Interview: Priestly Celibacy and the Vocation to Love

PAMPLONA, Spain, SEPT. 29, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The question of priestly celibacy is bubbling to the surface once again.

The topic came to the fore in Spain, where a married Anglican minister converted to the Catholic Church and was ordained. In Wiesbaden, Germany, meanwhile, 80 married former Catholic priests appealed to the Pope to put an end to the requirement of clerical celibacy.

To address the topic, the Veritas news agency interviewed Father Juan Ramón García-Morato, author of the recently published book "Created by Love, Chosen to Love" (EUNSA Publishers).

García-Morato, a physician and theologian, teaches a course on Theory of Culture in the School of Medicine of the University of Navarre. He is also chaplain of that school.

Q: Why do you affirm that celibacy is a path to Christian fullness?

Father García-Morato: Both celibacy as well as marriage are paths to Christian fullness, namely, to holiness.

We are all called to love, and Christian revelation points out two ways of realizing fully this vocation: marriage and celibacy in any of its forms. Both are included in God's plans. Both need each other to understand each other better.

Both are a path of self-giving. And to give oneself, one must first possess oneself. "Half an orange," as understood in ordinary language, doesn't exist. No person is "by halves," needy of another -- especially designed for himself -- to be complete.

Each person is complete in himself. Only a complete person can bring his whole self into play and give himself -- to God or to another person -- with sufficient maturity to make that decision freely.

This is why celibacy is also a path of human and Christian fullness. Because when it comes to loving God, in response to a call that implies that gift, all human dimensions must come into play, also those that depend on the masculine or feminine condition, excluding simply the exercise of sexuality. But that is the lifestyle of Christ, perfect man, and of the Virgin -- a lifestyle that has an irreplaceable role in the history of redemption.

Q: Do you think it is a topic that can be revised theologically? Could the law of celibacy be abolished?

Father García-Morato: Of course, celibacy is not a dogma of faith. It is a way of life that grew within the Church since the second century.

In this connection, in the measure that the link between celibacy and priesthood is not essential, but of profound congruence between the mystery of Christ and the mystery of the sacramental participation in his priesthood, there is room for the hypothetical possibility to abolish celibacy, as any other ecclesiastical law that does not respond directly to an express mandate of divine law.

However, the conviction of the Church in regard to the congruence of the priesthood with the priestly ministry is neither pragmatic nor situational, but profoundly based.

I think that the explanation can be found here for the fact that -- in a sociological and cultural situation such as the present one, with the difficulties known by all in the matter of vocations -- the Catholic Church continues to trust in God's continuing to distribute the gift of celibacy among many young men and in his sending the necessary sacred ministers for the life of the Church.

Q: As a doctor, do you think that celibacy is a "repression" or that it can result in psychological problems?

Father García-Morato: Celibacy does not impoverish the personality. On the contrary, by being one of the paths to full realization of the person's vocation to love, it enriches him. I have seen this many times, thank God. However, I am aware that there are individuals who wonder if it is not emotionally and mentally healthier to have a couple and a family rather than to live celibacy.

As I said earlier, each person is complete in himself and is fulfilled in relation with others. But as it is not possible to relate to all persons, or to make use of the innumerable opportunities to relate to one another, each one chooses freely those he considers most appropriate for his personal fulfillment.

The problem, to my mind, does not reside in living celibacy. In life, what is terrible for the inner harmony and mental health of a man or woman does not lie in being celibate or married. The crux of the question lies in having made a free decision and having chosen something that affects one's whole existence and then continuing to envy what one has not chosen, filling oneself with ever greater anxiety.

Thus permanent longing as a style of life -- one of the ways of putting the hand to the plow and continuing to look back -- can only be a source of immaturity, which destroys and plays havoc with any existing commitment and even ends up by making one incapable for future commitments.

We must all learn to make decisions and to understand that, with every decision, we discard many options; and assume it with the view of one who starts on new paths full of surprises. That is why, faced with the fundamental questions of life, decisions must only be made if we are aware and are prepared to have them be decisions that, in fact, draw after them the whole personality.

If a decision is made, and the rest of the personality goes another way, inevitably a high-risk situation is created for mental health and personal harmony, both in celibacy as well as marriage.

Wednesday Liturgy: Lighted Candles at the Lectern

ROME, SEPT. 27, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: It is becoming increasingly common to see lighted candles burning at the lectern during the Liturgy of the Word. Is this appropriate? Could you please indicate the correct use of candles at a parish Sunday Mass? -- O.M., Christchurch, New Zealand

A: I have observed this practice in some places but there is no mention of it in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). Nor does it form part of liturgical tradition.

Candles are traditionally brought to the ambo only for the reading of the Gospel and usually accompany the procession of the Book of the Gospels from the altar to the ambo. Certainly all Scripture is God's Word, but the Gospel has traditionally received special veneration.

GIRM, No. 60, says:

"The reading of the Gospel is the high point of the Liturgy of the Word. The Liturgy itself teaches that great reverence is to be shown to it by setting it off from the other readings with special marks of honor: whether the minister appointed to proclaim it prepares himself by a blessing or prayer; or the faithful, standing as they listen to it being read, through their acclamations acknowledge and confess Christ present and speaking to them; or the very marks of reverence are given to the Book of the Gospels."

And later in GIRM 133:

"If the Book of the Gospels is on the altar, the priest then takes it and goes to the ambo, carrying the Book of the Gospels slightly elevated and preceded by the lay ministers, who may carry the thurible and the candles. Those present turn towards the ambo as a sign of special reverence to the Gospel of Christ."

In earlier centuries the differences between the Gospel and other readings was even more emphasized, including reserving a special and highly decorated ambo for the Gospel readings. This can still be seen in some ancient churches such as Rome's St. Lawrence Outside the Walls.

The practice of placing permanent candles at the ambo tends to blur the special role of the Gospel and, as Monsignor Peter Elliott mentions in his "Liturgical Question Box," could also tend to "overemphasize the distinction between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, to the point of symbolically separating the two phases of the one liturgy."

Regarding the use of candles in general, GIRM 117 specifies:

"[O]n or next to the altar are to be placed candlesticks with lighted candles: at least two in any celebration, or even four or six, especially for a Sunday Mass or a holy day of obligation. If the Diocesan Bishop celebrates, then seven candles should be used. Also on or close to the altar, there is to be a cross with a figure of Christ crucified. The candles and the cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified may also be carried in the Entrance Procession."

An open question remains regarding the use of unlit candles during a celebration. Certainly the liturgical books do not envisage the use of any unlit candles during a celebration and some authors hold that this implies that unlit candles should not be placed on or near the altar.

It is also true, however, that this is not always a practical or aesthetical possibility. Many churches use candlesticks with several branches; in other cases they form a set with the altar and ambo and can also be quite heavy or even fixed to the floor.

