Wednesday Liturgy: Tabernacles, Adoration and Double Genuflections

ROME, JULY 26, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: Is it permitted to have adoration by simply opening the door of the tabernacle, and leaving it open for an hour? I was told that this was OK, and that it was in the "book." Could you please tell me what book, and where this came from? -- P.P., Miami Springs, Florida.

Q: During solemn exposition of the Blessed Sacrament I have seen so many different signs of adoration that I am confused. Is it supposed to be the single genuflection, just as you would before the closed tabernacle? Or is it the long, solemn, single genuflection, more pronounced than before the tabernacle? Or is it the double genuflection (getting on both knees)? -- M.P., Columbia, Maryland

A: Before the Second Vatican Council, opening the tabernacle door was more common as a simpler form of adoration, especially in convents and oratories. In some cases the abbess or mother superior had special permission to open the tabernacle and expose the pyx.

Sometimes, especially in convents that practiced perpetual adoration, the Blessed Sacrament was permanently exposed in a small monstrance within the tabernacle or in a large monstrance above the tabernacle which was veiled from view during Mass and other ceremonies by an ingenious swivel door. This method, which is still used in some places, allowed for exposition to be interrupted and restored on a regular basis without recourse to incense or other ceremonies.

In a present parish context, or even in religious houses, exposition by opening the tabernacle is no longer necessary, since any minister who has the faculty to open the tabernacle, either in virtue of the sacrament of orders or by special permission of the bishop, may also place the pyx on the altar or place the host in a monstrance upon the altar.

While there is no express prohibition to exposition by opening the tabernacle, the directives of the liturgical books actually in force make no mention of this option and presume that both solemn and simple exposition is upon an altar.

Only an ordained minister may give Benediction. Another approved minister simply replaces the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle without ceremony when the period of adoration has concluded.

With respect to the genuflection: Since a genuflection is, per se, an act of adoration, the general liturgical norms no longer make any distinction between the mode of adoring Christ reserved in the tabernacle or exposed upon the altar. The simple single genuflection on one knee may be used in all cases.

However, some bishops' conferences have voted to retain the use of the double genuflection for the Blessed Sacrament exposed, and it would be required in these countries. In this case, those who make the double genuflection kneel briefly on both knees and reverently incline the head with hands joined.

Needless to say, the simple genuflection should never be reduced to a sudden spasm in the right knee. The right knee should touch the place where the right foot stood while head and back remain straight. The gesture of adoration should be performed with due pause.

When I was young a wise priest taught me to recite the invocation "My Jesus, I adore you in the sacrament of your love" so as to gauge a reasonable time to remain knee to floor. One could stay longer perhaps, but it is a fairly safe rule of thumb.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Mass in 2 Languages

ROME, JULY 26, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Similar to the question on multilingual Masses (see July <> 12) a Los Angeles reader wrote:

"I would like to know, is it permissible to sing several different lines of the Memorial Acclamation over and over. This is done in English and Spanish; we have a bilingual Mass. It seems as though the choir sings for example, 'Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again' and adds lines in between in the other language. If they start it off with Spanish, they intersperse with English. This is very distracting."

The earlier column mentioned that, in general, the mixing of languages in Mass should be reserved for special occasions, limited above all to the Liturgy of the Word. The Common prayers should be said or sung in the prevalent tongue.

We did make an exception for an especially well-orchestrated choral rendition of one of these prayers in another language. But the case mentioned above is somewhat different as it mixes two languages in one piece.

As the Book of Ecclesiastes says: "There is nothing new under the sun" (1:9). The problem of choirs singing in several languages at once was discussed at the Council of Trent and almost led to the prohibition of polyphonic singing during Mass.

The Council Fathers stressed that in liturgy, the word always has priority over the music and the function of liturgical music should always serve to express the word to its greatest advantage.

Some Fathers feared that certain compositions, while beautiful to the ear, encumbered and obscured the word, rendering it unintelligible in a maze of harmonies and counterpoints.

In the end, the work of such great composers as Pierluigi da Palestrina and Tomas Luis de Vitoria saved the day by finding a middle way between intelligibility and musical expressiveness.

It is probable that the above-mentioned mix of Spanish and English in the Memorial Acclamation does not exactly echo de Vitoria and Palestrina. But the principles involved, that of the priority and intelligibility of the word over the music, are the same as those faced by the Tridentine Fathers.

Our reader comments "it is very distracting" and indeed it probably is, because, in this case, the liturgical music is not fulfilling its function of enhancing worship by expressing the word of the liturgy as fully as possible.

Liturgical music should never distract but always strive to draw the faithful deeper into the celebration of the mystery.

Article: A Turn Toward Truth

Here's a great article by Collen Carroll Campbell on America's youth and their stance of sexual morality. It seems the sexual libertarians are not as many as one may think.

*~*~*~*~*

When the election returns rolled in last November, pundits and politicos across America could be found scratching their heads and searching their souls. Voters had overwhelmingly supported bans on gay marriage in the 11 states where such constitutional amendments were proposed. A comfortable majority had opted to re-elect President George W. Bush, a conservative who opposes legal abortion. And moral values emerged as the top concern of American voters, with the vast majority of those "values voters" supporting socially conservative candidates.

The chattering classes were aghast.

"We're entering another dark age," declared columnist Maureen Dowd, in The New York Times. Religious conservatives like Bush want to "turn the clock back to the black-and-white Manichaean values of the '50s."

Elizabeth Cavendish, interim president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, released a similarly shrill statement warning that "anti-choice zealots" could take over the Supreme Court if Bush interprets his win as "a mandate to roll back women's rights" to abortion.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, told the Associated Press that the election and gay marriage bans were like a death blow, orchestrated by right-wing, anti-gay leaders seeking "to demonize us."


Is Change on the Way?

At first glance, it seems that the proponents of abortion-on-demand, gay marriage, and libertine sexual mores have no reason to be so worried about the future. After chipping away at traditional sexual morality for decades, the champions of so-called sexual "liberty" have achieved many of their goals. The birth control pill is widely available and widely used, even among Catholics. Abortion is legally protected as a "fundamental right." No-fault divorce laws have made marriage merely a provisional commitment. And the sexual revolution of the '60s and '70s seems irreversible, as public schools encourage teenagers to have "safe sex," prime-time television programs celebrate the pleasures of adultery and adolescent promiscuity, and judges redefine marriage to accommodate gay couples.

For faithful Catholics seeking to follow Church teachings on issues of sexual morality, it often seems as if secular hedonists have won the day.

