Rest in peace, Wendell Berry (1934-2026)

 

More about Ad orientem

I have looked further into the Ad orientem issue and understood that it has been quite controversial for quite some time. Apparently the Ad orientem format is traditionally preferred because it forces the congregation to focus on the actual celebration of the mass and not on the priest who is saying the mass. It is supposed to be more reverential. I had never thought about this before and in truth I've never particularly focused on the priest who says mass except when he steps into the pulpit to deliver his sermon. 

I'm including some links in this post so that you can read more about it if you are so inclined. 

Facing the People, or Facing the Altar? | Catholic Answers Magazine

Ad Orientem – Immaculate Conception Catholic Church

Why is Ad Orientem worship so controversial?

I retain my opinion--that I prefer the Versus Populum format of the liturgy, where the priest faces the congregation while saying mass. I understand that Ad orientem is the historical and long-practiced way of saying mass. It doesn't change my viewpoint. 

If we are first going to choose tradition and take up this priestly orientation again in order to promote reverence and avoid distractions, then my suggestion is to go further and ban the use of guitars and all other musical instruments except the use of the organ in church. I would also ban the singing of modern songs/hymns and focus only on the time-honored traditional hymns that we grew up with (and that many people got tired of--not me). I would ban musical groups from performing in church at Easter and Christmastime. I would ban singing altogether with the exception of church choirs that sing only traditional church music. We did not have musical groups performing prior to Vatican II, so they are not necessary to the celebration of mass. Nor did we have liturgical dances on the altar (as was the case at times when I was a teenager). They are distractions. We have one Latin mass (the high mass) each week on Sundays here in Oslo at my church. If we are going backward in time, then all the masses should be celebrated in Latin as that is the language of the early church. Why focus on changing only one aspect of the mass? 

It has become quite silly in my opinion to focus on changing only one thing--how the priest faces during the celebration. I have never focused on the priest except when he faces us to give his sermon, which we could also do without since most of the priests simply regurgitate the gospel that can speak for itself for the most part. We can return to my childhood days when my mother would attend weekday masses that were quiet, short, and without sermons, just the celebration of the mass. And while we're at it, remove most statues and the accompanying small chapels that honor the saints. These can also be distractions.   

I realize that I sound quite harsh (some of what I write is of course a bit satirical). But if you are going to choose tradition, then go all the way and return the church to pre-Vatican II times. Streamline every aspect of the mass and boil it down to one predictable format. If that's what the Vatican thinks is going to draw in more of the faithful, then let them try. I'm not sure that the lack of attendance at mass has to do with these things. But I don't know. Perhaps there is a backlash against all things modern. For those of you who think that I am planning to leave the church, I am not. But I am voicing my right to have an opinion. 

Time Passages--Al Stewart

Time in a Bottle--Jim Croce

This song was running through my mind today, as I thought about holding on to time. How quickly it flies by. "Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives"--the opening line to the soap opera Days of Our Lives, a soap opera that my mother used to watch a long time ago. The days of our lives are fleeting. They are like sand that we pick up in our hand, only to have the sand flow through our fingers. It's hard (for me) not to be melancholy at times about the passage of time. There's no stopping it or changing its format, so there's no point really in feeling sad about it, but nonetheless, I do sometimes. 

Ad Orientem and Versus Populem

The mass I normally attend on Sunday mornings, the 9:30 am Norwegian mass in the St. Joseph chapel, has changed its format. By that I mean that the priest, who used to face the congregation when he celebrated mass (versus populem or toward the people), now faced away from the congregation (ad orientem or toward the east). I stayed in my pew for all of ten minutes and then left the church, hoping that the 9:30 am English mass at St. Olav's church across the street would have the usual format with the priest facing us. Luckily that was the case. But this is going to become a dilemma for me if the ad orientem format completely replaces versus populem. The St. Joseph chapel has now physically moved its altar against the back wall so that the priest has to face away from us. This was done deliberately and I have no idea why. I only know that I hate the change. I find it rude, stiff, and unwelcoming. The priests have celebrated masses versus populem for over sixty years, since the Vatican II Council, and I see no reason to change the format now. This means that all masses in the chapel will now have the priest facing away from us, and God only knows how long it will be before the masses in the larger church will remain versus populem. And this is not just Oslo, Norway. It's also the case in many churches in the USA, New York City and Tarrytown among them. I have to ask why. The decision to change the format is up to the local bishops and pastors. This means that the pastor of St. Olav's church decided to change the format without even consulting his congregation, asking us what we think of such a change. The ad orientem format is supposed to align the congregation with the priest so that we all face the same way in the celebration of the liturgy. It is supposed to be more solemn and respectful and less narcissistic. The focus is supposed to be more on solemn worship and less on emotion and feelings. Again, it makes no sense to me. 