In churches that practice perpetual adoration it seems rather much to insist that candles used during exposition be removed for the duration of Mass. It is surely enough to snuff the extra candles and relight them after Mass.

For such reasons I tend to hold a more flexible position on this point.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: East-West Difference Over Priestly Celibacy

ROME, SEPT. 27, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

After our comments regarding priestly celibacy (Sept. 13) a priest from Australia asked that I clarify that priests or deacons can never marry after ordination. We certainly mentioned this point in our previous column but it is worth highlighting this important aspect.

Our correspondent wrote:

"[I]t might be helpful to correct the notion that, 'in the Eastern Catholic Churches, priests can marry, unlike in the Roman Catholic Church.'

"In the East, married men are eligible for priesthood (there are restrictions varying from place to place, e.g., a higher age than celibates [e.g., 30 or 35]; consent of the wife; sometimes ordination only after the first child is born, etc.). But in East and West, uniformly and from the beginning, no priest can marry. A married man can become a priest, but a priest cannot marry. A widowed priest cannot remarry. Even if the Pope were to change the Church's discipline regarding celibacy (out of the question), this would not affect one priest."

Other correspondents mentioned several scientific studies defending the historical priority of priestly celibacy, or at least permanent continence if already married, over the practice of temporary continence of married priests accepted in many Eastern Churches.

I am aware of these arguments, and they are very important, but I eschewed dealing with them both because of their complexity and because the question of the origin does not affect the fact that, today, the Catholic Church respects the legitimacy of this tradition in those Eastern Catholic Churches which ordain married men to the priesthood.

Another priest mentioned that, since 1998, in the Roman rite, some permanent deacons have been permitted to remarry, a concession that seemingly breaks the tradition that the ordained can never marry or remarry.

The principle that a married deacon cannot remarry if widowed is still the norm in the Roman rite. However, some rare exceptions have been made for extraordinary situations such as a widowed deacon left to raise several young children. In such cases the permission to remarry has been granted, taking into account the needs of the family as a whole and not just the personal whims of the deacon.

In order to limit such situations, many bishops do not admit fathers of young children to the diaconate.

Father Cantalamessa on New Form of Prostitution

ROME, SEPT. 23, 2005 (Zenit.org).- In his commentary on this Sunday's readings, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher of the Pontifical Household, speaks on how to confront someone in a Christian manner.

* * *

Matthew 21:28-32

Harlots in the Kingdom

In the parable, the son who says yes and does not obey represents those who knew about God and followed his law, but then in practice, when Christ was to be accepted who was the "end of the Law," they refused.

The son who said no and then obeyed, represents those who at one time lived outside the Law and the will of God, but later, before Jesus, they repented and accepted the Gospel. The parable of the two sons says that words and promises count little with God if they are not followed by deeds.

When explaining the main content of the parable, however, it is necessary to clarify the strange conclusion that Jesus draws from it: "The tax collectors and harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you."

No expression of Christ has been more abused than this one. To the point that at times an evangelical aura has been created around the category of harlots, idealizing them and contrasting them with the so-called judicious, who would all be, indistinctly, hypocritical scribes and Pharisees.

Literature is full of "good" harlots -- think of Verdi's "La Traviata," or the gentle Sonia of Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment!" But there is a terrible misunderstanding. Jesus gives an extreme case, as though saying: "Even harlots -- which says everything -- will go into the Kingdom of God before you."

We do not realize, moreover, that by idealizing the category of harlots we also idealize that of the tax collectors, which always accompanies it in the Gospel, namely, the usurers.

It would be tragic if this parable of the Gospel made Christians less conscientious in combating the degrading phenomenon of prostitution. Jesus had too much respect for women to wish to see her reduced to a harlot. If he respected the harlot, it was not because of her lifestyle, but because of her capacity to change and to put her capacity to love at the service of good.

The Gospel does not push to carry out moralistic campaigns against harlots, but neither can we joke about the phenomenon, as if it were nothing at all.

Today, among other things, prostitution exists under a new form which allows women to make more money with fewer risks. This is when a woman gives her body to others through photography or film. What a woman does, or is obliged to do, when she gives herself to pornography, and to certain advertising excesses, is to sell her own body. It is a worse form of prostitution, in a certain sense, than the traditional, because it does not respect people's freedom and feelings, imposing itself often publicly, without one being able to defend oneself from it.

Such phenomena would arouse in Christ today the same anger he manifested for the hypocrites of his time. It is, in fact, a question of hypocrisy. To pretend that everything is in its place, that it is innocuous, that there is no transgression whatsoever, or danger for anyone, when models, giving themselves even a certain -- studied -- air of innocence and naiveté, throw their body to the fodder of others' concupiscence.

But I would betray the spirit of the Gospel if I did not bring out into the light the hope that Christ's parable offers women who because of the most diverse circumstances (often out of desperation) find themselves on the streets, victims, in the majority of cases, of unscrupulous exploiters.

The Gospel is "gospel," that is, good news, proclamation of redemption, of hope, also for harlots. More than that, perhaps first of all for them, Jesus wanted it to be this way.

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

Speech: Cardinal Martino on "Reconciliation and Peace"

KIGOMA, Tanzania, SEPT. 21, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Here is the text of an address given by Cardinal Renato Martino, the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, on the theme "Reconciliation and Peace."

He gave the address at a meeting of Church representatives from Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda and Congo on July 18. The text was recently released by the Catholic Information Service for Africa.

* * *

Your Eminence,
Your Excellencies,
Dear Priests and Men and Women Religious,
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I wish to offer heartfelt thanks to the president and the members of the Episcopal Conference of Tanzania for inviting me to visit your country and to express the solicitude of the universal Church and the closeness of the Holy Father to our brothers and sisters of this local Church and to all those involved in the building up of this country and in the promotion of the common good. I offer a special word of thanks to His Excellency the Most Reverend Paul Ruzoka, president of the episcopal Justice and Peace Commission of Tanzania, for his resolute commitment to promoting justice and peace in Tanzania and for his always appreciated collaboration with the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

At the request of the episcopal Justice and Peace Commission, made in the name of the Episcopal Conference, and with due consideration of the social-pastoral challenges facing the local Church in this region of Africa, it seemed to me appropriate to share with you a few reflections on the theme of reconciliation and peace. In this regard, I wish to call to mind the meeting convened by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace in December of 1996 in Nairobi, at the outbreak of the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in order to reflect on the reconciling mission of the Church in the region. Participants in this meeting included the bishops of Burundi, of Rwanda, of what at the time was known as Zaire, and delegates of the Episcopal Conference of Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya. The theme was further investigated in various meetings of the Bishops at the regional level and at the level of the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM), which in 2001 published an important pastoral letter on the topic.

After an introduction on the mystery and the ministry of reconciliation in the sacred Scriptures, I shall dwell on the three dimensions of reconciliation (the internal reconciliation of people within themselves; and external reconciliation between God and men, and between men themselves and between men and creation); I shall then conclude by presenting a few requirements for the consolidation of peace.

