Catholic Metanarrative

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Father Cantalamessa on Christ as Teacher

ROME, OCT. 28, 2005 (Zenit.org).- In his commentary on this Sunday's liturgical readings, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher of the Pontifical Household, highlights the role of Christ as a teacher of absolute truths.

* * *

Matthew 23:1-12

You have one teacher

In the Gospel, Christ's titles are like the faces of a prism, each one of which reflects a particular "color," namely, an aspect of his profound reality. This Sunday we come across the important title of teacher: "You have one master, the Christ."

Among artists and certain categories of professionals the name master, in whose school one has been trained, is one of the things of which one is most proud and it is put at the top of one's references. But the master-disciple relationship was even more important in Jesus' times, when there were no books, and all wisdom was transmitted orally.

On one point, however, Jesus distanced himself from what was happening in his time between the master and the disciples. The latter paid for their studies, so to speak, by serving the master, doing small jobs for him and giving him the services that a youth can do for an elderly person, such as washing his feet.

The opposite happens with Jesus: It is he who serves the disciples and washes their feet. Jesus is not truly of the category of masters who "preach, but do not practice." He did not say to his disciples to do anything that he would not have done himself. It is the opposite of the masters reproved in the passage of the Gospel of the day, who "bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger." He is not one of those road signs that indicate the direction in which to go, without moving a centimeter. That is why Jesus can say in all truth: "Learn from me."

But, what does it mean that Jesus is the only master? It does not mean that this title cannot be used henceforth by anyone else, that no one has the right to have himself called master. It means that no one has the right to have himself called master with a capital letter, as if he were the ultimate owner of truth and taught, in his own name, the truth about God. Jesus is the supreme and definitive revelation of God to men, who contains in himself all the partial revelations that have existed before and after him.

He did not limit himself to reveal to us who God is, he has also told us what God wants, what his will is for us. The man of today must be reminded of this, tempted by ethical relativism. Pope John Paul II did so in the encyclical "The Splendor of Truth," and his successor Benedict XVI does not cease to insist on it. It is not about excluding a healthy pluralism of perspectives on questions that are still open or new problems that humanity faces, but of combating that form of absolute relativism that denies the possibility of sure and definitive truths.

Against this relativism the magisterium of the Church affirms that there is an absolute truth because God exists who is the gauge of truth. This essential truth, to be identified certainly with ever greater care, is imprinted on the conscience. But given that the conscience is blurred by sin, by harmful customs and examples, behold the role of Christ, who came to reveal this truth of God in a clear way; behold the role of the Church and of her magisterium, which explains this truth of Christ and applies it to the changing situations of life.

A personal result of today's reflection on the Gospel would be to rediscover what an honor, unheard of privilege, and "title of recommendation" it is, before God, to be disciples of Jesus of Nazareth; for us to put that also on the top of our "references." That any one who sees or hears us can say of us what the woman said to Peter in the Sanhedrin's courtyard: "You are also one of his disciples. Your conduct betrays you" (Matthew 26:73).

[Italian original published in Famiglia Cristiana. Translation by ZENIT]

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Wednesday Liturgy: Proper Posture After Communion

ROME, OCT. 25, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: What is the proper posture after Communion? Our priest sits down before the tabernacle is closed. During this time the Eucharistic ministers are in the sacristy consuming the remaining wine and consolidating the hosts into one container, while the tabernacle doors are open on the altar. After a minute or so one of the ministers places the leftover hosts back into the tabernacle and closes the doors. Should we stay kneeling, or follow the lead of our pastor and sit down before the hosts are put away and tabernacle doors are closed? -- J.H., Clarksville, Indiana

A: There are so many points to be addressed that it is difficult to know where to start.

First, it is incumbent upon the priest or deacon, and not upon the extraordinary ministers of holy Communion, to collect the remaining hosts upon the altar and bring them to the tabernacle. As the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 163, says:

"When the distribution of Communion is finished, the priest himself immediately and completely consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist."

No. 183 adds some pointers for the deacon:

"When the distribution of Communion is completed, the deacon returns to the altar with the priest and collects the fragments, if any remain."

This task, therefore, may not be delegated to an extraordinary minister and it should be done upon the altar, not in the sacristy and not even upon the credence table.

It is also the normal practice that any Precious Blood that might have remained be consumed by priest or deacon at the altar before bringing the chalices to the credence for purification. There may be exceptions to this norm, however, if the quantity is too much for one person to consume.

Thus the particular norms approved for the distribution of Communion in the United States foresee an alternative possibility in No. 52:

"When more of the Precious Blood remains than was necessary for Communion, and if not consumed by the bishop or priest celebrant, 'the deacon immediately and reverently consumes at the altar all of the Blood of Christ which remains; he may be assisted, if needs dictate, by other deacons and priests.' When there are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, they may consume what remains of the Precious Blood from their chalice of distribution with permission of the diocesan bishop."

These norms do not specify if the extraordinary ministers consume their chalices at the altar or at the place of distribution. It would depend on the practical logistics and the number of such ministers. In all cases, however, the excess Precious Blood should be reverently consumed before bringing the chalices to the credence table.

The purification of the sacred vessels is also reserved to the deacon; the instituted acolyte, if there is no deacon; and the priest, if neither of these is present. It is not normally foreseen that extraordinary ministers of holy Communion purify the sacred vessels.

A temporary exemption to this norm was granted to the United States allowing extraordinary ministers to assist (not substitute) priests and deacons in cases of true necessity. This exemption expired several months ago and I am as yet unaware if it has been renewed.

Getting to the principal question, supposing that the reservation of the sacrament is to be carried out by the deacon, then, depending on the location of the tabernacle, and the amount of time required to gather the hosts in one vessel, it is possible for the priest to sit down while the deacon brings the remaining hosts to the tabernacle or to remain standing until the tabernacle is closed and then go to the chair.

After Communion the faithful are free to adopt the posture most consonant with their physical possibilities and personal devotion, whether kneeling, standing or seated.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: When to Bow Before Communion

ROME, OCT. 25, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

A couple of questions arose related to our comments (Oct. 11) on the sign of reverence before receiving Communion.

A religious from Boston, Massachusetts, asks: "Some people make the sign of the cross after receiving holy Communion. Some even go to the side and genuflect. Why is this? This person was taught that the sign of the cross and genuflection after Communion is unnecessary because the Lord is in the person already. But what about when we receive the Lord in two species: We make a sign of reverence (a deep bow) before receiving his Body, and again a deep bow before receiving his Blood. Is the second bow all right/proper to do even though the Lord is already within the person? At that point the Lord is before the person and within the person, or rather the person is in God."

Here we are dealing with the meaning of signs, and certain signs are not strictly necessary after receiving Communion.

With respect to the first part of the question, while there is no real need to make a sign of the cross after receiving holy Communion, many people do so for several reasons. For some, making a sign of the cross is a spiritual reflex action for any moment of prayer. For others, it represents an act of faith in the mystery they have received.

Whatever the cause, I personally see no reason to bother people about such a simple gesture, even if it does not form part of the liturgy at this moment.

Regarding those who genuflect after having received Communion, I really do not know why people would do so and there is no theological or liturgical reason to support it. Some people habitually genuflect whenever they pass the center of the church and perhaps continue doing it without thinking when they receive Communion.

For such cases, some personal catechesis on the part of the pastor can probably do more good than making a fuss about it in public.

Another case is the second part of the question regarding the sign of reverence toward the Blood of Christ even though one has already received Communion under the species of bread.

