Latin and the Gift of Awe

Dear Editor: Thanks for printing letters such as the ones on June 23, covering the two rites of saying Mass. Learning about liturgy helps us to appreciate worship. 

After assisting at a Tridentine Mass for the first time, one young man said that it gave him a sense of awe and mystery. Awe and mystery are significant parts of a vibrant faith and come from one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit known as the fear of the Lord (awe).*

Latin contributes to this gift of awe because it is non discursive. Like music and art, it is a form of communication that is symbolic for those who depend on their vernacular language to communicate. The response to non discursive music and art is unique to each individual viewer or listener. Similarly, the sounds of Latin evoke a spiritual awesome response that is unique to each individual worshipper.

Latin has offered convenience as well as awe. In the early years of the Church, Christianity spread through Western communities where converts spoke many languages. To avoid giving prominence to any one language, the leaders decided to use Latin because the Holy Father prayed in Latin. Binding the liturgy to the eminence of the Holy Father adds to the spirit of awe. Using only Latin has been convenient where printing facilities were absent as in ancient times, or rare as in certain communities today.   

Latin also preserves the awesome mystery of the Eucharist doctrine.In the Tridentine Mass, this is true both in word and action. The priest always whispers the awe-inspiring “Hoc est enum Corpus meum,” forever accompanied by three chimes of a bell. These words and acts constantly teach the same awesome Eucharistic message, “This is My Body.” In the Novus Ordo, the celebrant speaks these English words aloud in conversational manner. In the English vernacular, the meaning of the word “body” can signify an individual person’s figure (corpus) or a group of people. Latin words never change their meaning and so doctrine will remain the same.

Action alone can also show reverence and awe. In the Tridentine Mass, distribution of the Eucharist is also a way of showing the awe inspired by faith.  If Jesus were to walk into a room today, which method of greeting Him would best show our gift of awe: standing or kneeling?

* 1129, 1831, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

MARY CASHIN
Bronxville

Religion and Science Interact

Dear Editor: It has come to my attention that quite a few readers may have misinterpreted my letter in the June 9 edition of this newspaper. While John J. Patrick’s response contained tell-tale signs of a “knee jerk reflex” reaction to my comment, anger which he denied, as well as the near total misinterpretation of both my letter and of modern psychology, I will attempt to address his criticisms as well as make my original point clearer for all interested readers.

Mr. Patrick’s first two paragraphs, if I interpreted them correctly, insinuate my being one of those individuals who “hate the Catholic Church” and presumes “to lecture the rest of us on how (Catholics) should think.”

In full disclosure, I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools from kindergarten through high school, and briefly in college. While I often have questions about Church doctrine and have struggled with my faith, I by no means hate the Church, its teachings, or its followers. Further, I have no intention to lecture anyone regarding religious belief or doctrine as that is not my area of competence.

I do, however, feel obligated to chime in when the discussion is within my area of competence – behavior, thought, and when these go awry. My objective is not to undermine or deny Catholicism, but to offer a different perspective that, in my view, can more comprehensively explain such events (i.e., Virginia Tech) than the mere application of labels such as evil.

Second, I take issue with the notion that materialism is inherently evil. Are we not, as humans, material beings (excluding the soul) made in God’s image? Would Mr. Patrick posit that our material bodies are themselves evil? That is preposterous! The Earth and the universe (and everything within them) are made of matter.

However, this does not mean faith/religion is useless or wrong. Religion and science occupy, in the words of Stephen J. Gould (as well as Pius XII to some extent), non-overlapping (though adjacent) magisteria. That is, there is no conflict between the two because their respective domains of expertise are different.

Science deals with the empirical constitution of the universe (and everything in it, including humans), while religion deals with the search for ethical values and spiritual meaning. Wisdom requires attention to and integration/understanding, on an intellectual level, of both of these domains in order to fully understand the beauty of God’s creation, of which all humans are a part. The construct of a soul (which, in Cho’s case, may or may not have been corrupted by evil) can indeed be a useful one. Since science (e.g., psychology) cannot directly or indirectly touch or study such a subject, it cannot be threatened by it as it is an intrinsically and legitimately religious issue.