The Mystery and the Ministry of Reconciliation

Skimming through the pages of the Old Testament we can easily see that God, faced with mankind's countless sins, never ceases to offer his forgiveness: this fact represents a significant prelude to his reconciliation with men and women. He reveals himself as "a merciful and gracious God" (Exodus 34:6), who has willingly "revoked (his) burning anger" (Psalm 85:4; cf. 103:8-12) and who speaks of peace for his people (cf. Psalm 65:9). It is reconciliation -- even if that word is not used -- that Yahweh proposes to his unfaithful spouse (cf. Hosea 2:16-22), to his rebellious children. Every expiatory rite of Mosaic worship, ordained for the purification of various and sundry failures, had as its ultimate aim the reconciliation of man with God. Nonetheless, the time for the complete remission of sin had not yet come and true believers in God remained in expectation of something more (cf. 2 Maccabees 1:5; 7:33; 8:29).

Perfect and definitive reconciliation is brought about by Christ Jesus "the mediator between God and men" (1 Timothy 2:5; cf. Romans 5:10 f; 2 Corinthians 5:18 ff; Ephesians 2:16 f; Colossians 1:20 ff). In fact, man by himself is unable to reconcile himself with the Creator whom he has offended by his sin. Here the action of God comes first and is decisive, "all this has been done by God, who has reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:18). He loved us while we were still his "enemies" (Romans 5:10), and it was because of that love that his Son "died for us" (Romans 5:8). The mystery of our reconciliation is connected with the mystery of the Cross (cf. Ephesians 2:16) and with the "great love" with which we have been loved (cf. Ephesians 2:4).

In Christ Jesus, God no longer counts the transgressions of men and women against them (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:19). But this is far from being a mere juridical fiction because the action of God is like "a new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17). Reconciliation implies a complete renewal for those who have received it, and it corresponds to justification (cf. Romans 5:9 f), to sanctification (cf. Colossians 1:21 f). We were formerly enemies of God because of our evil conduct (cf. Romans 1:30; 8:7), but now we can "make God our boast" (Romans 5:11), for Christ wishes to present us "to God holy, free of reproach and blame" (Colossians 1:22); through him we "have access in one Spirit to the Father" (Ephesians 2:18).

The mystery of Christian reconciliation is the source of inspiration and the paradigm of interpretation for the Church's ministry of reconciliation. The entire work of salvation has in fact already been completed by God, but from another point of view it continues in our own day up to the Parousia, and Saint Paul can define apostolic activity as "the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18). As "ambassadors for Christ," the Apostles are messengers imploring people to "be reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:19f); they proclaim the "Gospel of reconciliation": This is precisely the content of the apostolic message.

The Gospel of reconciliation can be seen to correspond to the Gospel of peace that is spoken of in Ephesians 6:15. In their ministry, therefore, the servants of the Gospel make every effort -- following the example of St. Paul -- to be for their part the builders of the peace that they proclaim (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:4-13). Indeed, it follows from the fact that God is the primary and principal author of reconciliation that man has in this area a purely passive role: he must receive God's gift. The efficacy of divine action is manifested only in those who choose to receive it by faith. This is the reason for Saint Paul's urgent appeal: "We implore you in Christ's name: be reconciled to God!" (2 Corinthians 5:20).

In the perspective of the New Testament, the grace of reconciliation involves all creation, for creation too is reconciled. Speaking of the reconciliation of the world (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:19; Romans 11:15), St. Paul had particularly in mind those who were sinners. In his captivity letters, above all his letters to the Colossians and to the Ephesians, the Apostle's horizons become broader. Reconciliation seems to correspond to the collective salvation of the universe. Perfectly reconciled to God, beings are reconciled among themselves (cf. Colossians 1:20). In the end, the material world itself appears to stand in solidarity with man, with his salvation, as it did at the time of his fall (cf. Romans 8:19-22).

St. Paul crowns his teaching on reconciliation in Ephesians 2:11-22. The action of Christ "our peace" (2:14) is brought fully into the light, and above all the marvelous benefits that he brings to the pagans of yesterday: They are now integrated into the Chosen People on an equal basis with the Jews; the era of separation and hatred is ended, all people now form in Christ one body (2:16) and one holy temple (2:21). The glorious sufferings that the proclamation of this mystery bring to the Apostle to the Gentiles matter little (Ephesians 3:1-13). St. Paul was the inspired theologian and the untiring minister of reconciliation, but Jesus himself, by his sacrifice, was the one who brought it about, "in his mortal body" (Colossians 1:22); and he was also the first to underline the profound demands of this reconciliation: the sinner reconciled by God cannot offer acceptable worship to God unless he first goes to be reconciled with his brother (Matthew 5:23f).

In the perspective of this marvelous and demanding biblical vision of Christian reconciliation, I wish to stop and reflect on some spiritual and ethical-cultural implications concerning peace and our commitment to peace. In the biblical perspective, in fact, there is a close connection between the Gospel of reconciliation and the Gospel of peace; indeed, Christ has brought about a threefold reconciliation, which represents for us an inexhaustible source of reflection on peace and on the commitment to peace: the internal reconciliation of those saved by him; the external reconciliation between God and man, and between men themselves.

The Peace Within Us: Reconciliation "ad intra"

There are many who emphasize a fact that is quite obvious: "You cannot proclaim or bring about peace if peace does not reign within you." Placing the accent on this internal dimension of peace can sometimes seem exaggerated or one-sided. For example, we hear people say: "The external fury of conflicts and wars makes little difference; what matters is that you have peace in your heart, the rest is not important." These exasperating intimist slogans apart, there is no question that peace requires daily efforts for achieving an internal balance and for overcoming the struggles that men and women carry in themselves.

The Letter of St. James tells us that wars arise from an evil root that is within people: "Where do the conflicts and disputes among you originate? Is it not your inner cravings that make war within your members? What you desire you do not obtain, and so you resort to murder. You envy and you cannot acquire, so you quarrel and fight" (James 4:1-2). The Gospel of reconciliation and peace penetrates instead into the inner recesses of the human spirit and, by means of grace, offers the possibility of overcoming these passions: in the first place, healing the inner wound that every person experiences within himself between the ideal to which he aspires and what in effect he is able to accomplish through his own choices and behavior.

St. Paul bears eloquent witness to this wound: "I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; the desire to do right is there but not the power. What happens is that I do, not the good I will to do, but the evil I do not intend. But if I do what is against my will, it is not I who do it, but sin which dwells in me. This means that even though I want to do what is right, a law that leads to wrongdoing is always ready at hand. My inner self agrees with the law of God, but I see in my body's members another law at war with the law of my mind; this makes me the prisoner of the law of sin in my members. What a wretched man I am! Who can free me from this body under the power of death? All praise to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! So with my mind I serve the law of God but with my flesh the law of sin" (Romans 7:18-25).