You may think that I am making a mountain out of a molehill. You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that this is another example of 'change for the sake of change'. The actual change has neither been discussed nor explained to the congregation. It's just another example of a religious patriarchy forcing unnecessary changes on the faithful. 

So I wrote to the church pastor and told him how I felt. I mentioned that I will no longer consider increasing my financial support of the church, as I had actually thought about doing. That's life, and I owe no explanations to anyone. I mentioned that Christ sat around a table at the Last Supper and broke bread with his disciples. He didn't have his back turned to them. He wasn't rude or unwelcoming. I said that I found it rude that the priest now faced away from us. We could hardly hear what he said as he mumbled to himself. I did not feel more in touch with the celebration of mass; I felt annoyed and disappointed. Irritated at a religious patriarchy that again decides what is best for everyone. They will not drag in more churchgoers this way. I need only think of the Church of St. Vincent de Paul in Albany NY that has its altar at the center of the church and chairs for the congregation clustered in a circle around it. Those masses are packed with people. Those masses are welcoming, inclusive, warm, not stiff. I've written about this church before: A New Yorker in Oslo: The Church of St. Vincent de Paul I wish there were more like them, and I hope that they do not change their format. 

The pastor of my church did write back to me, thanking me for my concerns. He hoped that we could one day sit down and discuss our viewpoints. I wrote back and reiterated my concerns and my disappointment, and mentioned that perhaps the church as a whole should consider addressing the pedophile scandals that have plagued the Catholic church for many years. Those are the issues that need addressing and resolving, not worrying about changing the orientation of how the priest says mass. I have not received a reply and I know that I won't. Ad orientem or versus populem is a distraction from the more important issues facing the church. For the first time ever in my life, I wished that I was at a service in a Protestant church, where women can be ministers and where the tone is welcoming and inclusive, the way that Christ would have wanted it, in my opinion. I wonder sometimes if any of the religious clergy actually consider what Christ would have wanted or preferred. They think they know with certainty what Christ wants, because they are ordained as priests. But I don't think they do, in my humble opinion. They're only human, and humans are not infallible. 

(For an interesting discussion and debate of these issues, I refer you to this article: Ad Orientem: Thoughts on debating the non-essential | Catholic Culture The author presents the pros and cons in depth. But still, I want the priest to face us when he says mass. It's what I've know for my entire life, and I don't see the point of this change now, especially when there are no good reasons for and explanations of it). 

When is enough, enough?

Taylor Sheridan is a good writer who has written and produced some very good series. So therefore I have to ask--what's with the sexual sadism and gratuitous nudity in the series 1923? What's the point of it? And why do we need to see this? There are enough viewers so that it's not necessary to justify showing this to audiences in order to drag them in and keep them hooked. Or is that the motivation? I really don't know.

We're done watching 1923, and while I think it's a good series overall, I have major problems with Sheridan's treatment of women. They get battered and pushed around an awful lot, a little too often. There is sadism, rape and sexual abuse; there is the threat of rape and sexual abuse, as well as sexual perversions that are graphically portrayed. Do we need this in a world that is already overly-violent to women? No. In 1923, we've been witness to lesbian rape scenes, sadism toward prostitutes, and unnecessary nudity. It's cringeworthy and gratuitous. These types of scenes make me wonder about the motivation of the writer. What is he trying to impart? What is the point of these scenes? To titillate? To show cruelty in all its grotesqueness? Isn't that what horror films are for? Perhaps Sheridan would defend this by saying that the wild west was a brutal place, and that men ruled it. Sure it was, and sure they did (and still do rule the world, despite the advances that women have made during the past fifty years). We all know that. It was survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, every man for himself. Women had to be tough in order to survive. Women had to know how to shoot to kill. But still, they were abused at the hands of physically stronger, evil, cruel, sadistic men, and in some cases, sadistic women. Many didn't survive. Many men didn't survive either. You carried a gun at all times. Out in the wilderness, on the plains, you were subject to the elements--weather, droughts, locust plagues, animal attacks, and attacks by cruel human beings. And many women died in childbirth. But still, you don't need to show it all. If you do, then why stop at the savagery of men? Why not show wolves, bears and mountain lions ripping men and women apart and eating them? Why is that off limits? Why not show rotting corpses, beheadings and close-ups of scalping? Because there are limits and Sheridan knows that. But when it comes to sexual scenes, he can push the limits. Why push them? 

