Wednesday Liturgy: When a Consecrated Host Falls

ROME, MAY 24, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: What is the proper procedure when a consecrated Host falls on the floor when distributing Communion? We were told to leave the consecrated Host on the floor till the Communion procession is over, then pick up the Host and put it in a bowl of water to dissolve and then pour the contents on a plant in the church or down the sacristy sink. Is the dissolved Host still the Body of Christ? Is this a new directive to be followed? -- M.B., Upper Sackville, Nova Scotia

A: This subject is addressed in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 280:

"If a host or any particle should fall, it is to be picked up reverently. If any of the Precious Blood is spilled, the area where the spill occurred should be washed with water, and this water should then be poured into the sacrarium in the sacristy."

There is no mention of leaving the host on the floor, and in fact it should be picked up immediately, both out of respect for the Lord and lest it be trampled by unwary communicants. Nor is there any indication about dissolving the host. I would say that, if the host remains clean, then either the minister or the communicant should consume it directly.

The process of dissolving the host in water may be used in special conditions if a host had been seriously soiled. Once the host is dissolved, the water may be poured directly upon the earth or down the sacrarium -- the special sacristy sink that leads to the earth, not to a drain. It should not be poured down a common sink.

With respect to the presence of Christ, most theologians would hold that, although the host externally remains intact for several days, the real presence would cease as soon as the host is fully soaked with water as from that moment the species is no longer exclusively that of bread.

It is necessary to wait for the host to dissolve, out of respect for what once contained the presence of Christ and in order to avoid any danger or appearance of a host being discarded or profaned.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Blessings for Non-communicants

ROME, MAY 24, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

*~*~*~*~*

Regarding our comments on blessings for non-communicants (see May 10), a reader asked if my opinion contradicted the following observations made by Archbishop Chaput of Denver, Colorado, in an article from 2003:

"As members of the community move forward to receive holy Communion during Mass, parents will often bring their small children along. Over the years, it has become a custom in many parishes for these children to receive a blessing. I don't really know where this practice began, but it's worth some reflection.

"Usually the children in line will look up expectantly at the person distributing holy Communion. The minister then responds by doing one of several things: He or she may pat the child's head, or touch the head in a sign of blessing, or mark the child's forehead with a sign of the cross. As warm and well intentioned as the gesture may be, in the context of the liturgy, the Communion procession really isn't the time for a blessing of children or adults who are unable to receive Communion.

"There are times in the liturgical year when the laity assist in specific acts of blessing, such as the blessing of throats or the distribution of ashes. These are clearly indicated in the Book of Blessings. But extraordinary ministers of holy Communion do not ordinarily have a commission to bless in the name of the Church, as priests and deacons do. At this point in the liturgy, they have a very specific function: to collaborate with the clergy in the distribution of holy Communion.

"As we'll explore in a later column, the blessing of the assembly properly occurs at the end of the Mass. As the body of Christ, the assembly is blessed together before we depart to live the fruits of the liturgy.

"What would be appropriate for children to do who accompany their parents in the Communion procession, and adults who do not receive Communion?

"The Communion procession is an opportunity for parents to begin to teach their children about the great gift of the Eucharist. First of all, children could learn to give reverence to the Lord hidden under the forms of bread and wine. Children can already learn from their parents, and others receiving holy Communion, to give honor to the Lord by bowing reverently.

"Parents and catechists should start teaching the mystery of the Eucharist at an early age. Children will soon begin to desire to receive holy Communion. This earnest desire to receive our Lord sacramentally is traditionally called a 'spiritual communion.' Regrettably, we don't talk about spiritual communion as we once did. But Thomas Aquinas, Alphonsus Liguori and many other great saints strongly encouraged spiritual communion as a practice.

"Both children and adults can make a spiritual communion. They may come forward with their arms crossed and bow before the Eucharist. Then the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister could say to them kindly, 'Receive the Lord Jesus in your heart.' This is not a blessing, but an invitation to worship, so no gestures are made.

"This spiritual communion would more authentically carry out the spirit of the liturgy. Being faithful to the truths of the sacramental celebration allows all of us, young and old, to enter more deeply into worship."

Does it contradict my previous article? All I can say, in typical Irish fashion is, well, yes and no.

The previous question did not refer to my personal opinion regarding the appropriateness of these blessings, but to whether they were permitted or not. The essence of my answer to that question was that the issue was not clear from a legal point of view and, barring an authoritative statement from the Holy See, it depended on the local authorities to judge the opportunity of accepting or rejecting this practice.

The admirable Archbishop Chaput has taken a characteristically lucid position on the issue, and, while his article is not a formal liturgical norm, it both clarifies the question for his archdiocese, and provides guidance to other pastors weighing the pros and cons of this still nascent custom.

However, the fact remains that many bishops have made approving comments regarding it and some have actually participated in such blessings. Thus the legal issue at the heart of the original question remains doubtful. Indeed, as one reader has helpfully informed me, the bishops' conference of England and Wales has published a fairly authoritative statement on this issue, to wit:

"Even though some in the assembly may not receive 'sacramental' Communion, all are united in some way by the Holy Spirit. The Traditional idea of spiritual communion is an important one to remember and re-affirm. The invitation often given at Mass to those who may not receive sacramental communion -- for example, children before their first communion and adults who are not Catholics -- to receive a 'blessing' at the moment of Communion emphasizes that a deep spiritual communion is possible even when we do not share together the Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ" (the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, "Celebrating the Mass: A Pastoral Introduction," (Catholic Truth Society, April 2005, In number 212, pg 95)."

I would note that the bishops here interpret the blessing itself as a kind of spiritual communion and so the basic thrust of their thinking is the same as that of Archbishop Chaput.

As the gauntlet has been hurled, so to speak, regarding my personal view, I admit to sharing Archbishop Chaput's misgivings as to the appropriateness of some practical aspects of imparting these blessings.

For example, since lay extraordinary ministers of Communion are not authorized to give liturgical blessings, in situations where there are numerous non-communicants the practice could result in a seeming paradox in which they receive blessings from the ordinary ministers of Communion while the Catholic faithful receive the sacred host from extraordinary ministers. Perhaps a lay minister could pronounce a generic formula calling down God's blessing, but it is rather short shrift compared to Communion.

I am also rather queasy about touching people on the head, while simultaneously administrating the sacred host on the tongue of the next person in line.

My most serious hesitations, however, stem from a fear that, over time, the practice of giving blessings to non-communicants could create a new perception or mentality regarding Communion itself that makes it somehow equivalent to a blessing, thus weakening the special value that Communion should have for Catholics. This danger could be especially present in a school environment with a high proportion of non-Catholics who receive only a blessing. On the other hand, some priests have mentioned that it can lower the danger of sacrilegious communions in predominantly Catholic schools as children and adolescents find it easier to ask for a blessing than to stay (alone) in their pews.

Likewise, other priests have written to comment on the pastoral effectiveness of being able to offer Catholics in irregular situations an alternative to not approaching the Communion rail. One commented that one couple's receiving the blessing awoke a hunger for the Eucharist which spurred them to regularize their situation with the Church.