The Gospel of reconciliation and peace, when it is interiorized, changes the impulses of aggression that cause us to increase conflicts, that cause us to believe that nonviolence is impractical, that cause us to think of war as a consequence that cannot be avoided.

Christian reconciliation, in fact, radically transforms our inner orientation and overcomes our self-centeredness. It is not merely the elimination of a state of guilt but a transformation, a deeply rooted reorientation, so deeply rooted that even our way of "knowing" is transformed. St. Paul sees two types of knowledge as opposed to each other, one of the flesh and the other of the spirit, one old and the other new (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:16). Knowing according to the flesh cannot simply mean knowing a person in his earthly guise. Rather, it means an old, outdated way of knowing, evaluating and judging. The transformation brought about by reconciliation is the discarding of old systems of evaluation: systems based on race, connected to social or religious discrimination. The person who is reconciled no longer knows according to national or earthly categories, but according to universal categories.

Reconciliation, inner peace-making and purifying ourselves from the viruses of violence -- which are transmitted to us by a culture of war that is unfortunately still wide-spread -- represent a solemnly important commitment. They are not, however, to be considered tasks that must chronologically precede the commitment to peace in external relations. If in fact we had to wait to be completely at peace within ourselves before devoting ourselves to the work of building peace, we would never begin to carry out tasks that, instead, must not be delayed.

The two aspects of the Christian commitment to peace -- the aspect ad intra and the aspect "ad extra" -- occur simultaneously and have a mutual positive influence on each other. The more we work to create a culture of peace and to remove the obstacles to such a culture, the more we will experience and strengthen the presence of peace within us. The more we strive to be at peace within ourselves, the more we become capable and credible in bringing peace to people and situations around us.

The Peace Around Us: Reconciliation "ad extra"

Reconciliation "ad extra" starts first of all by making peace with God and being at peace with God, the "Absolutely Other," who in Christ has made himself closer to us than ever. This is peace with the God of the covenant and the God of peace, from whom true peace descends as a gift. Being at peace with God means living in harmony with his plan of salvation, revealed to us by the Lord Jesus and ceaselessly proclaimed and made relevant by the Church. It means recognizing God's will, accepting his covenant, the ten great commandments, the new law, which is the Holy Spirit, and, in particular, the beatitudes that represent the frame and background of Christian law -- both personal and social -- and that give to this law its meaning and specific originality.

Reconciliation "ad extra," moreover, entails peace with others: with those who are nearby and those who are far away. In the first place, it is peace within the family: peace lived in harmony of relationships and communicated and transmitted by means of education. Peace, in fact, finds its fertile and irreplaceable soil in the first community into which people are placed. Then follows peace in neighborhoods and in the city: the believer, a peace-lover, should be particularly disposed to fight against anything that places peace at risk. This includes social and economic injustices; poverty, whether old or new; cultural models that degrade man and undermine fundamental human rights; armed conflicts and various manifestations of violence, which are the offspring of civil indifference and of estrangement from one's neighbor.

It is from these levels closest to us that peace must spread out in ever larger concentric circles to the national and international political community. In this perspective and with the daily situations of violence and conflict that this beloved region of Africa has endured for too many years, the Gospel of reconciliation and peace must be the heart of the evangelizing mission of the Church in Africa. This Gospel will help Tanzania and the other countries of the region to choose the path of national reconciliation and to find anew, finally, a time of peace and prosperity. Everyone must know that violence leads nowhere and never represents a proper response to problems.

The Church proclaims, with the conviction of her faith in Christ and the awareness of her mission, "that violence is an evil, that violence as a solution to problems is unacceptable, that violence is unworthy of man. Violence is a lie, because it is contrary to the truth of our faith, to the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, lives and freedom of human beings."

Dialogue and negotiation, accompanied by the condition that the parties will not make recourse to force , concretely represent the most effective strategy for resolving conflicts in full respect of the requirements of justice , of human rights and of a correct and healthy democratic dynamic of civil and political life within the country.

Some Requirements for Consolidating Peace

To oppose the culture of violence, it is necessary to promote the cultivation of a terrain suitable for peace, in which peace can take root. In fact, it is necessary to find the ways and the means for making peace grow and for consolidating it. I would like to specify the ethical and cultural factors that make it possible not only to verify whether true peace is present or not, but that also contribute to making it stronger and to helping it to grow.

a) Peace is strengthened when it is respected

The antithesis of peace is war, injustice, the violation of human rights, contempt for life. When respect for life is lacking it is legitimate to declare that we find ourselves truly at war. Therefore, in her actions aimed at promoting peace, the Church correctly places much emphasis on defending human life and on pointing out the contradictions of our culture. In fact, the attitudes that mankind adopts today concerning both life and sexuality reveal themselves to be strange and contradictory: on the one hand, there is the insistent quest for "quality of life" while at the same time we are witnessing numerous and sundry acts of violence that put it seriously at risk. Life, new life, is ardently desired: in cases of untreatable sterility, great sacrifices are made to have "a child at all costs" and, at the same time, there exists, and it is widespread, a "fear of life," as can be seen in the use of various methods of contraception, in recourse to abortion and abortifacient drugs. According to trustworthy estimates, millions of abortions are performed in the world every year. The massacre of innocent victims is comparable to a war. Until there is effective opposition to a situation such as this, how can we speak of peace?

In order to speak of peace or to work for peace, it is essential that the good news of God's plan for human life should be proclaimed. The human person is the image of God and a new creature in Christ: human life is always, from its beginning at conception, a gift of God and is therefore inviolable. It belongs to God and God is its guarantor. From this Christian perspective -- which, however, can be grasped by any person, even if he is not a great thinker -- there arises the firm condemnation of abortion and of the abuses of genetics and of the techniques of in vitro fertilization, as well as the condemnation of every violation committed against the lives of minors, women and the emarginated.

Even as it declines, human life retains all its significance and value. Suffering and death, seen in Jesus Christ who is one with human suffering and death, takes on a significance that needs to be understood if we are to spread a "culture of life." Sharing pain, humanizing sickness, accompanying the dying with sincere and deeply felt empathy, resolutely rejecting every temptation of euthanasia: these are the duties that arise from the Christian perspective of the value of every human life, from its beginning until its end.

