Article: Open Season on Christianity

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand, FEB. 25, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The recent publication of cartoons satirizing the prophet Mohammed brought many calls for greater respect of Islamic beliefs. Christians could rightly wonder when they, too, will receive some respect.

As controversy over the drawings continues, a television station in New Zealand chose this moment to show a "South Park" episode ridiculing the Virgin Mary and the Pope.

The "Bloody Mary" episode of the animated series has scenes showing a bleeding statue of Mary, whose spurting blood covers the Pope, reported the New Zealand Herald on Monday. Plans by the C4 TV channel, owned by the Canadian media chain CanWest, to show the episode brought strong protest from New Zealand's Catholic bishops.

The bishops issued a pastoral letter, read at all Masses last weekend. "The way in which Mary is portrayed in this episode is derisive, outrageous and beyond all acceptable standards of decency and good taste," stated the letter. "Pope Benedict is also insulted in this episode."

The bishops observed that last year the same company was responsible for screening "the offensive 'Popetown' series." The Broadcasting Standards Authority has yet to deal with the complaint made by the bishops.

In their pastoral letter the bishops explained that they wrote to CanWest several weeks ago, asking the company not to screen the "South Park" episode "because of the grave offence it would give to all Christians, including Catholics, and people of other faiths and cultures." Leaders of the Anglican and Presbyterian churches also signed the letter, along with figures from the Muslim and Jewish communities. Even New Zealand's prime minister, Helen Clark, a declared agnostic, commented that she found the cartoon offensive.

CanWest responded to the protests by bringing forward the screening of the episode, from May 10 to Wednesday this week. According to Wednesday's issue of the New Zealand Herald, the company informed the Catholic Church's communications director, Lyndsay Freer, of the decision at 5 p.m. Tuesday. She was asked to comment on it for the 6 p.m. news bulletin on one of CanWest's channels.

"Given that by far the majority of those involved in the debate have not had the opportunity to view the episode, we feel it is important to give the public of New Zealand that chance," said Rick Friesen, chief operating officer of CanWest-owned TVWorks.

The Church has called for a boycott of the television station. And Wednesday's Herald article reported that Patrick Quin, owner of the agency Max Recruitment, has withdrawn advertising worth about $4,300 a month from CanWest.

Insulting Jesus

The New Zealand case is far from an isolated episode. Last Nov. 8 the British newspaper Guardian reported that a French paper had won a court battle giving it the right to show a cartoon of a naked Jesus wearing a condom.

The daily Liberation was taken to court by a Christian organization after printing the image in April. A court in Paris described the portrayal as "crude" but said it did not contravene any laws.

Last Sunday another British newspaper, the Observer, published a commentary by Nick Cohen, headlined "It's So Cowardly to Attack the Church When We Won't Offend Islam."

Cohen described his visit to an art exhibition in London's East End by artists Gilbert and George. The exhibition is entitled "Sonofagod Pictures: Was Jesus Heterosexual?" The catalogue described the works as "an assault on the laws and institutions of superstition and religious belief."

"This isn't a brave assault on all religions, just Catholicism," explained Cohen. "The gallery owners know that although Catholics will be offended, they won't harm them." He added: "If they were to do the same to Islam, all hell would break loose."

Another case is that of popular Swedish jeans, which come with the logo of a skull with a cross turned upside down on its forehead, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported Jan. 15.

"It is an active statement against Christianity," explained Bjorn Atldax, the designer of the jeans. "I'm not a Satanist myself, but I have a great dislike for organized religion." Atldax said that he wants to make young people question Christianity, which he called a "force of evil" that had sparked wars throughout history.

The jeans have been shipped throughout Europe and to Australia, and there are plans to introduce them to the United States and elsewhere, the Inquirer said. Around 200,000 pairs have been sold since March 2004.

Parody abounds

Attacks on Christianity also abound in the United States. Among the examples noted Feb. 15 by the Washington Post were: the latest cover of Rolling Stone, featuring rapper Kanye West wearing Christ's crown of thorns; "South Park's" "The Spirit of Christmas" short, featuring an obscenity-filled fistfight between Christ and Santa Claus; a radio show featuring comedian J. Anthony Brown and his "biblical sayings" from the Last Supper, in which disciples make outrageous quips.

The newspaper also recalled the 1999 controversy when then New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani tried to shut down a museum for featuring a painting of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung.

And, at the same time Christianity is held up to ridicule, believers face obstacles in proclaiming their own faith. A recent case is the decision on Christmas displays in New York's public schools.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is constitutionally permissible for the schools to ban the display of the Christian nativity during Christmas, while permitting the display of the Jewish menorah and the Islamic star and crescent during Hanukkah and Ramadan. The Thomas More Law Center reported on the decision in a press release dated Feb. 3.

City authorities defended the policy by arguing that the menorah and star and crescent were permissible symbols because they were "secular," whereas the Nativity scene had to be excluded because it was "purely religious." The court judged that this argument was fallacious, stating that the policy "mischaracterizes" the symbols. But it still upheld the ban on the Nativity scene.

Further examples abound. In Britain a council-run crematorium removed a wooden cross from its chapel, for fear of offending non-Christians, the Times reported last June 9. Torbay Council in Devon also announced that the chapel would in future be known as the ceremony hall.

A local Anglican vicar, Anthony Macey, observed that the cross had been in the chapel for nearly 50 years. And Father Paul Connor, the Catholic priest for Brixham, said: "If the cross offends people they can cover it up. What about the Christians who are offended by its removal?"

Respecting beliefs

The Second Vatican Council's pastoral constitution "Gaudium et Spes" addressed the question of contemporary culture and freedom. Culture, it said in No. 59, "has constant need of a just liberty in order to develop." For this reason it has "a certain inviolability," which is, however, not absolute. It is limited by the common good and the rights of individuals and the community, the document said.

And concerning these limitations, Benedict XVI commented on the importance of respecting religious beliefs, during his speech Monday to Morocco's new ambassador to the Holy See. "It is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected," the Pope said.

He added that this implies that "believers not be the object of provocations that wound their lives and religious sentiments." A principle valid for all religions, Christianity included.

Article: Marriage as a Public Good

PRINCETON, New Jersey, FEB. 25, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Marriage's role as a public institution is increasingly under attack. In the midst of pressures for legalization of same-sex marriage, formal recognition of de facto couples, and the continuing problem of divorce, the traditional view of marriage is no longer clear to many people.

But a volume of essays just-published collects an impressive array of evidence by leading scholars defending marriage and arguing that it serves the common good. "The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, and Morals" (Spence Publishing) is edited by Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain, professors at Princeton University and the University of Chicago, respectively.

Elshtain notes in the book's foreword that nobody is left untouched by the marriage debate, because it is such a pervasive institution in society. Discourse over the future of marriage, however, has become increasingly fractious as groups such as same-sex couples demand recognition of their "rights."

An underlying theme in the book, she continues, is the conviction that altering the institution of marriage will have profound and perhaps unintended consequences for ourselves as individuals, and for society in general.

In all observed societies some form of marriage exists, comments English philosopher Roger Scruton in his chapter. Not only does it play a vital role in handing on the work of one generation to the next, but it also protects and nurtures children, is a form of social and economic cooperation, and regulates sexual activity.

Long-linked to religion, the marriage tie in recent times has faced a steady de-sacralization. As well, social constraints tying husband and wife have diminished to the point where marriage has left behind the Christian undertaking of "till death do us part," and now resembles more a short-term contract.