But those who embrace traditional morality on matters of sex and marriage may not be as outnumbered as they think. As the recent elections proved, Americans still cling to some traditional values. And they are still willing to work together to promote the candidates and causes who support those values.

Consider the results of a March 2004 poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Inc. The survey found that nearly two-thirds of Americans worry that children are not learning values and respect, and about half worry about the amount of sex and violence on television. Nearly half believe abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. And 42 percent say the institution of marriage is under attack. A critical mass of Americans is worried about our culture, and change may be on the way.


Reason for Hope

The increasing concern with society's moral decadence has also surfaced among the young. Growing numbers of young Americans are gravitating toward traditional faith and mores, and pollsters have detected a rightward shift among the young on issues of sexual morality.

Chief among these issues is abortion. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that among young adults, support for legal abortion — which has been steadily dropping since the early 1990s — hit a new low in 2003, with less than four in 10 young Americans agreeing that abortion should remain generally available. That's down from nearly 50 percent who supported abortion rights a decade earlier.

Surveys of college students have also shown declining rates of approval of casual sex. And a recent poll from the University of California at Berkeley found young Americans more amenable to traditional faith and mores than their parents, and more willing to see religion and politics mix. The lead Berkeley researcher concluded that "if the youth of today maintain these positions on religious politics and abortion as the years go by, then the American public as a whole could become more conservative on these issues."

In the course of researching and writing my book, The New Faithful: Why Young Adults Are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy (Loyola Press, 2002), I met hundreds of young adults practicing a robust faith and adhering to traditional moral standards. Many of these young men and women were not raised in religious homes. Some were raised with no religion at all. But their hunger for God and disgust with the decadence of popular culture led them to seek God, to embrace the faith, and to reject the excesses of the sexual revolution that had seduced so many in their parents' generation.

These "new faithful" are attracted to the Catholic Church's traditional morality. They love Pope John Paul II and eagerly study his "Theology of the Body." And they are staunch defenders of the Church's most countercultural teachings — from the sanctity of human life to the indissolubility of marriage and and the proscription against artificial birth control.


Counter-revolution

This new generation is ushering in a new springtime of faith in America. Their willingness to proclaim their beliefs boldly and their desire to understand God's plan for human sexuality have led to the birth of dozens of apostolates and ministries, study groups, and fellowships. They often feel outgunned in the profligate popular culture, but they are making their presence known and they are making progress.

In my next few columns, I will examine the reasons behind this sexual "counter-revolution" and highlight some of its manifestations in parishes, universities, and local communities. I also will explore the influence of Pope John Paul II on this trend. The Holy Father has spent his life proclaiming the truth about human love in the divine plan, and the connection between love and responsibility. His wisdom has captivated a generation and ignited a revolution of love to replace the morally bankrupt sexual revolution. Thanks to his witness and the work of the Holy Spirit, we stand at what may be the dawn of a new age — not the "dark age" predicted by secular pundits, but an age illumined by the splendor of truth.

Focused Link: Finding Design in Nature

Here's an article by Cardinal Christoph Schonborn on the idea of human evolution and why the Church will never accept that idea that evolution is an unplanned and unguided process of random variation. Quite interesting since this article didn't have the approval from Vatican, but Cardinal Schonborn was encouraged later on by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (before his election as Benedict XVI) to continue with this thesis. Before becoming Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0060.html

*~*~*~*~*

The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection — is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Focused Link: The Other Catholics: A Short Guide to the Eastern Catholic Churches

For those interested about the Orthodox Church, the link below is a great survey about "the other Catholics". Take a good look at this and be amazed about the potential of reunification being envisioned by Benedict XVI.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0804.html

*~*~*~*~*

The answer may surprise you, as Catholics are generally unaware that they have millions of coreligionists who are not themselves part of the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, even the term "Roman Catholic" isn't quite right — it was actually a derogatory label assigned to us by Anglican Protestants, trying to legitimize their own use of the term "Catholic" over and against that foreign Church loyal to the pope of Rome.

In point of fact, the Catholic Church directly under the jurisdiction of Rome is properly and canonically termed the Latin Church. All official Church documents simply use the term, "Catholic Church." And contrary to popular belief, most of the day-to-day work preformed by the Holy Father is not in his role as pope and pastor of the Universal Church but in his position in the Latin Church as the bishop of Rome and the patriarch of the West.

So who are these "other" Catholics? They have their own hierarchies and liturgies, as well as their own distinct apostolic lineages. They may look and act like Eastern Orthodox churches, but they recognize the pope of Rome as the head of the visible Church on earth and have suffered for the cause of that unity.

Meet the Catholic Churches. There are more of them than you think.

Focused Link: Men and Virtue

Being a Christian is not only receiving the Sacraments. It goes much deeper and that's called the exercise of human virtues! Tim Gray and Curtis Martin has done a fine job in presenting us with a palatable approach in this area. Chapter 1 of their book Boys to Men is in the link below.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0265.html

*~*~*~*~*

Why Virtue?

Today it is more common to hear about values than virtues. Current thought is that society would be safe, healthy, and happy, if only we could instill proper values into people. Values-based moral education programs exemplify the modern conviction that morality is nothing other than the art of making good choices, which are guided entirely by one's own values. One could critique this approach to morality on philosophical grounds, but my criticism is simple and to the point. The problem is that values fall short when it comes to making men moral. Having good values is a fine thing, but the battle of morality is not so much about knowing what is right as it is doing what is right. The difference between wanting to do the good and actually doing it is tremendous. Thus, many men who commit adultery know what they are doing is wrong (no need for value clarification), but they are unfaithful despite their values. Right values do not always translate into right action.

Many men want to be good husbands and fathers, but if this wanting is not supplemented by the virtues — the skills for successful moral living — then success will be unlikely. For example, I can value flying, spend countless hours as a passenger, and be the most avid aviation fan around, but that does not enable me to fly a plane. In order to fly, one must have the skills of a pilot. Many people desire to fly a plane, but few have the ability. Similarly, if our moral life is to get off the ground, we must acquire the skills necessary to fly. Values alone will not suffice.