This second sign of reverence is required by liturgical norms for all the faithful and likewise for concelebrating priests who genuflect before partaking of the chalice even though they have already consumed the Host.

The meaning of this sign does not deny the presence of Christ in the person who has received the Host (although as we mentioned in an earlier reply the duration of the physical presence in the communicant is an open question; see follow-ups of June 21 and July 5). Rather, the sign is an act of faith and adoration in Christ really and fully present under the species of wine.

An English reader asked about the Communion procession: "Where the practice has been introduced of the faithful queuing to receive holy Communion standing, do individuals have a right to receive the Host kneeling down or is the priest entitled to insist that they stand? If the faithful are permitted to receive in a kneeling position, is each individual who wishes to do so entitled to kneel at the altar rail, or must he do so in the queue as his turn arrives?"

There are two question involved. The short answer to the question if the individual may choose to receive kneeling is yes. He may do so and may not be refused Communion for adopting this posture. There might be occasions when charity requires that a Catholic sacrifice his personal devotion for the good of others, and so receive standing, but in general it is no great problem.

The present liturgy sees the faithful as coming to receive Communion in processional form (not quite a queue). And so the proper thing to do would be to await one's turn if that is the only way foreseen for the distribution of Communion.

However, a pastor may freely offer the faithful the possibility of using the Communion rail once they have arrived at the entrance to the presbytery, if he so desires.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Article: There's More to Prayer Than 'Saying Our Prayers' by Mary Beth Bonacci

It wasn’t that I didn’t want to pray. It was just that I never thought I was any good at it. My attention wandered. My brain jumped from subject to subject. I would try to meditate, but it never lasted long. (“The Annunciation. Where was Mary? What was she wearing? What am I going to wear . . .”)

I suspect I wasn’t alone in this. (Please tell me I wasn’t alone in this!) When we’re kids, we learn to “say our prayers.” We dutifully recite our “Our Fathers” and “Hail Marys,” but we never really learn to go deeper. Then we read about the saints and their other-worldly prayer experiences, and we figure we must just be missing the “prayer gene” required to reach such heights of contemplation.

I think we’re wrong.

My prayer life began to turn around when a spiritual director told me he wanted me to sit in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament for 15 minutes a day. “I don’t care what you do — just be there.”

Well, if you’re going to sit and stare at Someone, you might just as well talk to Him.

And so I did. I told Him about my day. I asked Him questions. I wrote in a prayer journal, sorting out my thoughts and feelings. I read Scripture passages. I read Magnificat.

And, of course, my mind wandered. Talking to God about my day would morph into planning my day. But at least I was planning it in the presence of Christ. And somehow, knowing that He was physically present in the Eucharist, my thoughts didn’t wander as far.

At first, I didn’t see a big difference in my everyday life. I still struggled with the same struggles. But over time, I noticed subtle changes. I found myself craving that time with Christ. If I was depressed or confused or struggling, I was drawn to the Blessed Sacrament chapel. Issues I didn’t believe I could face alone somehow felt more manageable in His presence. Sometimes, I actually felt better when I left. And even when I didn’t, I knew in my head that the Lord of all creation, who loves me madly, had the situation in His hands.

I found that I experienced His presence in a particularly profound way when I would make an act of trust in Him. Just saying “I have no idea what’s going to happen here, Lord, but I trust you” brought me a level of peace that, well, “surpassed all human understanding.”

So why am I telling you all of this? Just to “share” about my spiritual life? No. I’m telling you because the lessons I learned about prayer as an adult are lessons that all of us — adults and children — could take to heart.

First of all, I’m a big fan of the “15 minutes in His presence — no matter what” system. We don’t have to think about the sun to absorb its rays. I believe that the same thing is true of the Son. Placing ourselves physically in His presence changes us — even if we’re unaware of the change. Plus, once we’re there, it’s easier to stay focused on Him than it is at home or driving down the highway. I know 15 minutes may not seem like a lot. But that’s the beauty of it. It’s long enough to have a lovely conversation, but not so long that it becomes overly difficult to fit into the day. And once you get the hang of it, you’ll find there are days when 45 minutes fly by before you even notice the time.

Second, I think we need to teach children to pray this way. They obviously can’t get themselves to the Blessed Sacrament chapel, but a special place in the house could serve the same purpose. A picture of Jesus, surrounded by candles (lit by grownups and high enough to be out of reach of little hands, of course) would make a lovely setting to introduce little ones to God. The kids could kneel in front of the picture to “say their prayers.” But that shouldn’t be the end of it.

Keep a big, comfortable chair nearby. Snuggle with your child in the chair. And then, by the candlelight, talk to Jesus together. Tell him you love Him. Prompt your child to tell Jesus he’s sorry for whatever infractions he’s committed that day. Pray for loved ones. Ask for help and guidance.

In that warm environment, safely wrapped in the arms of a loving parent, a child will learn volumes about a loving God.

And about prayer.

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Father Cantalamessa on Love of Neighbor

ROME, OCT. 21, 2005 (Zenit.org).- In his commentary on this Sunday's liturgical readings, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher of the Pontifical Household, talks about God's command to love one's neighbor.

* * *

Matthew 22:34-40

You Shall Love Your Neighbor

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Adding the words "as yourself," Jesus has put a mirror in front of us to which we cannot lie; he has given us an infallible measure to discover if we do or do not love our neighbor. We know very well, in every circumstance, what it means to love ourselves, and what we would like others to do for us.

If we pay close attention, we notice that Jesus does not say: "What the other does to you, you do to him." This would still be the "lex talionis": "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."

What he does say -- what you would like the other to do to you, you do to him (cf. Matthew 7:12) -- is very different.

Jesus considered love of neighbor as "his commandment," the one in which the whole law is summarized. "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you" (John 15:12). Many identify the whole of Christianity with the precept of love of neighbor, and they are not wrong.

But we must try to go a bit beyond the surface of things. When one speaks of love of neighbor, one thinks immediately of charitable "deeds," of the things that must be done for our neighbor: give him to eat, to drink, visit him; in brief, to help our neighbor. But this is a result of love, it is not yet love. Benevolence comes before beneficence: Before doing good, one must want to do good.

Charity must be "without pretense," that is, sincere (literally, "without hypocrisy," Romans 12:9); one must love "with a pure heart" (1 Peter 1:22). One can, in fact, be charitable and give alms for many reasons that have nothing to do with love: to embellish oneself, to be regarded as a benefactor, to win paradise, and even to appease a bad conscience.

Much of our charity to Third World countries is not dictated by love, but by a bad conscience. We realize the scandalous difference that exists between us and them and we feel responsible in part for their misery. One can lack charity even when "being charitable!"

It would be a fatal error to compare heartfelt love and charitable deeds, or to take refuge in good interior dispositions toward others in order to find in this an excuse for our own lack of active and concrete charity.

If you come across a poor hungry man shivering with cold, said St. James, of what use is it if you say to him: "Poor you, go, warm up and eat something," but give him nothing of what he needs?

"Little children," adds St. John, "let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth" (1 John 3:18). Therefore, it is not about denigrating external works of charity, but about ensuring that the latter are based on a genuine feeling of love and benevolence.

Heartfelt or interior charity is a charity we can all practice, it is universal. It is not a charity that some -- the rich and healthy -- can offer and others -- the poor and sick -- can only receive. All can give and receive it. Moreover, it is extremely concrete. It is a question of beginning to look with new eyes on the situations and people with whom we live. What eyes? It's simple: with the eyes with which we would like God to look at us -- eyes of forgiveness, of benevolence, of understanding, of pardon!