Indeed, this loss of the religious aspect of marriage played a key role its weakening, Scruton argues. A sacred vow is a far more binding commitment than a civil promise. And little by little, the state has loosened the marital tie, to the point where, he contends, we now approach "serial polygamy." But these rescindable civil unions cannot carry out the traditional functions. In fact, they serve principally to "amplify the self-confidence of the partners," he maintains, and cannot guarantee security to the children.

What about the children?

The next essay in the book examines, in fact, the fate of children. In their joint contribution, Don Browning, professor emeritus at the University of Chicago Divinity School, and Elizabeth Marquardt, author of a recent book on the effects of divorce on children, look at the effects of same-sex marriage on children.

They take issue with same-sex marriage advocates, and also the position taken by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts when it legalized same-sex unions. Making sexual exchange and affection the center of the institution of marriage, while ignoring its generative goals, is an error, they maintain.

And redefining marriage in this way dispenses with the principle that the individuals who give life to children should be the ones who raise them in an enduring relationship. Children have a right to parents and families, as even the United Nations in its Convention on the Rights of the Child affirms. They also have a right to be raised in a society where the legal and cultural institutions help ensure they will be raised by the parents who conceived them, argue Browning and Marquardt.

Ample evidence shows that children raised by their married biological parents do better, on average, than those raised by single parents or stepparents. There is little research so far on the fate of children raised by same-sex couples. But up to now, experience with alternative family forms suggests that these unions will not be able to duplicate the personal investments made by married heterosexual couples in their marriages, and the resulting solidity and positive effects, the authors assert.

"To disregard the needs of children, the traditions that have understood these needs, and contemporary social science evidence offends natural justice," they observe.

Healthier

A more detailed look at how marriage protects children is the subject of Maggie Gallagher's contribution. Gallagher, author of a number of books on the subject, notes that marriage:

-- increases the likelihood that children enjoy warm, close relationships with their parents;

-- reduces child poverty; and

-- leads to healthier children, who are also more likely to do well at school and graduate from college.

By contrast, children raised outside of intact married homes are more likely to divorce, have higher rates of substance abuse and mental illness, and suffer abuse as youngsters.

Gallagher acknowledges that scholars are still debating over the size of the marital advantage, and the mechanisms by which it is conferred. But there is no doubt that marriage is much more than just a private arrangement based on emotions. It is also a social good with profound influences on children.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage, she notes, argue that there is evidence demonstrating that children brought up in these unions do not suffer any disadvantages compared to children raised by heterosexual couples. But Gallagher points to studies that have demonstrated methodological failures in the research advanced by same-sex advocates as proof for their cause.

Among the problems are small sample sizes, a lack of long-term studies, and the fact that the vast majority of the studies compared single lesbian mothers to single heterosexual mothers, and not to married couples.

Economic role

In his essay, Harold James, professor of history at Princeton, reflects on the economic role of the family. Much attention has been given to the interaction between the state and markets, he notes, but relatively little to the impact of the family on the economy.

The family, James points out, is not only a source of stability, but also of dynamism, creativity and innovation. A look at economic history, and the situation in many countries today, quickly reveals the importance of family-run businesses. More than three-quarters of registered companies in the industrialized world are family businesses, and in Europe some of these include some very large enterprises.

Economist Jennifer Roback Morse takes issue in her essay with no-fault divorce. Turning marriage into a temporary contract not only has had serious social consequences. It also has weakened the institution itself, making it easier to argue for same-sex marriage, she argues.

Marriage, Morse explains, is a naturally occurring pre-political institution and plays a vital intermediary role in society. Its weakening leads the state to a far greater intervention in our lives. This happens through the expansion of welfare activities in dealing with the consequences of broken families. It also prompts the state to conceive of itself as the arbiter of marital and family structures, which can be remade in any variety of forms it pleases.

Consequently, society loses the functioning of a vital social institution -- marriage and the family -- that previously acted as a mediator between individuals and the state, Morse contends.

The economist also compares the marriage contract to a business one. No-fault divorce in reality is unilateral divorce, she notes, whereby one partner can simply break up a marriage, depriving the other of any possibility to contest the issue. Imagine the impact on the economy if this were the standard type of business contract, Morse points out. How would we do business if the law made no distinctions between those who kept the terms of a contract and those who don't?

Father Cantalamessa's on the Usefulness of True Fast

ROME, FEB. 24, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is the commentary of Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the Pontifical Household, on the Gospel of next Sunday's liturgy, prior to Ash Wednesday.

* * *

8th Sunday of Ordinary Time (B)
(Hosea 2,14b.15b19-20; 2 Corinthians 3:1b-6; Mark 2:18-22)

Why do your disciples not fast?

"Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, 'Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?' And Jesus said to them, 'Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.'"

Thus, Jesus does not deny the practice of fasting, but renews it in its forms, times and contents. Fasting has become an ambiguous practice. In antiquity, only religious fasting was known; today, political and social fasting exists (hunger strikes!), health and ideological fasting (vegetarians), pathological fasting (anorexia), aesthetic fasting (to be thin).

There is, above all, a fast imposed by necessity: that of millions of human beings who lack the indispensable minimum and die of hunger.

In themselves, these fasts have nothing to do with religious or aesthetic reasons. In aesthetic fasting at times (not always) one even "mortifies" the vice of gluttony only to obey another capital vice, that of pride or vanity.

It is important, therefore, to discover the genuine biblical teaching on fasting. In regard to fasting, we find in the Bible the attitude of "yes, but," of approval and of critical reservation.

Fasting, in itself, is something good and recommendable; it translates some fundamental religious attitudes: reverence before God, acknowledgment of one's sins, resistance to the desires of the flesh, concern for and solidarity with the poor. As with all human things, however, it can fall into "presumption of the flesh." Suffice it to think of the words of the Pharisee in the temple: "I fast twice a week" (Luke 18:12).

If Jesus was to speak to us his disciples of today, what would he stress most, the "yes" or the "but"? At present we are very sensitive to the reasons of the "but" and of critical reservation. We regard as more important the need to "share bread with the hungry and clothe the naked"; we are in fact ashamed to call ours a "fast," when what would be for us the height of austerity -- to be on bread and water -- for millions of people would already be an extraordinary luxury, especially if it is fresh bread and clean water.

What we should discover instead are the reasons for the "yes." The Gospel's question might be stated in our days in another way: "Why do the disciples of Buddha and Mohammed fast and your disciples do not fast?" (It is well known with what seriousness Muslims observe Ramadan.)

We live in a culture dominated by materialism and unbridled consumerism. Fasting helps us not to be reduced to pure "consumers"; it helps us to acquire the precious "fruit of the Spirit," which is "self-control," it predisposes us to the encounter with God who is spirit, and it makes us more attentive to the needs of the poor.

But we must not forget that there are alternative forms of fasting and abstinence from food. We can practice fasting from tobacco, alcohol and drinks of high alcoholic content (which not only benefits the soul but also the body), fasting from violent and sexual pictures that television, shows, magazines and Internet bombard us with daily.

Likewise, this kind of modern "demons" are not defeated except "with fasting and prayer."

[Translation by ZENIT]

Article: Michael Novak on Religious Freedom: Europe, Islam and the Anglo-American Model

NEW YORK, FEB. 20, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The principles of the American Founding provide a helpful guide for the Islamic world as it tries to foster democratic traditions and institutions, says Michael Novak.

Those same principles could prove edifying for Europe, particularly France, as it struggles to assimilate Muslim immigrants, the Catholic scholar adds.