For the above situations I believe the archbishop's suggestion regarding formation in spiritual communion, or that of the British bishops in interpreting the invitation to receive a blessing as spiritual communion, are invaluable and may be even more pastorally effective than a simple blessing per se. It may be harder to apply, however, to non-Catholics.

This brings us to a related question of some members of the Legion of Mary in California who generously offer their services as extraordinary ministers of Communion in an assisted-living facility with a large proportion of non-Catholics.

They ask: "We also know that, as extraordinary ministers of Communion, we cannot bless anyone, but we do ask Jesus or God to bless them. What is the proper form of blessing that we can offer our Protestant brethren? We customarily offer this type of blessing in lieu of sharing Communion: 'May God Bless you and keep you close to him.'

"Is it proper for extraordinary ministers to lay on hands or to make the sign of the cross on the head, or over the head, of the person receiving the blessing? Is it proper to anoint the head of the person receiving the blessing with holy water?

"We want to act properly in the full spirit of the Holy Father's call for evangelization by the lay apostolates, without overstepping into ritual behavior that is the proper domain of the consecrated priesthood."

From what has been said above I would suggest that you avoid ritual gestures that might cause confusion, especially to the Catholics present. However, the formulas provided for the extraordinary ministers of Communion in the ritual for Communion outside of Mass could also be used in the presence of non-Catholics. They usually have a third person plural formula such as "May the Lord bless us, keep us from all evil and bring us to everlasting life."

If you wish to offer some spiritual activity to all present beyond the Communion service, then, with the permission of the parish priest, you could offer some acceptable common prayer once the Communion service has been finished -- for example, praying an hour of the Divine Office, which is almost totally scriptural, would be one possibility.

While liturgical law restricts to ordained ministers the imparting of liturgical blessings, lay people are not forbidden from using similar gestures in non-liturgical settings. For example, in some counties parents commonly make the sign of the cross over and bless their children as they leave for school.

While on the subject of blessings, a deacon requested if "the deacon may use the same formula as the presbyter and perform the same action of making the sign of the cross over the person(s) to be blessed?"

The short answer is yes. The deacon may impart most of the same blessings as a priest and uses the same liturgical gestures. If a priest is present however, he should defer to him. Finally, a lay woman from Canada asks: "At the opening of the Mass and its closing we are blessed by the priest. I have traditionally blessed myself following reception of the Eucharistic species. However, I recently read that this is inappropriate in that it interferes with the unifying theme of the initial and closing blessings by the priest. What is the meaning of blessing oneself after reception of Eucharist? And, what is considered appropriate at this time in our Church's history?"

Strictly speaking, the priest does not bless us at the beginning of Mass; rather, we all make the sign of the cross together as a sign of faith. The only proper blessing is that at the end of Mass which is a concluding blessing before the faithful are sent forth to continue their Christian mission in the world.

Your custom of crossing yourself (also sometimes called blessing oneself) after receiving Communion is simply an act of private devotion and an expression of faith in what one has received. It does no harm whatsoever to the symbolism of the Mass and probably does you a lot of spiritual good.

Focused Link: On Being Neither Liberal nor Conservative

I've come across an article that tries in some way to put some light into the categories of conservatives and liberals. This was published a couple of weeks earlier than my commentary, but somehow, they seem to reinforce each other.

The link:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0133.html

Below is an excerpt.

*~*~*~*~*

Most social coercion today seems to come from those called liberal/left, not from those called conservatives, who are pretty "liberal" by comparison to self-designated "liberals." But then social coercion has always been a trademark of the left, which is overly anxious to improve things in this world, as, in their view, there is no other world or no other way to accomplish any improvement. So we find a certain impatience and restlessness in their agenda. The spiritual origins of totalitarianism are often found in a certain impatience at the slowness of the world to become what the ideologies tell us it ought to become.

Take, for example, the word "primitive." All through the Reformation there were Christians who wanted to return to the "primitive" Church as if all that happened since the founding of the Faith was a deviation from some set standard of practice that ought never to have developed or been further clarified. Yet the word "primitive" can have a very different kind of meaning.

Tertullian (d. 225 A.D.), for instance, was concerned with heresies. He wanted to find out what the various churches of his time (all Catholic, to be sure) had in common. "Every family has to be traced back to its origins," Tertullian said. "That is why we can say that all these great churches constitute that one original Church of the apostles; for it is from them that they all come. They are all primitive, all apostolic, because they are all one.... The principle on which these associations are based is common tradition by which they share the same sacramental bond." So here we see that we should be neither liberal or conservative, but "primitive," that is, we should know and preserve what was handed down.

Take another set of oft-heard words — "radical" or "revolutionary," for instance. Or take "dogmatic" or "reactionary." The first thing we need to notice is that each of these words has something fluid about it. What was once considered to be "liberal" can come to be called "reactionary." How so? Take, for instance, the Muslim practice of having four wives. In context, this precept should rather be stated, "having only four wives." It was a "conservative" standard. For this limit was originally conceived as a restriction — four, not ten or twenty. Who is more "liberal," the man with four wives or the one with ten? In this context, the really "radical" or "revolutionary" man is the one with only one wife. He is the one defying the culture. Yet, in a society of widespread divorce and infidelity, having only one wife is "conservative," if not down right primitive or reactionary, except for the fact that primitives never seem to have evolved the one wife theory. That came from Christianity, though it was in the logic of marriage itself.

Focused Link: The Hunger for Liberty

This is an interesting read from Michael Novak, in an interview for ZENIT. This is a good supplement (actually, a far better one) to the earlier commentary I had on conservatives and liberals.

The link:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0135.html

Below is an excerpt of that interview.

*~*~*~*~*

Q: What do you mean by "liberty"?

Novak: The Statue of Liberty, a gift to the United States from France in 1886, shows a serious woman as the symbol of liberty. In one of Lady Liberty's upraised hands she bears the torch of reason against the mists of passion and the darkness of ignorance, and in her other hand the Book of the Law. An old American hymn sings: "Confirm thy soul in self-control/ Thy liberty in law."

The theological background to this statue, at least as it is understood in America, is as follows. The reason the Creator created the universe is so that somewhere in it there would be at least one creature capable of receiving the Creator's offer of friendship — receiving it freely, to accept or to reject.

If the gift was friendship, that gift had to be rendered in freedom. Freedom is the necessary condition for friendship between God and man, man and God. That is the theological background of the term.

But in America there is also a historical and political background. William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania — my own native state — belonged to the Society of Friends, or Quakers, who wanted to build his new colony on the ideal of God's friendship extended to humans and reciprocated by humans; therefore they named its capital Philadelphia, City of the Love of Brothers.

Penn made the first article of the Pennsylvania Charter the principle of liberty. If friendship, then liberty.

Finally, there is the philosophical background. As Lord Acton put it, liberty is not the right to do whatever we please, but the right to do what we ought to do. The other animals do what they please — whatever their instincts direct.

But humans have an opportunity to follow their own higher insight, understanding and judgment. Humans sense within themselves a call to use their heads to become masters of their own instincts; they are self-governors.

This is the liberty for which, when it is in its own season at last awakened, there is a universal call among human beings: The hunger to become masters of their own choices and provident over their own destiny. In this we are made in the image of our Creator. And in this, as Aristotle put it, we are made political animals, as we reason together about our common life.

