I am behind in reading all the articles in Touchstone magazine (a wonderful publication). I just now read "Unhappy Fault: Leon J. Podles on the Integration of Anger into the Virtuous Life" in the July/August 2009 edition (click here to ready the full article online). There is much to learn from the article. While the author speaks about just or righteous anger against that which is evil (and cites the child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church and the lamentably poor response by the bishops) it provides a very good catechesis on anger and when it is correct to be angry, and how righteous anger is very useful in opposing that which is wrong.

A few excerpts:

"The emotions that are now suppressed are hatred and anger. Christians think that they ought not to feel these emotions, that it is un-Christian to feel them. They secretly suspect that Jesus was being un-Christian in his attitude to the scribes and Pharisees when he was angry at them, that he was un-Christian when he drove the moneychangers out of the temple or declared that millstones (not vacations in treatment centers) were the way to treat child abusers.

Conrad Baars noticed this emotional deformation in the clergy in the mid-twentieth century. He recognized that there had been distortions in “traditional” Catholic spirituality. It had become too focused upon individual acts rather than on growth in virtue; it had emphasized sheer naked strength of will. In forgetting that growth in virtue was the goal of the Christian’s moral life, it forgot that the emotions, all emotions, including anger and hate, are part of human nature and must be integrated into a virtuous life.

Baars had been imprisoned by the Nazis. He knew iniquity firsthand and that there was something wrong with those who did not hate it:

'A little reflection will make it clear that there is a big difference between the person who knows solely that something is evil and ought to be opposed, and the one who in addition also feels hate for that evil, is angry that it is corrupting or harming his fellow-men, and feels aroused to combat it courageously and vigorously.'"

...

"One Irish bishop said the calm way everyone approached sexual abuse helped mislead him about the seriousness of the matter:

'I think if it had come to me differently . . . if the parent had come roaring and shouting at me, it would have affected the response. It would have made me sit up more and be aware. The experience of having direct contact with a parent who was very angry and very upset would have alerted me more too. If someone had come thumping at the door outraged and making demands, which they are quite entitled to do, I would have learned a lot faster.'

As Gregory the Great said, 'Reason opposes evil the more effectively when anger ministers at her side.'"

-------

How does this relate to the RDL?

Firstly, while child abuse and incorrect liturgical reform are obvious greatly different (and in no way related) it is righteous to be angry at all things that are wrong, with appropriateness. There are some very good general moral teaching that can be learned from this article.

Secondly, if the clergy and laity had not been taught that it is wrong to be righteously angry they would have roared against the bishops for the great harm the bishops had done against them. I will never forget the account from one cantor who, when he reviewed the RDL music with the people, watched as the older people sat in the pews crying and saying: "They have taken away our songs." The implementation of the RDL was certainly immoral from the pastoral perspective. There was absolutely no need to hurt people with the Liturgy to cater to the demands of political correctness. Had the faithful not wrongly been taught that righteous anger was inappropriate there very possibly would not be any RDL.

What to take away from the article? The article quotes St. John Chrysostom: “He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong.”

Reflecting on this post and on others critical not only of the RDL but also of our bishops' decision to implement it has led me to re-think some of my somewhat simlistic opinions on the subject.
That's one of the good things about this forum: it gives everyone a chance to learn, to become more aware, and to share insights.