Writing in the March issue of First Things, Novak, the George Frederick Jewett Chair in Religion and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute, notes that the "laicization" promoted by the French Revolution actually, and intentionally, speeds the decline of religion, and thus democracy.

Novak claims that unlike the rapid secularization seen in Europe since 1789, the American experience has been different. This is due in part to the twin premises on which Anglo-American liberty of conscience rests: one secular and one religious.

The "secular" dimension, according to Novak, is that every person, because of his or her rational nature, is responsible for evaluating evidence presented to the individual consciousness in order to conform one's life to the truth as apprehended.

This responsibility entails a right to make such choices. The right of conscience is both inalienable and inviolable because no one can make these choices for another.

The "religious" dimension of Anglo-American liberty is the belief that a benevolent Creator God is governor of the universe.

Novak says this belief has four components: "the greatness of the Creator; the duty of the creature to recognize, be grateful to, and adore the Creator; the freedom of soul that the Creator endowed in humans for such acts; and the friendship with humans that God desired."

Accommodation

The model Novak describes can be called "accommodation," rather than "separation of church and state." Both institutions prospered more when each operated within its own sphere of authority.

However, this did not mean the exile of religion from society. As Novak has argued in many places, religion played a vital role in the shaping of the early American republic. President Thomas Jefferson, for instance, attended weekly the largest religious service in the nation -- held inside the U.S. Capitol building.

Furthermore, the religious liberty to which each person had a right meant that not only could one exercise that religion freely in private, but also in the full range of the public activities of civil society, consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Novak notes that in two recent books, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) commented on the intersection between religion and public life.

The future Pope stated, "A purely secular society living as if there is no God tends to value individual liberty before any other good." Thus, for some, this preference is understood as the key democratic principle.

Policies or worldviews seen as threats to this principle are banished from the public square. This democracy without values becomes, in the words of Pope John Paul II, "thinly disguised totalitarianism."

When the individual becomes the center of moral analysis, subjective preference and the priority of the will triumph over reason and intelligence. This reinforces the view that moral truth can no longer be grasped.

Novak says this preference cannot long be maintained, as it tends to privilege some human beings over others. A purely secular democracy ends up promoting the rights of the strong over those of the weak -- abortion being just one example.

Authentic secularism

Novak highlights the fact that what is usually meant by secularism draws from the religious heritage of Abrahamic religion, particularly such liberal ideas as liberty, equality, fraternity, compassion and progress.

The secular regimes of communism and fascism ran aground because they ignored the truth about the human person found in natural law.

As Islamic nations attempt to become more democratic, a reconsideration of the existing models in the West is required.

Novak concludes: "The differences between the American solution, with its positive evaluation of religion, and the non-religious or even anti-religious theories of secularism is not so widely known.

"But the American notion that the goal is an accommodation of religion and society, along with the separate functions of church can open up a new vista for Muslim thinkers."

Article: At the Root of Karol Wojtyla's Philosophy

MADRID, Spain, FEB. 19, 2006 (Zenit.org).- An international congress in Madrid reflected on the roots of Karol Wojtyla's thought and aimed to identify the sources of his personalist philosophy.

The three-day congress, entitled "The Personalist Philosophy of Karol Wojtyla," was an initiative of the Spanish Association of Personalism to study the thought of the man who became Pope John Paul II.

Jaroslaw Merecki, one of the principal members of the Wojtyla Chair of the Lateran University of Rome, opened the congress last Thursday, observing that "experience, the first source of the philosophy of man, and the encounter with phenomenology are the sources of Karol Wojtyla's philosophy."

Merecki, who is closely related to direct disciples and friends of Wojtyla, stressed that the principal source of the Polish thinker "is not the thought of this or that philosopher, but man's own experience."

Thus, "Karol Wojtyla's philosophical anthropology is a radically empirical anthropology," he clarified in his intervention during the congress hosted by the School of Philosophy of Madrid's Complutense University.

Exterior reality

In line with Wojtyla, Merecki explained how "the experience of anything situated outside of man is always associated with the experience of himself," as "man does not experience anything exterior without experiencing himself in some way."

"In modern philosophy, this fact has often led to the denial of the autonomy of the exterior reality, that is, to philosophical idealism," Merecki said. "If Wojtyla does not fall into the trap of idealism, it is due precisely to the fact that he remains to the end faithful to the experience, in which the being's horizon always takes priority over the horizon of conscience."

The speaker then focused on another sources of Wojtyla's thought -- phenomenology -- for which "everything that is expressed corporeally is the object of experience."

"Thus, not only sensible experience exists but also aesthetic, moral and religious experience," Merecki said.

In this area Wojtyla elaborated a positive ethical project, beginning with his debate with Max Scheler, whose judgment "is not totally negative," noted Merecki.

"Wojtyla is totally in agreement with Scheler's fundamental postulate, according to which ethics must stem from experience. Scheler's essential defect consists in having exhausted all the resources of the phenomenological method when it comes to analyzing moral experience," he clarified.

Thomist thinker

In the route toward the metaphysics of the person, "for Wojtyla the problem of man constitutes the point of departure to recover classical metaphysics, seen precisely from man, that is, taking up again the claim of modern philosophy and reintegrating it in the framework of classical metaphysics," specified Merecki.

"For Wojtyla the only adequate way to address the problem of man is to pose the radical question over being which finds its ultimate explanation in the absolute character of Being," he said.

Juan Manuel Burgos, president and founder of the Spanish Association of Personalism, at the congress described Wojtyla as "an ontological personalist thinker of Thomist and phenomenological filiation."

The system Wojtyla uses is "a personalism that stems from and is integrated in a realist phenomenology," Burgos said. "All his thought -- and, in particular, that which he offers in his work 'Person and Action,' his main work, revolves around the person.

"For a philosophy to be considered personalist, it must be structured globally around the notion of person or, said another way, the latter must be the essential notion in the whole of its anthropological architecture."

Burgos continued: "His novel character is found in the following theses: the insuperable distinction between persons and things and the need to analyze persons with their own specific concepts; the radical importance of affectivity and of interpersonal relationship; the absolute primacy of moral and religious values; the importance of the corporeal nature and of the treatment of the person as man or woman; communal personalism; the conception of philosophy as means of interaction with reality and a not strictly negative conception of philosophical modernity."

Article: Why Go to Confession?

CHIETI, Italy, FEB. 17, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is the pastoral letter for 2005-2006 written by Archbishop Bruno Forte of Chieti-Vasto, a member of the International Theological Commission, on the theme "Reconciliation and the Beauty of God."

* * *

Why Go to Confession?
Reconciliation and the Beauty of God

Together, let us try to understand what Confession is: If you really understand it, with your mind and heart, you will feel the need and the joy of experiencing this encounter, in which God, granting you his forgiveness through the ministry of the Church, creates a new heart in you, puts a new Spirit in you, so that you can live a life reconciled with Him, with yourself and with others, so that you also will be able to forgive and love, beyond any temptation to mistrust and weariness.

* * *

1. Why go to Confession?

Among the questions that my heart as Bishop asks, I choose one that I am often asked: Why must one go to Confession? It is a question that is posed again in many ways. Why go to a priest to tell one's sins and not do so directly to God, who knows and understands us much better than any human interlocutor?

And, in a more radical way, why speak of my affairs, especially of those that even I myself am ashamed of, to someone who is a sinner like me, and who perhaps assesses my experience in a completely different way than I do, or doesn't understand it at all? What does he know is a sin for me? And some add: Does sin really exist or is it only an invention of priests so that we will behave well?