Focused Link: Shameless and Loveless

If you're interested in understanding the concept of shame, you can try this article by Roger Scruton. It's a simple piece, but the more serious people should read Karol Wojtyla's "The Metaphysics of Shame" in Love and Responsibility. Coincidentally, it seems the approach of Roger Scruton is very much personalistic, like that of Wojtyla, but I'm not sure how similar.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0121.html

*~*~*~*~*

When you do something wrong and are discovered you feel ashamed of yourself. This kind of shame is a moral emotion, founded on the thought that someone else is judging you. But it is not what is referred to in the verses quoted, which are about sexual shame. Sexual shame differs from moral shame in two ways. First, it is not a confession of wrongdoing: on the contrary, it testifies to the reluctance to do or suffer wrong. Secondly, it is not troubled, as moral shame is troubled, by the thought that you are being judged as a self, a free being, a moral subject. On the contrary, it arises from the thought that you are being judged as a body, a mechanism, an object. Hence the German philosopher Max Scheler described sexual shame as a Schutzgefühl — a shield-emotion that protects you from abuse, whether by another or yourself. If we lose the capacity for shame we do not regain the innocence of the animals; we become shameless, and that means that we are no longer protected from the sexual predator.

Wednesday Liturgy: Obedience to a Priest

ROME, JULY 19, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: In a certain church in New York state a priest told parishioners they could not kneel during the consecration. He also told them they could not say the rosary in front of the Blessed Sacrament. The question we have concerns obedience. Are the laity obligated to obey a priest when it comes to liturgical practices or devotional practices? Is it a sin not to obey the orders of the priest? -- M.A.E., Rochester, New York

A: There are several questions here and several levels of obedience.

First of all, both priest and faithful owe obedience to Christ and his Church in matters of faith, morals and liturgical discipline.

Neither the priest nor the faithful are lords and masters of the liturgy but must receive it as a gift through which, by actively and consciously participating, they enter into communion with Christ and the Church, and benefit from an increase of grace.

This fundamental obedience of the assembly to Christ and the Church is the basis for the other forms of mutual obedience within the assembly. In a way, the priest owes obedience to the faithful in that he has a solemn mission to lead them in prayer and worship according to the mind of the Church. And the faithful have a corresponding right and duty to pray and worship in communion with the universal Church.

This also leads to a proper understanding of the faithful's obedience to their pastors. They should be docile in accepting his guidance in all that touches on the mind of the Church.

Thus, with respect to the liturgy, the priest is called to direct the faithful in the Church's liturgical worship. The faithful, in turn, have an obligation to obey him insofar as his direction corresponds to Church's mind as expressed in the liturgical books or in the dispositions of legitimate Church authority.

With respect to acts of private devotion, the priest, as teacher, is called to guide the faithful to a solid spiritual life. In this he may sometimes be required to warn them against certain devotional practices that deviate from sound doctrine or that are prone to confuse his flock regarding the priority of the sacramental life.

In some grave cases the priest might even have to forbid the use of the church as a venue for public manifestations of problematic devotions. In carrying out these actions he must always be guided by sound Church doctrine and not his personal spiritual preferences.

As said, the obedience of the faithful to the priest is in virtue of communion with the Church and consequently they have no obligation to obey a priest who directs them to perform or omit acts contrary to Church norms, because in doing so he fails to fulfill his mission of leading in communion.

The faithful are also free to practice any devotional exercise that is in conformity with sound doctrine and Church norms.

However, the faithful should always have a presumption in favor of the correctness of the priest's directives in liturgical or spiritual matters and should avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to reign in their spiritual lives. If they have a positive doubt regarding any specific issue, the initial attitude should always be one of a charitable dialogue in search of mutual understanding.

Certainly, and not only in the developed world, the days are past when a priest was the exclusive source of doctrinal information. Today, most educated Catholics can find out for themselves what the Church teaches or regulates on any topic.

Yet this extra knowledge should be an aid to mutual understanding rather than a weapon of discordance and the attitude should always be one of construction rather than confrontation.

Sometimes an apparently erroneous directive may be justified by contextual circumstances not readily perceivable and in an attitude of mutual charity the priest should be willing to explain the motivations behind his actions and the faithful be disposed to weigh carefully what he has to say.

If necessary, all should be willing to ask the bishop clarify the situation. To some this might seem overly optimistic, but as the ancient hymn reminds us, "Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est" -- Where true charity and love are found, there is God.

Now, alas, we have to come to the nitty-gritty of the first part of the question.

The directive issued by the priest not to kneel during the consecration is erroneous if taken as a general rule. The norms for kneeling in the United States are stated in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 43:

"In the dioceses of the United States of America, they (The faithful) should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise."

The debate in the bishops' conference leading up to the formulation of this adaptation, especially with the insertion of the expression "on occasion," made it clear that the bishops desired to prevent the exception from becoming a blanket permission to abolish kneeling.

Thus, unless some particular good reason led the priest to indicate to the people that they not kneel on that occasion, and especially if he indicated a stable norm for the parish, then he was going beyond his authority.

Similarly, there is no law forbidding the rosary before the Blessed Sacrament. Indeed, the Holy See specifically permitted it in an official response to a doubt, published Jan. 15, 1997.

The document did state that the Blessed Sacrament should not be exposed just to pray the rosary. But it allowed the rosary to be among the prayers carried out during adoration.

While there is no prohibition in principle, one could surmise that specific circumstances might arise that would induce a pastor not to allow public recitation of the rosary before the Blessed Sacrament. In such (supposedly rare) occurrences he would be acting within his rights and duties as spiritual guide.

He would have no authority, however, to forbid the faithful from praying the rosary privately before the Blessed Sacrament.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: What to Do With Old Ceramic Vessels

ROME, JULY 19, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Our suggestions regarding the disposal of ceramic vessels (July 5) gives the opportunity to answer a couple of related questions.

A California reader asked: "The new instruction indicates that glass chalices or ciboria may not be used at liturgy. When the Pope came to our city and we had a marvelous liturgy for hundreds of thousands, the archdiocese had glass bowls made for the distribution of holy Communion. After the Pope left, the archdiocese asked parishioners to buy these bowls for their parishes. Hundreds, if not a thousand bowls, were purchased. It seems strange that these bowls could be used for the Pope's Mass, but can no longer be used. What should be done with these glass bowls which have been used in parishes? Should they be given back to the buyer?"

Regarding the eventual disposal of such vessels, I refer to what I said in the earlier column. Since the problem is generalized the bishop could be asked to make some overall dispositions.

I would point out, however, that the fact that these vessels were used at a papal Mass does not automatically mean they were liturgically correct, as a lot depends on the local organizers.

At the same time, until the instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum" finally cleared up the doubts, the admissibility of glass and ceramic was a disputed point. And so it is probable that the use of these bowls was considered correct at the time.