Focused Link: The Pope in Private

I've come across a good article about John Paul II. The following article can be found in:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/catholic_stories/cs0125.html

This was written by the theologian George Weigel, who wrote the monumental book "Witness to Hope", a very detailed account on the life of Karol Wojtyla. Below is the text of that article, also printed in Newsweek.

*~*~*~*~*

He was the most visible human being in history, having been seen live by more people than any man who ever lived; yet he had a deeply ingrained sense of privacy and an old-fashioned, even courtly, sense of manners. He inspired tens of millions of people by the intensity of his faith; yet he was a mystic who found it impossible to describe some of his own most profound religious experiences. He was arguably the most well-informed man of his time; yet he rarely read newspapers. He had a profound impact on the late 20th century; yet he was completely convinced that culture, not politics or economics, was the engine that drove history. He had a deep appreciation of untutored popular piety; yet he was a world-class intellectual insatiably curious about the latest trends in philosophy and literature.

The rhythm of his life was prayer. The best hour of his day was the hour of private devotion and meditation in his chapel before his morning mass. There visitors could hear him groaning in prayer, in a conversation with God that was, quite literally, beyond words. In addition to the mass and the Divine Office (the prescribed daily prayers that all priests and many Roman Catholic laypeople say), he could be heard in prayer walking back and forth to meetings, taking a stroll in the Vatican gardens or relaxing after lunch in the garden atop the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican where he lived.

Breaking centuries of tradition, he insisted on being the master of his own table, inviting guests for lunch and dinner virtually every day of his pontificate. In more than two dozen such encounters with him over 14 years, I discovered Wojtyla to be a remarkably unaffected and natural man, with a capacity to put even the most reticent visitors, men and women, laity and clergy, at ease. He seemed to care little about food, but he had a serious sweet tooth; in his later years he drank herbal tea while his guests were served good local wines with plainly cooked pasta, roast chicken or thinly sliced veal, and a large array of vegetables. Conversation, not carbohydrates, was the food he most craved.

His table talk was often conducted in three or four languages simultaneously. He was the most intense listener I have ever met, a man far more interested in what you had to say than in telling you what he thought — or, still less, what to think. In the space of a half hour he could guide a conversation from world politics to the goings-on in a guest's parish church, from inquiries about intellectuals whose careers he followed to questions about a visitor's children. His memory for names was phenomenal, and he could startle you by recounting entire conversations you had had with him years before.

His sense of humor was robust and dry. Having no use for sycophants, he liked to kid and he liked to be kidded. His sense of humor about his own life and circumstances tended toward the ironic. Once, after his less-than-successful 1994 hip-replacement surgery, I asked him how he felt. "Neck down, not so good" was the wry reply. After dinner one night at the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo, his secretary brought a raft of documents that required his signature; some of them, to Emperor this or President that, were inscribed on parchment in a beautiful Latin calligraphy. Halfway through the pile he looked across the table at me, obviously tired after a long day, and with raised eyebrow said, "Povero papa" — "The poor pope!" He broke up laughing, and so did the other four guests.

In an age in which personalities are often assembled from bits and pieces of conviction (politics here, religion there; morals from here, artistic interests from there) Wojtyla could be startling. He was the most integrated personality I have ever met, and everything about him revolved around the conviction that Jesus Christ is the answer to the question that is every human life. Whether he was meeting Mikhail Gorbachev or the Union of Italian Hairdressers, the children of friends or the princes of his own church, every encounter took place within the horizon of John Paul II's absolutely unshakable conviction that the men and women he met were players in a great cosmic drama that had God as its author and director.

By the conventions of his time, the intensity of his Christian conviction should have made him a sectarian, even a dangerous man. To his mind, however, it was precisely his Christian faith and his discipleship that required him to be in dialogue with everyone. Everyone was of inestimable value, and everything was of interest, because God had entered history in Jesus of Nazareth, supercharging the world and humanity with a grandeur beyond imagining.

"In the designs of Providence there are no mere coincidences," he said in 1982, on the first anniversary of the assassination attempt that came within millimeters of ending his life in a pool of blood on the floor of the Popemobile. For Wojtyla, that was the truth of the world. Acting on that truth, he became both an immensely attractive human being and one of the great shapers of contemporary history.

He is now where he always wanted to be.

Commentary: On the Concept of Grace

For my commentary this week, although it's one day late, I'll dwell on the topic of grace. This came into the forefront when I greeted someone a happy birthday. One of her wishes / reactions was that she wanted God to make her holy as He is holy (an allusion to a phrase in Scripture).

My initial reaction was that of skepticism. It's quite an imperfect paraphrase of Scripture. The Lord's statement was imperative in form: "Be holy as your heavenly Father is holy" or "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect". Hence, human action is necessary in achieving holiness or spiritual perfection. In fact, we can see this need for human involvement in other areas in Scripture.

However, her comment is also true on the basis that we cannot be holy without God's initiative. We can see this from St. Paul that we are able to God our Lord because of the Holy Spirit residing in us.

Great, so how can we be as holy as God?

*~*~*~*~*

Well, grace is necessary in order to be holy. It is a free gift from God. We can classify grace into two types: sanctifying and actual. Sanctifying grace is a grace of state where we can pleasing in front of God. We lose this if we commit mortal sin. Actual grace, on the other hand, is a specific gift in response to a particular situation. It could be physical well-being or spiritual consolation.

In order to receive grace, God also sends grace in order to properly receive that grace. Let's call this dispositional grace. If we telescope this idea further, one may ask: Where does it all begin? If we need grace to receive grace, how can we actually receive it?

*~*~*~*~*

This is where human action comes into the picture. Molded in the image of God, we are capable of receiving spiritual resources from God. If we consider the telescoping experiment, we are assuming that God is the only one working, but we will end up with a deadlock with the thought experiment. We can conclude that grace cannot be received by God alone, even though He is capable to doing so.

At this point, God is "powerless" in the face of human freedom. We are like God and He cannot, in a way, go contrary to Himself or His nature. At this point, if we want grace, we should will it ourselves too. We should use the means to dispose ourselves properly to receive grace.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Relics in the Altar

ROME, MAY 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Related to the question on relics upon the altar (May 3) a Pennsylvanian reader asks: "The document on Popular Piety states that the relics of the saints (I assume the blessed, too) are not to be exposed on the mensus of the altar. Does this mean that during Mass on the feast day one may not have the relic on the altar at all or is this more specific?"

The question refers to No. 244 of the Directory for Popular Piety.

It states: "The Church blesses sacred images because of their cultic significance. This is especially true of the images of the Saints which are destined for public veneration, when she prays that, guided by a particular Saint, 'we may progress in following the footsteps of Christ, so that the perfect man may be formed in us to the full measure of Christ.' The Church has published norms for the exposition of sacred images in churches and other sacred places which are to be diligently observed. No statue or image is to be exposed on the table of an altar. Neither are the relics of the Saints to be exposed on the table of an altar. It is for the local ordinary to ensure that inappropriate images or those leading to error or superstition, are not exposed for the veneration of the faithful."

This norm is taken from No. 10 of the introduction to the Roman Pontifical's "Order of Dedication of a Church and an Altar."