When this occurs, all relationships change. All motives for precaution and hostility that impeded loving a certain person vanish as by a miracle. And that person begins to seem to us what he really is: a poor creature who suffers because of his weaknesses and limitations, like you, like everyone.

It is as if the mask that men and things wear fell off and the person then seems to us what he really is.

[Italian original published in Famiglia Cristiana; translation by ZENIT]

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Wednesday Liturgy: Concluding the Prayers of the Faithful

ROME, OCT. 18, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

* * *

Q: "I was under the impression that the priest 'may' add a prayer at the conclusion of the Prayers of the Faithful, but was not required to do so by the rubrics. In my parish, after the deacon concludes the prayers, the parish priest simply enunciates, "Oremus." -- C.C., Washington, D.C.

A: This topic is dealt with quite well in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Nos. 69-71, which state:

"[69] In the Prayer of the Faithful, the people respond in a certain way to the word of God which they have welcomed in faith and, exercising the office of their baptismal priesthood, offer prayers to God for the salvation of all. It is fitting that such a prayer be included, as a rule, in Masses celebrated with a congregation, so that petitions will be offered for the holy Church, for civil authorities, for those weighed down by various needs, for all men and women, and for the salvation of the whole world.

"[70] As a rule, the series of intentions is to be
For the needs of the Church;
For public authorities and the salvation of the whole world;
For those burdened by any kind of difficulty;
For the local community.
Nevertheless, in a particular celebration, such as Confirmation, Marriage, or a Funeral, the series of intentions may reflect more closely the particular occasion.

"[71] It is for the priest celebrant to direct this prayer from the chair. He himself begins it with a brief introduction, by which he invites the faithful to pray, and likewise he concludes it with a prayer. The intentions announced should be sober, be composed freely but prudently, and be succinct, and they should express the prayer of the entire community.

"The intentions are announced from the ambo or from another suitable place, by the deacon or by a cantor, a lector, or one of the lay faithful.

"The people, however, stand and give expression to their prayer either by an invocation said together after each intention or by praying in silence."

From what is said in No. 71 it is clear that the priest should conclude the Prayer of the Faithful with a prayer. This prayer is said with hands extended as for the other presidential prayers.

A particular case, about which the norms are not particularly clear, arises when Morning or Evening Prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours is joined to Mass on an occasional weekday. On such occasions it is permitted to replace the Prayer of the Faithful with the intercessions from the Divine Office (See No. 94 of the Introduction to the Divine Office).

When the Office is prayed separately, the intercessions are followed by the concluding prayer which often coincides with the Collect of the Mass of the day. When used at Mass this prayer has already been proclaimed before the readings and so the priest should proclaim another suitable prayer or conclude with a simple generic formula such as "We ask this through Christ Our Lord."

The problem does not usually arise on Sundays and feasts because, while the office may be joined to Mass, the Prayer of the Faithful may not be substituted by the intercessions from the Office.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Storage of Holy Oils

ROME, OCT. 18, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Pursuant to our replies regarding the public display of the holy oils (Oct. 4) several questions turned upon their proper use outside of the sacraments themselves.

Several readers asked if holy oils may be used in blessings in lieu of holy water or for other paraliturgical acts, for example, in retreats or commissioning ceremonies in which teachers or catechists are anointed.

The question is difficult to respond to from the viewpoint of official documents as, in all probability, it probably had never entered into anybody's head that such things would occur.

Apart from the use of holy oils for the sacraments, the sacred chrism is also used by the bishop in solemnly dedicating a church and an altar. Apart from these, the official rituals of the Church do not foresee other uses for the holy oils.

One official document refers to the incorrect use of anointing by lay people. In the Instruction "On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Priest" (1997), Article 9 states:

"The non-ordained faithful particularly assist the sick by being with them in difficult moments, encouraging them to receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, by helping them to have the disposition to make a good individual confession as well as to prepare them to receive the Anointing of the Sick. In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments whose administration is proper and exclusive to the Bishop and to the priest. Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or any other oil."

This document certainly only refers to a very specific case but it encapsulates an important principle: that of not creating confusion regarding the sacramental signs.

Some sacramental signs have but one meaning and are never repeated even
for devotional purposes. For example, baptism's unrepeatable nature precludes the repetition of the rite although a person could devoutly renew his baptismal promises on his anniversary.

Other signs, such as the laying on of hands, have more than one meaning and may be used in several contexts. It can mean consecration and the gift of the Holy Spirit in the rites of ordination and confirmation, forgiveness in the sacrament of reconciliation, and healing in the sacrament of anointing as well as within the extra-sacramental context of some recent spiritual currents such as the charismatic renewal.

The case of anointing is closer to the first case (baptism) than the second. Although there might be no explicit prohibition, liturgical law usually presupposes a certain degree of common sense. And the use of holy oil, or any other oil, for extra-sacramental anointing can only lead to inappropriate confusion with the sacramental rites as such.

It also ignores the fact that the Church already has a rich source of rituals and prayers in the Book of Blessings which can easily be used or adapted for practically every situation in which these oils have been adopted.

This does not mean that oil may never be used in any other Catholic rituals. In some places, on the occasion of a particular feast in honor of Mary or a saint, it is customary to celebrate a rite of blessings of food or drink (including oil).

The Book of Blessings admonishes pastors to ensure that the faithful have a correct understanding of the true meaning of such blessings so as to avoid superstitions.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Father Cantalamessa on a Christian in the Public Square

ROME, OCT. 14, 2005 (Zenit.org).- In his commentary on this Sunday's liturgical readings, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher of the Pontifical Household, discusses the relationship between religion and politics.

* * *

Matthew (22:15-21)

Give to God the things that are God's

This Sunday's Gospel ends with an immortal phrase of Jesus: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." Not Caesar or God, but one and the other, each one on his plane. It is the beginning of the separation between religion and politics, until then inseparable in all nations and regimes. The Jews were accustomed to think of the future kingdom of God established by the Messiah as a theocracy, that is, as a direct government of God on earth through his people.

Instead, Jesus revealed a kingdom of God that is in this world, but not of this world, which moves along a longitude of a different sort, and that because of this can coexist with any regime, whether it is of a sacred or secular type.

Thus, two different types of God's sovereignty are revealed in the world: the spiritual sovereignty that constitutes the kingdom of God, which he exercises directly through Christ, and the temporal or political sovereignty that God exercises indirectly, entrusting it to individuals' free choice and the game of second causes.

Caesar and God, however, are not on the same plane, because Caesar also depends on God, and must render an account to him. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" means therefore "Give to Caesar what God himself wants given to Caesar." God is the ultimate sovereign of all. We are not divided between two proprietors; we are not obliged to serve "two lords."

The Christian is free to obey the state, but also to resist it when the state is against God and his law. It is no good to invoke the principle of the order received from superiors, as those responsible for war crimes are accustomed to do before the courts. Before obeying men, God and one's own conscience must be obeyed. Caesar cannot be given one's soul which is God's. The first to draw practical conclusions from this teaching was St. Paul. He wrote: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God. Therefore, he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed. … For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing" (Romans 13:1). For a Christian (and for all honest persons) to legally pay taxes is a duty of justice, an obligation of conscience. The state, ensuring order, commerce, and all services, gives the citizen something for which it has the right to a return, precisely to be able to continue to provide such services.

