More Straw-Men: Fr. Longnecker on Pope Francis

I don't usually take other bloggers to task on here, but every now and then I see something that I can't resist. In this case, it is a recent post by Fr. Dwight Longnecker entitled "Is Pope Francis a Liturgical Liberal?" Let me preface this by saying that I usually read Fr. Longnecker with delight and have no real bones to pick with him. I respect him and I offer this critique in the spirit of charity. That being said, I do have to call this one like I see it. Let's take a look at Father's article and I will offer my concerns.

The point of Fr. Longnecker's article is to address concerns voiced by certain Traditionalists who are "grumbling" that Pope Francis may be a "liturgical liberal." Let's begin by keeping this thesis in mind: Father Longnecker's article poses the question, and he begins it by noting that some have accused Francis of being liberal liturgically, of being in favor of clown masses, puppets, balloons, etc. You know what I mean.

Fr. Longnecker begins by affirming his own traditionalist preferences. He says:

"Everyone should stop and take a deep breath and get a sense of priorities. I am myself, on the more traditionalist side of the liturgy wars. I dislike anodyne, sentimental church music, a game show host style of priestly celebration, tacky day-glo vestments and the whole modernist dumbed down liturgical style. I’m all for the Spirit of the Liturgy and reverence and beauty in the liturgy. I’m down on big round churches, sloppy servers and feel good homilies in the style of a Hallmark card."

Good. No problems here. Now he goes on to offer us, what is in my opinion, a straw man/bait and switch:

"However, there are permissible variations in the way Mass is celebrated. Pope Francis may well turn out to be more “low church” and folksy in his style. That doesn’t mean he is going to ban the Latin Mass. He may be more informal and personable in his celebration of Mass. That doesn’t mean he’s going to send his liturgical police to confiscate all the lacy cottas and birettas in the world. Just because he wears a chasuble with grapes and wheat on it doesn’t mean he’s going to make everybody sing Eagle’s Wings every Sunday."

Whoa! Who said anything about banning the Latin Mass or confiscating birettas or forcing a certain musical style? The initial question Fr. Longnecker set out to answer was whether Pope Francis himself is a liturgical liberal, not whether Pope Francis will try to force us to become liturgical liberals, or whether or not he will 'attack' tradition. I am not sure what traditionalist "grumbling" he was referring to at the beginning of his article, but as far as I know there is almost a universal consent among traditionalists and non-traditionalists alike that the Extraordinary Form is most likely safe, that Summorum Pontificum is not going anywhere, and that everything Benedict XVI did will remain in place. Fr. Longnecker is answering the question, "Whether Pope Francis come down on Catholic traditionalists", but the question he initially posed is "Whether Pope Francis is a liturgical liberal", which are two totally different questions. He is answering a question nobody asked.

Fr. Longnecker then goes on to make what I concede is an important point that many of us in the United States do often miss:

"There are a couple of things to remember here. First of all, in the United States the liturgy wars are part of a bigger cultural divide within the American Catholic church. Liberal liturgy very often also means liberal theology. Often the big box Catholic Churches with their praise bands and “gather them in” style are also full of cafeteria Catholics and left wing Obama-voting ideologues, while the traddy congregations are full of right wing members of the John Birch society with “You’ll get my gun when you pry my cold dead fingers from around it” bumper stickers on their cars. (I’m exaggerating to make a point). Naturally, therefore, the liturgy starts being about much more than the liturgy…

In the developing world however, the more informal modes of worship are much more of a general cultural phenomenon. An informal style there doesn’t necessarily carry all the baggage it does here. Just because a priest, bishop or pope is a bit more informal in his style of celebrating doesn’t mean he is a theological liberal or will compromise the faith. Indeed, everything about Pope Francis indicates that he is not only completely orthodox in theology and moral teaching, but that he has suffered for being so."

Good points. In the United States, liturgical progressivism goes hand in hand with theological dissent; the two are virtually identical. But in Latin America, it is a bit different. When I initially complained about many of the liturgies I was seeing in Latin America, a friend of mine who had lived there simply shrugged and said, "That's the way they do it there." Fr. Longnecker points out that the fact that a prelate in Latin America prefers an "informal" and "folksy in his style" does not mean he is necessarily theologically heterodox. Therefore, "everything about Pope Francis indicates that he is not only completely orthodox in theology and moral teaching, but that he has suffered for being so."

Well, fine, but we were not talking about whether Pope Franics is a theological liberal, heterodox, or whatever; we are not talking about theology, we were talking about whether or not Francis is a liturgical liberal, which again is a totally different question from whether or not he is heterodox. And, even if Latin Americans do prefer such liturgies, is that alright? Should we be happy about that? Fr. Longnecker seems to think it is no big deal, and by talking about the "permissible variations in the way Mass is celebrated", is he suggesting that the scandalous Latin American Youth Masses are just another "permissible variation"? I would hope not.

He goes on:

"What strikes me about Pope Francis so far is that he celebrates Mass reverently and beautifully, but that his simplicity of life and his example of poverty means that he may not be as concerned about the “finer things” in Catholic worship. That doesn’t mean he’s going to ban everything that is beautiful, sacred and reverent. The give back with his informal style is that his preaching is heart felt and immediate."

