The Church has always made adaptations in its presentation to local cultures around the world. The Catholic Church is the one, universal Church for all people. Elements of local customs and traditions are often incorporated in buildings, liturgy, celebrations and so on. This is done not in accommodation of incompatible beliefs (which the Church always rejects), but to make the visible presence of the Church less distant or foreign.

One common example of this is in paintings and statuary depicting our Lord and His Blessed Mother. They are shown as every race and dressed consistent with virtually every culture. This is not an effort to deceive, but one of lowering barriers and opening hearts.

In Singhpur, capital of the eastern Indian state of Jharkhand for example, Mary and baby Jesus are shown with bodies and dress consistent with the local indigenous people. They are dark complexioned and wear traditional tribal clothing. For Mary, that is a white sari with red trim over a red blouse with a necklace and earings.

This statue was unveiled in late May by Cardinal Telesphor Toppo at the local parish.

Interestingly, unusually, oddly even — this image has angered a segment of the local Hindu population. Angered to the point of protests on the order of 15,000 to 20,000 people in late August. The police had to erect barricades around the church to protect it. The crowds brought a replacement statue, dressed in a foreign way, that they felt would be less “confusing.”

To these protesters, the issue was exactly that the statue represented Mary as a local and not a foreigner. They felt that this was intentional deception to “confuse” the population and make them receptive to Christianity.

The International Business Times quotes opposing local opinion:

“Showing Mother Mary as a tribal is a part of the larger design to make the tribal population believe that she was from their community and confuse them,” Tigga added. “One hundred years from now, people here would start believing that Mother Mary was actually our tribal goddess. It’s an attempt to convert Sarna tribals to Christianity. If they do not remove it, a nationwide protest will be organized.” Tigga told the Times of India that “Mother Mary was a foreigner and showing her as a tribal woman is definitely not correct.”

In response, Christian tribals have defended the statue. “What’s wrong in this? It’s just like the Chinese, Japanese, Irish, German or even the African version of Mother Mary and Baby Jesus,” said Father Augustine Kerketta, a senior church official in Ranchi. “It happens everywhere as part of enculturation of the local tradition.” Kerketta also said some local politicians are likely behind the protests to foster religious enmity. “General elections are due early next year, and some people may wish to divide the Christian and non-Christian tribal populations for political gains,” he said.

In a broader context, the conversion of Indians – whether they be tribals or others – has long been a sore point with Hindus who view the work of missionaries as a form of intervention by foreign forces to degrade and/or diminish Indian culture. Indeed, some Hindu organizations have praised Tigga’s efforts. The Haindava Keralam, a Hindu advocacy group based in the southwestern state of Kerala, commented that, by draping Mother Mary in the clothes of Indian tribals, Christian missionaries are creating “distortions” by masquerading “foreign religions” as “local religions by appropriating (more correctly, stealing) their way of worship and religious symbols.”

Haindava noted that the sari is a “Hindu dress worn by Hindu women. The white sari with a red border is used by women of the Sarna community on auspicious occasion[s],” adding that Christian missionaries are attempting similar practices in Kerala. “Should we permit such degradation of our religion?” Haindava asked rhetorically. “These are the [same] people who derided our religion, culture, rituals as mythology and superstition, why are they [seeking to] to imitate it?”

A commenter on the Haindava website named S. Manoharan thundered that: “All Hindus should understand that conversion to foreign religions and praying to foreigners does not give any spiritual satisfaction.” Another commenter named Ravi Nair opined that Evangelical Christians have been using deceptive conversion techniques in Latin America, Africa and in India for centuries. “The after-effects of coercive and deceptive religious conversion [are] disastrous,” he wrote. “Although coercive religious conversion of Hindus has deep historical roots, recent deceptive and cunning strategy poses serious political, social and psychological problems. In this era of globalization, evangelists with unlimited funds use sophisticated, deceptive, psychological mind manipulation techniques to lure, brainwash, and convert innocent people, Once they are converted, they are abandoned for rot. In India, the Vatican and evangelical groups use them as political pawn.”

Nair added that the sudden appearance of a sari-draped Mother Mary is a “manipulation technique.” “These missionaries are criminals with big ego,” he indicated. “They should be detained, arrested, and a force continuum shall be applied until they leave India with their trick. These conversion thief act without fear, shame, guilt, or remorse for a bowl of chicken soup from their alien slave masters. They should be stopped to save India.”

There is a lot going on here: nationalism, religious intolerance and community organizers whipping-up a crowd for their own political ends.

