Random Notes for January 2012

The Ordinariate for Anglicans in the U.S.A.
As was reported last week, on New Years Day the Pope established an ordinariate for Episcopalians (members of the Anglican Communion in the U.S.A.) who wish to enter into full communion with Rome.  One was established last year in England itself, and I'm surmising more will come with each passing new year.

One of the features of these ordinariats (which have the characteristics of a diocese only on a national scale) is that they allow for the use of the Book of Common Prayer and other liturgical books familiar to Anglicans.  It's almost like Eastern Rite Churches that retain their distinct liturgy but are in communion with the Pope.  I remember a professor from the Josephinum who said that the reunion of the churches will not be a matter of nailing "Catholic" shingles over the "Lutheran" on parish signs.  We've had five hundred years of Protestant worship, and what can be retained should be, out of respect for the faithful making the journey back.  This will be more difficult as we deal with ecclesial communities that have either a diminished sense of liturgy or have rejected it out right.  But we'll cross those bridges when we get to them, and I pray it's soon. 

We know already from our experience of the various rites within the Catholic Church that a diversity of worship is possible.  What is important is the heart of the faith: a common Creed (with a common understanding of it),  a common belief in what the Sacraments are and what they do, devotion to the Blessed Mother and loyalty to the Pope.  How these core beliefs get expressed possesses a certain flexibility based on long standing use, and its fidelity to the Truth.

Vocation Talk III 1/2
Over the summer I was at director's meetings, and the first day was taken up with a spirituality talk given by an layman who works in counseling and spiritual director.  The topic was discernment, and the presentation was supposed to help us in our roles as spiritual guides for our confrere.  His name escapes me, but he seemed like a very kind and generous soul.  Much of what he presented was very familiar.   The way I heard him, the task of spiritual direction is to help the person figure out God's will for them in the present moment, as well as make sense of where they've been, especially if the last stop was an unpleasant place.  What was lacking, to my mind, was the vision of our lives as a sweeping movement toward God.  It tended to make our lives episodic, lacking an overall dramatic arc, if you will. 

Our speaker did not say this, and I'm not sure he would put it this way, but this approach to spirituality seems to be saying that our life has no unity; God has no plan for us, it's for us to get by as we can day by day.  What He wants from us today may not be the same as tomorrow, so just be ready.  While God may indeed have an overarching plan for us, he'll respect our decision if we choose another path.

In the hustle and bustle of everyday experience some of this can be true.  Our lives take many twists and turns and it can be hard to see how they all fit into God's plan.  There are detours that need to be navigated, for sure.  But this style of spiritual direction, that tends to fragment life, has led to the belief in things like temporary vocations, the great spiritual heresy of our time.  God calls us to consecration in His service.  He only calls us deeper into his service, not in and out of it.  Much of what is passing for spirituality and direction today places the emphasis on the individual's desires and the options he or she perceives for themselves.  It's almost like we're presenting God with our call, rather than receiving it from Him.  We forget that He knows what will make us truly happy, even more than we know for ourselves.  Not enough time is spent listening to God and what He wants for us.  In the end it is true; God will respect our decisions; He respects them, and us, enough to allow us to go way unhappy, just like the Rich Young Man of the Gospel.     

Giants in the Playoffs
The Giants beat the Cowboys last Sunday and so go on to the playoffs.  Many are wondering if they can make another improbable run like they did in 2008.  The ingredients are all there; the D-line is healthy again and playing well, Victor Cruz (the Pride of Paterson Catholic) is filling the Plexico Burress role nicely, Eli is actually a better quarterback now than he was then.  On the other hand the running game has been missing in action, the tight ends are injured and the D-Backs are pitiful. 

The good news is that coach Tom Coughlin usually doesn't feature the tight end in his passing schemes (that was a source of tension between him and Jeremy Shocky back in the day) and they won Super Bowl XLII with a backup at the TE spot.  The defensive backfield was also suspect the last time around, but still managed four clutch games.  The only thing that worries me is the running game, which was so vital in '07-'08.  Also, this is a tougher conference road than last time.  No one in the AFC frightens me, but Green Bay and New Orleans (my pick to make the big game) are the class of the league this year, and Frisco and the Lions are no jokes.

My gut tells me they beat the Falcons this week.  After that what ever we get will be gravy.  Hopefully that gravy train will keep on going all the way to Indianapolis.
 

Ebert Presents Goes on Hiatus
At the beginning of December Roger Ebert announced that with the New Year his attempted reboot of the show he did for over two decades with the late Gene Siskel was going off the air until further notice.   He said that viewership wasn't an issue, but rather funding (Oh, the paradox of Public Television).  He and his wife Chaz Ebert, who serves as the show's executive producer, have been bank rolling the program themselves and are now continuing the search for additional underwriting.  Until more money is found, they can't go on. 

I gave the show a lukewarm review back in April, in part because I though the chemistry between the hosts, Christy Lemire and Ignaty Vishnevetsky, was lacking.  I catch episodes as I can on their website, and must admit that that aspect did improve with time; they seem much more comfortable disagreeing with one another, if that makes any sense. My other problem, that still holds true, was that the format itself might be a bit stale, and it was time to switch things up a bit.  

While I still think the traditional Siskel and Ebert format has run it's course, I'm sad to see the show go off.  As the different media outlets buy each other out or merge, the respective divisions of these various conglomerates do not want to hurt the earnings of their partners.  The result is we're left with programs like Access Hollywood or Entertainment Tonight that only serve the celebrity publicity machine.  There are no programs on TV taking a serious, critical look at the movies, and that is a loss.  Here's to that the Eberts find the necessary funding and the balcony will be opened again soon.  An imperfect At The Movies is far better than non at all.