These are inescapable duties for peace-makers. Peace is found and is strengthened when the command "thou shalt not kill" is accepted without any attempt to gloss over it. I believe that, in order to consolidate peace, it is urgently necessary today to rethink -- in more radical terms and without exaggerated rationalization -- the command "thou shalt not kill," under its negative aspects, and the command "promote life", seeing them as fundamental values that are to be defended, assisted, guaranteed on every front. Believers who, out of fidelity to the Lord of life, reject abortion, the arbitrary manipulation of life and the pseudo-justifications for procedures of euthanasia, have the duty to defend life on all its fronts and to be sensitive to the quality of life and death. They must be particularly attentive in order to call into question and to refute those who hold positions that support unjust, oppressive and manipulative elements and situations that hinder, alter or diminish the fullness and the harmony of life. The best defense of life consists in putting into practice social, structural and cultural conditions that will allow each person to live an authentically human life and, consequently, to die in a manner which does not violate human dignity.

b) Peace is consolidated when justice is affirmed

Justice is the matrix for peace. Peace, a great and stable peace that reflects the peace of Christ on earth, is not "the child of anyone" but is in fact generated by justice. In the first place it is born and consolidated in a manner directly proportional to the affirmation and consolidation of justice.

What is justice? How has it been understood? What kind of justice is needed today to deal with the "res novae," the new situations, and to gather up the challenges that these new situations place before believers?

For a long time, a contractual and interpersonal justice has had the privilege of being seen as perfect justice: you have given me so much, and I owe you so much, according to a calculation of giving and possessing that is rigorously quantifiable and that can be imposed in terms of law; the balance and the sword are the symbols of this justice. People have also spoken of legal justice, that is, the recognition of rights to be respected and of services to be offered to the community according to terms specified by law. But human law does not always recognize every right and is even less successful in precisely determining what each citizen is to give to the state, taking into account the differences between citizens.

The horizon of justice has opened progressively to distributive justice, to social justice and, finally, to planetary justice. There will be no peace until worldwide justice is achieved. As long as inhuman and dehumanizing situations remain, it is absurd to speak of peace; more than a billion people live in conditions of absolute poverty; every year, 13 to 18 million human beings die of hunger; 800 million people are chronically and visibly undernourished; developing countries are expected to pay many billions of dollars in interest for debts contracted with affluent countries. Africa is the continent where these problems are most worrisome and, therefore, Africa has need of a greater commitment on the part of the international community. It is for this reason that in May of 2004 the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace organized a seminar with the leading experts on African issues, with the Ambassadors of African nations to the Holy See and with the African Cardinals to discuss solutions to this human drama.

An adequately understood justice will force us to rethink these situations in a new manner. In this regard, the great and recently deceased Pope John Paul II, in his Message for the 2003 World Day of Peace, underlined the indissoluble link between the commitment to peace and the respect of promises that have been made: "pacta sunt servanda." The Holy Father emphasized above all the need to fulfill the pledges made to the poor: "Especially frustrating for them is any breach of faith regarding promises which they see as vital to their well-being. In this respect, the failure to keep commitments in the sphere of aid to developing nations is a serious moral question and further highlights the injustice of the imbalances existing in the world. The suffering caused by poverty is compounded by the loss of trust. The end result is hopelessness. The existence of trust in international relations is a social capital of fundamental value" (No. 8).

Judging this state of affairs according to the logic of social and planetary justice, strongly emphasized in "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis," it seems necessary to state that rich countries are in duty bound to consolidate a more decisive international cooperation according to the perspective outlined by the Millennium Declaration of the United Nations and by the successive World Conferences and Summits, in which a different course was laid out, a course that was more human and more humanizing, also in the area of economic relations and international commercial relations.

Everything is becoming globalized. A global dimension must be given, above all, to the requirements of justice. There exist even today, within the affluent areas of the world, large swaths of emarginated and poor people, but the most serious and dramatic problems of justice are found at the global level, among people who do not have the minimum needed to live and peoples who are drowning in abundance. Ours, then, is an epoch dominated by problems of a planetary dimension, which require answers and solutions at a planetary level.

c) Peace is consolidated by solidarity

From a Gospel perspective, solidarity is the social incarnation of charity, of love, of Christian agape. It takes on many different forms: the first is the respect of others and their rights. Justice is therefore the first step to take in showing solidarity. There is no love if the rights of individuals and of groups are not recognized.

But justice is not enough: love also entails dialogue. Man lives and grows in dialogue, from the fundamental form of dialogue with God to that with other men. Dialogue permits the person to participate in the situation of his neighbor and at the same time to grow in his understanding of others and of himself, and to lend assistance to the people he meets in life. Thus, rather than potential antagonism, diversity can become a source of enrichment and growth.

Solidarity therefore requires the acceptance of diversity. In a world characterized by widespread patterns of migration and by a formidable exchange between cultures that, everyday more and more, are becoming multi-racial, this requirement of love becomes a priority. It is not easy to accept, understand, show solidarity with those who are different -- because of skin color, or because of cultural or tribal origins -- and who are in difficulty.

In particular, when understood in the terms proposed by "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis," solidarity is not easy, and this is true whether we are speaking of solidarity between individuals or between peoples. Solidarity is much more than a sentiment of vague compassion. "It is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all." Showing solidarity today means being aware of the interdependence between peoples and nations and transforming it from something that is ambivalent or negative to something that is positive. It means opposing the structures of sin forcefully and effectively.

"In this way," John Paul II affirmed, "solidarity ... is the path to peace and at the same time to development. For world peace is inconceivable unless the world's leaders come to recognize that interdependence in itself demands ... the sacrifice of all forms of economic, military or political imperialism, and the transformation of mutual distrust into collaboration. This is precisely the act proper to solidarity among individuals and nations." As is well known, for John Paul II peace is the fruit of solidarity: "opus solidaritatis pax."

Conclusion

In considering the narrow and difficult paths that Africa must embark upon, particularly in the region of the Great Lakes, if it is to rediscover the reasons for a regional peace, I believe that a surprising stimulus can be found in what Pope John XXIII, in his encyclical "Pacem in Terris," considers the pillars of peace, pillars that could become the inspirational basis of a determined program of civil and political renewal for each country and the whole region: truth, justice, love and freedom. "Truth will build peace if every individual sincerely acknowledges not only his rights, but also his own duties towards others. Justice will build peace if in practice everyone respects the rights of others and actually fulfils his duties towards them. Love will build peace if people feel the needs of others as their own and share what they have with others, especially the values of mind and spirit which they possess. Freedom will build peace and make it thrive if, in the choice of the means to that end, people act according to reason and assume responsibility for their own actions."

This is an immense undertaking: such an immense undertaking, entrusted to people of good will, is precisely that of "establishing with truth, justice, charity, and liberty new methods of relationships in human society." Establishing, or we could say bringing or putting together, which, in the Greek etymology, becomes quite striking: "syn-ballon," or "symbol," a term that reminds us of sacrament and, sadly, its opposite, "dia-ballon," devil, the one who divides. This effort aimed at bringing together and at reconciliation through cultural mediation, civil dialogue and open exchanges is to be lived as a method of being and making a sacrament, that is, of incarnating Christ here and now, Christ who is alive and active in the Church; it means seeking to express his love and his charity.