The above quote is from Virgin Mary In A Sari: Hindus Outraged By Christian Statue Depicting Blessed Mother And Jesus In Indian Tribal Dress.

The BBC also covers this. For a Hindu perspective, see this post.

The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is what it is, regardless of less than ideal environments. In war, the hood of a jeep has served as the altar of sacrifice. In distant jungles, a church sanctuary may be only the area under a thatched roof. In countries where religious freedom is suppressed, Mass must be held in secret in whatever dark place is available.

In each of these lowly and humble situations, through the timeless Mass, heaven and earth touch. Heavenly choirs of angels and saints join us as our Savior becomes present. We commune with Him at the Last Supper, follow His passion to the foot of the cross and His victory over death. We are witnesses to, and participants in, God’s boundless love and infinite sacrifice for us.

The surroundings do not make the Mass what it is. So why then do we build beautiful cathedrals? Why was high liturgy ever practiced? I offer two reasons.

First, for God. He deserves nothing less and it pleases Him. Just look at Exodus to get a sense of God’s expectations. There are detailed commands for: materials, the Ark, the table, the Menorah, tent cloth, framework, veils, the altar, the Tabernacle, lamp oil, vestments, consecration of priests, installation sacrifices, incense, basin, anointing oil, artisans and sabbath laws. All this was expected in the time of Moses 3,400 years ago. Should our worship be to a lower standard?

Second, for us. While the reality of the Mass does not change, our sense of the sacred does. If at all possible, the environment and liturgy should remind us of the supernatural reality before us. It should draw us in and point us to Christ. Our focus should not be on ourselves.

Post conciliar changes – NOT called for by Vatican II – have chipped-away at the environment and liturgy. Some churches are built without images of Saints, hard to find tabernacles, no soaring ceilings, missing altar rails, seating facing each other “in the round” (vs. facing God). They are less sacred churches than multi-function rooms. The ordinary form of the liturgy need not be “dumbed down,” but often is. The voids are then sometimes filled by humor, novelties, inappropriate “participation,” secular music and other entertainment.

Msgr. Charles Pope has been pondering some of this too. In his blog for the Archdiocese of Washington he recently wrote about correcting some of the false post-Vatican II excesses which have been thoughtlessly embraced to the detriment of the Church.

Some years ago the theologian Fr. Jonathan Robinson wrote a commentary on the modern experience of the Sacred liturgy and entitled it, The Mass and Modernity: Walking to Heaven Backward. It is a compelling image of so much of what is wrong with the celebration of the Liturgy in many parishes today.

While Fr. Robinson certainly had the celebration of Mass “facing the people” in mind, his concerns are broader than that.

Indeed, we have the strange modern concept of the “closed circle” in so many modern conceptions of the Mass. Too often we are tediously self-referential and anthropocentric. So much of modern liturgy includes long lists of congratulatory references, both done by, but also expected of the celebrant.

Instead of the Liturgy being upwardly focused to God and outwardly toward the mission of the Church (to make disciples of all the nations), we tend today to “gather” and hunker down in rather closed circles looking at each other, and speaking at great length about ourselves.

We have even enshrined this architecturally in our modern circular and fan shaped churches that facilitate us looking at each other, and focusing inwardly, not up or put. The author Thomas Day once described Modern Catholic Liturgy as, “the aware, gathered community celebrating itself.”

In the ancient orientation or “stance” of the Mass that was ubiquitous until 1965, the focus was outward and upward. Though disparaged by many in recent decades as the priest “having his back to the people” even this description shows the self obsession of the modern age. And to those speak this way about the liturgical orientation of almost 2,000 years, the answer must come, “The priest does not have his back to you. Actually it is not about you at all. The liturgy is about God. And the priest, and all the faithful are turned outward and upward to God.”

The liturgical questions of the history of the eastward orientation and its recent loss, of how and why we got into the modern closed circle mentality, and the erroneous understandings of the liturgists of the 1950s about the practice of the early Church, are all discussed more aptly by others more liturgically versed than I.

Please consider dear reader that my proposal is not for a sudden and swift change in our liturgical stance. Rather, that we begin to ponder if, by our inwardly focused stance in circular and fan shaped churches, facing each other, we are communicating what we really intend. Does our stance project that our real focus here is God? Does it communicate the goal of the liturgy to lead us to God? Does it inculcate a spirit of leadership in our clergy who are called to lead us to God? Does a largely closed circle manifest an outward trajectory to evangelize outward and unto the ends of the earth”

Whatever pastoral blessings come with “facing the people” (and there are some blessings) there may be value in continuing to reassess whether our modern pastoral stance of an inwardly focused liturgy serves us well and communicates what we are really doing and experiencing.