Another reason could be that extraordinary occasions may require exceptional solutions and, while the use of less expressive and easily replicable vessels might not be justified for normal liturgical use, it may be the only practical possibility on rare grand occasions with many thousands of people receiving.

Indeed, I observed that ceramic ciboria were used recently to distribute Communion at the Mass celebrated by Benedict XVI at Bari in southern Italy to conclude a Eucharistic Congress.

A Minnesota reader asked: "I offered to purchase replacements for the glass chalices and the 'fishbowl' that are used for Communion. While the priest is willing to bend a little, offering to use gold-plated items should I purchase them, he retains that he will still use the glass for 'catechism' of children during Mass, i.e. to let them see the body and blood of our Lord so that they understand. I reminded him of the 'Redemptionis Sacramentum' statement to not use glass, and he stated that the bishop sent letters to the priests in the diocese saying not to implement RS until he'd reviewed it and given it the OK.

"There are several issues here: 1. Is there any exception for the use of glass as stated by my priest? 2. Does the bishop have a right to hold up the implementation of RS which to me is just a clarification of the GIRM?"

I do not think that there are any exceptions which would allow for glass chalices. To my mind the priest's "catechetical argument" is somewhat specious -- as if the visibility of the sacred species somehow facilitated faith in transubstantiation.

The Church has managed to transmit faith in the Eucharist for centuries without having recourse to glass chalices. It can probably manage without them in the future.

As I have not seen the bishop's letter I cannot comment in particular and I suppose that, at this stage, he has already taken action. I doubt that he was claiming the right to veto the Holy See.

It is more likely that he was referring to the practical consequences of the document and its application to the diocese. He probably wanted time to study the document so as to assure a smooth diocese-wide transition of any practices that needed reform. He might have also wanted to resolve logistical difficulties, such as, for example, the bulk purchase of new vessels at a favorable price.

Of course, some aspects of "Redemptionis Sacramentum," such as anything reprobated as a "grave abuse," had to be remedied immediately and without delay.

Position Paper: Will Ireland Be Christian in 2030?

DONEGAL, Ireland, JULY 18, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Here is the working text of an address prepared by Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin for an address to the Patrick MacGill Summer School in Glenties, County Donegal. The text was adapted slightly here.

* * *

Will Ireland Be Christian in 2030?
Speaking notes of Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin
Primate of Ireland

A few weeks ago I was surprised by a remark on a German television talk show by Gregor Gysi, the leader of the German Communist Party, who when asked about his worries about German society said: "Ich fuerchte eine Gottlose Gesellschaft" -- "I fear a Godless society."

It was an unusual comment from the leader of a communist party, with its roots in the former East Germany. As the television debate continued, this declared atheist noted that German society needs the moral framework that only those Christian roots embedded in his society can give. He noted that even the highly moralistic code of the communist ideology in the German Democratic Republic was effectively rooted in Christian principles.

These comments struck me in particular since the speaker was never a Christian. He is personally of Jewish background and the territory of the German Democratic Republic was that part of Germany where religious practice was always and still is exceptionally low.

It is hard to deny that there is a sense then in which our Western societies, even when they appear to be de-Christianized, still retain vestiges of a Christian culture which possesses a unique capacity for moral cohesion. No other philosophical or political basis has ever done so quite so well.

Ireland is undergoing today a process of secularization which many would see moving towards the situation described by Gysi: a secularized society which still turns to a cultural religious ethos to hold together and build the most effective consensus possible around a network of values which society needs -- at least at certain moments. Perhaps Ireland may be like that in 2030 -- but does that mean that Ireland would be Christian?

Beyond surveys

Of course one should really begin with the question, is Ireland Christian today? Is it more or less Christian that it was 20, 50 or 100 years ago? I believe that we do not really have enough solid research into the nature of the change in religious adherence. As archbishop of Dublin I am surprised at the superficiality and the anecdotal evidence I am presented with when I ask about concrete pastoral options and about the situation of the faith in Ireland.

There are the regular surveys about how many people say they believe in God or attend Mass regularly or which denomination or faith they adhere to. But we need more clarity concerning what questions people are really answering when they respond to such a survey.

As an aside, let me also note that at times the results of such surveys are often interpreted and spun in not the most objective way. For example, if it is said that 60% of Irish people attend regular Sunday Mass, the comments are that numbers are down, that we have fallen behind Poland and that somehow we are on the brink of the end. What political party would be gasping for breath if it were told, not only that it had the support of 60% of the population, but that 60% of the population attended Cumman meetings every week! There is no room for complacency, but Christianity is healthily present in Irish society.

But let me come back to the question of what people mean when they answer a survey saying they believe in God.

Belief is a complex matter. Because of its nature it is difficult to quantify. People will answer questions about belief in different ways. Belief is not identical with Church affiliation. There are non-practicing Catholics who are genuine believers and there are also many who practice but who may not really believe. I have even seen recently the term "non-believing priest"!

Faith is about a relationship, and relationships can be of differing quality. What I would be interested in learning is not about numbers but about the quality of the faith relationship.

Personal trust

My task as a bishop is to preach and witness to the word of God and to preside over a Church community which will lead people and communities to live a deeper personal relationship with Jesus Christ; a relationship that stimulates hope, meaning, identity and freedom.

In ordinary language, having faith in a person is about trust. Faith is something that goes beyond seeing or knowing. There is a deeply personal dimension to the concept of faith, as opposed to seeing or knowing. Faith requires personal trust and is impossible without that love which recognizes the fidelity and the trustworthiness of the other in whom I place my trust.

Faith is different from seeing or knowing. If what I see turns out to be an illusion, I may be disappointed. My knowledge may be wrong but I can set out to find correctives. But when someone I trust fails me, there is a deep personal feeling of having been betrayed, deceived and misused by someone to whom I had offered something that is deepest in any human relationship.

Religious faith is faith in God, but not in some generic God of our own creation. For the Christian, God is not an anonymous element or power within or above the universe; God is first of all a face.

Christians believe in a God who has spoken, who has revealed himself, who has entered into dialogue with humankind, a dialogue of love. Indeed the Christian God is in himself relationship, that relationship of the Trinity which is driven by the desire to reveal a saving love that is superabundant and gratuitous.

Too often that faith based on love and forgiveness has been distorted into an exacting, negative rule-book. Others have distorted the concept of freedom and security which faith should bring.
I am amazed, for example, at the insecurity that surrounds the faith of so many. Faith should be a relationship which makes people free and secure in a mature fashion. A relationship which engenders insecurity, anxiety and fear is not the Christian relationship of faith in God.

