Since I seem to be in a reporting-back mode this weekend (yesterday, it was the Paris Hilton report), I thought I would also report back to you on the responses I received about my blog post, posted several days ago, concerning the Vatican’s changed stance toward use of the Latin Mass.
I only received one online comment, via the blog’s own “leave a comment” feature. You can read that person’s comment if you scroll down to the post itself, and click on “comments.” The writer started out by using a fancy technical term (“eisegesis”) to accomplish two tasks (handily killing two birds with one stone!): he proclaimed himself to be highly educated, particularly in the area of scriptural study; and, at the same time, he announced that he thought my post was a poor interpretation of the Vatican’s position, in that (he claims) it simply reflected my own opinions without regard to the proper context.
To help us all out with this obscure term, “eisegesis,” I resorted to the academically despised online reference work, Wikipedia (I am sure my students will hold this over my head, forever!); I enjoyed the short discussion, and so I reproduce it here, as follows:

*************************************************************************
Eisegesis: Definition
Eisegesis (from the Greek εἰσηγεῖσθαι; 'to lead in') is the process of interpretation of an existing text in such a way as to introduce one's own ideas. This is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective. An individual who practices eisegesis is known as an eisegete, as someone who practices exegesis is known as an exegete. The term eisegete is often used in a mildly derogative fashion.

Eisegesis: in Biblical study
While exegesis attempts to determine the historical context within which a particular verse exists - the so-called "sitz im leben" or life setting - eisegetes often neglect this aspect of biblical study.
In the field of biblical exegesis scholars take great care to avoid eisegesis. In this field, eisegesis is regarded as "poor exegesis."
While some denominations and scholars denounce biblical eisegesis, many Christians are known to employ it - albeit inadvertently - as part of their own experiential theology. Modern evangelical scholars accuse liberal protestants of practicing biblical eisegesis, while Mainline scholars accuse fundamentalists of practicing eisegesis. Catholics say that all Protestants engage in eisegesis, because the Bible can be correctly understood only through the lens of Holy Tradition as handed down by the institutional Church. Jews counter that all Christians practice eisegesis when they read the Hebrew Bible as a book about Jesus.
Exactly what constitutes eisegesis remains a source of debate among theologians, but most scholars agree about the importance of determining the authorial intentions. Still, to determine the author's intent can often be difficult, especially for books which were written anonymously.
******************************************************************

So: “eisegesis” is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. What is clearly a correct interpretation to you is obviously an example of eisegesis, to me. The problem, of course, is that we are ALL eisegetes, even when we believe we are being careful and scholarly exegetes. We all, always, bring our own perspectives, biases, hopes, histories, fears, wishes (and, sometimes, outright delusions), to the task of making meaning out of the data presented to us. While in the very midst of attempting to make a fair and objective statement about anything, we must remember that we are mired in subjectivity, and necessarily so, because that is how we are made.

An important task, then, is to set aside the temptation to say “I am right (and objective) and you are wrong (and subjective),” but instead to be vigilant in the practice of clarity and compassion, i.e., in clearly and compassionately seeing our own biases in the forms of our thoughts, wishes, fears. Equally important is compassionately acknowledging the hopes, wishes, and fears of those whose opinions and interpretations of reality differ from ours.

My post about the Latin Mass pointed out, through the lens of my own hopes and fears, some of the symbolic aspects of the debate that were not acknowledged in the news story that announced the new papal proclamation. My commentator expressed some of his own hopes and fears, as well. Neither of us enjoys a lock on Truth.

Other comments I received about the post were sent to me by email, or communicated in person, and they were quite positive. Clearly, the Latin Mass is highly symbolic today within our sharply divided culture (i.e., over and above all of its rich theological and liturgical symbolism). We can, and do, announce many things about our politics and our world-view, merely by stating our position on whether the Mass should be celebrated in the language of the people, or in Latin.

Next question: How about those fancy head-veils women put on when they attend a Mass celebrated in Latin??? What’s that really about??? Remember the bobby pins, and Kleenex, anyone?