Tax evasion, when it reaches certain proportions -- the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us -- is a mortal sin. It is theft committed not against the "state," in other words, "no one," but against the community, that is, against all. This implies of course that the state must also be just and equitable when imposing its taxes.

The collaboration of Christians in the construction of a just and peaceful society is not exhausted with the payment of taxes. It must also be extended to the promotion of common values, such as the family, the defense of life, solidarity with the poorest, peace. Another area where Christians should offer a more incisive contribution is politics: not so much to the contents but to the methods, the style. The atmosphere of constant litigation must be detoxified; to restore respect and dignity to relations between parties.

Respect for one's neighbor, gentleness, the capacity for self-criticism: are features that a disciple of Christ must take to all affairs, also to politics. It is unworthy of a Christian to indulge in insults, sarcasm, to descend into quarrels with the adversary. If, as Jesus said, whoever says to his brother "You fool!" is already liable to "the hell of fire," what will happen to many politicians?

[Italian original published in Famiglia Cristiana; translation by ZENIT]

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Wednesday Liturgy: When to Bow Before Communion

ROME, OCT. 11, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: In the dioceses of the United States, the following directive is in force: "When receiving Holy Communion standing, the communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament ..." Now to me, to bow my head "before the sacrament" means I should be in direct view of it, that is, once I get to the head of the Communion line. However, I had a religious sister tell me recently that I should make my reverence before I reach the head of the line. She says this is in the directive, yet I cannot find such a stipulation anywhere. Furthermore, to bow before I reach the head of the line implies to me that I am bowing to the person in front of me. Is there some specification as to when in the Communion line one is to make his reverence before the sacrament? -- K.M., Darlington, Maryland

A: Our correspondent refers to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 160, which we quote in full along with the number which follows it:

"When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood."

[No. 161] "If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, 'Corpus Christi' (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, 'Amen,' and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely."

The text does not specify the moment of this bow of reverence and there are few other specific norms. The original text does not specify a bow but merely refers to an act of reverence to be established by the bishops' conference. Some conferences have included the option of making either a genuflection or a bow.

In practice the act of reverence may be made either just before receiving or while the person immediately before oneself is receiving. It really depends on the number of communicants.

A small intimate group of faithful can easily make the gesture just before receiving the sacred host. But if this gesture, although lasting no more that a few seconds, were to be repeated hundreds of times in a large parish, then the rite of Communion could be unduly prolonged. This practical reason probably motivated the recommendation to perform the gesture of reverence while the person in front is receiving Communion.

Does this mean that I am really bowing to the person in front of me? Personally I think not, because one naturally reverences a person turned toward oneself and practically never performs an act of respect toward a person who has his back turned away. Thus the natural direction of the act of reverence is toward the Eucharistic Christ.

Finally, this question offers an opportunity to remember the norm that the Eucharist must be consumed immediately and before the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.

In general, it is necessary for priests to remind the faithful of this requirement from time to time, and to insist on its being fulfilled so as to avoid unfortunate incidents due to distraction or even willful profanation of the Eucharist.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Lighted Candles at the Lectern

ROME, OCT. 11, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Some interesting questions emerged from our piece on ambo candles (Sept. 27).

A Massachusetts reader asked: "I have attended a liturgy where the altar servers carried two candles in procession and placed them at the ambo. The candles were then brought to the altar upon the conclusion of the homily or Prayers of the Faithful. In my church, the candles are already lit at the ambo and then blown out after the Prayers of the Faithful so as to focus on the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Is this correct?"

The candles on or near the altar are usually lit before Mass, and thus the processional candles accompanying the Gospel during the entrance procession and proclamation should normally be distinct from the altar candles. The processional candles are usually left on the credence table or another convenient place in the sanctuary while not in use.

However, some places do have the custom of placing the processional candles on or near the altar after the entrance procession, and, provided they are not the only candles present, it does not appear to go against the liturgical norms. All the same, the use of distinct processional candles seems liturgically preferable and avoids awkward movements near the altar.

Likewise, the torches that accompany the thurifer while incensing the Sacred Species during the consecration should, in principle, be different from the processional candles. These latter may, however, accompany the thurifer in smaller parishes with fewer ministers.

The question regarding blowing out the candles after the Liturgy of the Word is somewhat moot, for, as we mentioned in our previous column, the practice of permanent candles at the ambo, lit or unlit, does not correspond to Catholic liturgical tradition.

While liturgical inventiveness still abounds, we need to remember that the most pastorally effective use of symbols remains that foreseen in the liturgical books. Arbitrarily changing the symbols, even with the best of intentions, inevitably conveys a different message to that desired by the universal Church.

Regarding the ambo in general, a Tennessee correspondent asked: "Can we read announcements from the ambo at the end of Mass?" A Kansas reader asked for comments on the following practice: "In our parish lectors have been instructed to approach and make a profound bow to the ambo before proclaiming the word. Further, upon concluding the readings we are instructed to make another profound bow to the ambo and return to our pew. We have been specifically instructed not to acknowledge or genuflect in the direction of the tabernacle which is recessed to the left rear of the ambo."

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), No. 309, states: "From the ambo only the readings, the responsorial Psalm, and the Easter Proclamation (Exsultet) are to be proclaimed; it may be used also for giving the homily and for announcing the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. The dignity of the ambo requires that only a minister of the word should go up to it."

Thus all other commentaries, announcements and similar activities should be carried out from another suitable place.

The indication of not making a genuflection or other gesture toward the tabernacle during the celebration of Mass is correct and in conformity with GIRM 274: "If, however, the tabernacle with the Most Blessed Sacrament is present in the sanctuary, the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers genuflect when they approach the altar and when they depart from it, but not during the celebration of Mass itself."

The bows toward the ambo -- or in other places toward the altar or even toward the celebrant -- at the beginning and end of the reading are not prescribed in the liturgical books. They probably arise from a sense of natural courtesy and reverence, especially when the lectors enter from the pews or do not participate in the entrance procession.

Finally, a Winnipeg, Manitoba, reader asked about the origin of the word "ambo."

According to one authoritative dictionary it appears that the word is of medieval Latin origin and probably derives from the Greek "ambon" -- a raised rim, or pulpit. It thus referred to either of the two raised pulpits from which the Gospels and epistles were read in early Christian churches.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Father Cantalamessa on Gospel Priorities

ROME, OCT. 7, 2005 (Zenit.org).- In his commentary on this Sunday's readings, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher of the Pontifical Household, warns of the danger of losing out on the important things in life.

* * *

Matthew 22:1-14

What is important?

It is instructive to note the motives that made the guests of the parable refuse to attend the banquet. The evangelist Matthew says that they "made light" of the invitation, "and went off, one to his farm, another to his business." On this point, Luke's Gospel is more detailed and gives these reasons for the refusal: "I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it ... I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to examine them ... I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come" (Luke 14:18-20).

What do these persons have in common? All three have something urgent to do, something that cannot wait, that requires their immediate presence. And what does the nuptial banquet represent? It indicates the messianic goods, participation in the salvation brought by Christ, therefore, the possibility to live eternally. The banquet represents, therefore, what is important in life, more than that, the only thing that is essential. It is clear therefore what the error was that was committed by those who were invited. They neglected the important for the urgent, the essential for the contingent!

This is such a widespread and insidious risk, not only on the religious but also on the purely human plane, that it is worthwhile to reflect on it a bit, above all on the religious plane. To neglect the important for the urgent means to put off the fulfillment of religious duties because there is always something urgent to do. It is Sunday and it is time to go to Mass, but there is a visit to be made, work to be done in the garden, and dinner to be prepared. The Sunday liturgy can wait, not dinner; then Mass is postponed and one gathers around the cooking pot.