I think I can answer this last question right away and without fear of being refuted: Sin exists, and not only is it wrong but it does evil. Suffice it to look at the daily scene of the world, where violence, wars, injustices, abuses, egoisms, jealousies and vengeance burst out (an example of this "war bulletin" is given to us today in the news in newspapers, radio, television and the Internet).

He who believes in the love of God, moreover, perceives that sin is love that falls back on itself ("amor curvus," closed love, the medievals said), ingratitude of the one who responds to love with indifference and rejection. This rejection has consequences not only in the one who lives it, but also in the whole society, to the point of producing conditionings and interlacements of egoisms and violence that become authentic "structures of sin" (think of social injustices, of the inequality between rich and poor countries, of the scandal of hunger in the world …).

Precisely because of this, one must not hesitate to emphasize the enormity of the tragedy of sin and how the loss of the sense of sin -- very different from that sickness of soul that we call "guilt feeling" -- weakens the heart in the face of the spectacle of evil and the seductions of Satan, adversary who tries to separate us from God.

2. Experience of Forgiveness

Despite all this, however, I do not think I can say that the world is evil and that it is useless to do good. On the contrary, I am convinced that good exists and is much greater than evil, that life is beautiful and that to live correctly for love and with love is really worthwhile.

The profound reason that leads me to think this way is the experience of God's mercy that I feel in myself and that I see shine in so many humble people: It is an experience that I have lived many times, both giving forgiveness as minister of the Church, as well as receiving it. I have been going to confession regularly for years, several times a month, and with the joy of doing so.

The joy stems from feeling myself loved in a new way by God, every time that his forgiveness reaches me through the priest who gives it to me in his name. It is the joy I have seen often on the face of those coming to Confession: not the futile sense of relief of the one who has "emptied the sack" (Confession is not a psychological relief or a consoling meeting, at least not primarily), but the peace of feeling well "within" oneself, touched in the heart by a love that cures, that comes from above and transforms us.

To ask for forgiveness with conviction, to receive it with gratitude and to give it with generosity is a source of inestimable peace: Because of this, it is right and beautiful to go to Confession. I would like to share the reasons for this joy with all those whom I may reach with this letter.

3. Confess to a priest?

You then ask: Why must one confess one's sins to a priest and not do so directly to God? Of course, one always addresses God when confessing one's sins. However, that it is also necessary to do so to a priest is something that God himself makes us understand: In sending his Son with our flesh, he shows he wants to encounter us through a direct contact that passes through the signs and language of our human condition.

Just as He came out of Himself for love of us and has come to "touch us" with his flesh, we are also called to come out of ourselves for love of Him and to go with humility and faith to him who can give us pardon in his name with word and gesture. Only the absolution of sins that the priest gives in the sacrament can communicate the interior certainty of having been truly forgiven and received by the Father who is in Heaven, because Christ has entrusted to the ministry of the Church the power to bind and to loose, to exclude and admit in the Covenant community (cf. Matthew 18:17).

He it is who, risen from death, said to the Apostles: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:22-23). Therefore, to go to Confession to a priest is very different from doing so in the secret of one's heart, exposed to so many uncertainties and ambiguities that fill life and history.

You will never know absolutely if what has touched you is the grace of God or your emotion, if you have forgiven yourself or if He has forgiven you in the way He chose. Absolved by the one the Lord has chosen and sent as minister of forgiveness, you will be able to experience the freedom that only God gives and understand why going to Confession is a source of peace.

4. A God close to our weakness

Confession therefore is the encounter with divine forgiveness, which is offered to us in Jesus and transmitted to us through the ministry of the Church. In this effective sign of grace, meeting with endless mercy, we are offered the face of a God who knows like no one our human condition and comes close to it with very tender love.

Innumerable episodes in the life of Jesus demonstrate this to us, from the meeting with the Samaritan woman to the healing of the paralytic, from the forgiveness of the adulteress to the tears in the face of the death of his friend Lazarus. … We have immense need of this tender and compassionate closeness of God, as a simple glance at our existence also shows: Each one of us lives with his own weakness, goes through sickness, draws near to death, is aware of the challenge of the questions that all this poses to the heart.

No matter how much we wish to do good, the frailty that characterizes us all, exposes us continually to the risk of falling into temptation. The Apostle Paul described this experience with precision: "I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do" (Romans 7:24).

It is the interior conflict from which is born the invocation: "Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:24). To it responds in a special way the sacrament of forgiveness, which comes to rescue us always again in our condition of sin, reaching us with the healing power of divine grace and transforming our heart and our behavior.

Because of this, the Church does not tire of proposing the grace of this sacrament to us during the whole journey of our lives: Through it Jesus, true heavenly physician, takes charge of our sins and accompanies us, continuing his work of healing and salvation. As happens in every love story, also the Covenant with the Lord must be tirelessly renewed: Faithfulness is the ever-new desire of the heart that gives itself and receives the love offered it, until the day that God will be all in all.

5. Stages of the encounter with forgiveness

Precisely because it was desired by a profoundly "human" God, the encounter with mercy that Jesus offers us takes place in several stages, which respect the seasons of life and of the heart. At the beginning, is listening to the Good News, in which you hear the call of the Beloved: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the Gospel" (Mark 1:15).

Through this voice the Holy Spirit acts in you, giving you docility to consent and believe in the Truth. When you are docile to this voice and decide to respond with your whole heart to Him who calls you, you undertake the journey that takes you to the greatest gift, a gift that is so valuable that it leads Paul to say: "We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God!" (2 Corinthians 5:20).

Reconciliation is precisely the sacrament of the encounter with Christ who, through the ministry of the Church, comes to help the weakness of the one who has betrayed or rejected the Covenant with God; he reconciles him with the Father and with the Church, he re-creates him as [a] new creature in the strength of the Holy Spirit.

This sacrament is also called of penance, because in it is expressed man's conversion, the way of the heart that repents and comes to invoke the forgiveness of God.

The term confession -- used normally -- refers instead to the act of confessing one's faults to the priest but it also recalls the triple confession that must be made to live in fullness the celebration of the reconciliation: the confession of praise ("confessio laudis"), with which we remember the divine love that precedes and accompanies us, recognizing its signs in our lives and thus understanding better the gravity of our fault; the confession of sin, with which we present our humble and repentant heart to the Father, acknowledging our sins ("confessio peccati"); the confession of faith, finally, with which we open ourselves to forgiveness that liberates and saves, which is offered to us with the absolution ("confessio fidei").

In turn, the gestures and words in which we express the gift that we have received will acknowledge in life the wonders realized in us by the mercy of God.

6. Celebration of the encounter

In the history of the Church, penance has been lived in a great variety of ways, communal and individual, which nevertheless have maintained all the fundamental structure of the personal encounter between the repentant sinner and the living God, through the mediation of the ministry of the Bishop or the priest.

Through the words of the absolution, pronounced by a man who is a sinner who, however, has been chosen and consecrated for the ministry, it is Christ himself who receives the repentant sinner and reconciles him with the Father and in the gift of the Holy Spirit, renews him as living member of the Church.

Reconciled with God, we are received in the vivifying communion of the Trinity and receive in ourselves the new life of grace, the love that only God can infuse in our hearts: The sacrament of forgiveness thus renews our relationship with the Father, with the Son and with the Holy Spirit, in whose name we are given absolution from our faults.

As the parable of the Father and the two sons shows, the encounter of reconciliation culminates in a banquet of tasty dishes, in which one participates with a new robe, a ring and shoes on one's feet (cf. Luke 15:22f): images that express all the joy and beauty of the gift offered and received. Truly, to use the words of the Father in the parable, "let us eat and make merry; for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found" (Luke 15:24).

