, and the future financial ruin of Churches one day being sued for "hate speech" or something of the like. It's a slow and steady progression, an agenda which has been codified and in motion since the 1960's.

Open your eyes.

John Paul II -- What You May Not Have Known (Or Heard...)

I intend this article for Catholics, and hope that you read it with the great earnestness required of such a pivotal subject regarding our faith.

Did John Paul the Second want rock or pop music in our Churches? Certainly, he showed great joy at the love and outpouring he received at various public rallies and Masses.

If any image of the late-great John Paul II has come to the forefront since his passing into glory, it is the image of a "people's champion" in Papal garb. And he certainly was that, make no mistake.

Yet such imagery, as well as the frequent misinterpretation of the dictates of the Second Vatican Council, have been used as a Devilish (yes, capital D) opportunity to rob our generation of Catholics of the true aesthetic riches of our faith.

Most of us, stepping into Churches, find ourselves the victims of the "creative thinking" of the 60's as opposed to the teachings of the Church we claim to believe in. Some Catholics are now entering their gray years without having any idea of what a Church is supposed to SOUND like.

Personally, as a cradle Catholic, I had no idea what Palestrina or Sacred Polyphony sounded like until I heard it in a college-level Music History Course. I didn't hear Chant -- sung live -- until my mid-20's. I didn't see a Mass done with an actual MASS composition until also in my mid-20's. What a sad, bitterly sad commentary on what our Churches have become!

John Paul the Second, despite his love of popular forms of faith expression, did not want our Churches to sound like rock concerts. He did not want the top-40 music from Christian radio played during Communion, nor did he approve of bad choirs and poorly-written "songs" echoing pathetically from the Choir loft.

Nor did the previous Popes. Nor does our current Pope. Such expressions, while fine outside of Church, are simply not worthy of the sacrifice of the Mass, nor can they stand on equal footing with the music already present in the deposit of the faith.

This is why Pope Benedict has banned such music from the Vatican. Yup: banned.

It may be a bitter pill for many to swallow, but so is most truth. Read it and weep, from JP2's own hand:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2003/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20031203_musica-sacra_en.html

Now don't get me wrong: popular Christian songs and forms of devotion and "praise" played a great part in my own reversion story. Yet, technically speaking, they cannot fully express Sacredness using melodic formulas and musical forms reserved for hip-shaking rock concerts or dance halls. It simply doesn't work, any more than placing Chant music inside of a rave is anything but cheap appropriation -- or pure vulgarity.

In my own life, I remain a great fan of rock and heavy metal music. This being said, I recognize that it cannot be held in the same light of spiritual quality as the music written in the accepted spiritual forms. This is not an opinion of mine, nor is it some misguided dogma: it's a doctrine, and one which I must humbly accept (whether I like it or not.)

Read, for instance, to what JP2 writes in this excerpt from the above linked document:

"The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple"[33]. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it. Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy[34].

To give another example: anyone who has given up television for a while comes to know a simple truth: television is generally loud, vulgar, patronizing, numbing, and quite often very bad for the soul. Not only that, but it is a waste of time.

Anyone who has taken a silent retreat has been forced to confront the multiplicity of noise in his/her head. In such cases, one comes face-to-face with a startling fact of life: much like food, in art, we become what we consume.

Nor would Andy Warhol's work belong next to an Altar any more than a modern billboard.

As a Catholic, you may despair at such news, you may feel the urge to rebel. Yet remember that you do so at the expense of many great living artists -- as well as the Church's own wishes.

Or, as I'll tell people often enough: "If you'd rather hear top-40 expressions over Palestrina in your Mass, it's not an issue of differing opinion. It's a personal problem which needs to be corrected, no different than the many other things we struggle with in our faith walk."

Encourage your Priests to become educated on the right kinds of art and music -- pressure them to improve the quality of sights and sounds at your Church. If you can sing, then do it! If you're in a position to donate, then nothing bring about change more than a financially-endowed bullish reformer. The change is trickling in, and you can make it a much-needed torrent.

Lastly, if you happen to live anywhere near Chicago, do yourself the favor of hearing and seeing Mass at St. John Cantius, on the Near-north side, this Christmas Eve. The choral concert begins at 11, while the Mass-proper begins at Midnight. It is, quite simply, the way a Mass is meant to be. (http://www.cantius.org)

As a Buddhist professor once told me: "If you make your Churches beautiful, then people will come of their own accord."

The 1960's popular experimentation has failed, and devastatingly so. We turn again to the Magisterium, seeking guidance in forms both ancient and new...