I have said that the danger of omitting the important for the urgent is also present in the human realm, in everyday life, and I would like to refer to this also. It is certainly important for a man to dedicate time to his family, to be with his children, to talk with them if they are older, to play with them if they are small. But at the last moment urgent things always appear that need to be taken care of in the office, extras to do at work, and time with the family is put off for another occasion, ending up by returning home late, too tired to think of anything else.

It is a moral obligation for a man or a woman to visit their elderly parent who lives alone or in a residence. At times it is important to visit a sick acquaintance, to show one's support and perhaps offer some practical service. But it is not urgent; if postponed, the world won't collapse and perhaps no one will even realize -- so it is postponed.

The same happens when it comes to taking care of one's health, which is also among important things. The doctor, or simply one's body, warns that one must take care of oneself, take a period of rest, avoid that stress ... One answers: yes, yes, I will do this without fail, as soon as I have finished this job, when I have cleaned the house, when I have paid all my debts ... until one realizes that it is too late.

Herein lies the snare: one spends one's life attending to one thousand little things that must be taken care of and having no time for things that really matter in human relations and that can give real joy (or if neglected, real sadness) in life. Thus, we see how the Gospel, indirectly, is also a school of life. It teaches us to set priorities and to attend to the essential. In a word, it teaches us not to lose the important for the urgent, as happened to those who were invited in our parable.

[Italian original published in Famiglia Cristiana; translation by ZENIT]

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Pope's Meditation at Synod's First Meeting: "The Lord Is Close to Each One of Us"

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 4, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of Benedict XVI's spontaneous meditation on Monday morning at the Synod of Bishops, after the reading of the Third Hour of the Liturgy of the Hours, taken from the Second Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians (13:11).

* * *

Dear Brothers,

This Third Hour of today implies five imperatives and a promise. Let's try to understand a bit better what the Apostle intends to tell us through these words.

The first imperative is very frequent in the Letters of St. Paul; rather, one could say that it is almost the "cantus firmus" of his thought: "gaudete." The question stems from here: Is it possible to almost command joy? Joy, we should say, comes or does not come, but cannot be imposed as a duty. And here it helps us to think of the best-known text on joy in the Letters of St. Paul, the one of "Domenica Gaudete," in the heart of the liturgy of Advent: "Gaudete, iterum dico gaudete quia Dominus propest."

Here we see the reason why Paul in all his sufferings and tribulations could not only say to the others "gaudete" but could say so because he was filled with joy. "Gaudete, Dominus enim prope est."

If the loved one, love, the greatest gift of my life, is close to me, if I can be convinced that the one who loves me is close to me, even in situations of suffering, the joy that remains in the depth of my heart is ever greater than all sufferings.

The Apostle can say "gaudete" because the Lord is close to each one of us. And so this imperative in reality is an invitation to become aware of the Lord who is close to us. It is an awareness of the Lord's presence. The Apostle intends to make us sensitive to this -- hidden but very real -- presence of Christ in each one of us. The words of the Apocalypse are true for each one of us: I knock at your door, listen to me, open up to me.

This is therefore also an invitation to be aware of this presence of the Lord who knocks at my door. Do not be deaf to him, because the ears of our hearts are so full of so many noises in the world that we cannot hear this silent presence that knocks at our doors.

Let's reflect, at the same time, if we are truly ready to open the doors of our heart; or perhaps this heart is full of so many other things that there is no room for the Lord and for the time being we have no time for the Lord. And so, we are insensitive, deaf to his presence, full of other things, that we do not hear the essential. He knocks at the door, he is close to us and thus true joy is close, which is stronger than all the sorrows in the world, and in our life.

Therefore, let us pray within the context of this first imperative: Lord make us sensitive to your presence, help us to feel, not to be deaf to you, help us to have a free heart and be open to you.

The second imperative "perfecti estote," as can be read in the Latin text, seems to coincide with the summary word of the Sermon on the Mount: "perfecti estote sicut Pater vester caelestis perfectus est."

This word invites us to be what we are: images of God, creatures created in relation to the Lord, a "mirror" in which the light of the Lord is reflected. Not to live Christianity according to the letter, and not to hear the sacred Scripture according to the letter, is often difficult; it is historically questionable, but to go beyond the letter, the present reality, toward the Lord who speaks to us and thus in union with the Lord.

However, if we look at the Greek text we find another verb, "catartizesthe," and this word means to redo, to repair an instrument, to re-establish something to its full functionality. The most frequent example for the apostles is to remake a net for the fishermen which is no longer in the right condition, which has so many holes that it no longer serves, to remake the net so that it can become a fishing net again, return to its perfection as an instrument for this work.

Another example: a string musical instrument which has a broken string, so music cannot be played as it should be. So in this imperative our soul appears like an apostolic net which nevertheless often does not work well, because it is torn by our own intentions; or like a musical instrument where unfortunately some chords are broken, and therefore the music of God which should sound from the depth of our soul cannot resound well. To remake this instrument, to know the afflictions, destructions, negligence, how much has been disregarded, and to try to see that this instrument is perfect and complete because it serves that for which it was created by the Lord.

So this imperative can also be an invitation to regularly examine my conscience, to see the condition of my instrument, to what extent it has been neglected, no longer works, and to try to return it to its integrity. This is also an invitation to the sacrament of reconciliation, where God himself remakes this instrument and gives us again completeness, perfection, functionality, so that the praise of God can resound in this soul.

Then comes "exortamini invicem." Fraternal correction is a work of mercy. None of us can see himself well, see his shortcomings well. So it is an act of love, to be a complement to one another, to help each other see one another better, and to correct each other. I think that one of the functions of collegiality is to help one another, also in the sense of the previous imperative, to know the shortcomings which we ourselves do not wish to see -- "ab occultis meis munda me," says the psalm -- to help each other so that we may become open and can see these things.

Of course, this great work of mercy, helping each other so that each one can really find his or her own integrity, and functionality as an instrument of God, demands great humility and love. Only if this comes from a humble heart, from someone who does not place himself above another, who does not consider himself better than the other, but only a humble instrument to mutually help each other. Only if one feels this deep and true humility, if one feels that these words come from common love, from the collegial affection in which we wish to serve God together, can we in this way help each other with a great act of love.

Also here, the Greek text adds some nuances; the Greek work is "paracaleisthe"; it is the same root from which the following word comes from "Paracletos, paraclesis," consoling. Not only correcting, but also consoling, sharing the sufferings of others, helping them in difficulty. And this also seems to me to be a great act of true collegial affection.

In so many difficult situations which are evident today in our pastoral care, some people are really desperate, and do not know how to go ahead. In that moment they need consolation, they need somebody to be close by in their inner solitude and carry out the work of the Holy Spirit, of the Comforter: to give courage, to bring us together, to support each other, helped by the Holy Spirit who is the great Paraclete, the Comforter, our Advocate who helps us.

Therefore, it is an invitation to make ourselves "ad invicem" the work of the Paraclete Holy Spirit. "Idem sapite": we can hear behind the Latin word "sapor," "to have "eundem sapore," to have the same sensitivity. The Greek text says "froneite," the same thing. That is, substantially, to have the same thought.

How can we have in substance a common thought which helps us to guide together the holy Church if we do not share together the faith which is not invented by any of us, but is it not the faith of the Church, the common foundation which leads us, and on which we are and on which we work? Therefore, it is an invitation to place ourselves again in this common thought, in this faith which precedes us.