Although the document specifically refers to a long-term or permanent exposition I believe that its sense and its spirit would also exclude the exposition of a relic during a feast-day Mass. This would also be in conformity with the general norm that only that which is necessary for the Eucharistic celebration should be placed upon the altar during Mass.

This does not mean that the relic could not be exposed in some way during the celebration of a feast. For example, it could be placed on a column close to the ambo or some other prominent place.

Wednesday Liturgy: Consecrating a "Second Batch" of Hosts

ROME, MAY 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: I recently attended Mass at an out-of-town Catholic conference, in a convention center, where there was a large crowd on hand. Soon after Communion began, the concelebrating priests realized that even after dividing the small Hosts they were going to be more than 100 short. One priest, seeing that the hosts were almost finished, said, "I'll go make some more." Shortly afterward I observed him at a side table saying the prayers of consecration over a "new batch" of hosts and chalice of wine. He later explained to the congregation that it was all right to do just the consecration since we didn't end the Mass. Is it invalid and illicit what this priest did? Did the faithful that received the "second batch" receive Christ? -- N.B., Bethesda, Maryland

A: The priest was certainly in error although he may have done this in good faith, believing that he was acting justly.

The fact that he consecrated both bread and wine at least indicates that he was aware of canon law's prohibition of ever consecrating the species separately.

As Canon 927 states: "It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration."

He apparently believed that by consecrating more bread and wine within the context of the Mass he did not fall within the strictures of this prohibition.

However, what he did was, in effect, to celebrate another Mass within Mass, as the consecration of new species implies a new sacrifice. He therefore contravened the second aspect of the canon by consecrating both species outside the Eucharistic celebration even though he was still celebrating another Mass.

News: The Pope's Regina Caeli (15 May 2005)

VATICAN CITY, MAY 15, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the address Benedict XVI delivered in Italian from the window of his study overlooking St. Peter's square before praying the Regina Caeli today at midday.

* * *

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

The eucharistic celebration just concluded in St. Peter's Basilica, in which I had the joy of ordaining 21 new priests, is an event that marks an important moment of growth for our community. From the ordained ministers it receives life, especially through the service of the Word of God and the sacraments. Therefore, it is a day of celebration for the Church of Rome. And for the new priests this is, in a special way, their Pentecost. I renew my greetings to them and I pray that the Holy Spirit will accompany them always in their ministry. Let us thank God for the gift of the new presbyters, and let us pray that in Rome, as well as in the whole world, numerous and holy priestly vocations will flower and mature.

The happy coincidence between Pentecost and the priestly ordinations allows me to highlight the indissoluble bond that exists in the Church between the Spirit and the institution. I already mentioned it last Saturday, when taking possession of the chair of the Bishop of Rome in St. John Lateran. The chair and the Spirit are profoundly united realities, as are the charism and ordained ministry.

Without the Holy Spirit, the Church would be reduced to a merely human organization, with the weight of its very structures. For its part, moreover, in God's plans, the Spirit habitually makes use of human mediations to act in history. Precisely for this reason, Christ, who constituted his Church on the foundation of the Apostles united around Peter, enriched her with the gift of the Spirit, so that he would console her (cf. John 14:16) and guide her to all the truth (cf. John 16:13). May the ecclesial community remain always open and docile to the action of the Holy Spirit, in order to be a credible sign and effective instrument of God's action among men.

We commend this hope to the intercession of the Virgin Mary, whom we contemplate today in the glorious mystery of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit, who descended on her in Nazareth to have her become the mother of the Word Incarnate (cf. Luke 1:35), descended today on the nascent Church gathered around her in the cenacle (cf. Acts 1:14). With confidence, let us invoke Mary Most Holy that she may obtain a renewed effusion of the Spirit on the Church of our days.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Commentary: QRC on the Conservatives and Liberals

Nowadays, we often hear in the media about this particular priest would be conservative or liberal. In fact, we get to hear this with more emphasis on the preparation stages of the conclave to the eventual election and inauguration of Pope Benedict XVI. The media would then highlight, "Oh no, another conservative Pope ..."

But then if you try to think about it, what does it mean to be "conversative" or "liberal"? Somehow, it has lost its meaning throughout these past few years, but let's try to understand its real essence put into present-day context.

*~*~*~*~*

During my 7 days doing theology and philosophy studies for laymen (all of us being full-time professionals in our respective secular industries), I've come across some ideas which would help us identify what it means to be conservative and liberal. Thus, I'll create what I'll call a "quick reference card" or QRC concerning these two categories.

To be conservative, the principle that is valued most is truth.

To be liberal, the principle that is valued most is freedom.

*~*~*~*~*

A true conservative person believes that truth is the most important thing in this world. This is quite straightforward when we observe faithful Catholics and brand them as "conservative". These Catholics are conservative of the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which is regarded as truth. At this point, it doesn't matter if they fully understand the contents of truth; what matters to them is that it's true and should be defended as such.

A true liberal person believes that freedom, more specifically human freedom, is the most important thing. This is why people who are "outgoing" and are respectful of the individual choices of other people are often branded as "liberal". Such people believe that man, being good and given the capacity to discover the world with his God-given faculties, will find fulfillment in his actions based on free choice. Any form of coercion denies man such perfection.

*~*~*~*~*

Putting people in only either one of the two categories is a manifestation that the concepts of truth and freedom are not understood fully. Both of them are not incompatible with one another; in fact, they support each other.

We can find this in Scripture (for the benefit of the theologically-minded) when our Lord said that "the truth shall make us free" in the Gospel of John.

If we go to classical anthropology, man has both intellect and will. The object of the intellect is the truth and man does not will anything freely without the guidance of the intellect. In fact, without the intellect, any action ceases to possess a true human character.

Focused Link: A Basic Theology of Marriage

I grabbed this from http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0096.html# and I've posted some key paragraphs in this blog to whet your appetite. This was written by Christopher West.

*~*~*~*~*

The Centrality of Marriage in God's Plan

"Sacred Scripture begins with the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God and concludes with a vision of the 'wedding feast of the Lamb.' Scripture speaks throughout of marriage and its 'mystery,' its institution and the meaning God has given it, its origin and its end, ...the difficulties arising from sin, and its renewal 'in the Lord.'" Throughout the Old Testament, God's love for his people is described as the love of a husband for his bride. In the New Testament, Christ embodies this love. He comes as the Heavenly Bridegroom to unite himself indissolubly to his Bride, the Church.

Marriage, then, is not a peripheral issue in the Christian life. It finds itself right at the heart of the Christian mystery and, by means of its grand analogy, serves to illuminate it. All analogies are inadequate in their attempts to communicate God's mystery. Yet, speaking of marriage and the family John Paul states, "In this entire world there is not a more perfect, more complete image of God, Unity and Community. There is no other human reality which corresponds more, humanly speaking, to that divine mystery."

Pope John Paul II goes so far as to say that we cannot understand the Christian mystery unless we keep in mind the "great mystery" involved in the creation of man as male and female and the vocation of both to conjugal love. According to the analogy, God's eternal plan is to "marry" us (see Hos 2:19). He wanted this eternal plan to be so present to us that he stamped an image of it in our very being by creating us male and female and calling us to marriage.