There is much more. Read Msgr. Pope’s entire piece Are We Walking to Heaven Backward? A Pastoral Consideration of Liturgical “orientation.”

Catholics are not free to disagree with God (neither are non-Catholics, BTW). We can not pick and choose which truth to accept and which we prefer not to. Living by 7 out of 10 commandments is not “good enough.” Rejecting the teaching of His Church is rejecting God and sinful on several levels. Putting politics ahead of God is idolatry. Doing so while saying that you are a faithful Catholic adds at least the sins of lying and scandal. Receiving communion adds another one. This amounts to a cornucopia of mortal sins.

Some Catholic politicians, none-the-less, often claim to be faithful Catholics while at the same time vigorously promoting extremely grave sins. They claim either that their actions are informed by their faith or that they do not wish to “impose their faith” on others as justification. Complete, total BS either way. They have been told enough times it is BS so this is not a matter of unintentional error or astoundingly poor catechesis. It is rather, willful and insistent.

There are unfortunately many Catholic politicians who – very sadly – fit this description. Three who stand-out for holding high positions, loud and frequent proclamations of their Catholic faith and yet relentless efforts to scandalize the faithful leading people into sin are: Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Biden and Andrew Cummo. Their gravely sinful actions, repeated frequently over a period of decades, leave no objective room to charitably excuse.

At a press conference last week, Nancy Pelosi was asked why it is reprehensible (her word) murder to kill outside the womb (as Dr. Kermit Gosnell did in Philadelphia) but killing in the womb moments earlier is perfectly legal — or in her words “sacred”. Instead of answering, she belittled then ignored the reporter as she has done in the past when asked about her faith in practice. Calling abortion, the killing of innocent and defenseless children, sacred is outrageous.

Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life wrote the following letter to her:

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Dear Mrs. Pelosi,

Last Thursday, June 13, you were asked a question in a press briefing that you declined to answer. The question was, “What is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?“

Given the fact that the Gosnell case has been national news for months now, and that Congress, where you serve as House Democratic Leader, was about to have a vote on banning abortion after 20 weeks fetal age, this was a legitimate question.

Instead of even attempting to answer the question, you resorted to judgmental ad hominem attacks on the reporter who asked it, saying, “You obviously have an agenda. You’re not interested in having an answer.“

Mrs. Pelosi, the problem is that you’re not interested in giving an answer.

Your refusal to answer this question is consistent with your failure to provide an answer to a similar question from me and the members of my Priests for Life staff. Several years ago, we visited your office with the diagrams of dismemberment abortion at 23 weeks, and asked the simple question, “When you say the word ‘abortion,’ is this what you mean?” In response, nothing but silence has emanated from your office.

In what way is this refusal to address an issue of such national importance consistent with the leadership role you are supposed to be exercising? Public servants are supposed to be able to tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public. Apparently, you can’t. Otherwise, you would have been able to explain the difference between a legal medical procedure that kills a baby inside the womb and an act of murder – for which Dr. Gosnell is now serving life sentences – for killing the same baby outside the womb.

Moreover, you stated at the press briefing on June 13, “As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don’t think it should have anything to do with politics.“

With this statement, you make a mockery of the Catholic faith and of the tens of millions of Americans who consider themselves “practicing and respectful Catholics” and who find the killing of children – whether inside or outside the womb – reprehensible.

You speak here of Catholic faith as if it is supposed to hide us from reality instead of lead us to face reality, as if it is supposed to confuse basic moral truths instead of clarify them, and as if it is supposed to help us escape the hard moral questions of life rather than help us confront them.

Whatever Catholic faith you claim to respect and practice, it is not the faith that the Catholic Church teaches. And I speak for countless Catholics when I say that it’s time for you to stop speaking as if it were.

Abortion is not sacred ground; it is sacrilegious ground. To imagine God giving the slightest approval to an act that dismembers a child he created is offensive to both faith and reason.

And to say that a question about the difference between a legal medical procedure and murder should not “have anything to do with politics” reveals a profound failure to understand your own political responsibilities, which start with the duty to secure the God-given right to life of every citizen.

Mrs. Pelosi, for decades you have gotten away with betraying and misrepresenting the Catholic faith as well as the responsibilities of public office. We have had enough of it. Either exercise your duties as a public servant and a Catholic, or have the honesty to formally renounce them.