7. Return to the Father's House

In relation to God the Father, penance presents itself as a "return home" (this is in fact the meaning of the word "teshuva" which the Hebrew uses to say "conversion"). Through becoming aware of your faults, you realize you are in exile, far from the homeland of love: You feel ill at ease, sorrow, because you understand that sin is a rupture of the Covenant with the Lord, a rejection of his love, it is "unloved love," and because of this is also source of alienation, because sin uproots us from our true dwelling, the Father's heart.

It is then that we need to remember the house in which we are awaited: Without this memory of love we would never have the necessary confidence and the hope to make the decision to return to God. With the humility of the one who knows he is not worthy of being called "son," we can decide to call at the door of the Father's house. What a surprise to realize he is at the window scrutinizing the horizon because he has been waiting for a long time for our return!

To our open hands, to the humble and repentant heart responds the free offer of forgiveness with which the Father reconciles us with himself, "converting us" in some way to ourselves: "While he was still at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him" (Luke 15:20). With extraordinary tenderness, God introduces us in a renewed way in the condition of sons, offered by the Covenant established in Jesus.

8. Encounter with Christ, Dead and Risen for Us

In relation to the Son, the sacrament of Reconciliation offers us the joy of the encounter with Him, the crucified and risen Lord, who through His Pasch, gives us the new life, infusing His Spirit in our hearts. This encounter takes place through the itinerary that leads each one of us to confess our faults with humility and sorrow for our sins, and to receive forgiveness with gratitude full of wonder.

United to Jesus in His death and on the Cross, we die to sin and to the old man that has triumphed in Him. His blood shed for us reconciles us with God and with others, demolishing the wall of enmity that keeps us prisoners of our solitude without hope and without love. The force of His resurrection reaches us and transforms us; the Risen One touches our heart, makes it burn in us with new faith, which opens our eyes and makes us able to recognize Him beside us and His voice in which there is need of us.

All our life of sinners, united to Christ crucified and risen, is offered to the mercy of God to be healed of anguish, freed from the weight of guilt, confirmed in the gifts of God and renewed in the power of His victorious love. Liberated by the Lord Jesus, we are called to live like Him, in freedom from fear, guilt and the seductions of evil, to accomplish works of truth, justice and peace.

9. New Life in the Spirit

Thanks to the gift of the Spirit that diffuses in us the love of God (cf. Romans 5:5), the sacrament of Reconciliation is source of new life, renewed communion with God and with the Church, of which, in fact, the Spirit is the soul and the force of cohesion.

It is the Spirit that drives the forgiven sinner to express in life the peace received, accepting above all the consequences of the fault committed and the so-called punishment, which is like the effect of the sickness represented by sin and which must be regarded as a wound to be healed with the oil of grace and the patience of love that we must have toward ourselves.

The Spirit then helps us to mature the firm intention to undertake a journey of conversion consisting of concrete commitments of charity and prayer: the penitential sign required by the confessor serves precisely to express this choice. The new life to which we are thus reborn, can show more than anything else the beauty and the force of forgiveness invoked and received always anew ("forgiveness" means precisely renewed gift: to forgive is to give infinitely!).

I ask you, then, why do without such a great gift? Draw near to Confession with a humble and contrite heart and live it with faith: It will change your life and give peace to your heart. Then your eyes will open to recognize the signs of the beauty of God present in creation and in history and from your soul will rise a song of praise.

And also to you, priest, who read me and like me are a minister of forgiveness, I would like to address an invitation that springs from my heart: Be always willing -- in season and out of season -- to proclaim mercy to all and to grant forgiveness to him who asks it of you and of which he has need to live and to die. For that person, it might be the hour of God in his life!

10. Let Us Be Reconciled with God

Thus the invitation of the Apostle Paul becomes mine also: I express it by making use of two different voices.

The first is that of Friedrich Nietzsche, who in his youthful years wrote these impassioned words, sign of the need of divine mercy that we all bear within. "Once again, before leaving and turning my gaze on High, remaining alone, I raise my hands to You, in whom I take refuge, to whom from the depth of my heart I have consecrated altars, so that every hour your voice will call me again … I want to know You. You, the Unknown, that you penetrate the depth of my soul and, like a tempest, shake my life. You who are elusive and yet similar to me! I wish to know you, and also to serve you" ("Scritti Giovanili," I, 1, Milan, 1998, p. 388).

The other voice is that attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, who expresses the truth of a renewed life by the grace of forgiveness: "Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace: Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; and where there is sadness, joy. O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood, as to understand; to be loved, as to love." These are the fruits of Reconciliation, invoked and heard by God, that I wish all of you who read me. With this wish, which becomes prayer, I embrace and bless each one of you.

+ Bruno, Your Father in faith

[Translation by ZENIT]

Article: For an Examination of Conscience

CHIETI, Italy, FEB. 21, 2006 (Zenit.org).- In an appendix to a pastoral letter on the sacrament of reconciliation, Archbishop Bruno Forte of Chieti-Vasto outlines questions that could be used for examining one's conscience before going to confess.

* * *

For the Examination of Conscience

If possible, prepare yourself for confession with regularity, not allowing too much time to pass. Prepare your confession in a climate of prayer, responding to these questions under the gaze of God, seeing him as the one you can go to for help to progress more quickly along the path of the Lord.

1. "You shall not have other gods besides me" (Deuteronomy 5:7). "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37).

Do I love God like this? Do I give him the first place in my life? Do I eagerly reject all idols that could get between him and me, be it money, pleasure, superstition, or power? Do I listen with faith to his Word? Do I persevere in prayer?

2. "You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain" (Deuteronomy 5:11).

Do I respect the holy name of God? Do I abuse him in my references to him, offending him, or making use of him, instead of serving him? Do I bless God in each one of my actions? Do I surrender myself without reserve to his will for me, trusting entirely in him? Do I entrust myself with humility and confidence to the guidance and teaching of the pastors which the Lord has given to his Church? Do I make an effort to go deeper in and strengthen my life of faith?

3. "Take care to keep holy the Sabbath day as the Lord, your God, commanded you" (Deuteronomy 5: 12-15).

Do I make Sunday the center of my week, beginning with the most important moment, the celebration of the Eucharist? Do I use it, and the other days consecrated to the Lord, to praise and give thanks to God, to entrust myself to him and take rest in him? Do I participate faithfully and actively in the liturgy, preparing myself beforehand with prayer, and making the effort to obtain its fruits during the entire week? Do I sanctify the holy day with some act of love toward the needy?

4. "Honor your father and your mother" (Deuteronomy 5:16).

Do I love and respect those who have given me life? Do I make the effort to understand and help them, above all in their weaknesses and limits?

5. "Thou shalt not kill" (Deuteronomy 5:17).

Do I make the effort to respect and promote life in all of its stages and aspects? Do I do everything in my power to promote the good of the others? Have I done evil to someone with the explicit intention of doing it?

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39).

How do I live charity toward my neighbor? Am I attentive and available, above all with the poorest and weakest? Do I love myself, knowing how to accept my limits under the gaze of God?

6. "You shall not commit impure acts" (cf. Deuteronomy 5:18). "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" (Deuteronomy 5:21).

Am I chaste in thoughts and actions? Do I make the effort to love with gratitude, free of the temptation to possess or be jealous? Do I always respect the dignity of the human person? Do I treat my body and the bodies of others as a temple of the Holy Spirit?