Metanarrative: May 5-11

Well, I was out from May 5-11 to attend a seminar on theology and philosophy. I do have several wonderful stories about that trip and I'll do that in a few distinct articles and comments in this blog. I do hope the readers didn't get too annoyed that this blog wasn't updated for a full week. In any case, I'll make up by providing some bits and pieces of what I've learned during that time I was out.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Mass for Unbaptized Children Who Die

ROME, MAY 10, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

A reader from Massachusetts says that he was disturbed by our purported comments (April 26) that "funeral liturgies are now more for the living than for the deceased. The Mass, as the good father knows, is an act of worship, praise and intercession. Our funeral liturgies never assume the deceased is in heaven, but pray that they may be forgiven their sins and enjoy eternal bliss.

"I have heard more than one priest comment on how funeral Masses are more for the living than for the dead. No wonder why so many of our people no longer believe in purgatory but have adopted the Protestant view that one goes straight to heaven or hell upon death."

On rereading the article I can see how our correspondent received the impression he did, although I was referring to the precise circumstances of Masses for unbaptized infants, and not to funerals in general.

Such funeral rites are more for the consolation of the living than the dead due to the great human sadness of the loss of a child, no matter how strong the theological hope of salvation or even the certainty of blessedness, as is the case of baptized infants.

Our reader is correct that adult funerals are very much intercessory prayers for the deceased. It is this power of intercession by the Church's prayer, rather than a presumption of instant canonization, that should bring consolation to those left behind.

Another reader was perplexed by the problem. He wrote: "Why is it that a catechumen who expresses his desire to be baptized but dies before it takes place, is said to have received baptism by desire, and therefore is fully expected to be saved; whereas, when parents fully intend to baptize their baby, but it dies before they are able to do so, we have doubts as to the baby's salvation? I just don't understand this."

The basic reason is that the adult is saved by his personal desire to receive baptism, which was frustrated by death.

The desire and intentions of the parents is insufficient to substitute the infant's incapacity to express any personal intentions and grant the gift of baptism.

However, the question is not totally clear. Some theologians have argued that in some way the parents' desire to have the child baptized does have some effect in the order of grace and the child is in a different situation from the infant of parents who have no knowledge of baptism.

We are before a great mystery, insofar as it has not been revealed if salvation means the same thing for the unbaptized infant as for the baptized, or by what means God exercises his mercy in these cases.

All the same, I would not say that the Church entertains doubts as to the child's salvation, as condemnation can only be received through personal sins.

Other readers, from Waukesha, Wisconsin, and from North York, Ontario, asked about norms forbidding baptism during Lent or to "priests who refuse to administer the sacraments to children of parents who do not attend Mass."

Our Wisconsin reader says: "I can understand delaying adult baptism, first Communions, weddings, etc., during Lent until at least the Easter Vigil, but to me, not allowing infant baptism during Lent seems to be gambling with souls." The reader further illustrates a case of the accidental death of a baby who would have been baptized except for this prohibition.

Regarding the first question, canon law (in No. 868) requires that, before administering baptism, a priest should have some reasonable assurances that the child will be raised and instructed in the faith.

Even if the parents offer few guarantees of being willing and able to do so, the priest may proceed with the baptism if the godparents, some other relatives, or the Christian community in general, will be able to substitute the parents in giving the necessary formation.

Thus, for example, if the parents do not practice but are willing to send the child to catechism classes for first Communion when the time arises, then this is often sufficient. If these conditions cannot be met he has to defer the administration of the sacrament explaining the reasons to the parents.

However, since the variables are infinite, one cannot dictate theoretical solutions and I would be loath to criticize a priest's decision while ignorant of the specific circumstances.

The tragedy of the second case shows that even apparently reasonable norms can lead to unintended consequences.

I am personally less then enthusiastic about the norms forbidding infant baptisms during Lent that exist in several dioceses. To my mind they are not totally compatible with the spirit of canon law in No. 867 and No. 1250 of the catechism which states: "The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth."

It is true that infant deaths are rare in the developed world, but it does not appear to justify a long delay.

I do comprehend the pastoral reasons that often lie behind them, especially in areas where the baptism of a child has become more of a social than a religious event, sometimes rivaling weddings for displays of fashions and festivities and hence incompatible with the Lenten spirit.

All the same, I do believe that priests, and the pastoral norms in general, should accommodate parents who desire to have their children baptized as soon as possible after birth for genuinely religious reasons, especially if they agree to moderate any external celebrations during Lent.

On the theme of infant baptism in general, a California reader asks: "I have often wondered about the necessity of baptizing children since the early Church did not consider it imperative. Certainly we totally submit to the teaching of the apostles. There could be no teaching more clear than their limiting baptism to those who can choose it for themselves."

I am afraid that I do not think that this supposed teaching is so clear at all, although the space available precludes a full treatment of this subject.

In the first place, Christian baptism replaced circumcision as a more universal sign of belonging to God's people, and this Jewish rite was performed eight days after birth.

There is also some, albeit inconclusive, evidence of the presence of infant baptism when we read in the Scriptures that certain persons were baptized together with "all their family" or "their entire household." Such expressions, at the very least, would not exclude the presence of
children.

Likewise the scant descriptions of the rite of baptism offered in the Bible, which explicitly refer only to adult Jewish and pagan converts, are insufficient to conclude very much about the pastoral practice of the apostles, for while there is no mention of infant baptism, nor is there any mention of baptism of adult members of Christian families.

Christ's command in Mark 16:16 refers to evangelization of pagans. It is necessary for new disciples to manifest their faith before receiving baptism which implies a radical change of life. Such a change should not be necessary in the children of Christian families educated in the faith from an early age.

There is much stronger evidence in the following generations. The bishop martyr St. Polycarp, who as a young man had been a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, affirmed that he had served the Lord for 86 years, which makes it highly probable that he was baptized in infancy.

There is also evidence for the practice in St. Justin (martyred in 165) and other second-century writers, such as Origen, who presents infant baptism as an apostolic tradition.

Finally a correspondent expands on the original topic and asks about "praying for those not of the Catholic faith. Would it be permissible to have a Mass said for a deceased non-Catholic?"

The Church already prays for non-Catholics at Mass when, for example in Eucharistic Prayer IV, we ask "for all those whose faith was known to you alone."

Although a requiem or funeral Mass is usually not offered for a non-Catholic, there does not seem to be any difficulty in offering the intention of a Mass for a non-Catholic living or dead, just as we may pray for them in any other circumstances.

There might be particular situations in which this may not be advisable but, at least in principle, it is possible.

Wednesday Liturgy: Blessings for Non-communicants

ROME, MAY 10, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: At many Masses these days, non-communicating participants approach the altar at Communion time and receive a blessing when they cannot communicate. However, some priests do not do this, saying it is not "in the rubrics." Is it all right for priests to do this? -- M.T., New South Wales, Australia

A: As far as I have been able to ascertain, this practice arose over the last two decades or so, above all in English-speaking countries, such as Australia and the United States, where Catholics form a significant minority amid a basically Christian population.

Because of this, it is relatively common to have non-Catholics present at Mass, for example, Protestant spouses of Catholics, catechumens, and other visitors. This is especially true of weddings and funerals when the number of non-Catholics is even larger.