Sincerely,

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life

This letter and a petition to Nancy Pelosi appear on the Priests for Life website: Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi. Pray for her conversion. Pray for those who are led astray by her “leadership”. Most importantly, pray for the innocent lives sacrificed in the name of choice.

Jesus chose men to be apostles. It was not a move against women. The Church does not have the desire or authority to override Him (it seems silly just saying that). I wrote about this 3 years ago in my piece entitled women priests.

Nothing has changed and never will, because it can not. That does not stop agitators in the media, from raising this whenever possible. The Church does not meet their worldview on this, gay “marriage,” abortion, general sexual promiscuity and so on. By promoting tiny, extreme fringe groups such as “Roman Catholic Women Priests” (an oxymoron for sure) they apparently hope to inflame poorly catechized Catholics into thinking this is part of some “war on women.”

The Los Angeles Times recently offered a classic and all too typical example of this. Most sentences are factually wrong. Here are some sample fragments:

The priest will be ordained (she will never be a priest)

The Communion bread, symbolizing the body of Christ (symbolizing – maybe, but not actually the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord)

laying on of hands that turns parishioner into priest (pretend priest)

California is home to more ordained Catholic women (there is no such thing in California or anywhere else)

the church edict states (first, that is capital “C” Church and second, there is no “edict” — but we do follow Christ)

women who presume to be priests, and those who help them, are committing a grave sin (in fact, they have automatically excommunicated themselves – it is that damaging to their salvation)

The church does not acknowledge ordained women or the sacraments they offer (that is because they are not “ordained” in any sense – as if it could make it true, the piece refers to them as ordained 10 times)

bishops …   ordained the first female bishops, in turn, could ordain other women (absolutely impossible – (1) the Holy Father must approve bishop ordinations and (2) women can not be ordained any more than men can give birth)

To Eitz, the threat of excommunication is meaningless (it is not a threat, she excommunicated herself latae sententiae)

when she became a deacon in 2012 (nope, that was pretend also)

All of that is in the first few paragraphs. The rest of the piece continues along the same lines. Join the fun! Read the complete article Women becoming priests without Vatican’s blessing and see how many errors you can spot (hint: start with the title).

LarryD at Acts of the Apostasy took a shot at it in Yet Another Silly Article About Womynpreests. In an amusing follow-up, he likens the possibility of women priests to him becoming a pizza.

Fr. Z (Father John Zuhlsdorf) writes about this topic from time to time. For example here, here and here.

BTW, no one argues against women called to various forms of ministry. There are awesome religious and lay women doing great things. Ditto for many (non-priest) men. ALL Catholics are called to the common, universal priesthood of the faithful (vs. the ordained or ministerial priesthood). Additionally, it is woefully incorrect to view the priesthood in terms of “power” as radical feminists do.

It is sad that some Catholics live in personal schism with the Church. They do not accept fully the teaching of the infallible Magisterium and in many cases are objectively in sin. Our Lord did not give us options to pick and choose between His commandments nor to embrace truth less than or different from that revealed to us.

Not only do these individuals embrace false beliefs, but it is their strong desire that the Church change her doctrines to accommodate them. That is impossible, of course. Were it possible, the true Church would be gone and in its place something that resembled it, but retaining few timeless truths. We don’t have to imagine such an organization as it already exists! Behold, the Episcopal church. At one time they were a larger, orthodox Christian community. No longer.

Last summer, I covered the story by Ross Douthat on their dramatically shrinking size. Recently, two of their “bishops” made some surprising statements (even for them). First, there is the flat-out denial of the resurrection of Jesus by their Washington bishop. Msgr. Charles Pope of the (Catholic) Archdiocese of Washington reports:

It was sad to read the public comments of the Episcopal Bishop of Washington denying the importance, or need for the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, going so far as to imply this teaching was “outlandish.” More on that in a moment, but first some background.

Some time ago I brought a former Episcopalian into the Catholic Church who, after the Rite of Reception gave a great sigh of relief and said, “I know the Catholic Church is not without problems, but at least I know the Bishops actually hold the Christian faith. It is such a relief to be in the harbor of truth.”

I remember at the time wondering with him if that wasn’t a bit of an exaggeration of how bad things were in the Episcopalian denomination (this was about 1990). But he showed me a scrapbook of article after article of dozens of Episcopal “Bishops” denying quite publicly the divinity of Christ, the Virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, that there was any inherent conflict between Christianity and Unitarianism, etc., not to mention a plethora aberrant moral stances.