7. "You shall not steal" (Deuteronomy 5:19). "You shall not desire your neighbor's goods" (Deuteronomy 5:21).

Do I respect the goods of creation? Am I honest in my work and in my relations with my neighbor? Do I respect the fruit of others' labor? Am I envious of the goods of the others? Do I make an effort to make others happy, or do I only think of myself?

8. "You shall not bear dishonest witness against your neighbor" (Deuteronomy 5:20).

Am I sincere and loyal in each word and action? Do I always speak only the truth? Do I try to give confidence and act in a way that inspires confidence in the others?

9. Do I make an effort to follow the example of Christ in my life of surrender to God and my neighbor? Do I try to be like him: humble, poor and chaste?

10. Do I faithfully find the Lord in the sacraments, in fellowship, and in service to the poor? Do I live with hope in eternal life, seeing each thing under the light of God, always trusting in his promises?

[Translation by ZENIT]

Wednesday Liturgy: General Absolution at a Nursing Home

ROME, FEB. 21, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Please, I should like to know if it is correct to give general absolution to, say, a group of 15 elderly people living in a nursing home and brought together for Mass in a small room. Please note: (a) It is impossible to hear their confession individually as they are placed very close to each other in their wheelchairs. (b) When asked how many are going to receive Communion (to consecrate the necessary quantity of hosts) they all want to receive. Could I prepare them with a good act of sorrow and then give them general absolution, making it clear to the nurses and relatives that this absolution is not for them. And if general absolution is permitted in this case, what about the obligation of confessing grave sins later on? H.D., Melbourne, Australia

A: In his 2002 letter "Misericordia Dei" Pope John Paul II clarified the conditions for granting general absolution and the concept of "grave necessity." He said:

"Thus, after consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and after hearing the views of venerable Brother Cardinals in charge of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, and reaffirming Catholic doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation as summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, conscious of my pastoral responsibility and fully aware of the need for this Sacrament and of its enduring efficacy, I decree the following:

"1. Ordinaries are to remind all the ministers of the Sacrament of Penance that the universal law of the Church, applying Catholic doctrine in this area, has established that:

"a) 'Individual and integral confession and absolution are the sole ordinary means by which the faithful, conscious of grave sin, are reconciled with God and the Church; only physical or moral impossibility excuses from such confession, in which case reconciliation can be obtained in other ways.'

"b) Therefore, "all those of whom it is required by virtue of their ministry in the care of souls are obliged to ensure that the confessions of the faithful entrusted to them are heard when they reasonably ask, and that they are given the opportunity to approach individual confession, on days and at times set down for their convenience.'

"Moreover, all priests with faculties to administer the Sacrament of Penance are always to show themselves wholeheartedly disposed to administer it whenever the faithful make a reasonable request. An unwillingness to welcome the wounded sheep, and even to go out to them in order to bring them back into the fold, would be a sad sign of a lack of pastoral sensibility in those who, by priestly Ordination, must reflect the image of the Good Shepherd. …

"3. Since 'the faithful are obliged to confess, according to kind and number, all grave sins committed after Baptism of which they are conscious after careful examination and which have not yet been directly remitted by the Church's power of the keys, nor acknowledged in individual confession,' any practice which restricts confession to a generic accusation of sin or of only one or two sins judged to be more important is to be reproved. Indeed, in view of the fact that all the faithful are called to holiness, it is recommended that they confess venial sins also.

"4. In the light of and within the framework of the above norms, the absolution of a number of penitents at once without previous confession, as envisaged by Can. 961 of the Code of Canon Law, is to be correctly understood and administered. Such absolution is in fact 'exceptional in character' and 'cannot be imparted in a general manner unless:

"'1. the danger of death is imminent and there is not time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;

"'2. a grave necessity exists, that is, when in light of the number of penitents a supply of confessors is not readily available to hear the confessions of individuals in an appropriate way within an appropriate time, so that the penitents would be deprived of sacramental grace or Holy Communion for a long time through no fault of their own; it is not considered sufficient necessity if confessors cannot be readily available only because of the great number of penitents, as can occur on the occasion of some great feast or pilgrimage."

"With reference to the case of grave necessity, the following clarification is made:

"a) It refers to situations which are objectively exceptional, such as can occur in mission territories or in isolated communities of the faithful, where the priest can visit only once or very few times a year, or when war or weather conditions or similar factors permit.

"b) The two conditions set down in the Canon to determine grave necessity are inseparable. Therefore, it is never just a question of whether individuals can have their confession heard 'in an appropriate way' and 'within an appropriate time' because of the shortage of priests; this must be combined with the fact that penitents would otherwise be forced to remain deprived of sacramental grace 'for a long time,' through no fault of their own. Therefore, account must be taken of the overall circumstances of the penitents and of the Diocese, in what refers to its pastoral organization and the possibility of the faithful having access to the Sacrament of Penance.

"c) The first condition, the impossibility of hearing confessions 'in an appropriate way' 'within an appropriate time,' refers only to the time reasonably required for the elements of a valid and worthy celebration of the Sacrament. It is not a question here of a more extended pastoral conversation, which can be left to more favorable circumstances. The reasonable and appropriate time within which confessions can be heard will depend upon the real possibilities of the confessor or confessors, and of the penitents themselves.

"d) The second condition calls for a prudential judgment in order to assess how long penitents can be deprived of sacramental grace for there to be a true impossibility as described in Can. 960, presuming that there is no imminent danger of death. Such a judgment is not prudential if it distorts the sense of physical or moral impossibility, as would be the case, for example, if it was thought that a period of less than a month means remaining 'for a long time' in such a state of privation.

"e) It is not acceptable to contrive or to allow the contrivance of situations of apparent grave necessity, resulting from not administering the Sacrament in the ordinary way through a failure to implement the above mentioned norms, and still less because of penitents' preference for general absolution, as if this were a normal option equivalent to the two ordinary forms set out in the Ritual.

"f) The large number of penitents gathered on the occasion of a great feast or pilgrimage, or for reasons of tourism or because of today's increased mobility of people, does not in itself constitute sufficient necessity.

"5. Judgment as to whether there exist the conditions required by Can. 961 §1, 2 is not a matter for the confessor but for 'the diocesan Bishop who can determine cases of such necessity in the light of criteria agreed upon with other members of the Episcopal Conference.'(21) These pastoral criteria must embody the pursuit of total fidelity, in the circumstances of their respective territories, to the fundamental criteria found in the universal discipline of the Church, which are themselves based upon the requirements deriving from the Sacrament of Penance itself as a divine institution."

In light of this text I believe that the case presented by our correspondent does not fulfill the conditions for a grave situation.

There are many other options open to the priest to resolve the situation. For example, he can arrange with those who bring the elderly people to Mass to see which ones would like to have confession and then arrive an hour or so before Mass to hear their confessions in a suitable place or, if necessary, visit them in their rooms.

I suppose that our correspondent also fears that asking how many desire to receive Communion might put undue pressure on those who for some reason might not be able to receive -- with the consequent danger of promoting a sacrilegious Communion.

Since it is a very small group, instead of asking, he can resolve this difficulty by simply consecrating enough hosts for those present and, should there be too many, he may either give the last communicants two hosts or consume them himself.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-Up: And More on Altars and Deacons' Vestments

ROME, FEB. 21, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

My recent column on the use of a Catholic church by a group of Episcopalians (Feb. 7) concluded with the following sentence: "Likewise, and in accordance with the bishop's instructions, he should guarantee all due respect toward the Blessed Sacrament during the course of the Episcopalian services as they may not share our faith in Christ's real presence."