Another common situation, which apparently gave rise to this practice, is the increase in non-Catholic students at Catholic schools and colleges. At times, about half the student body is unable to articipate in Communion.

Situations such as these probably inspired the practice of inviting those unable to receive Communion to approach the altar to receive a blessing so as not to feel excluded.

Certainly this blessing is not in the rubrics and there is no obligation to make such an invitation. However, neither is there any prohibition and the practice seems to have been tacitly accepted by many bishops who are aware of this nascent custom and have even participated in giving such blessings.

As far as I know, no bishop has issued specific directives on this issue, nor has the Holy See intervened although it is certainly aware of its existence.

The decision as to whether to adopt such a practice depends on the concrete pastoral circumstances involved. As in all similar initiatives, due reflection is required regarding the custom's pastoral utility and as to any possible consequences that it may provoke in the short or long term, for example, changing the way people perceive the act of receiving Communion.

News: The Pope's Regina Caeli (8 May 2005)

VATICAN CITY, MAY 8, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the address Benedict XVI gave today before praying the Regina Caeli with thousands gathered in St. Peter's Square.

* * *

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

Today is celebrated in many countries, among them Italy, the solemnity of the Lord's Ascension to heaven. This feast invites the Christian community to look to the one who, 40 days after his resurrection, to the astonishment of the apostles, "was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight" (Acts 1:9). We are called, therefore, to renew our faith in Jesus, only true anchor of salvation for all men. When ascending to Heaven, he reopened the way to our final homeland, which is paradise. Now, with the power of his Spirit, he sustains us in our daily pilgrimage on earth.

Today, World Communications Day is being observed, on the theme "The Media at the Service of Understanding among Peoples." In the present age of the image, the media effectively constitute extraordinary resources to promote the solidarity and understanding of the human family. We have had proof of this recently on the occasion of the death and solemn funeral rites of my beloved predecessor, John Paul II. However, it all depends on the way they are used. These important instruments of communication can favor reciprocal knowledge and dialogue or, on the contrary, fuel prejudice and contempt among individuals and peoples; they can contribute to spread peace or to foment violence. For this reason, people must always be reminded of their responsibilities; it is necessary that all do what corresponds to them to ensure objectivity, respect for human dignity and attention to the common good in all forms of communication. In this way a contribution is made to bring down the walls of hostility that still divide humanity and to consolidate bonds of friendship and love which are signs of the kingdom of God in history.

Let us return to the Christian mystery of the Ascension. After the Lord ascended to heaven, the disciples were gathered in prayer in the Cenacle, with the mother of Jesus (cf. Acts 1:14), invoking together the Holy Spirit, who would invest them with power to witness to the risen Christ (cf. Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8). United to the Most Holy Virgin, every Christian community relives in these days this singular experience in preparation for the solemnity of Pentecost. We also now turn to Mary with the singing of the Regina Caeli, imploring her protection on the Church, in particular on those dedicated to the work of evangelization through the means of social communication.

[Translation by ZENIT]

[At the end of the prayer, the Holy Father greeted pilgrims in several languages. In English, he said:]

I greet with affection all the English-speaking visitors present today, including groups from Denmark and the Netherlands. May the peace and joy of Christ our risen lord be with you.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: The Pope's Veil

ROME, MAY 3, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Commented by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Follow-up: The Pope's Veil

I knew that I could rely on our well-informed readers to relieve me of my ignorance regarding the purpose of the veil placed on the face of Pope John Paul II before his coffin was sealed (see April 26).

Many readers, above all those hailing from the venerable traditions of the Eastern Churches, have written to explain that this veil is a common custom for priestly funerals, often accompanied by an anointing with blessed oils.

One reader explains: "In the Byzantine funeral-liturgy for a priest, the large veil (the one used to cover chalice and paten) is placed on the face of the deceased. It is on the one hand a symbol of the strength and protection of God, on the other hand a symbol of the tomb of Christ." Other readers attest similar practices in other rites such as the Melkite and Ruthenian.

Some hypothesize that this custom may have originated in Jewish burial customs.

One reader wrote: "In the Jewish burial custom, the Jews would anoint the faces of their dead priests with oil and then wrap them in a white cloth. This same action was apparently performed on Jesus.

"In the early Eastern churches at every Divine Liturgy, the priest would fan his chalice veil over the gifts during the Creed (a practice that endures to this day). During this fanning of the gifts, the priest is not to look over the top of the veil to the other side, a symbolic sign that, here on earth, he has the faith to believe what, after he dies, he will come to see.

"After the death of the priest, the veil would be placed over the face of the priest, with the front side of the veil, which faced away from him during the Creed, touching his face. This veiling of the priest's face was symbolic of the fact that, now that the priest was dead, he now saw what before he only believed."

Another reader referred to the TV commentary on the funeral in which a bishop commented that "the veil was requested by the Holy Father and points to the Scripture by St. Paul: 'We do not see clearly, as through a veil, but then (at the end of time) clearly.' At the resurrection, the commentators added, when the Pope's body is resurrected, he will remove the veil to see God face to face as a soul reunited with his body. I thought it was a beautiful comment."

It is certainly an appropriate comment, although perhaps not the liturgical reason for the inclusion of this rite as I am inclined to accept the Eastern origin suggested by our correspondents.

Mind you, I am convinced that the veil will be removed well before the resurrection, when, following John Paul II's likely beatification, his relics will leave the crypt to join other saintly pontiffs in St. Peter's Basilica itself.

A Hong Kong reader asked some questions regarding liturgical norms.

"According to the Ordo, ritual Masses are not permitted on the Sundays of the Advent, Lent and Easter seasons," the reader noted. "Then, why was a papal inauguration Mass held on fifth Sunday of the Easter? … We give a lot of theological and liturgical reasons to explain the importance of the liturgical season; however, we break it when we like. … Also will the "new" (or ancient) style of pallium used for other metropolitans?"

As regards the pallium we will have to wait until the next feast of Sts. Peter and Paul to find out, unless in his next public Mass the Holy Father Benedict XVI reverts to the former style.
With respect to the change-of-Mass formula, our correspondent is correct that, strictly speaking, a ritual Mass is not normally allowed on a Sunday in the Easter season.

However, the Pope is the supreme legislator and is able to dispense from a liturgical law for a justifiable reason.

Such dispensations have already been granted for other just causes such as the celebration of the Immaculate Conception in Spain and Italy and that of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico. These feasts are celebrated even if they coincide with a Sunday of Advent, as the dates are intimately tied up to the religious practice of the people in these countries and are also celebrated as civil holidays.

Our correspondent might want to place his objection in perspective. A Mass of papal inauguration probably occurs about six or seven times a century; a funeral could happen every week. The danger of a papal inauguration undermining the theology of the liturgical year is scant and I believe the occasion more that justifies an exception to a liturgical norm.

Finally, a Michigan reader asked about the significance of the triple coffin, the coins and the biography placed alongside the body, and the nine days of mourning.

The nine days is a fairly traditional period of mourning in many countries although not universal as some traditions have 30 days or another period.

The use of some means of identification of the deceased were customary practices that arose in earlier times, above all, for the burial of nobility and monarchs. Such identification has resulted necessary at times. Tombs can be moved, over time, and nothing is permanent. It is enough to think that the first St. Peter's basilica, finished about the year 330, was almost completely demolished to make way for the present structure over a thousand years later.