Cardinal Renato R. Martino
President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace

Wednesday Liturgy: Deacon's Position at Consecration

ROME, SEPT. 20, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

* * *

Q: What is the proper position for the deacon during the consecration? In my parish the deacon stands approximately 1 foot to the priest's right. Then at the "Amen" the deacon elevates the chalice as the priest elevates the paten. At another parish in my diocese, however, the deacon knelt on the altar step, beside the altar servers, during the consecration. I can't remember if he stepped up to elevate the chalice or not. It seems that the former position is more prevalent. Which is the correct or the preferred position? -- J.J., Howell, Michigan

A: The position of the deacon during the Eucharistic prayer is dealt with in Nos. 179-180 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). To wit:

"179. During the Eucharistic Prayer, the deacon stands near the priest but slightly behind him, so that when needed he may assist the priest with the chalice or the Missal.

"From the epiclesis until the priest shows the chalice, the deacon normally remains kneeling. If several deacons are present, one of them may place incense in the thurible for the consecration and incense the host and the chalice as they are shown to the people.

"180. At the final doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer, the deacon stands next to the priest, holding the chalice elevated while the priest elevates the paten with the host, until the people have responded with the acclamation, Amen."

No. 215 adds a further note on the position of the deacon during a concelebrated Mass:

"After the prayer over the offerings has been said by the principal celebrant, the concelebrants approach the altar and stand around it, but in such a way that they do not obstruct the execution of the rites and that the sacred action may be seen clearly by the faithful. They should not be in the deacon's way whenever he needs to go to the altar to perform his ministry.

"The deacon exercises his ministry at the altar whenever he needs to assist with the chalice and the Missal. However, insofar as possible, he stands back slightly, behind the concelebrating priests standing around the principal celebrant."

I think the documents are sufficiently clear regarding the position of the deacon as to absolve me from inflicting further commentary on those poor readers who have stuck with me through the two years and some 140,000 words that have passed since the beginning of this column.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Timing of Second Collections

ROME, SEPT. 20, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Pursuant to our comments on the appropriate moment for second collections (see Sept. 6) several readers wrote to recommend holding it right after the first collection.

To cite just one communication: "At our church, the second collection is usually announced the Sunday before. The ushers take the first collection, then go right up again and take the second collection. The money received is put into two separate baskets and they are brought, one on top of the other, up with the gifts to be offered to God."

Other readers ascertained that variations of this method are fairly well received and certainly it does seem to be a liturgically more appropriate moment than after the Communion prayer.

As a priest from Christchurch, New Zealand, wrote: "I think it is very inappropriate and unliturgical to take up a second collection after Communion because offertory is over and done already. We do not make an offering after Communion."

I am in broad agreement with our correspondent but I do think that there could be exceptions such as when the collection responds to an appeal (such as those to support the missions or another worthy cause) delivered by a non-cleric after the Communion prayer.

Even in these cases it is often possible to postpone the collection to the following week but sometimes it is not feasible.

Father Cantalamessa on the Kingdom of Heaven

ROME, SEPT. 16, 2005 (Zenit.org).- In his commentary on this Sunday's readings, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher of the Pontifical Household, addresses the topic of the justice and goodness of God in determining who will enter the kingdom of heaven.

* * *

Matthew (20:1-16)

The parable of the laborers sent to work in the vineyard at different hours, all of whom receive the same pay of a denarius, has always created a difficulty for readers of the Gospel. Is the proprietor's way of acting acceptable? Does it not violate the principle of the just compensation? Labor unions would all rebel if someone acted like that householder.

The difficulty stems from a mistake. The problem of the compensation is considered in the abstract, or rather in reference to the eternal. So regarded, the topic would in fact contradict the principle according to which God "will render to every man according to his works" (Romans 2:6).

Jesus is referring here to a concrete situation. The only denarius that is given to all is the kingdom of God, which Jesus has brought on earth; it is the possibility to participate in the messianic salvation. The parable begins: "The kingdom of heaven is like a householder who went out early in the morning." The Kingdom of heaven, therefore, is the main theme and background of the parable.

The problem is, once again, that of the posture of Jews and pagans, or of the just and sinners, in face of the salvation proclaimed by Jesus. Although it was only when hearing Jesus' preaching that the pagans (sinners, publicans, prostitutes, etc.) decided for God, while before they were far off ("idle"). Because of this will they will not occupy a 2nd class place in the kingdom. They will also sit at the same table as all others and enjoy the fullness of the messianic goods.

More than that, given that pagans show themselves more disposed to accept the Gospel than the so-called just (Pharisees and scribes), we see here what Jesus says at the conclusion of the parable: "The last will be first, and the first last."

Once the kingdom is known, that is, once the faith is embraced, then there certainly is room for differences. The fate is not identical of the one who serves God all his life, making his talents yield the most, and the one who gives God the leftovers of his life, with a confession to make amends, in a certain sense, at the last moment.

Having clarified this key point, it is legitimate to bring to light the other teachings of the parable. One is that God calls everyone at all hours. There is a universal call to the Lord's vineyard! It is, in brief, the problem of the call more than that of the recompense.

This is the way in which our parable is used in John Paul II's exhortation "Christifideles Laici" (on the vocation and mission of the laity in the Church and the world): "The lay faithful belong to that people of God represented by the laborers of the vineyard ... 'You go into my vineyard too'" (Nos. 1-2).

The parable also evokes the problem of unemployment: "No one has hired us!" Many unemployed could make their own this disconsolate response of the workers of the last hour. We all know what it means for someone to be unemployed who has a family, or for a youth who wants to get married and cannot because he has no job and no minimum guarantee to be able to worthily support his family.

If work is lacking, the reason (not the only one, not the main one, but certainly a relevant one) could be that some have too much, accumulating different jobs -- all compensated in different ways.

Another teaching can be drawn from the parable. The householder knew that the laborers of the last hour had the same needs as the others; they also had their children to feed, as did those of the first hour. Giving all the same pay, the householder shows that he doesn't consider merit as much as need. He shows that he is not only just, but also "good," generous and human.

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

Wednesday Liturgy: East-West Difference Over Priestly Celibacy

ROME, SEPT. 13, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: Why is it that married clergy are still allowed in the Eastern Catholic rites while forbidden in the West? I understand the impracticality of one's obligation to the family, but also to the church-family. But other than that, I'm curious to know what Tradition/canon law/teachings have to say about this matter. -- R.R., Brookfield, Wisconsin

A: I would be very foolhardy to attempt to resolve the extremely complex issue of the origin and development of priestly celibacy in a few lines, especially when there is still much controversy among expert historians and theologians.

The question, however, does afford an opportunity to clarify some aspects of the issue that may be of interest to our readers.

Thus, with no pretensions of being exhaustive, I would first point out that the Eastern Catholic Churches have their own legitimate traditions which deserve equal respect with the traditions of the Roman rite.

The fact that these Churches are in full communion with the Successor of Peter does not require that they abandon any legitimate customs so as to adopt Roman traditions.