Judging from our readers' reactions this was a less than felicitous expression and has given rise to several misunderstandings.

My primary purpose was to ensure respect for the Blessed Sacrament. However, my comment that the Episcopalians "may not share" the Catholic understanding of Christ's real presence requires further clarification.

Official Episcopalian doctrine certainly does not adhere to the Catholic doctrine of Christ's real presence.

My use of the conditional "may not" stemmed from the fact that, notwithstanding the official line, some Episcopalian individuals and even a few parish communities would willingly confess their belief that Christ is present in the tabernacle of Catholic churches.

Since the original question did not proffer any information as to the particular beliefs of the Episcopalian group, I (perhaps unwisely) adopted a broader expression.

A more complex question however, is that of the objective validity of the Episcopalian "eucharist."

Pope Leo XIII officially declared that the line of apostolic succession was discontinued in the Anglican Communion for several historical and theological reasons. The Catholic Church therefore does not recognize the validity of Anglican orders and hence the validity of the sacraments which depend essentially on orders, above all, of the Eucharist.

Thus, no matter what the personal beliefs of some Anglicans and Episcopalians regarding the Eucharistic presence in their communion, there is in reality no true transubstantiation.

In some exceptional cases, however, such as when a Catholic priest abandons the Church and becomes an Anglican clergyman, there could be a valid transformation of the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood.

Of course a priest in this case would be compounding the grave sin of apostasy with that of sacrilege.

Some readers expressed surprise at the very fact that Catholic churches could be used at all for non-Catholic rituals and felt I was contributing to error. Others claimed that I was too restrictive altogether.

While I can understand their difficulties, I can only point out that the substance of my earlier reply was mostly a direct quote from a document of the Holy See approved by Pope John Paul II. In this document the Church, in seeking that unity desired by Christ and to overcome past and present diffidence, strives to strike a delicate balance. It sets clear boundaries that acknowledge the sometimes profound differences between Catholic belief and practice from that of some fellow Christians. At the same time, by emphasizing that which unites us more than our divisions, it allows for some fairly generous sharing of spiritual goods in areas where there is no danger of compromising the essential truths of the faith.

On another theme, several readers wrote regarding clarifications regarding the use of specific vestments.

Regarding the stole, one correspondent expressed doubts regarding my affirmation that the stole was not originally a symbol of dignity. The reader cited several Eastern sources to prove his point.

The origin of the stole is rather obscure and, according to some authors, the priest's and deacon's stole derive from different sources.

Its use as a sign for deacons is found around the same time in both East and West (above all, Spain and France) as a necessary instrument of their diaconal service at the altar which later developed into a symbol.

This interpretation is witnessed by St. Isidore of Pelusius in Egypt (died 440): "The stole with which the deacons perform their service in the sacred ministries, recalls the humility of the Lord when he washed and dried the feet of his disciples."

The priest's stole, however, may have derived from the "orarium," which in civil use was a kind of scarf of fine cloth which was worn by wealthy persons about the collar to protect from the cold in winter and sweat in summer. It was also used to wipe the face ("os" from which the name derives, and not, as was sometimes thought, from "orare," to speak or preach).

As the stole developed into a symbolic vestment its practical purpose in summer was taken up by the amice, a square white linen cloth worn about the neck.

The stole was unknown in Rome until about the beginning of the ninth century and was probably introduced into the Roman liturgy through the influence of the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne and his successors.

Some other readers were puzzled as to why permanent deacons in our correspondent's diocese were not permitted to wear cassock and surplice.

While I suggested a possible motive, I admit that I really failed to see the reason behind such a prohibition, since deacons, whether permanent or transitory, are members of the clergy and are entitled to wear clerical dress.

Certainly Canon 288 of the Code of Canon Law dispenses permanent deacons from the obligation of clerical dress unless the bishop decides that they should wear it for good reasons. A dispensation from an obligation means that they may wear clerical garb but are not obliged to do so.

It does not seem to follow, at least from the canonical point of view, that the bishop may therefore forbid them from wearing clerical dress. The code does not provide this faculty but only that of mandating clerical attire in certain circumstances.

In order to give a definitive opinion we would require more information than is currently available.

Article: Capitalism in the Dock

NEW YORK, FEB. 18, 2006 (Zenit.org).- After the collapse of communism and the adoption of free-market policies by just about all countries and political parties, market capitalism should be triumphant. But recent books highlight the shortcomings of the free markets.

In "The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism" (Yale University Press), John Bogle analyzes what he considers to be crucial failings in the financial markets. Bogle, former chief executive of the Vanguard mutual fund group, wants the system to be run in the interests of the shareholders and owners, rather than the managers.

Bogle argues that the last couple of decades have seen serious erosion in the conduct and values of business leaders, investment bankers and money managers. A staunch defender of capitalism and free markets, Bogle nevertheless laments the excessive attention given to stock market prices, instead of the intrinsic values of corporations.

Drawing on his own experience in the mutual fund sector, he looks at how this sector has contributed to current problems. These funds not only siphon off very large sums of money in the form of fees and their share of profits on stock market gains. They also serve to isolate managers from any form of control by stockholders, Bogle contends. Institutional investors in general, such as retirement funds and mutual funds, now own two-thirds of all U.S. equities. In fact, the largest 100 funds account for no less than 52% of equities.

Another factor adversely affecting financial markets, Bogle notes, is the concentration on short-term gains. A few decades ago mutual funds saw around 15% of their stocks turn over in a year. By the late 1990s this had risen to 100%, or more, as fund managers chased quick returns in the booming market. This trend from investment to short-term speculation in stocks means that funds are less likely to be interested in pressuring companies to improve their ethics or management.

As well, corporate directors, auditors, and legislators have all too often failed to ensure sufficient oversight of how companies are being run, leading to the scandals of recent years.

Values needed

"Capitalism requires a structure and value system that people believe in and can depend on," Bogle argues. This includes trust in the word of others, and an assurance that the system will function with equity. And for a long time this worked; capitalism delivered remarkable economic benefits.

By the late 20th century the system changed and turned into a form of "manager's capitalism." In extreme cases, it saw companies being run to benefit the managers, not the owners or shareholders. Proof of that is the soaring level of remuneration given to company executives in recent years, a trend Bogle strongly criticizes.

Shareholders have benefited too, Bogle acknowledges. Even counting the "bubble burst" in 2000, the U.S. stock market rose an average annual rate of 13% from 1982 to early 2005. (He adds, however, that a large proportion of shares that were sold before the bubble burst were those held by corporate executives.)

Bogle proposes a variety of reforms to overcome the deficiencies he outlines: performance-based compensation for executives; better corporate governance; improving accounting standards; a return to a long-term focus; and a clearer separation of ownership from management.

Another book that has drawn attention to how financial markets are causing serious problems is "Capitalism's Achilles Heel" (John Wiley & Sons). Written by Raymond Baker, ex-businessman and current guest scholar at the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, the book draws attention to problems such as bribery, money laundering, tax evasion and income inequality.

Baker is, he stresses, in favor of capitalism. But he worries that too many people today cater to its weaknesses rather than build on its strengths. He is particularly concerned that the defects he outlines are contributing to the enormous gap between rich and poor, which, in turn, is undermining the future prospects for prosperity.

Ethical market

The market also has many positive aspects. One of its defenders is John Meadowcroft, deputy director of the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs and author of the book "The Ethics of the Market" (Palgrave).