"Non respicias peccata nostra sed fidem Ecclesiae tuae": it is the faith of the Church which the Lord looks for in us and which is also the forgiveness of sins. To have this common faith, we can and must live this faith, each one in his own way, but always knowing that this faith precedes us. And we must communicate with all the others this common faith.

This element already leads us on to the last imperative, which grants profound peace among us. And at this point we can also think of "touto froneite," of another text of the Letter to the Philippians, at the beginning of the great hymn on the Lord, where the Apostle tells us: have the same feelings of Christ, enter the "fronesis," in the "fronein," in the thought of Christ. Therefore, we can have the faith of the Church together, because with this faith we enter in the thoughts and feelings of the Lord. Thinking together with Christ.

This is the last exhortation of this warning by the Apostle: thinking with the thought of Christ. And we can do this by reading holy Scripture where the thoughts of Christ are Words, which speak to us. In this sense we should follow the "lectio divina," listening in the Scriptures to the thought of Christ, learning to think with Christ, thinking the thought of Christ and thus having the same feelings of Christ, being capable of giving Christ's thought and feelings to others.

Hence, the last imperative "pacem habete et eireneuete" is almost the summary of the four previous imperatives, being thus in union with God who is our peace, with Christ who told us: "pacem dabo vobis." We are in inner peace, because being in the thought of Christ unites our real being. The difficulties, the contrasts of our soul are united, we are united to the original, that of which we are the image, with the thought of Christ. This is how inner peace stems and only if we are founded on deep inner peace can we be people of peace also in the world, and for others.

Hence the question, is this promise conditioned by imperatives? That is, is it only to the extent in which we can achieve these imperatives, that this God of peace is with us? What is the relationship between imperative and promise?

I would say it is bilateral, that is, the promise precedes the imperatives and makes the imperatives achievable and also follows this implementation of the imperatives. That is, first of all, how much we do, the God of love and peace has opened up to us, he is with us. In the Revelation begun in the Old Testament, God came toward us with his love and his peace.

And finally, in the Incarnation he was made God with us: Emmanuel. This God of peace is with us who was made flesh with our flesh, blood of our blood. He is man with us and embraces the whole of mankind. And in crucifixion and in descending to death, he was made completely one with us. He precedes us with his love, and he embraces first of all our actions. And this is our great consolation. God precedes us. He has already done everything. He has given us peace and forgiveness and love. He is with us.

And only because he is with us, because we received his grace in baptism, in confirmation the Holy Spirit, we received his mission in the sacrament of the order -- we can now cooperate with his presence which precedes us.

All our actions which are mentioned in the five imperatives imply cooperating, collaborating with the God of peace who is with us. However, this is valid, on the other hand, to the extent in which we really enter this presence which he gave us, in this gift which is already present in our being. Consequently his presence, and his being with us, is reinforced.

Let us pray to the Lord to teach us to cooperate with his preceding grace and that he always be really with us. Amen!

[Original text in Italian; adapted from translation by the Synod's General Secretariat]

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Wednesday Liturgy: Storage of the Holy Oils

ROME, OCT. 4, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: Can an altar be used to house and display the vessels containing the holy oils blessed during the Chrism Mass, i.e., in the same fashion as a reliquary is sometimes housed behind a metal grille within an altar (like those of St. Pius X and Blessed John XXIII in the Vatican basilica)? -- J.T., Clifton, England

A: Official norms regarding the storage of the holy oils are somewhat scant. The Rite of the Blessing of Oils and Consecrating the Chrism 27-28 indicates that in the sacristy after the Chrism Mass the bishop may instruct the presbyters about the reverent use and safe custody of the holy oils.

There is a growing practice in the Church of visibly displaying the holy oils. These are usually stored, locked, in a niche in the sanctuary wall called an ambry or aumbry.

Apart from the presbytery the ambry is often located near the baptismal font and this is most appropriate in churches with a distinct baptistery. The ambry may also sometimes be placed within the sacristy.

The oils are usually kept in silver or pewter vessels, albeit these often have glass interiors for the sake of practicality. Each vessel should also have some inscription indicating the contents such as CHR (Chrism), CAT (Catechumens) or O.I. ("oleum infirmorum").

The visible display of the holy oils, by means of a grille of a transparent door, does not seem to present a particular problem and in some cases serves to avoid exchanging an ambry for a tabernacle. If the door is opaque it should usually have an indication either near or upon it saying "Holy oils."

The use of an altar as an ambry in the manner described in your question would detract from the centrality of the altar. I do not consider it appropriate.

There is also no precedent for such a practice in the tradition of the Church as she has usually only placed the relics of the saints beneath the altar.

It might be acceptable, however, to locate an ambry above an old side altar no longer used for celebrating the Eucharist. But placing it below would likely lead to having the oils confused with relics.

Stretching the issue, one could even adduce a certain historical precedent in the fact that, in some ancient churches, when the tabernacle was almost universally transferred to the high altar after the 16th century, the former wall tabernacle was used to store the holy oils.

Apart from the holy oils stored in the ambry, priests may also keep smaller stocks on hand of the oil for anointing the sick.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Deacon's Position at Consecration

ROME, OCT. 4, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Several readers requested further clarifications on the role of the deacon during Mass (see Sept. 20).

Some questions regarded the respective roles of the deacon of the book and of the altar. A Tallahassee, Florida, reader asks:

"There is some confusion as to who does the speaking parts when there are two deacons on the altar.

"One school of thought is that the deacon of the Word only ministers during the Liturgy of the Word and does not speak the responses during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The deacon of the altar ministers at the altar and does the responses during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

"The second school of thought is that the deacon of the Word should do all spoken responses during the Mass and the deacon of the altar only assists at the altar with no spoken parts. Is there a clear definition as to the appropriate procedure?"

Related to this was a question regarding what parts the deacon should say. For example, a correspondent from Stockholm, Sweden, asks if the deacon, rather than the priest, could say the invitation "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith."

The general norms do not go into detail regarding the diverse roles of two deacons although this possibility exists in the Ceremonial of Bishops and is quite common on special solemn occasions or for concelebrated Masses.

The most common custom is that one deacon usually reads the Gospel, the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful, the invitation to make the sign of peace, and other interventions such as "The Mass is ended …"

The other deacon attends to all that has to do with the altar and recites the private prayers used for the preparation of the chalice.

There are no other prayers or responses proper to the deacon during the Eucharistic Prayer. The responses to the prayers of offertory: "Blessed be God for ever," are either said by all or omitted entirely. The invitation "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith" is always said or sung by the priest; only the priest, or priest concelebrants, proclaim the doxology while the deacon silently elevates the chalice.

This is the usual division of roles, but it is not set in stone. On occasion, some mixing may take place, for example, if the deacon of the Gospel is bereft of musical talent, the other deacon could substitute him in singing the invitation to the sign of peace or the dismissal.

A priest asks how many deacons should be on the altar and what is the proper attire of deacons who do not have a particular function during a Mass.

In most cases, one or two deacons are sufficient. On occasion of the diocesan bishop's "Stational Mass," No. 122 of the Ceremonial of Bishops gives preference to at least three deacons: "one to proclaim the gospel reading and minister at the altar, two to assist the bishop. If there are more than three deacons present, they should divide the ministries accordingly, and at least one of them should be charged with assisting the active participation of the faithful."