These traditions, with their attendant canon law, go beyond the differences in liturgical practices and embrace such themes as Church structure and governance, the process for selecting bishops, sacramental practices, and the possibility of admitting married men to the priesthood.

Therefore it is not a question of priests of such Churches "being allowed" to marry as a kind of concession, but rather of the continuation of a tradition that can boast many centuries of continued practice.

That said, we can also consider that all Eastern Churches, Catholic and non-Catholic, hold clerical celibacy in high esteem. All of them choose bishops exclusively from the ranks of the celibate clergy, and while some of them admit married men to ordination, no priest or deacon marries or remarries once having received ordination.

Of course, having a married clergy will lead to pastoral approaches that differ from those of the Latin Church. This should not be seen in isolation but as being part of a wider context of living the Christian faith built up over many generations.

I would even go further and say that it is not strictly true that Roman-rite priests are "not allowed" to marry, if this is seen as some form of external prohibition. Rather, the Roman tradition sees the gift and charism of celibacy as accompanying the call to the priesthood, though it realizes it is not an intrinsic necessity for a valid ordination.

We could venture to say that just as the whole Eastern tradition has seen celibacy as a necessary quality for a bishop who, in a sense, is espoused to his particular Church, the Latin tradition has developed a vision in which this quality pertains to all priests in virtue of their calling to serve Christ in a total way. The pastoral approaches of the Latin tradition have developed as a consequence of this understanding.

All the same, I am loath to try to defend clerical celibacy from the standpoint of what could be called the "practical argument" of freeing priests from family responsibilities and even less from an economical standpoint by saying that the Latin Church does not have the financial and logistical structures necessary to support a married clergy.

While these factors are certainly real, the sacrifices required in living celibacy, as well as the joys that come from it, are such that they can only be understood theologically. Arguments based on merely human criteria often boomerang and make the Church seem to be an unfeeling institution that lays impossible burdens on its servants for base pecuniary motives.

Priestly celibacy can best be understood as a logical consequence of accepting Christ's invitation to share his mission of saving souls through the priesthood. It is a response of total love to the invitation of him who gave all for us and has loved us even more than we can love ourselves.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: "Ustedes" vs. "Vosotros"

ROME, SEPT. 13, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

As a response to our consideration of the use of "vosotros"/"ustedes" in Spanish-language Masses (see Aug. 30) a religious from Portland, Oregon, recommended that I insist more on the importance of retaining the less common "vosotros" form in the Institution narrative of the Consecration.

She is quite correct, as there is a real danger, especially for priests striving to learn Spanish, of changing the verb forms and thus using an illicit formula for the consecration that is unknown in any part of the Spanish-speaking world.

Such a consecration formula would be valid but certainly illicit and should never be used.

Regarding the possibility of changing the greetings formulas, a reader from Northcote, a suburb of Melbourne, Australia, pointed out an oversight on my part with respect to a change in the new Latin missal. He writes:

"Do the rubrics in the 2002 Roman Missal allow changes to be made to the greetings?

"The 1975 GIRM 11 (Documents on the Liturgy 1401) had: 'It is also up to the priest in the exercise of his office of presiding over the assembly to pronounce the instructions and words of introduction and conclusion that are provided in the rites themselves. By their very nature these introductions do not need to be expressed verbatim in the form in which they are given in the Missal; at least in certain cases it will be advisable to adapt them somewhat to the concrete situation of the community.'

"This has been replaced by 2002 GIRM 31: 'It is also up to the priest in the exercise of his office of presiding over the assembly to pronounce the instructions that are provided in the rites themselves. Where it is indicated in the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt to some extent these remarks ...'

"So the provision for the celebrant to change the words of introduction and conclusion has been removed.

"The Order of Mass in the 2002 Roman Missal gives no indication of permission to change the words of greeting, simply having '2. Deinde sacerdos, manus extendens, populam salutat, dicens: Gratia Domini nostri ... vel ...' (Missale Romanum, 2002, page 503). [The Latin text roughly translates "Following this, the priest, with hands extended, greets the people saying: The Grace of our Lord … or …]"

Actually the same rubric is also found in the former Latin missal, so there is really no change with respect to the rubrics.

My oversight chiefly consisted in confusing the rubrics of the greeting formula with those of the introduction to the penitential rite. In the latter case the present English rubric states that the celebrant may introduce the penitential rite "using these or similar words," an expression absent from both Latin and Spanish missals.

The present Spanish missal, however, does offer a wider choice of introductory formulas, some of them adapted to the liturgical seasons, than either the Latin or English missals.

All the same, I believe our attentive reader has caught a clear change in the norms manifesting the legislator's desire to limit the use of free adaptations to those areas where the rubrics specifically foresee them.

I would observe that, for all practical purposes, this change will not come into force until the eventual publication of the new translations of the entire missal in English and other languages.

Why Forgive? Father Cantalamessa Responds

ROME, SEPT. 9, 2005 (Zenit.org).- In his commentary on this Sunday's readings, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher of the Pontifical Household, answers the question of how much forgiveness is too much.

* * *

Matthew (18:21-35)

But how much should one forgive?

To forgive is something serious, humanly difficult, if not impossible. One must not speak about it lightly, without realizing what one asks of the offended person when one requests him to forgive. Along with the command to forgive, man must also be given a reason to do so.

It is what Jesus did with the parable of the king and his two servants. The parable makes clear why one must forgive: because God has forgiven us in the past and continues to forgive us!

He cancels a debt of ours that is infinitely greater than the one a fellow human being might have with us. The difference between the debt owed the king (ten thousand talents) and that owed the colleague (one hundred denarii) is equal at the present time to 3 million euros and a few cents ($3.7 million)!

Saint Paul could say: "as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive" (Colossians 3:13). The Old Testament law, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," has been surmounted. The criterion no longer is: "Do to someone what he has done to you"; but, "What God has done to you, you do to the other." Jesus has not limited himself, however, to order us to forgive, but did so first himself. While he was being nailed to the cross he prayed saying: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do!" (Luke 23:34). This is what distinguishes the Christian faith from any other religion.

Buddha also left his own a maxim: "It is not with resentment that resentment is placated; it is with non-resentment that resentment is mitigated." But Christ does not limit himself to point out the path of perfection; he gives the strength to follow it. He does not just command us to do, but acts with us. Grace consists in this. Christian forgiveness goes beyond non-violence and non-resentment.

Someone might object: does not to forgive seventy times seven mean to encourage injustice and to give a green light to abuse? No. Christian forgiveness does not exclude that, in certain cases, you might also have to denounce a person and take them to court, especially when what is at stake are the interests and also the good of others. To give an example close to us: Christian forgiveness has not prevented the widows of some of the victims of terror or the mafia to pursue truth and justice with tenacity in regard to their husbands' death.