The triple coffin probably originated from practical concerns to protect the body, especially as most popes were interred in an above-ground sarcophagus.

Wednesday Liturgy: Relics on the Altar

ROME, MAY 3, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: I would like to know the present teaching of the Church, with documentary evidence, on fixing relics of the saints at the altar of Holy Mass. -- K.S., Nagapattinam, India

A: The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 302, contains the following statement: "The practice of placing relics of Saints, even those not Martyrs, under the altar to be dedicated is fittingly retained. Care should be taken, however, to ensure the authenticity of such relics."

This statement summarizes the more detailed treatment of this question found in other documents such as the Roman Pontifical, Dedication of a Church and an Altar, and in the Ceremonial of Bishops.

No. 866 of this latter book indicates the basic norms for relics:

"The tradition in the Roman liturgy of placing relics of martyrs or other saints beneath the altar should be preserved, if possible. But the following should be noted:

"a. such relics should be of a size sufficient for them to be recognized as parts of human bodies; hence excessively small relics of one or more saints must not be placed beneath the altar;

"b. the greatest care must be taken to determine whether the relics in question are authentic; it is better for an altar to be dedicated without relics than to have relics of doubtful authenticity placed beneath it;

"c. a reliquary must not be placed upon the altar or set into the table of the altar; it must be placed beneath the table of the altar, as the design of the altar permits."

Other numbers such as 876-877 describe some details as to the vesture and form of the entrance processions and the contents of the copy of the record of the dedication to be placed in the reliquary.

Later, in No. 900, the Ceremonial describes the rite of depositing of the relics:

"If relics of the martyrs or other saints are to be placed beneath the altar, the bishop approaches the altar. A deacon or presbyter brings the relics to the bishop, who places them in a suitably prepared aperture. Meanwhile Psalm 15 (14), with the antiphon 'Saints of God' or 'The bodies of the saints,' or some other suitable song is sung.

"During the singing a stonemason closes the aperture, and the bishop returns to the chair (cathedra)."

News: The Pope's Regina Caeli Message (1 May 2005)

VATICAN CITY, MAY 2, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the address Benedict XVI gave at midday Sunday before and after praying the Regina Caeli with the faithful gathered below the papal apartment in St. Peter's Square.

* * *

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

I address you for the first time from this window, which the beloved figure of my predecessor made familiar to innumerable people worldwide. Faithful to an appointment that became a cherished custom, Sunday after Sunday, for more than a quarter of a century John Paul II supported the history of the Church and of the world, and we continue to feel him closer than ever.

My first sentiment is again of gratitude to those who have supported me in these days with prayer and those who from all parts of the world have sent me messages and good wishes.

I would like to greet the Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches with particular affection, who precisely this Sunday celebrate the resurrection of Christ. To these our beloved brothers I address the traditional proclamation of joy: "Christos anesti!" Yes, Christ is risen, he is truly risen. It is my heartfelt hope that the celebration of Easter will be for them a unanimous prayer of faith and praise of him who is our common Lord, and who calls us to walk with determination on the path to full communion.

Today we begin the month of May with a liturgical memorial that is very dear to the Christian people, that of St. Joseph the Worker. It was instituted by Pope Pius XII of venerated memory, precisely 50 years ago, to underline the importance of work and of the presence of Christ and of the Church in the working world. It is necessary to witness also in today's society the "Gospel of work," of which John Paul II spoke in the encyclical "Laborem Exercens." I hope that work will not be lacking especially for young people, and that working conditions will be increasingly respectful of the dignity of the human person.

I think with affection of all workers and I greet those gathered in St. Peter's Square, belonging to numerous associations. In particular I greet the friends of ACLI (Christian Associations of Italian Workers), who this year are celebrating the 60th anniversary of their foundation, and I encourage them to continue to live their option of "Christian fraternity" as a value to incarnate in the field of work and social life, so that solidarity, justice and peace will be the pillars on which the unity of the human family is built.

Finally, my thoughts turn to Mary: The month of May is particularly dedicated to her. With his words and even more so with his example, Pope John Paul II taught us to contemplate Christ with Mary's eyes, valuing especially the prayer of the holy rosary. With the singing of the Regina Caeli we entrust to the Virgin all the needs of the Church and of humanity.

[After the Regina Caeli, the Holy Father said:]

These days I find myself thinking often of all people who are suffering due to wars, illness and poverty. In particular, today I am close to the beloved peoples of Togo, distressed by painful internal struggles. For all these nations I implore the gift of harmony and peace.

Issue: Identifying the Good Nowadays

Just reading the first few paragraphs of Chapter 7, we see that Karol is trying to focus on the issue at hand. He believes that the problem plaguing man nowadays (but even at the dawn of humanity) is trying to identify the good.

He categorizes 3 types of good: honestum (just), utile (useful) and delectabile (pleasurable).

One may ask: What's the best?

Owing to Catholic tradition, the just good would be the best. This is because we know from our Catechism that the effects of original sin can easily skew our perception of what is useful and what is pleasurable. Of course, original sin can pervert our judgment and may actually tell us that this is just while in fact it may not be. But the perversion will work its way from the bottom, namely from what is useful and/or what is pleasurable.

One may ask: Is it evil to aim the pleasurable good?

The pleasurable good is not evil as long as it is also a just good. In similar vein, a useful good is not evil provided it is a just good. Of course, wouldn't it be nice to make sure that the just good is both useful and pleasurable?

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

We might have experienced arguments from certain people that since we're free, we can do whatever we want. Well, technically, this is true. What complicates the analysis, however, is that fact that any human act (and thus, having an ethical dimension) would have personal consequences. By 'personal', I mean this will have an effect on the one who committed that act and those around him, either directly or indirectly. These people tend to forget / ignore that these consequences are important and that we cannot divorce them from any ethical analysis.

I'm reminded of the metaphysical concept of causality. There are 4 categories of causality: proximate cause, formal cause, material cause and final cause. The proximate and final cause can be boxed together on the basis of a time element. Catholic doctrine would tell us that the final cause is always God. Formal cause and material cause can be boxed together on the basis of the object itself.

Why did I bring up the idea of causality? It's because act (esse, as opposed to potency) will always have these 4 causes, which includes the final cause. If people would try to ignore or remove the final cause, somehow the act ceases to be a true being or the act is diminished in terms of its dignity. I guess such acts are less human if the subject is unable to determine the final cause of those acts.

Towards a Just Use of Freedom, Part 2

(Continuing the Chapter 7 of Memory ...)

Utilitarianism ignores the first and fundamental dimension of good, that of the bonum honestum. Utilitarian anthropology and the ethic derived from it set out from the conviction that man tends essentially towards his own interest or that of the group to which he belongs. Ultimately, the aim of human action is personal or corporate advantage. As for the bonum delectabile, it is of course taken into account in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. The great exponents of this current of thought, in their ethical reflection, are fully aware that the accomplishment of a just good is always accompanied by an interior joy -- the joy of the good. In utilitarian thought, however, the dimension of good and the dimension of joy have been displaced by the search for advantage or pleasure. In this scheme, the bonum delectabile of Thomistic thought has been somehow emancipated, becoming both a good and an end in itself. In the utilitarian vision, man in acting seeks pleasure above all else, not the honestum. Admittedly, utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill emphasize that the goal is not simply pleasure at sense level: spiritual pleasures also come into play. They say that these too must be considered in making the so-called 'calculation of pleasures'. It is this 'normative' expression of the utilitarian ethic: the greatest happiness of the greatest number. All human action, individually and jointly, has to conform to this principle.