I sometimes wonder how average ordinary men would feel if the majority of television programming showed men being raped or sexually abused in graphic detail. I doubt that most men would find it entertaining. Yet the depiction of women being raped or sexually abused passes for entertainment. Why? Because men run the show in nearly every arena, and defend this by saying that this is the way it was at those times in history. If the women in Sheridan's series aren't being battered and abused, then they are often portrayed as temptresses or harridans, with some exceptions. I think Dutton Ranch is the show I like the best, mostly because the main female character, Beth, played by Kelly Reilly, is one tough lady with a strong sense of justice who can hold her own. Helen Mirren and Michele Pfeiffer also play strong women in 1923 and The Madison, respectively. I don't want to see men and women being raped, being scalped, being tortured, being eaten by wild animals. You can very well insinuate that those things will happen, but you do not need to show them in gory detail. If viewers want that, they can go to see any number of horror films that will show them exactly that. 

Subtle, indeed

Again, thank God for cartoonists and political cartoonists. What would we do without them?

An article worth reading

I'm gifting my readers this NY Times article--Trump's Broken Promises, in 11 Charts, written by Steven Rattner. It's absolutely worth reading. 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/08/18/opinion/trump-economy-campaign-promises.html?unlocked_article_code=1.6VA.tjhl.cxQZLGB9kK1U&smid=url-share

Some quotes about change

I'm fine with change for the most part, because change is a part of life, and our lives will continue to evolve and change even if we are resistant to the changes. Alan Deutschman summed up my attitude toward change generally when he wrote 'change or die'. But I'm not fine with unnecessary or frivolous change, or both. A number of so-called leaders need to leave their mark on things, so they 'make changes' to existing systems and structures that seem to be functioning perfectly well. Necessary? No, for the most part. Frivolous? Yes, if you're spending taxpayer dollars on vanity projects that reflect your narcissism. I'm a 'don't fix it if it ain't broke' kind of person. I'm also against 'change for change's sake'. There's too much of both in politics, in religion, and in the workplace. Here are some quotes about change, reflecting the pros and the cons: 

Do not ever take down a fence until you know the reason why it was put up. –GK Chesterton

Change the changeable, accept the unchangeable, and remove yourself from the unacceptable. --Denis Waitley

Just when I think I have learned the way to live, life changes. --Hugh Prather

The main dangers in this life are the people who want to change everything... or nothing. --Nancy Astor

All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward. --Ellen Glasgow

Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are. --Bertolt Brecht

Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts. --Arnold Bennett

Face the facts of being what you are, for that is what changes what you are. --Soren Kierkegaard

If we don't change, we don't grow. If we don't grow, we aren't really living. --Gail Sheehy

The changes in our life must come from the impossibility to live otherwise than according to the demands of our conscience not from our mental resolution to try a new form of life. --Leo Tolstoy

I'm always willing to accept change, just as long as it isn't change for the sake of change. If that change will result in a better way of doing things, then I'm all for it. –James Van Fleet

Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better. –Maya Angelou

The movie My Penguin Friend

I can wholeheartedly recommend this movie from 2024 for families and for people looking for a film that taps into the area of their hearts that becomes inextricably bound to animals. Or birds in this case. The film is based on the true story of a Brazilian fisherman, João (played by Jean Reno), who rescues a penguin that has swum into an oil spill. Penguins cannot fly, but they use their wings, which have become flippers, for swimming and for balancing when they are on land. The oil coated the penguin's flippers and body and has made it nearly impossible for him to swim. João cleans him off and feeds him, and the penguin (named Dindim by Lucia, the daughter of Calista, the friend of João's son who drowned when he was a boy) becomes attached to João, and eventually to his wife Maria (played by Adriana Barraza). He stays with them until February, when he migrates from their Brazilian island Ilha Grande to Patagonia, Argentina, his natural breeding ground, a journey of five thousand miles. He then migrates back to Ilha Grande again in June, staying with João and Maria until he leaves again in February. He does this for eight consecutive years. In Patagonia, he and his fellow penguins are studied by a research team that quickly realizes that Dindim is an unusual penguin, one who is friendly to humans. They tag him in order to track his movements. As fate would have it, Dindim becomes a local celebrity back on Ilha Grande, and a video taken of him goes viral. The researchers eventually discover this, and send a journalist and his team to the island to interview João and Maria and to meet Dindim. I won't give away the entire story, but it ends on a realistic but happy note. 

It was a pleasure to experience a movie that taps into your emotions in a very real way. João, Maria, and the townspeople are kind souls who are quick to help when help is needed. You end up rooting for Dindim and João, and you realize that not only has João rescued Dindim, but Dindim has helped to heal João. The movie never feels forced or unnatural. Dindim comes and goes as he pleases (realistic), and João describes himself as Dindim's friend. It's a lovely friendship, one that will capture your heart. Kudos to the director David Schurmann and the writers Kristen Lazarian and Paulina Lagudi Ulrich who have done an excellent job of telling a captivating real-life story of a penguin and his fisherman friend. 