In some places, such as seminaries and religious houses with numerous deacons, a custom exists whereby all of the deacons participate in the community Mass dressed in alb and stole.

In such cases the deacons have a role similar to that of clergy in choir in a solemn Mass and they are not, strictly speaking, exercising their ministry at this moment.

For this reason, if they form part of the entrance procession they follow the processional cross but go before the deacon of the Gospel who separates them from any concelebrants. They may have a reserved place in the front pews or in the choir, if there is one, but should be clearly distinguished from concelebrating priests.

At Communion the officiating deacons, and if necessary any others administering Communion, receive from the main celebrant. Any other deacons present in alb and stole may approach the altar to receive from the chalice but only after the concelebrants have partaken.

It is usually feasible to organize things so that the last concelebrants to take Communion administer the Eucharist under both species to these deacons. An alternative method is that once the principal celebrant has administered to the officiating deacons he goes to the front of the altar, or of the sanctuary, and administers Communion to the non-officiating deacons immediately before distributing to the faithful.

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Article: Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article

There's this article about an evolutionary biologist siding on the idea of "intelligent design" as the cause and principle of life as how we know it.

You can read the full article in
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html?nav=E8

*~*~*~*~*

Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.

As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for "intelligent design," a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand -- subtle or not -- of an intelligent creator.

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.

Focused Link: The Holy See's Teaching on Catholic Schools

A simple survey essay freom Archbishop Miller on Catholic education. The introductory paragraphs are posted below. You can follow the full text at

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0269.html

*~*~*~*~*

Thank you very much for your kind invitation, extended through Frank Hanna and Alejandro Bermudez, to address you this afternoon on a subject of such vital importance to the future of the Church and the nation. It is a pleasure to be with a group so dedicated to the cause of Catholic education, and, especially in making Catholic schools available to those whose economic means might otherwise deprive them of one of the Church's most valuable resources for building up the Body of Christ.

Right from the days of their first appearance in Europe, Catholic schools have generously served the needs of the "socially and economically disadvantaged" and have given "special attention to those who are weakest." The vision set out by the Second Vatican Council confirmed this age-old commitment: the Church offers her educational service in the first place, the Fathers affirmed, to "those who are poor in the goods of this world or who are deprived of the assistance and affection of a family or who are strangers to the gift of faith." The Solidarity Association, with its providential name which embodies the heritage of our beloved Pope John Paul II, is inserted in the long tradition of St. Angela Merici, St. Joseph of Calasanz, St. Jean Baptiste de la Salle, St. John Bosco and so many other Religious and lay people who generously dedicated themselves to Christ's love for the poor, the humble and the marginalized in their educational apostolate.

My intervention's theme, "the Holy See's teaching on Catholic education," is vast, far too vast to be summarized in one brief lecture. Even so, I will try to introduce into the conversation the major concerns that can be found in the Vatican documents published since Vatican II's landmark Decree on Christian education Gravissimum Educationis. In this talk I shall draw on the conciliar document, the 1983 Code of Canon Law in its section on schools, and the five major documents published by the Congregation for Catholic Education: The Catholic School (1977); Lay Catholics in Schools: Witnesses to Faith (1982); The Religious Dimension of Education in a Catholic School (1988); The Catholic School on the Threshold of the Third Millennium (1997); and Consecrated Persons and their Mission in Schools: Reflections and Guidelines (2002). Among these documents, in particular I would like to recommend for your study The Catholic School and The Religious Dimension of Education in a Catholic School. First I will say something about parental and government rights, followed by some remarks on the school as an instrument of evangelization, and then describe the five components which must be present if a school is to have a genuinely Catholic identity.

Focused Link: God, Man, and Money, or How to Succeed in Business Without Going to Hell

Michael Novak's quite interesting essay on how to deal with money and not losing faith and morals. An excerpt is shown below.

The link:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0182.html

*~*~*~*~*

Barter is undoubtedly the most primitive form of human exchange, and there seems to be something wholesome about it. As long as most people were hunters and gatherers, fishermen and farmers, the goods and services they exchanged seemed "natural" and "basic." Obviously, the subjective factor of a powerful lust for a particular object could lead to an exchange that calmer and more judicious observers would judge as grossly one-sided: the person with the stronger desire might give away goods worth far more than the object of his desire. The native Americans are said to have "sold" all of Manhattan Island to the first European settlers for strings of bright beads; although of course the joke may have been on the Europeans, because Native Americans made no pretense of "owning" anything, and may have felt they got something rare in their world for something overabundant — land — and by nature belonging to all.

Focused Link: Love Sees with New Eyes

An article from Peter Kreeft about God and Love. An excerpt is presented below.

The link:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0195.html

*~*~*~*~*

All premodern societies had this other dimension, even the ones who were very far from having the propositional truth, the Christian content of revelation. This other dimension is a vision, a perspective, a habit of seeing rather than a specific thing seen. If we do not have this habit — this vision — then our theology will not sink much deeper than on a conscious, rational level.

The thing I speak of can be called myth, imagination, analogy, or sacramentalism. All four words are slippery and ambiguous. Rather than trying to define them, let me give an example. Indeed, let me give the crucial example for our purposes here, for our topic is the theology of love and how it applies to our lives. Without this way of thinking, such an application, such a connection between what God is and what we are, is tenuous and strained.

Since God is the Creator and since creation reflects and reveals the Creator, and since God is love, all creation somehow reflects and reveals love. That is a logical argument, but my point here is not to deduce the conclusion but to see it, to understand it, to stand under it. If God is love, all creation must reflect love. Yet we do not habitually look for these reflections. For instance, we no longer understand, except as a quaint historical curiosity, the idea that sexual love is not just biological. We have lost the idea, implicit in almost all the languages of the world except English — which has no masculine and feminine nouns — that human sexuality is the human version of a universal principle. When other languages call the Sun "he" and the moon "she," they are not simply projecting the human reality out onto nature, but seeing something that is really there. One version of this is the famous Chinese yin and yang. Another is the Indian marriage ceremony in which the groom says to his bride, "I am heaven, you are earth." She responds, "I am earth, you are heaven."

"Appropriate Attitude Toward the Jewish People"

ROME, SEPT. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- In a commentary on this Sunday's Mass readings, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher of the Pontifical Household, urges Christians to imitate God's love for Israel.

* * *

Matthew 21:33-43
Isaiah 5:1-7

The kingdom will be taken away from you

The parable of the unfaithful vine growers, above all in its conclusion -- "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it" -- evokes the theme of the so-called rejection of Israel. A simplistic and triumphal interpretation of this and other similar passages of the Gospel has contributed to the condemnation of Jews, with the tragic consequences that we know.

We must not abandon the certainties of faith that come to us from the Gospel, but it does not take much to realize how much our attitude has often altered its genuine spirit.

Before anything else, one must see in those terrible words of Christ before Israel, the extraordinary love of God, not condemnation. Jesus weeps when he speaks of the future of Jerusalem! It is moreover a pedagogic rejection, not definitive.

God rejected Israel as well in the Old Testament. One of them is described by Isaiah in the first reading, with the same image of the "vineyard" -- "Now I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard. I will remove its hedge, and it shall be devoured; I will break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down" (5:5) -- but this did not impede God from continuing to love Israel and to watch over it.

St. Paul assures us that this last rejection, announced by Jesus, will not be definitive. More than that, it will allow the pagans to enter into the kingdom (cf. Romans 11:11-15). He goes further: Because of Abraham's faith, which is the first fruits and the root, Jews as a people are holy, although some branches were broken off (cf. Romans 11:16).