Flight from insecurity

There are, moreover, forms of new religious experience today which seem to provide security, but what they really offer is only flight from insecurity. They seem to leave people secure because they help people evade reality in its fullness and to avoid especially the risk which is an essential dimension of faith. Faith in God must be mediated within the realities of the world in which we live. Christian faith, as faith in Jesus Christ, is incarnation and not flight.

I have gone to some lengths to describe what Christian faith is like. It is far from just a vague "cultural Christianity, whether this is "cultural Catholicism" or "cultural Anglicanism," terms which at times seem to reflect a brand, a corporate culture or even a tribe, rather than what is essential in faith.

Even more so, faith is not just a vague "cultural spirituality." Spirituality, despite the seemingly obvious meaning of the word, may in fact be entirely material, with no true openness to the transcendent.

I remember at the U.N. conferences of the 1990's we would have debates on the appropriateness of U.N. documents containing references to "spirituality" and spiritual values. In general, the pluralist European countries were not enthusiastic, as they feared that this might imply some positive reference to religion (which would be a secularist mortal sin).

On the other hand, the Russia of the early Gorbachev administration was appealing for spirituality and even the Chinese supported the requests of the Holy See conceding that their system admitted spirituality: "Chinese socialist spirituality," the ambassador hastily added.

Seeking hope

There is something fundamental in human yearning that seeks the spirit, meaning and hope. There is something in the human spirit which aspires to ask deeper questions about the meaning of life and to identify what are the deepest realities.

Many will find their path in secular spirituality and they will live out their worldview with dedication, idealism, generosity and satisfaction. For others, seeking spirituality may indeed be a sign of seeking the transcendent and be a first opening to faith.

The originality of faith is however that it is not of our construction, it is response to a personal action of God. It is response to an invitation made to me in my personal situation. Faith is the recognition that God loves me personally.

In that sense faith is always surprise and risk. It is the surprise that God has sought me out personally and asks me to respond.

That relationship was described by Pope Benedict XVI in his inaugural address in St. Peter's Square now some months ago: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary. There is nothing more beautiful than to be surprised by the Gospel, by the encounter with Christ."

Will Ireland be Christian in the year 2030? It depends on how well the Church carries out its mission. That mission is determined however by the nature of faith.

Gospel surprise

I would be very surprised if in the year 2030 Ireland was a totally pagan land, if there was not residual presence in Irish society of the values of Christianity and that that presence was not the major inspiration for the ethos of the country, even though it would be a question of generalized adherence to such an ethos with a generous range of interpretation and tolerance regarding what that ethos actually implies.

My primary interest, however, is in seeing that as many Irish men and women as possible in 2030 will be allowing themselves to be daily "surprised by the Gospel" and will be attempting to make that leap of faith and then shaping their lives coherently according to consequences of their belief.

Whether that happens or not will be determined by the style and the pastoral structures of the Church today. I believe, for example, that many in our society fail to make the leap to faith, because we, as Church, as an institution and as a community of believers, have never made that leap to the full.

We have never fully abandoned ourselves to the God who can make us free, but still cling on to the things we falsely feel can bring us security. Faith is always a leap in the dark, but in the confidence that Jesus has not left us orphans. We will never be able to lead others into the depths of faith and the joy of our hope if we remain entrapped in the limitedness of our current world vision.

This does not mean, however, that believers in 2030 will be sitting back happy to live passively as a minority within a pluralist society. Faith cannot be lived in isolation from culture and reality.

On the one hand, the possibility of living faith is influenced by society. Faith needs a social and cultural environment which will allow it to grow, to flourish in freedom and to make its contribution to society. Ireland in 2030 may well be more pluralist, but let us hope that that pluralism is not that of the intolerant type which attempts to marginalize religious expression totally away from the public square.

On the other hand, for faith to interact with culture, believers must be more coherent in their engagement with the realities of the world. Prayer, for example, is the moment in which our faith is expressed in its deepest and most concrete form.

God's creation

But prayer is not a flight from the world. It is the moment in which we recognize that the God who is other is a real dimension of our reality, of the reality of my life.

When we pray we recognize the lordship and the transcendence of God. Recognizing the lordship and transcendence of God, we recognize that we did not create the world with our own hands and that we should never attempt to set ourselves up in the place of God.

If creation is the Lord's, how can we not share the wealth of the world equitably, how could we squander the resources of creation, how could we maltreat or abuse or exploit any other person? The deeper the faith of the believer, the more he or she will bring their irreplaceable contribution to the dialogue concerning the good of society.

In some areas this dialogue with society may have to be countercultural. I have recently commented, for example, that I am not sure that we have fully grasped what are the long-term consequences of pervasive secularization and individualization on the institution of marriage. It is not possible to reconcile every trend with the Gospel.

We have to find ways of stressing the value of mutuality in marriage and the value of marriage as an institution, and not just in sacramental terms, but in terms of what it signifies for society. If we simply stand aside and drift along with contemporary culture we will have failed to bring to our societies precisely the type of constructive engagement between the Gospel message and contemporary culture that is needed.

Faith formation

To achieve this type of mature Christian faith in today's world we have to revolutionize our structures of faith formation as a lifelong task. I was struck that the first request that the Dublin Diocesan Women's Forum, established by my predecessor, Cardinal Connell, was not about a "women's issue," but about faith formation! Being a believer is not an easy task today.

The pastoral structures of the Church must be structured in such a way that the believer, young and old, knows that he or she belongs to a community which desires that they be free, responsible and fully human. A Church with participatory structures will be more effective in this task than an authoritarian one. I had here written "an authoritative clerical one." But authoritarianism is not a clerical monopoly: There is authoritarianism among lay persons also: an authoritarian conservative ideology and indeed an authoritarian progressive one.

We need to enter into a new dialogue of engagement about faith with our young people. We need to let young people feel that they are part of the Church and give them responsibility in our communities. They need to be engaged and challenged.

We are making progress in his area. This is where I see that the data generally made available is deceptive and deficient. The data can note a fall in numbers. I would say, however, that alongside a fall in numbers of those who attend Sunday Mass, I regularly encounter parish communities that have never been so vibrant than they are today. The more participation the stronger the Church community is.

Laity in action

I have asked, for example, that Parish Pastoral Councils be established in all parishes. This might appear to be an administrative measure, but what has happened is that when the invitation was made seeking those who wished to be more active in their parish, people came forward in their hundreds.