However, there are not only great acts of forgiveness but also daily acts of forgiveness, in the life of a couple, at work, between relatives, friends, colleagues and acquaintances. What can one do when one discovers that he has been betrayed by his own spouse? Forgive or separate? It is an extremely delicate question; no law can be imposed from outside. The individual must discover within him what to do.

But I can say one thing. I have known cases in which the offended party has found in the love for the other, and in the help that comes from prayer, the strength to forgive the one who erred, but was sincerely repentant. The marriage was re-born as from the ashes; it had a sort of new beginning. Of course, no one can expect that this could happen in a couple's life "seventy times seven."

We must be alert so as not to fall into a trap. There is a risk also in forgiveness. It consists of the mentality of those who think that they always have something to forgive others -- the danger of believing that one is always a creditor of forgiveness and never a debtor.

If we reflect well, however, many times, when we are about to say: "I forgive you!", we would do better to change our attitude and words and say to the person before us: "Forgive me!" We would then realize that we also have something that the other must forgive. In fact, even more important than forgiving is the humility to ask for forgiveness.

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

Wednesday Liturgy: When to Take Up a Second Collection

ROME, SEPT. 6, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: Many parishes are required to take up a second collection during Mass. I have witnessed this second collection being taken up immediately after Communion. I believe the liturgy calls for a period of silence or a meditation hymn during this period. Is it appropriate to take up the collection after Communion? It seems disrespectful and distracting. When would be a good time to take up a second collection? -- B.K., Baltimore, Maryland

A: According to the general liturgical norms, any announcements, testimonies, appeals and the like should be made following the Prayer after Communion and before the final blessing and this would appear to be the most appropriate moment.

If necessary the people may be invited to sit once more while the appeal or collection is being made.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Bells at the Consecration

A reader from Crawfordsville, Indiana, has added some very informative comments to our piece on the use of bells during Mass (Aug. 23).

He writes: "Apropos your fine response to the question of ringing bells at the consecration, it may interest you to know that the issue is perhaps a bit more complicated than you suggest. Father Adrian Fortescue, so much lionized by liturgical traditionalists for his rubrical manual of the old rite, […] was not a fan of bells, and points out in his 'History of the Roman Mass' that there was much variation in Europe about when they were rung. He says that traditionally bells were never rung at St. Peter's in Rome at the consecration, where the papal liturgy continued right through the reforms to be an odd combination of extreme Baroque elaboration and pre-medieval archaism. I suspect that after the papal liturgy was essentially abolished by Paul VI, and replaced with the ordinary Mass the Pope now celebrates, bells were later restored on the false assumption that they had been used, and there were not enough clerics left in the papal household who remembered the old tradition to set people straight."

Certainly Dr. Fortescue (1874-1923) was no fan of liturgical fastidiousness in spite of having penned what he termed his "dreadful ceremonies book."

As he wrote in 1920 before attempting the correction of the book's first edition: "Not one halfpennyworth of principle or of historic research is affected by the question whether the thurifer should stand on the left or on the right at any given moment. I would just as soon spend hours verifying the hours at which trains start on some railway line that I shall never use."

His distaste for liturgical minutiae was apparent and it ironically fell to one of his sharpest critics, Canon J.B. O'Connell, to correct and review the subsequent 12 editions. Notwithstanding the author's reservations, the book remains a valuable resource for the knowledge of the previous rite and for clarifications regarding some aspects not covered in the present books. All the same, I have often found L. Trimeloni's Italian "Compendio di Liturgia Pratica" (1963), more complete and better referenced.

As with thurifers, so with bells et al. Many liturgical customs arose from practical concerns and only later became codified into law with the result that what may have arose as a simple pastoral solution, or a gesture of courtesy, was transformed into a strict obligation.

While one sometimes desires greater clarity and precision from the present liturgical books, in general we can be grateful that they no longer attempt to legislate each and every detail and allow for reasonable adaptations to concrete circumstances.

I think we should see the question of the use, or non-use, of the bells at St. Peter's in this light. I believe that the use of this bell dates from somewhere toward the middle of Pope John Paul II's pontificate, for I remember assisting at some Masses where it was not yet used.

I think therefore that the question asked was not so much if this bell forms part of papal tradition but rather if it serves a legitimate pastoral purpose at a papal Mass. Evidently, the response is that it certainly does.

Father Cantalamessa on Fraternal Correction

ROME, SEPT. 2, 2005 (Zenit.org).- In his commentary on this Sunday's readings, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher of the Pontifical Household, speaks on how to confront someone in a Christian manner.

* * *

Matthew (18:15-20)

Human coexistence is intertwined with differences of opinion, conflicts and reciprocal injustices, due to the fact that we have different temperaments, points of view and tastes. The Gospel also has something to say to us about this most common and daily aspect of life. Jesus presents the case of someone who has done something that is really wrong in itself: "If your brother sins against you ..."

He does not refer only to a wrong committed against us. In this latter case, it is almost impossible to know if what motivates us is zeal for the truth or, instead, wounded self-love. In any case, the instance would be more one of self-defense than fraternal correction.

Why does Jesus say "go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone?" First of all, out of respect for our brother's good name, for his dignity.

He says: "you and him alone," to give the person the possibility to defend himself and to explain his actions in full freedom.

Many times, what is from an outside perspective seems to be a fault, is not in the intentions of the one who commits it. An honest explanation dissipates many misunderstandings. But this is not possible when the problem is made known to everyone.

According to the Gospel, what is the ultimate reason why it is necessary to practice fraternal correction? It most certainly is not pride, to show others their errors in order to highlight our superiority. Nor to discharge one's conscience by being able to say: "I told you so. I warned you. Too bad for you, if you paid no attention to me."

No, the objective is to win over one's brother. That is, to seek the genuine good of the other, so that he can improve and not meet with disagreeable consequences.

If it is a question of a moral fault, one does so that he will not compromise his spiritual journey and eternal salvation. The good result of the correction does not always depend on us (despite our good intentions, the other might not accept it, and might become more rigid); on the contrary, the good result that does depend always and exclusively on us is when it comes to accepting a correction.

There is both active and passive correction. Not only does the duty to correct exist, but also the duty to allow oneself to be corrected. And here is where one sees if one is sufficiently mature to correct others.

Whoever wants to correct someone must be disposed to be corrected. When you see that a person receives a correction and you hear him answer simply: "You are right, thank you for telling me!" you are before a person of courage.

Christ's teaching on fraternal correction should always be read together with what he said on another occasion: "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" (Luke 41-42).

In some cases, it isn't easy to know if it is better to correct or to let things go, to speak or to be silent. For this reason, it is important to keep in mind the golden rule, valid for all cases, which the Apostle Paul offers in this Sunday's second reading (Romans 13:8-10): "Owe no one anything, except to love one another. ... Love does no wrong to a neighbor."

It is necessary to be sure, above all, that in one's heart there is the disposition to accept the person. Then, all that is decided, whether to correct or to be silent, will be alright, as love "does no wrong to anyone."

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