The Apostle to the Gentiles, unjustly considered in favor of the break between Israel and the Church, suggests to us the appropriate attitude toward the Jewish people. He did not advocate self-assertion and foolish pride -- "we are now the new Israel, we the chosen ones!" -- but fear and trembling before the unfathomable mystery of divine action -- "Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" -- and even more love for Israel, which is the root and trunk on which we have been grafted.

Paul says he is prepared to be separated from Christ if that would be useful to his brothers (cf. Romans 9:1-3). If Christians in the past had been concerned about having these sentiments when speaking about the Jews, history would have had a different course.

If Jews one day come (as Paul hopes) to a more positive judgment of Jesus, this must occur through an inner process, as the end of a search of their own (something that in part is occurring). We Christians cannot be the ones who seek to convert them. We have lost the right to do so by the way in which this was done in the past. First the wounds must be healed through dialogue and reconciliation.

I do not see how a Christian who really loves Israel cannot hope that the latter will one day come to the discovery of Jesus, whom the Gospel describes as "glory to the people Israel" (Luke 2:32). I do not think this is proselytism.

But now what is most important is to do away with the obstacles we have placed to this reconciliation, the "bad light" in which we have placed Jesus in their eyes. Also the obstacles present in language. How many times the word "Jew" is used in a pejorative or negative way in our way of speaking!

Since the Second Vatican Council, relations between Christians and Jews have improved. The decree on ecumenism has given Israel a separate status among religions. For us Christians, Judaism is not "another religion," but rather an integral part of our own religion. We worship the same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who for us is also the God of Jesus Christ.

[Italian original published in Famiglia Cristiana; translation by ZENIT]

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Interview: Theology and the Genius of Women

PAMPLONA, Spain, SEPT. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI this week pointed out to some visiting bishops that a contradiction often exists between the theoretical exaltation of woman's "genius" and the discrimination they face in daily life.

Father Josep-Ignasi Saranyana, director of the Institute of Church History of the University of Navarre, in Spain, explained to ZENIT that many differences about the idea of woman also exist in theological currents.

The priest is the author of "Teología de la Mujer, Teología Feminista, Teología Mujerista y Ecofeminismo en América Latina (1975-2000)" (Theology of Woman, Feminist Theology, "Mujerista" Theology and Ecofeminism in Latin America [1975-2000]), published in Costa Rica by Promesa.

Q: How is feminist theology distinguished from the theology of woman?

Father Saranyana: I understand that the theology of woman is built "from above," from Revelation. It corresponds above all to the great tradition of the Church.

Feminist theology, on the contrary, comes "from below." It does not skirt Revelation, but considers it a secondary theological element. It is, rather, a religious sociology, if not a pure psychological analysis of feminine experiences and feelings.

It is interesting, but it isn't theology in the pure sense. Often, moreover, it has a vindicating and controversial character.

Q: There are Catholic feminists who move within the tradition. Why not call them feminist theologians instead of theologians of woman?

Father Saranyana: The adjectives are essential. There are two ways of thinking of woman: One is more proper of the new humanities, the other is more theological. The names may be changed, but the two disciplines must be distinguished with different syntagmata.

Q: What, in fact, is ecofeminism?

Father Saranyana: In a certain sense, it is a return to primitive forms of the religious phenomenon.

It considers that the earth, understood as the feminine, is the origin, or "mother," of everything. God, who would be the culturally masculine, is stripped of his creator character.

It claims a certain dualism that reminds one of forms of primitive gnosticism. At times, it even tends toward a telluric monism. To my mind, it implies a subversion of the genuine religious sentiment.

Q: What do you think of that analogy, established by ecofeminism, between the exploitation of nature and the exploitations suffered by woman?

Father Saranyana: Ecofeminism is such an exaggerated radicalization of feminist theology, that it has little of theology in the proper sense of the term.

It goes beyond not only dialectical speculation on gender -- feminist theology -- but also the consideration of gender understood as mere social product -- "mujerista" [womanly] theology. Obviously, it is in the antithesis of what I have called the theology of woman.

Q: Is the Holy See interested in these ecofeminist currents?

Father Saranyana: Please understand that it is very difficult to dialogue with such radical proposals, because there is hardly a common platform for understanding. Don't forget, however, that the Pontifical Council for Culture and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue have studied some proposals of ecofeminism, in a document of 2003, entitled "Jesus Christ Bearer of Living Water."

The ecofeminists would have to be asked if they accept the absolute transcendence of God above all creation and, in consequence, if they admit that God is creator.

Q: Doctrinal controversies aside, what can the Church do to ease the marginalization of woman, denounced by feminists, even the most moderate?

Father Saranyana: Already the Book of Genesis, with divine wisdom, prophesied as punishment of original sin, a sexist dialectic, which would lead to the violent subjection of woman by man. It is undeniable that woman has been marginalized even in cultures of Christian inspiration.

The Church has been energetic in revising that situation, preaching the commandment of fraternal love.

Little by little, without causing major confrontations, it has brought about the abolition of slavery, been influential in the eradication of torture, softened the laws of war, modified labor relations and greatly improved the feminine condition.

Q: Yet many feminists complain that the Church does not promote woman, because it excludes woman from the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

Father Saranyana: Marxism's shadow is very long. Although the Iron Curtain has fallen, many dialectical approaches are still around. Because of this, it is difficult for some to understand that the Church harmonizes functional inequality with essential equality.

To recall this does not imply a return to the pre-modern estate society. It implies a deepening in the divine mystery of the Church.

The Church was founded by Christ. Her spousal condition is essential, as Revelation teaches: "Dressed as a bride adorned for her husband." The Pauline tradition also repeats it. Christ is the bridegroom of the Church, because he makes her fruitful with his blood.

Consequently, those who participate sacramentally in a privileged way in Christ's priesthood must be men. They are the sacramental continuity of that priesthood and, for the same reason, are also bridegrooms of the Church.

Q: One of the concerns of feminist theology is the image of God and the imprint of that image in each human person.

Father Saranyana: God is, in fact, the exemplar of all that exists. Every woman is the image of God, because she is woman; every man is the image of God, because he is man; every angel is also the image of God, because he is a pure spirit.

God is above the sexual condition. He is the cause, through creation, of the sexual differentiation itself. That is why he is neither man nor woman nor angel. The International Theological Commission spoke about all this last year.

Q: Yet religious language is "exclusive" with regard to the feminine gender. It says that God is Father. Do you think this might change?

Father Saranyana: That topic goes beyond the analytical possibilities of theology. I do not know if there is a language in which the feminine is inclusive and the masculine exclusive. It is obvious that such a possibility is not absurd.

However, at least in the Western world, languages have evolved so that ordinarily plurals are masculine when it is a question of a group of individuals of different gender, except in a few cases, as the well-known "Mensch" in German.

It could have been otherwise, but one must keep to what is, under the pain of "babelizing" ourselves. An artificial design of new ways of inclusive expression might complicate human communication infinitely, including theological communication.

Q: Pope John Paul II coined the term "feminine genius." Do you think Benedict XVI will make some further contribution in this connection?

Father Saranyana: I take the liberty to recommend the reading of a little-known important document, the letter of May 31, 2004, signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, addressed to the bishops of the Catholic Church, on the collaboration of man and woman in the Church and in the world.

It is a document that offers clues on hypothetical gestures of the magisterium in the forthcoming years. One must not forget, of course, "Mulieris Dignitatem," 1988, or the "Letter to Women," 1995.