I'm providing three links to help you start the journey. The first is a blog detailing the Sacred Music revival in the Church -- the right-hand-side has several fascinating Papal writings on the subject. The second is the Church Music Association of America. The third is the group I work with, the wonderful Foundation for Sacred Arts.

http://authenticupdate.blogspot.com/2008/02/tim-mcdonnel-speaks-to-priests-and.html

http://www.musicasacra.com/

http://thesacredarts.org/

"Shall we reinstate Slavery, then?"

***The following is an excerpt from a recent debate between two prominent politicians. Congressman Smith is a noted liberal, while Senator James is a prominent Secular Humanist.***

Congressman Smith: "Shall we reinstate slavery, then? Is that really what you're suggesting?"

Senator James: "Absolutely! It's my distinct opinion, Congressman Smith, that abolitionism inflicts upon my rights as an American consumer. After all, if you don't want slaves, then don't own one!"

CS: "Well, that's purely ridiculous. You are actually seeking to enslave other human beings? You have no right to do that to other people!"

SJ: "Their being "people," Mr. Smith, and therefore afforded Constitutional rights, is merely your opinion. Despite the outward appearances and biological viability, I tend to believe them to be no more than animals."

CS: "But how can you say that? Just look at them! They're human!"

SJ: "It's no more than your opinion vs. mine, and America provides us both with the right to our opinion, does it not?"

CS: "That's ludicrous!"

SJ: "No more, sir, than your position on abortion."

CS: "Well, that's a hot topic of great debate. Women must have a choice."

SJ: "And I want my choice of slaves, then. If you choose to parse and label humanity for your own convenience, than I shall do the same."

Moderator: "Clearly we have reached the limit of this topic. Let's move on to sexual ethics. Senator James, you've been accused of pedophilia for your alleged involvement with a seventeen year old girl. How do you plead?"

SJ: "Well, sir, first of all, there was no intercourse involved.. And if there was, what of it? She's as adult a girl as I've known, intellectually stronger than most women I know."

CS: "I can't believe my ears. First you argue in favor of slavery, and now for pedophilia?"

SJ: "Why is it pedophilia? She is a sexually viable woman, mature enough to make her own decisions. If two such consenting adults decide to be together, what business is it of yours?"

CS: "But she's not an adult! She's only seventeen!"

JS: "Now you're quibbling with legal labels, sir. Such a law is a gross generalization, and cannot apply to all young women. After all, great kings and nobles of the past have had wives who were barely old enough to qualify as teenagers!"

CS: "But that is not our American standard! We know better than to do such things! It's simply wrong!"

SJ: "Stay out of my bedroom, Congressman."

CS: "What you are doing is clearly wrong, and such thinking is very dangerous."

SJ: "Oh really, Congressman? What about natural law? What about God's implied viewpoint on the issue?"

CS: "Such things do not concern me, Senator James. I'm merely concerned about upholding the law."

SJ: "As am I, Congressman. In this case, I call your laws subjective and immoral. I feel that if the social standard be the only one, then your beliefs are infringing upon my beliefs. The Constitution urges me to oppose immoral leadership!"

CS: "Yet what you are doing continues to be illegal."

SJ: "If you choose to apply subjective labels to what is -- or is not -- carnally acceptable in this nation, then I will do the same. I hereby propose an amendment to redefine marriage as being possible between a man and a woman as young as fifteen. In doing so, I not only liberate young women, but follow in the tradition of our ancestors. I also challenge the dominant hegemony, who I feel wrongly assert their sexual morality upon the rest of us!"

CS: "That's absurd!"

SJ: "Is it, Congressman? How about your own husband in Massachusetts? How is such an alternative lifestyle legally possible?"

CS: "That is unfair. We are two consenting adults, living a peaceful and agreeable life together. It is our right to do so."

SJ: "Well, then you and I disagree on the legal meaning of the word "marriage." In which case, I would also like to disagree on the legal meaning of the word "adult," as so many States already do. I will take my seventeen year-old mistress to Georgia, where we shall be legally bound, despite your bigoted and heterophobic protests."

CS: "You're bordering on the ludicrous, Senator James."

SJ: "Am I? I've only used your own logic and beliefs under a different pretense... If your way of looking at the world is the correct one, then it makes no difference that we disagree, even on such fundamental issues..."

***
I of course in no way support slavery or pedophilia, but have merely tried to make a point that so many otherwise intelligent people seem so unwilling to grasp: there ARE objective standards to consider when human rights come into play. They are the objective standards of the natural law invoked by the very same document that justified American Independence. If morality is merely a social dictate, then anything can ultimately become legal if enough people support it.

There is a reason that the opening statement by Senator James is absurd, and it has nothing to do with your personal opinion.

Yet, looking at it a second time, the entire debate is absurd, because it merely hinges on opinions and legal quibbling. America has worked, up until now, because our laws and viewpoints had a deeper source. We abandon the source at our peril, risking that the above discussion become a political reality...