One response to the utilitarian ethic was offered by the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. The Konigsberg philosopher rightly observed that giving priority to pleasure in the analysis of human action is dangerous and threatens the very essence of morality. In this aprioristic vision of reality, Kant places two things in question, namely pleasure and expediency. Yet he does not return to the tradition of the bonum honestum. Instead he bases all human morality on aprioristic forms of the practical intellect, which have imperative character. Essential for morals is the categorical imperative which, for Kant, is expressed in the following formula: 'Act only according to a maxim by which you can at the same time will that it shall become a universal law'.

Then there is a second form of categorical imperative, in which the person is given due priority in the moral order. This is the formulation: 'Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end'. In this form, the end and the means reappear in Kant's ethical thought, but as secondary rather than primary categories. The primary category becomes the person. Kant could be said to have laid the foundations of modern personalist ethics. From the point of view of the development of ethical reflection, this is a very important step. The Neo-Thomists also took up the personalist principle, basing themselves on Saint Thomas' concept of the bonum honestum, bonum utile and bonum delectabile.

It is clear from this synthetic presentation that the question of the just use of freedom is closely linked with reflection on the topic of good and evil. It is a pressing question from both a practical and a theoretical point of view. If ethics is the branch of philosophy concerned with moral good and evil, then it has to draw its fundamental criterion of evaluation from the essential property of the human will, in other words, freedom. Man can do good or evil because his will is free, but also fallible. Whenever he makes a choice, he does so in the light of a criterion which may be objective goodness or it may be utilitarian advantage. With the ethics of the categorical imperative, Kant rightly emphasized the obligatory character of man's moral choices. At the same time, however, he distanced himself from the only truly objective criterion for those choices: he underlined the subjective obligation, but overlooked what lies at the foundation of morals, that is the bonum honestum. As for the bonum delectabile, in the sense in which it is understood by the Anglo-Saxon utilitarians, Kant essentially excluded it from the realm of morals.

The whole of the argument developed thus far concerning the theory of good and evil belongs to moral philosophy. Through these analyses of anthropological reality, various manifestations emerge of man's desire for Redemption, and confirmation is given of the need for a Redeemer if man is to attain salvation.

Musings on the Seventh - Towards a Just Use of Freedom

I'm currently reading the supposed last book (Memory and Identity) published commercially by Pope John Paul II. As most people who are familiar with his "past life" before being elected as the 263th successor to St. Peter, Karol Wojtyla was a philosopher in his own right.

Some initial comments about the book:

1. This is a book similar to how Crossing the Threshold of Hope was drafted. A Q&A style, but this was more of a synthesis of what was discussed during a philosophers' conference he used to organize at Castel Gandolfo. The Q&A style in Memory was merely an editorial initiative (with the Q portion purely coming from the publishers, while the A part came from the late Pope himself, with the Q portion written way way after the A portion), instead of the originally planned interview by Vittorio Messori for Crossing.

2. Given that observation, I would advise purists of the "Karol thought" to avoid reading the Qs. I had this conclusion after reading a certain paragraph in one of the As. John Paul II referred to one of his great works as "The Acting Person" instead of "Person and Act", with the latter being a more faithful and direct translation of "Osoba y Czyn". Again, those familiar with the history would understand that The Acting Person is an imperfect translation, owing to the translator's phenomenological biases. (It's quite sad that it's the English version that had to have this perversion.) Reading further and recollecting on the other chapters already read, the actual question addressed in the Q parts had no direct logical flow from its "introductory" sentences, mostly filled with political polemic. Those who did not know the historical circumstances would have no idea why that question was asked in light of the earlier sentences. I personally found it a waste of words on such a beautiful tome.

The point here is that the actual written version of Memory must be taken with a grain of salt. Although I'm not yet done with the reading of Memory during this time of writing, I don't think the readers will lose anything by not reading the Qs. However, reading the A will reveal much of the Karol thought, which fans and serious philosophers will find very refreshing.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

I've been struck by Chapter 7 of Memory. It's very powerful in spite of its brevity. Below is the abridged text of that chapter.

Chapter 7 - Towards a Just Use of Freedom

The fundamental question is: how can these possibilities of free decision best be used so as to avoid any future return of the evil at work in those systems and those ideologies?

If those societies sensed a new freedom after the collapse of the totalitarian systems, a fundamental new problem arose almost immediately -- the proper use of that freedom. The problem affects both individuals and societies: it therefore requires some kind of systematic solution. If I am free, I can make good or bad use of my freedom. If I use it well, I in my turn become more 'good' as a result, and the good I have accomplished has a positive influence on those around me. If on the other hand I use it wrongly, evil will take root and begin to spread both in me and around me. The danger of the situation in which we live today consists in the fact that we claim to prescind from the ethical dimension in our use of freedom -- that is, from consideration of moral good and evil. A certain concept of freedom, which has widespread support in public opinion at present, diverts attention from ethical responsibilities. Appeal is made today to freedom alone. It is often said: what matters is to be free, released from all constraint or limitation, so as to operate according to private judgment, which in reality is often pure caprice. This much is clear: such liberalism can only be described as primitive. Its influence, however, is potentially devastating.

We should add straight away that European traditions, especially those of the Enlightenment period, have recognized the need for a criterion to regulate the use of freedom. Yet the criterion adopted has been not so much that of the just good (bonum honestum) as that of utility or pleasure. Here we are faced with a most important element in the tradition of European thought, one to which we must now devote a little more attention.

In human action, the different spiritual faculties tend towards a synthesis in which the leading role is played by the will. The subject thus imprints his own rationality upon his actions. Human acts are free and, as such, they engage the responsibility of the subject. Man wants a particular good and he chooses it: he is consequently responsible for his choice.

Against the background of this vision of good, which is both metaphysical and anthropological, there arises a distinction of properly ethical character. It is the distinction between the just good (bonum honestum) , the useful good (bonum utile) and the pleasurable good (bonum delectabile). These three types of good are intimately bound up with human action. When he acts, man chooses a certain good, which becomes the goal of his action. If the subject chooses a bonum honestum, his goal is conformed to the very essence of the object of his action and is therefore a just goal. When on the other hand the object of his choice is a bonum utile, the goal is the advantage to be gained from it for the subject. The question of the morality of the action remains open: only when the action bringing the advantage is just and the means used are just, can the subject's goal also be said to be just. It is precisely on this issue that a rift begins to emerge between the Aristotelian-Thomistic ethical tradition and modern utilitarianism.

(to be continued ...)

Chipi's first entry

This blog is dedicated to my thoughts on matters concerning theological anthropology and anthropological theology. Of course, I would need to verify some of my future writings for Catholic doctrinal coherence with some experts on the matter, but I hope that my expeditions in this area will be fruitful in more ways than one, both to the reader and to the writer.