Religion, in turn, cannot and should not be threatened by psychological explanations of behavior since they do not threaten the existence of a soul and/or evil. My point was to say that using only evil as an explanation for the Virginia Tech massacre leaves much to be desired if we hope to understand that event (i.e., get inside the head of Cho) and prevent it from happening in the future. I do not condone Cho’s actions, but that doesn’t mean we should not make an effort to examine them and the circumstances leading up to them.

To Mr. Patrick’s credit, he correctly states that statistical correlation does not establish causality. In reference to behavior and thought, though, this is a moot point for at least two reasons. First, it is utterly ridiculous to posit that behavior causes neurological activity.

This would mean that, for example, my typing these words could theoretically cause action potentials in my motor cortex. This leaves us with no explanation as to what causes my hands to move across the keys.

It is clear that in this case (and other cases involving self-initiated behavior), there is a definite causality vis-à-vis neural activity.

Second, Mr. Patrick has ignored a plethora of studies showing that electrical stimulation of cortex (in both humans and animals) causes a variety of behaviors and other outcomes, including: movement and sensation of limbs/extremities, eye blinking, nausea, sexual arousal, thwarting of language capability, and visual, auditory, and tactile hallucinations (including out of body experiences). This doesn’t include even more studies focusing on psychoactive substances (both legal and illegal) and their effects on thought and behavior.

The most banal, yet most illustrative, example of the importance of the brain is Phineas Gage (c.1848). After having a tamping rod blown through his skull, removing a substantial portion of his frontal cortex, he survived. His personality, though, did not. From mild mannered, responsible, and pious he became belligerent, violent, irresponsible, and exhibited very poor judgment (he was unable to hold a job and eventually drank himself to death 10 years after his accident).

Was this change the result of evil? Sin? The answer is a clear no; he changed because crucial parts of his brain (which have been studied carefully since then) were destroyed. Of course, people may be belligerent, etc., even with their brain intact. This only serves to amplify the role and the importance of the development of those brain areas associated with (and for our purposes, controlling) consciousness, decision-making, and judgment.

As I mentioned in my previous letter, and as Mr. Patrick alluded to, such areas function in large part due to prior learning of what is indeed good judgment or moral behavior. However, even the best-intentioned people (with fully functioning brains) may engage in destructive (or evil) behaviors. Understanding how these folks (as well as those who are clearly disturbed, like Cho) came to those behaviors is what behooves us as a society. Asserting (and being satisfied) that sin and evil are responsible for these events is not only nonsense, but a sign of extreme ignorance of modern science as well as an insult to the true complexity of the human brain and mind. The only “babble” being spoken is coming out of Mr. Patrick’s (and Ms. Borchard’s) mouth.

James N. Masciale, M.A.
Ridgewood

Our Great Women Religious

Dear Editor: A recent copy of The Tablet celebrated the jubilees of many fine women religious. They have always been such a positive influence in the Church and so many people’s lives have been enhanced and enriched by their ministry. We should be happy for them and for us.

As a lay person called to Church ministry, I am particularly grateful for the many graces that have flowed from the dedicated life of Sister Angela Gannon, C.S.J. This year Sister Angela celebrated 50 years of religious life. Her ministry has always affirmed God’s call to holiness for so many people, especially the laity. Whether Sister Angela’s leadership was in the Office of Catholic Education, in the Congregation of Sisters of St. Joseph, or in the Pastoral Institute, her vision has always included a respect for and encouragement of the gifts of all God’s people.

Thank God for the good work begun in the Brooklyn Diocese by women religious. And thank you to the women religious who have encouraged and affirmed God’s call to ministry in all of us.

Eileen Maguire
Park Slope

Editor’s Note: Eileen Maguire is a campus minister at St. Saviour’s H.S., Park Slope.