Most notable among them, but not at all alone, is now retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong who still freely roams the halls of Episcopal parishes and openly calling the Nicene Creed “a radical distortion of the Gospel of John” and declaring that Jesus Christ did not die to redeem humanity from its sins, even going so far to say that we are not sinners at all [*], in outright contradiction to Scripture (e.g. 1 John 1:10) and, frankly, common sense.

The scrapbook was quite thick with painful articles of Episcopal bishops and clergy saying and doing the most incredible things, outright denying basic dogmas. Indeed, when a Christian leader publicly denies the divinity of Christ, or the Trinity, of the redemptive power of Jesus” death he/she is no longer a Christian at all.

All these memories came back to me when a priest-friend sent me a link to the “Easter? Statement of the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, Mariann Budde, who quite plainly states that it wouldn’t bother her a bit if the tomb with the bones of Jesus were found.

Well, pardon me for being a bit old fashioned and “stuck” in biblical categories, But Rev. Budde, it darn well ought to bother you. And further, even to brook the notion that such a tomb could be found and then add it wouldn’t bother you is a pretty explicit denial of the faith . Here is what the bishop says in her own words, (pardon a few Red remarks from me). These are excerpts, the full remarks of Bishop Budde are: here

To say that resurrection is essential doesn’t mean that if someone were to discover a tomb with Jesus” remains in it that the entire enterprise would come crashing down. The truth is that we don’t know what happened to Jesus after his death, [But we DO know what happened!] anymore than we can know what will happen to us [Here too I am puzzled, Scripture is actually quite clear as to what will happen after we die: death, judgement, heaven or hell, (likely a pit stop for some purgation for the saved)]. What we do know from the stories handed down is how Jesus” followers experienced his resurrection. What we know is how we experience resurrection ourselves. [So their “experience wasn’t necessarily real? Then what was it? And if nothing necessarily or actually happened, then how do we “experience” a non-event or a dubious one? What is there to experience?]

That experience is the beginning of faith, not in the sense of intellectual acceptance of an outlandish proposition, but of being touched by something so powerful that it changes you, or so gentle that it gives you courage to persevere when life is crushingly hard…   [Ok, so, the most fundamental Christian dogma, the Resurrection of Jesus, is and “outlandish proposition” which apparently requires no “intellectual acceptance.” Yet despite this, it somehow has the power somehow to change our life. The logic is as mystifying as the denial of the faith is deep].

Well, it doesn’t get much worse than this. In fact, let us call this what it is, a total loss.

There is more. Read Msgr. Pope’s entire piece: Total Loss File: A Prominent Episcopal Leader Denies the Need for the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.

The second case is comments by no less than the Episcopal presiding bishop who, among other outrageous claims, preached diversity saves – not Jesus. George Connor writes for Anglican Ink:

In support her argument for radical inclusion and diversity over doctrine Bishop Jefferts Schori adds that the day’s reading “from Revelation pushes us in the same direction, outward and away from our own self-righteousness, inviting us to look harder for God’s gift and presence all around us. Jesus says he’s looking for everybody, anyone who’s looking for good news, anybody who is thirsty. There are no obstacles or barriers – just come. God is at work everywhere, even if we can’t or won’t see it immediately.”

She concluded her sermon by stating that we are not justified by our faith but by our respect for diversity.

“Looking for the reflection of God’s glory all around us means changing our lenses, or letting the scales on our eyes fall away. That kind of change isn’t easy for anyone, but it’s the only road to the kingdom of God.”

Salvation comes not from being cleansed of our sins by the atoning sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, but through the divinization of humanity through the work of the human will. “We are here, among all the other creatures of God’s creation, to be transformed into the glory intended from the beginning. The next time we feel the pain of that change, perhaps instead of annoyance or angry resentment we might pray for a new pair of glasses. When resentment about difference or change builds up within us, it’s really an invitation to look inward for the wound that cries out for a healing dose of glory. We will find it in the strangeness of our neighbor. Celebrate that difference – for it’s necessary for the healing of this world – and know that the wholeness we so crave lies in recognizing the glory of God’s creative invitation. God among us in human form is the most glorious act we know.”

There is a lot more. Read the entire piece: Diversity, not Jesus, saves says Presiding Bishop.

The bottom line: Episcopalians manifest the dream liberals hold for the Catholic Church and the result is disastrous. This is not to say we do not suffer their presence in our ranks, but here ancient doctrine is preserved not progressed.