From the Heart of the Shepherd

From the bulletin for The Twelfth Sunday in Ordinary Time (2026 June 21)

June 21, 2026 Twelfth Sunday of Ordinary Time

Hegel wasn’t right about everything, or even most things. But he did put his finger on something when he observed that human history is characterized by an oscillation between “theses” and “antitheses”. His faith in inexorable historical progress through a “synthesis” of the two, however, is too-rosey a reading. 

Just as often, what results is a pendulum swinging back and forth between action and reaction over the decades, with development, confusion, and evolution, to be sure, but rarely true progress in truth, culture, or morals. That can only be the result of inspiration and fidelity, since without God we can do nothing. 

To take a simplistic example: If your parents tended to be too rigid and heavy-handed in their parenting style, you may (over)react by being too lax when it comes to discipline with your own kids (assuming you don’t simply perpetuate the practices of your forebears). According to Hegel, we should expect your children to strike the perfect balance of firm yet flexible, clear expectations with both consequences and mercy.

If that actually occurs, it won’t be the “inevitable” result of historical processes.

Rather, it would be the fruit of intentionality and discernment. There is progress only if someone (your children) are faithful to the light of truth and choose to take the good and leave the bad contained in the Great Chain of Parenting… and manage to avoid making new mistakes of their own.  

This happens in the Church as well, including with the liturgy. Starting in the 19th Century and moving into the 20th, the Liturgical Movement initiated a “return to the sources” in an effort to revitalize and reform the Sacred Liturgy. Its watchword was “conscious and active participation,” an ideal which guided the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and its implementation. Through their study of the Church Fathers and the liturgical books of the Roman Rite, scholars within the movement came to the conclusion that the barque of Peter had drifted very far indeed from the purity and simplicity of her original forms of worship, to the detriment of her members. For example, the continued use of Latin and an over-emphasis on the action of the priest resulted in the lay faithful attending Mass at mere bystanders, “participating” by praying the Rosary in parallel with the Priest as he prayed the Mass, likely not understanding the Word of God that was addressed to them, or even receiving Holy Communion. 

What was the result?

Predictably, a reaction which contained many good elements. In many cases, however, it also contained elements of over-reaction or over-correction. The baby was to be thrown out with the bathwater.

Many of us are familiar with the results:

• a complete leveling of the roles of priest and laity

• an emphasis on lay participation that tended to prize outward activity over interior engagement

• a wholesale liquidation of the Latin tongue

• and the banishment of all things perceived as “accretions” of the middle ages, as if it were both possible and desirable for Christians of the 20th Century to return to the liturgical practice of the first century

In many places, the cure was worse than the disease.

What resulted? Predictably, another (over)reaction. If, before all things traditional were branded as enemies of conscious and active participation, now all things new were viewed with suspicion, if not to say disdain. Some opted to return to the “old Mass” as if there were never any good grounds for liturgical reform to begin with. And thus the sumo match played on, with each side pushing its own incompatible view, putting one Mass against the other…

The point here is not really to chronicle the liturgical Movement, or the “reform of the reform” at all, much less to take sides in the so-called Liturgy Wars. This is simply an example of a historical dynamic at work in the world and in the Church. Next week I intend to explore how this dynamic influenced perception of the Sacred Heart devotion over the course of the last century. For now, let’s conclude by tracing out the proper way “out of” the back-and-forth of the historical pendulum swinging that continues to play out in so many arenas: in politics (between “conservatives” and “progressives”), in fashion (should men wear short shorts or long shorts?), in big tech (do people want big smart phones or small ones?), and everywhere else.

Yes, Hegel had it right: synthesis. Like St. Thomas Aquinas and good Catholics of every age, we must have the honesty to recognize the good wherever we find it and the wisdom to harmonize it in Christ, after it has been purified of all dross and falsehood. We must be faithful to the voice of Christ who is the same yesterday, today and forever, and speaks to us through the Church of the ages, but also obedient to the voice of the Spirit (Christ’s, not Hegel’s) who continues to speak to us today. And the two are never in conflict!

From the Heart of the Shepherd: Corpus Christi