They came to parish assembles and they have committed themselves to be active in ministries and services. There are also other examples which come from new spiritual movements and small groups, most often driven by lay persons.

Will Ireland be Christian in 2030? The answer will not be determined by this year's or next year's survey. This year's and next year's survey, and that of 2030, will be determined by the way we work today to rejuvenate the Church, to bring new vitality to its structures, by the way our Church communities and institutions really are Church, places where the knowledge and the love of God prevails.

Our communities must aim at being communities of mature faith, but they should not become elitist ghettoes. The Church by its nature must be open and it must open a path of welcome for those who are still journeying, who are still seeking, of those who are still weak, of those who are sinners.

If we can continue today to build such vibrant communities they will be the ones who will put flesh and blood onto that more nebulous Christian ethos which Ireland will have inherited in 2030. The message of the Gospel will be as relevant as ever in 2030. We must ensure that the right messengers are there: men and women formed in faith, authentic witnesses to the love and healing power of Jesus.

I am confident that the Ireland of 2030 will not be a Godless society, but one where the love of God lived out by men and women will continue to surprise and open new ways for all.

Wednesday Liturgy: Mass in 2 Languages

ROME, JULY 12, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: Is it appropriate/legal to have a Mass said in two languages at the same time and to hold hands at the Our Father? -- M.C., Mocksville, North Carolina

A: I know of no universal norms or guidelines, but there might be some local norms. From what I have observed in several places I would hazard the following principles.

There should be a congruent reason for using more than one language, usually involving a special occasion drawing members of two or more nationalities for the celebration.

Such occasions could be, for example, ordinations of priests from several countries, an international congress, or the principal celebration of the patron in a parish which habitually has separate Masses in two or more languages.

In general, the mixture of languages is concentrated in the Liturgy of the Word, such as having a reading in one language, the psalm in another and the Gospel in the third. Generally it is best to sing or recite the psalm in the most commonly used tongue. The prayers of the faithful may also be in several idioms.

It is usually pastorally necessary to prepare a booklet for the entire assembly containing the texts to be read and a translation in the lingua franca of the community.

The Liturgy of the Eucharist, and especially the Eucharistic Prayer, should not mix languages as this would distract from the solemnity of the moment and is generally unprecedented as a practice. Usually either Latin or the most common tongue should be used.

With respect to the use of Latin, it is always allowable to use it in chanting the common of the Mass and this would not be considered as mixing languages in the sense used above.

Thus, even if the Mass were in English, nothing prevents the singing of the Kyrie, Gloria, Sequence, Creed, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei and final blessing in Latin.

Latin motets may also be used for the introit, psalm, alleluia, offertory and Communion hymns.

If Latin is not used, it is probably also better to use the general idiom for the Common of the Mass so as to ensure maximum participation. Perhaps, on especially solemn occasions, a choir could execute a musically elaborate version of one or two of these parts in the language of another representative group.

There would also be no difficulty, at least in principle, in using various languages for the usual hymns such as at the offertory and Communion, or singing in more than one language a hymn whose melody is shared by many. For example, at Christmas Midnight Mass in St. Peter's Basilica the hymns "Adeste Fidelis" and "Silent Night" are often sung in several languages.

Regarding joining hands at the Our Father, we have addressed this question in our columns of Nov. 18 and Dec. 2, 2003.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Penitential Rite

ROME, JULY 12, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

There were some related questions to our piece on the penitential rite (June 28) which I would like to tackle here.

A Maryland reader asked: "In one parish the Mass started with the opening blessing and then to the prayer. There was no penitential rite. … Later, I was told the penitential rite at that parish is silent, but there was no pause between the opening blessing and the prayer. Is it OK to have a silent penitential rite at the Mass?"

Another reader, from Pennsylvania, inquired: "Instead of using one of the options for the penitential rite in the Roman Missal, our pastor makes up his own words, usually about the Gospel or feast day. When we are supposed to be 'calling to mind our sins,' our pastor has us reflecting on the Gospel message, the saint of the day, etc. I approached our pastor about this and he said, 'We have options and I am using options.'"

To repeat the norms of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 51, quoted last time:

"Then the priest invites those present to take part in the Act of Penitence, which, after a brief pause for silence, the entire community carries out through a formula of general confession. The rite concludes with the priest's absolution, which, however, lacks the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance.

"On Sundays, especially in the Season of Easter, in place of the customary Act of Penitence, from time to time the blessing and sprinkling of water to recall Baptism may take place."

In addition, GIRM No. 31 states: "It is also up to the priest, in the exercise of his office of presiding over the gathered assembly, to offer certain explanations that are foreseen in the rite itself. Where it is indicated in the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt them somewhat in order that they respond to the understanding of those participating. However, he should always take care to keep to the sense of the text given in the Missal and to express them succinctly. The presiding priest is also to direct the word of God and to impart the final blessing. In addition, he may give the faithful a very brief introduction to the Mass of the day (after the initial Greeting and before the Act of Penitence), to the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings), and to the Eucharistic Prayer (before the Preface), though never during the Eucharistic Prayer itself; he may also make concluding comments to the entire sacred action before the dismissal."

The rubrics proper to this rite state: "After the introduction to the day's Mass, the priest invites the people to recall their sins and to repent of them in silence. He may use these or similar words."

Although this last point is still a valid option, it is not clear if it will remain in the new English missal currently in translation as the Latin missal does not foresee the possibility of personal composition of the introduction to the rite of penitence.

Thus, there are several elements that can be seen.

First, silence certainly has a role in the rite of penitence. But nothing in the norms could indicate that the rite may be substituted by a period of silence while leaving aside any introduction, general public manifestation of penitence, and absolution.

On some occasions, for example when the Mass is joined to another rite such as the celebration of a sacrament or the Divine Office, the rubrics foresee the possible omission of the rite of penitence. This is not, however, the case indicated above.

With respect to the second case, the priest appears to be confusing the possibility of giving a brief introduction to the Mass of the day with the option of using "similar words" to introduce the rite of penitence.

He is perfectly free to do both, of course, but should maintain the distinction between both elements. As the above text of GIRM 31 says, in using alternative formulas, the priest "should always take care to keep to the sense of the text given in the Missal and to express them succinctly."

Focused Link: Who Invented Charity?

No wonder even the Church's opponents — not only Voltaire but also Julian the Apostate and Martin Luther — praised her extraordinary work on behalf of her fellow men. Excerpt below.