Ebeltoft--a charming seaside town in Denmark

We spent a week in July in the charming seaside town of Ebeltoft in Denmark. The town is situated on the central east coast of Denmark, 50 km from Aarhus, in Region Midtjylland on the larger Djursland peninsula of Jutland (information from Wikipedia). It attracts many visitors during the summer months, who enjoy the sandy beaches, the 'old town' with its cobbled streets, glass and ceramic boutiques, and restaurants, and different museums. The latter includes the Glasmuseet Ebeltoft and Fregatten Jylland. We enjoyed wandering around the Glasmuseets gift shop, where we bought quite a few lovely glass sculptures as gifts. Our visit to the Fregatten Jylland was also quite interesting; it is the longest wooden warship (frigate) in the world, loaded with cannons that were used during the Battle of Heligoland in 1864. My one thought when we walked around this old boat was how it managed to stay afloat under the weight of the cannons! A testament to excellent shipbuilding. The Brasserie 1864 is located adjacent to Fregatten Jylland, and we enjoyed several good lunches and dinner there. Since we had our car with us, we were able to visit the Ree Park Safari (outdoor zoo) and the Kattegatcentret, a public aquarium, in nearby Grenå. We also drove around Mols Bjerge National Park; it would have been nice to have hiked around parts of it, but we opted not to do so because it was so warm. 

I enjoyed wandering along Nedergade ('lower street') with all its diverse shops and restaurants. The weather was sunny and warm so it was a pleasure to be outdoors. I also was charmed by the Danish half-timbered architecture ('bindingsværk'); there are many houses along Nedergade that had this style of architecture, and many of them were very old. The town seems to be wealthy, since many of these houses have been completely renovated and restored, which must have cost quite a lot of money. 

If you're looking for a chance to enjoy life in a small charming seaside town in Denmark, Ebeltoft is a good choice.

 

small half-timbered house

large half-timbered house

gorgeous hydrangeas 

beautiful garden

Fregatten Jylland 

take a short tour with the little train

typical storefront

an old-style pub

Italian restaurant

looking out over the water 

view of courtyard from street 

Reflections on the tunnels in which we find ourselves

I've been thinking lately about the tunnels that we let ourselves enter and then get lost in. It struck me that we should be more careful about the tunnels we choose to enter, because it may be quite difficult to extricate ourselves or to find the way out once we're halfway in. I've never liked tunnels because I'm claustrophobic, so I literally avoid real tunnels if I can. But avoiding the figurative ones is not as easy, because sometimes you don't realize you've tunneled yourself until you're lost or can't find your way out. 

We live in a society that is constantly striving to seduce us, to engage us, to capture our attention, to keep us on our phones and scrolling through our feeds on social media. A society that wants to suck us into one or another tunnel. Excessive use of social media is one type of tunnel that sucks us in and from which it's hard to extricate ourselves. Other tunnels are certain schools of thought, political philosophies, religious beliefs, and so on. Any type of extremist beliefs, whether they be political and/or religious, are dangerous tunnels to enter because they only lead us deeper into them. The tunnels get darker and deeper and narrower, like caves, and it becomes harder to see the exits or how to turn around. Much like a forest that we can wander into and in which we lose our bearings. The light disappears and the forest begins to impede our movements. That's what eventually happens; we trap ourselves into a mental immobility. We lose flexibility, freedom of thought, freedom to change our minds. 

I remember Christ saying in one of the gospels that we have to be vigilant, be constantly aware, because we can never know when he will return. Keeping the lamps lit was what I remember from that reading. Always at the ready--spiritual readiness. If we have wandered too deeply into our tunnels, the lamps will go out and we won't find out way out. We won't be ready. It's a dark thought, one that can scare me if I focus on it. Loss of hope, despair, negativity--these are other tunnels from which it's difficult to extricate ourselves. Staying vigilant--that is our hope and our salvation. Guarding against a sheep mentality--thinking and doing what most others are doing--is our salvation. We were given intelligence for a reason; we should use it often and responsibly. 

Electric Feel by MGMT

This song from 2007 escaped my attention when it was first released. I don't remember hearing it or seeing the video when it first came out. But it showed up in one of my reels on FB, and I was intrigued enough to give it a listen. And I liked it. It definitely has a psychedelic hippie vibe; it brought to mind a Three Dog Night album insert that depicted the band and their families partying, and also the song Dancing in the Moonlight from 1972 by King Harvest. 

  

How to find peace of mind (in my opinion)

Spot on, once again. Thank you, Stephan Pastis......

Wait a Minute by Willow Smith

I really like this song by Willow Smith (Will Smith's daughter). It's catchy and has some interesting lyrics.