That is over the top, Father. Who suggested he is going to "ban" anything, let alone "everything" that is sacred or beautiful? Nobody is suggesting that or anything close to that. Why keep coming back to this question of "banning" and "outlawing" things? Can a person not be considered a "liturgical liberal" unless they are actively working to prohibit certain things?

After offering some reflections on Pope Francis' simplicity, Fr. Longnecker wraps up his article:

"The bottom line is this: it should not be a question of either good liturgy or faithful proclamation of the gospel. Indeed fine liturgy is an important part of proclaiming the gospel. However, if I had to choose between a happy clappy pope who was a vital and dynamic witness to the truth and beauty of the Catholic faith, and a liturgically “proper” pope who was a sour, self righteous hypocrite, I’d take the happy clappy pope every time."

I am glad he recognizes that there is no real opposition between good liturgy and faithfully proclaiming the Gospel. But a hypothetical "happy clappy" pope whose offers liturgies that are questionable is by that fact not capable of being a vital and dynamic witness to the truth and beauty of the Catholic faith. There is an intimate connection between the lex orandi and the lex credendi, and it is not reasonable to talk, even hypothetically, about a leader who is a "vital witness" to the "truth and beauty" of the Faith but who offers liturgies that are abominations. A liturgy is a witness to the truth and beauty of the Faith, and one who offers an ugly liturgy cannot simultaneously operate as a vital witness to the truth and beauty of the Faith.

Similarly, who is he thinking of when he references a hypothetical self-righteous, dour pope? Benedict was the humblest and gentlest of men; ditto Pius XII, and again for Pius X. We certainly could have a pope who is liturgically proper but personally dour, but when is the last time that has happened? Not in recent times, at least. The threat of this happening is so nil that positing it as a hypothetical counter to bolster the desirability of a "happy clappy" by liturgically folksy pope is silly.

So overall, there are several problems with Fr. Longnecker's approach:

1) He posits the question of whether Francis is a liturgical liberal but then seems to restrict the definition of "liturgical liberal" to only those prelates who actively seek to suppress the Extraordinary Form and actively attack tradition. This is a very odd and narrow definition; I have never heard "liturgical liberal" defined as someone who actively and formally seeks to throw out tradition. That can certainly be one portion of liturgical liberalism, but that alone does not constitute liturgical liberalism.

2) He seems to admit of a bigger division between the lex orandi and the lex credendi than is prudent. When he comments that clown masses, puppet masses and all sorts of this nonsense common in Latin American Masses (as here in this now famous video) have no bearing whatsoever on the theological orthodoxy of the ecclesiastics involved, he is positing a very radical separation between the lex orandi and the lex credendi, suggesting that the lex orandi can be manipulated and deviated from without any corresponding "baggage" to the lex credendi. Can't the lesson of the whole disaster since 1969 be summed up by saying we learned the hard way that you can't mess with the lex orandi without screwing up the lex credendi? This doesn't mean all who like "folksy" Masses are heterodox, but it means that heterodoxy is more likely to spring up in places where the lex orandi is not respected, like in Latin America, where "folksy Masses" are the order of the day, and where liberation theology is rampant.

3) Fr. Longnecker points out that Pope Francis is not a theological liberal, and then acts as if this proves that he is not a liturgical liberal. The original question was whether or not the pope is a liturgical liberal, not whether he is theologically heterodox. Simply consoling us that the pope is not heterodox (which nobody said he was) does not vindicate of the charge of liturgical liberalism. Fr. Longnecker has failed to answer the question he posed. Can it be the question is too painful to answer?

It is not my intention here to answer the question of whether Pope Francis is a liturgical liberal. But there does seem to be confusion on exactly what a liturgical liberal is. Liturgical liberalism does not mean one must necessarily work to overthrow or outlaw the Extraordinary Form or traditional garments, practices, etc., nor does liturgical liberalism equate to theological heterodoxy, though the two do bear some relation to one another.

Liturgical liberalism in a prelate means that the prelate prefers, enjoys, supports, participates in, allows, facilitates on in any other way promotes liturgies that deviate from the rubrics, are excessively informal, incorporate foreign elements into the Mass (puppets, drums, dancing, whatever), and generally emphasize community participation and folksiness over the adoration of God. A prelate is a liturgical liberal is he (a) supports these sorts of Masses, and (b) celebrates them himself. He is a liturgical liberal if the above two things can be said about him. It is a question of preference. It is not a question of whether a bishop fought to outlaw anything (though that can be added on, as well), or whether a bishop is heterodox. Simply approving of these loose Masses and presiding at them is enough

Some time ago, I wrote an article challenging a priest who had published a similar argument with regards to communion in the hand; to a woman who asked whether communion in the hand was direspectful, the priest answered by saying communion in the hand was not a mortal sin. I said this was a straw-man argument and called it as such. Here we have the same argument: Fr. Longnecker asks whether Francis is a liturgical liberal and answers by saying he will not ban the Traditional Mass and is not a heretic. Again, I respect Fr. Longnecker and mean him no offense by questioning him here, but I don't think his article really got to the heart of the problem.