Full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0102.html

*~*~*~*~*

In the early fourth century, famine and disease struck the army of the Roman emperor Constantine. Pachomius, a pagan soldier in that army, watched in amazement as many of his fellow Romans brought food to the afflicted men and, without discrimination, bestowed help on those in need. Curious, Pachomius inquired about these people and found out that they were Christians. What kind of religion was it, he wondered, that could inspire such acts of generosity and humanity? He began to learn about this faith — and before he knew it, was on the road to conversion.

This kind of amazement has attended Catholic charitable work throughout the ages. Even Voltaire, perhaps the most prolific anti-Catholic propagandist of the eighteenth century, found himself in awe at the heroic spirit of self-sacrifice that animated so many of the Church’s sons and daughters. "Perhaps there is nothing greater on earth," he said, "than the sacrifice of youth and beauty, often of high birth, made by the gentle sex in order to work in hospitals for the relief of human misery, the sight of which is so revolting to our delicacy. Peoples separated from the Roman religion have imitated but imperfectly so generous a charity."

It would take many large volumes to record the complete history of Catholic charitable work, carried on as it was by individual faithful, parishes, dioceses, monasteries, missionaries, friars, nuns, and lay organizations. Indeed book-length studies have been written just on the charitable work of a particular order of nuns in a particular area of the United States. Chapter 6 of my new book, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, tells the story all too briefly.

Focused Link: Three Simple Truths

Very interesting article. It gives us a simple understanding of three certain arguments done by most people nowadays. Below is an excerpt.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0191.html

*~*~*~*~*

The first is, "Don't be judgmental." This declares that the source of the reprimand has taken no position on an issue, is above partisanship, and enjoys an "open mind." The object of the rebuff, it is implied, is a bigot. In fact, all moral decisions are judgmental; neutrality is impossible. How, for example, do you explain great evils, such as slavery or the holocaust, to a child or discuss these topics in a college classroom? Even the attempt to be neutral expresses a point of view. Ignoring the topics altogether makes a judgmental statement as well, however subtle. A society that could not judge right from wrong (and no such society has ever existed) could not function and would be easy prey for those less bashful about their beliefs. A person who cannot judge people and issues is incapable of thought. Someone who can judge and says he doesn't is either extremely naïve or a hypocrite. Of course, it is good to try to hear both sides of an argument, to weigh matters rationally, and to use discretion in pronouncing judgments. But judgmental we are, and must be.

Prayer for the Intercession of John Paul II

This prayer text was taken from the site www.johnpauliibeatification.org, a website responsible for promoting the cause of beatification and canonization of John Paul II. You may use this for private devotion.

*~*~*~*~*

O Blessed Trinity
We thank You for having graced the Church with Pope John Paul II
and for allowing the tenderness of your Fatherly care,
the glory of the cross of Christ,
and the splendor of the Holy Spirit, to shine through him.
Trusting fully in Your infinite mercy
and in the maternal intercession of Mary,
he has given us a living image of Jesus the Good Shepherd,
and has shown us that holiness is the necessary measure of ordinary
Christian life and is the way of achieving eternal communion with you.
Grant us, by his intercession, and according to Your will, the graces we implore,
hoping that he will soon be numbered among your saints. Amen.

Wednesday Liturgy: What to Do With Old Ceramic Vessels

ROME, JULY 5, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: We recently purchased new chalices and a paten for our chapel to comply with the instruction that sacred vessels must be made of metal. My question is: What can we legitimately do with the old vessels, which are gold-plated ceramic? Is it appropriate to put them to ordinary use, for instance in festive meals? Or do we need to destroy them somehow? -- M.H., Gaithersburg, Maryland

A: Regarding what to do with unusable chalices and other sacred vessels, canon law states the following in Canon 1171:

"Sacred objects, which are designated for divine worship by dedication or blessing, are to be treated reverently and are not to be employed for profane or inappropriate use even if they are owned by private persons."

Indeed the profanation of a sacred object is a punishable crime under Canon 1376.

It is possible that vessels no longer considered suitable for liturgical use due to a legal prescription have "ipso facto" lost their blessing and thus their sacred character.

In some cases a sacred object that has lost its sacred character may be reduced to convenient profane uses. But this would be inappropriate in the case of a chalice or ciboria, which are among the most sacred objects of all. Certainly it would be incorrect to use the chalices for festive meals or any other similar use.

Some ceramic vessels may be genuine works of art. In such cases, if they cannot be converted to another convenient liturgical use they could be conserved in an ecclesiastical museum alongside other valuable sacred objects no longer used in the liturgy.

If, on the other hand, they are devoid of artistic merit, then, having first consulted with the local bishop to assure their de-consecration, they may be destroyed and buried in the ground in the manner suggested by the bishop himself.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Leavened vs. Unleavened Bread, Continued

ROME, JULY 5, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Several readers have made yet further enquiries regarding the integrity of the Eucharistic species (see follow-up in June 21 column) and the high level of interest leads me to address the topic once more.

Some readers requested the theological sources for the affirmation that the loss of integrity leads to the loss of the Real Presence.

My reply was principally based on an application of the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologiae" III pars q 77. In the corpus of the fourth article of this question "Whether the sacramental species can be corrupted" the Angelic Doctor affirms:

"An accident can be corrupted in another way, through the corruption of its subject, and in this way also they can be corrupted after consecration; for although the subject does not remain, still the being which they had in the subject does remain, which being is proper, and suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be corrupted by a contrary agent, as the substance of the bread or wine was subject to corruption, and, moreover, was not corrupted except by a preceding alteration regarding the accidents.

"Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid corruptions; because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain."

In conformity with this doctrine, the liturgical tradition of the Latin rite treats with utmost respect the tiny particles of hosts remaining after Communion (it doesn't, however, attribute gestures of adoration to the particles).

The liturgical tradition also takes great pains to ensure the proper purification of sacred vessels and altar linens as well as prescribing the careful purification of any place where the Precious Blood might have been accidentally spilled.

A Missouri reader characteristically asked to "be shown" how my statement -- "For a valid consecration it is sufficient that the priest be aware of the presence of the ciboria and have the intention of consecrating them or has a general intention of consecrating all that has been placed upon the altar for that purpose" -- be true in the light of the fact that at: "Papal Masses I see hundreds of priests standing many yards from the altar holding ciboria filled with unconsecrated hosts. It is taken for granted those hosts are consecrated by the Pope during the Mass, even though they are no where near the Pope or the altar."

My statement responded to the precise question at hand, which referred to ciboria placed on the altar.

I did not address the general principle of the priest's intention and it was not my purpose to set an absolute limit on the physical extension to the intention.

In the case of papal Masses, and similarly numerous celebrations, the celebrant has the specific intention of consecrating the hosts in the minister's ciborium.

In general, the papal master of ceremonies organizes the deacons and priests holding the ciboria so that they are as close to the altar as possible and that nobody except concelebrants are between these ministers and the altar.

Most priests have a habitual intention of consecrating all that is upon the corporal, but they may explicitly extend this intention to all that is upon the altar.

Although it is technically possible for a priest to extend his intention in the manner of papal Masses, it is practically never necessary to do so in a parish situation where the logistic difficulties proper to St. Peter's Basilica do not occur.

The proper solution in a very large parish Mass is to consecrate sufficient hosts in large ciboria upon the altar and transfer them to empty ciboria at the moment of Communion.

Several other readers also asked about the period of thanksgiving after Communion. One put it thus: If Christ disappears almost immediately "at such point, then to whom do I address my thanksgiving?"

Many, perhaps most, of us were formed in the tradition that the period of thanksgiving after Communion was somehow linked to the duration of the species within the body. This period was variably placed at 5 to 15 minutes, with some saying more and others less.

Although this abiding is a reality, over time I have become convinced that it is not the best focus to adopt in explaining the motives for giving thanks after Communion.

My reasons are that this explanation tends to obscure the act of receiving Communion as the high point and completion of participation at Mass, or of uniting ourselves spiritually to the Mass if we receive Communion outside of Mass.

Indeed, this tradition arose above all in an epoch in which the faithful who desired to receive Communion remained behind after the completion of the Mass, compounding this dissociation between the Sacrifice and Communion.

Why then should we give thanks?

When we have participated at Mass we have been present in a sacramental but real way at a new Bethlehem and a new Calvary. We have walked with Christ the dusty road to Emmaus and felt our hearts burning as he opened our minds to the Scriptures and recognized him at the breaking of bread. We have been witnesses to his death and resurrection.

In virtue of the common priesthood received at baptism and confirmation we have received the capacity to offer our personal prayers and sacrifices with and through the priest so that we are certain that our personal offering, although it seems to us no more than a grain of sand or a drop of water, is placed alongside the infinite and eternal sacrifice of Christ and presented to the Father as a pleasing and agreeable sacrifice.

Through our reception of holy Communion, we are nourished spiritually for life's journey; the new and eternal covenant between God and man is ratified once more.

We strengthen the family ties between God and ourselves, grow in friendship and imitation of Christ, become more fully children of the Blessed Virgin Mary and build up the bond of brotherhood that unites us to the communion of saints and with all those who are blessed to partake of the Lamb's supper.

In the light of all this, and there is much more to be said, a lifetime would not suffice to give personal thanks to Christ for the grace of participating in a single Mass and a single Communion.

To dwell only on the duration of the Real Presence is to reduce the graces received to one aspect and leave aside a trove of blessings from a God who is not content to show his love for us but almost spoils us in his generosity.

Article: The Most Important Business

Below is an article written by the Prelate of Opus Dei, Bishop Javier Eschevarria, on the occasion of the 30th death anniversary of St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei.

*~*~*~*~*

From ancient times there has been a kind of dichotomy between "big history" and "little history," between the unusual and the everyday. On the one hand are the grand gestures (real or imagined) of kings and heroes; on the other hand, the ongoing tasks, often tiring, that occupy ordinary people most of each day as they work to support their families.

Even in Christian lands, people often regarded work as a punishment from God. Those words of Yahweh when he cast our first parents out of the Garden of Eden after they committed the original sin are familiar enough: "You shall eat your bread in the sweat of your brow." But many seem to have forgotten the divine command, "Increase and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it," when the Lord made man and woman in his image and likeness.

For many centuries work (especially manual, but not only that) was considered something that lacked dignity, and people tried to be free of it when good fortune, a noble birth, or an important position in society made that possible. Today, what wounds human dignity is not work but precisely the contrary-unemployment. In this sense, the changed perspective has a positive side. The social teaching of the Church, beginning with the 19th-century popes, has played a role in bringing about that change.

The popes' social teaching has also influenced the life and writings of spiritual authors who find it congenial with their own insights. Several writers of the 20th century come to mind, especially St. Josemaría Escrivá. In a commentary on God's command to Adam to till the earth, the Founder of Opus Dei asserted that work is dignified and holy, "a human necessity God has entrusted to us here on earth, filling our days and making us partakers of his creative power, that we might harvest 'fruits for eternal life' (John 4:36) while earning our living" (Friends of God, 57).

Thanks to this change to a more mature evaluation of work during the past century, professional tasks have been recognized as a commonplace that does not lower human dignity. Unfortunately, however, many people regard those occupations as something out of the ordinary that interferes with normal living. Professional success at all costs has come to occupy center stage: achieving great dreams of epic proportions is what matters. Morality-the human and supernatural value of the ordinary-is often set aside.

Today ordinary life has been reduced in practice to domestic life. The family is cast on the ash heap, the great loser in a feverish rat race. Plainly, a culture shaped by "stakhanovites," by fathers and mothers absent from the home, has had a very negative impact on family life.

Sometimes, unfortunately, it becomes easier to break the marital bond than a professional contract. And disproportionate work also places the children in danger. A boundless increase of juvenile violence, for example, has been attributed to a reversal of values represented by the frenetic urge to produce that leads many to undermine the family's strength as an institution.

An absentee father who is more interested in his career than in his children cannot serve as a firm reference point for them. In the same way, a child's relationship to an absent mother cannot fail to be disregarded even if it is always a necessary relationship at the bottom of everyone's heart. Schools that sacrifice authentic human formation to criteria of efficiency do not help their students to cultivate what is most basic to their needs.

When John Paul II spoke of "the gospel of work" he helped us to discover its supernatural meaning. When performed with a Christian outlook, any task can humanize families, jobs, and society as a whole.

"Children are your most important 'business,' " St. Josemaría once told a businessman to dissuade him from devoting too much of himself to his job at the expense of his family. It has been 30 years since the Founder of Opus Dei died (June 26, 1975). His message can fill us with new hope in the permanent quest for meaning as we face the continuous barrage of questions the contemporary world aims at us. St. Josemaría reminds us of a great truth that Benedict XVI has emphasized in proclaiming that the Church is alive. She invites us to explore her treasury of hidden answers that can become lights to guide us on our way.