He argues that the market is an important school for virtue, and that participation in a market economy strengthens rather than weakens institutions such as the family. The market does not impose a specific set of values. The market mechanisms as such, Meadowcroft observes, can be used just as easily by selfless altruists as by selfish hedonists.

The market system does allow individuals to make choices that are morally questionable, he notes. Yet he argues that it would be a mistake to try to force morality on people. There is good reason to believe, Meadowcroft argues, that where the role of the state has expanded it has crowded out the institutions of civil society and diminished their possibility to contribute to the moral capital of society.

The ethical justification for the market lies in its being the most efficacious mechanism for helping people of whom we have no direct personal knowledge. As well, it gives individuals the greatest possible scope for determining their own destiny.

In the marketplace, people pursue their own ends and the market is able to regulate economic activity and ensure the greatest efficiency through a freely operating price system. This is not just an individualistic system, Meadowcroft argues. The market is, rather, a social process in which individuals learn that their own ends can be achieved only if they are reconciled in some way with those of other people.

By requiring people to continually review their ends in the light of information about others, communicated through price signals, the market coordinates a myriad of competing ends and values into coordinated economic activity.

In this sense, it is not correct to think of the market operating, as Adam Smith described it, through self-love. It is not selfishness that drives the market. Rather, individuals are motivated to respond to the price signals generated. Economic coordination depends on people being alert to these signals, whether the ends they seek are selfish or altruistic.

And what about the accusation that the market system leads to an unequal distribution of wealth? Meadowcroft replies that this is simply the result of the value of economic contributions as determined by the perceptions of consumers and producers. Inequality is a part of how the market works. Moreover, it is part of a system that brings with it benefits for all members of society. He does, however, contend that the state should guarantee a minimum income to ensure that no one be left in absolute poverty.

Wider view

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church has an ample section dedicated to the economy. It recognizes (in No. 347, for example) the positive role played by markets, which allow economic potential to be developed efficiently.

Yet, the Compendium urges that people also need to remember aspects such as ensuring justice and solidarity. They must avoid the error of seeing the accumulation of material goods as the only end of their activity.

Moreover, economic activity is only one facet of human activity and it needs to be placed within the wider context of the person. Keeping things within this wider perspective is, in fact, a key point raised by the Compendium. That's a hard sell for some, but one that would go a long way to fixing deficiencies in the way the market works.

Father Cantalamessa on the Repentance of Praise

ROME, FEB. 17, 2006 (ZENIT.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the Pontifical Household, on this Sunday's liturgical readings.

* * *

7th Sunday in Ordinary Time (b)
(Isaiah 43:18-19,21-22,24b-25; 2 Corinthians 1:18-22; Mark 2:1-12)

Your sins are forgiven you

One day when Jesus was at home (maybe in the home of Simon Peter, in Capernaum), such a large crowd gathered so that there was no room to enter the door. A group of people who had a paralyzed family member or friend thought how to overcome the obstacle, uncovering the roof and lowering the sick one on a sheet before Jesus. He, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic: "Child, your sins are forgiven."

Some scribes who were present thought in their hearts: "Blasphemy! Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" Jesus doesn't contradict their affirmation, but shows by deeds that he has the same power over the earth as God: "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth" -- he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home."

What happened that day in the house of Simon is what Jesus continues doing today in the Church. We are that paralytic, each time we present ourselves, slaves of sin, to receive pardon from God.

An image from nature will help us (at least it has helped me) to understand why only God can forgive sins.

It deals with the image of a stalagmite. The stalagmite is one of those limestone columns that form in the depths of certain old grottoes by the falling of calcareous water from the roof of the cave. The column that hangs from the roof of the grotto is called a stalactite, that which forms above; the point on which the drop falls, is the stalagmite.

The question is not the water and its flow to the exterior; rather it is that in each drop of water there is a trace of limestone which is deposited and builds on the earlier ones. So it is, with the passage of the millenniums, these columns form, with an iridescent glow, beautiful to behold, but if seen better they appear like the bars of a cell or like the sharp teeth of a wild beast with its mouth wide open.

The same occurs in our life. Our sins, in the course of the years, have fallen into the depths of our heart like so many drops of calcareous water. Each one has left there a little limestone -- that is, of murkiness, hardness and resistance to God -- which is building on what the previous sin had left. As happens in nature, the buildup is taken away, thanks to confessions, the Communions, prayer.

But each time something will remain that has not dissolved, and that is because the repentance and purpose of amendment were not "perfect." And so our personal stalagmite has grown like a column of limestone, like a rigid bust of plaster that traps our will. One understands then the blow that is the famous "heart of stone" of which the Bible speaks: It is the heart that we ourselves have created, by force of consents and sins.

What is to be done in this situation? I cannot eliminate this stone with my will alone, because it is precisely in my will. Thus is understood the gift that represents the redemption achieved by Christ. In many ways Christ continues his work of forgiving sins. But there exists a specific way which it is obligatory to resort to when we deal with serious breaks with God, and that is the sacrament of penance.

The most important thing that the Bible has to tell us about sin is not that we are sinners, but rather that we have a God who forgives sin and, once forgiven, he forgets about it, cancels it, and makes something new. We must transform repentance into praise and acts of thanksgiving, like the people did that day, in Capernaum, when they had been at the miracle of the paralytic: "They were all astounded and glorified God, saying, 'We have never seen anything like this.'"

[Translation from the Italian by ZENIT]

Wednesday Liturgy: Polygamy, Sons and the Priesthood

ROME, FEB. 14, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I would like to know the position of the Church on the ordination of men whose parents do not have a Church-blessed marriage or where the parents could have been wed in the Church but the marriage has since been interrupted by either divorce, separation or has become polygamous. The fathers in the Synod of Bishops last October expressed concern over the shortage of young men joining priesthood. I personally went through the minor seminary in Uganda but could not continue to the major seminary because my daddy was stuck to his second wife and there was a constant threat that I would not be ordained if the marriage remained polygamous. -- E.K., Tororo, Uganda

A: The pastoral challenge of a tradition of polygamous marriages is prevalently found in Africa. There especially the Church must surmount great hurdles in order to bring home the fullness of Christ's teaching regarding the sanctity and beauty of the perpetual union of one man and one woman.

In general, if a polygamist asks for baptism he knows that only one of the women may remain as his wife, not necessarily the one he first married (Canon 1148). Of course he must provide for the upkeep of the other women, especially if age or other cultural elements prevent their remarrying, as well as for any children, all of whom are considered legitimate.

Unlike earlier times, the present Code of Canon Law (Canons 1140-1049) contains no specific impediment to the possible priestly ordination of a son of an unmarried mother. Nor, for that matter, is there any canonical obstacle to the children of separated, divorced or polygamous relationships.

However, canon law is not the only element that has to be brought to bear in considering a candidate's possibilities of entering ministry.

Even when there was a canonical impediment of illegitimacy, it was always understood that this impediment was not absolute.

Nor did it imply a moral evaluation regarding the candidate but was rather a prudential judgment insofar as the social stigma attached to this status -- and the need to defend the Christian ideal of matrimony -- could hamper a priest's pastoral effectiveness.

In some cases however, the superiors also have to consider whether being brought up in irregular circumstances could affect the candidate's personal balance and capacity for interpersonal relationships -- important traits for a priest's mission.

These, among other considerations, quite possibly form the reasoning behind the seminary superiors' decision not to allow the child of a polygamous father to proceed in his priestly formation.

Because polygamy is such a pressing pastoral problem in the country it would be difficult for a priest to defend and uphold Catholic doctrine if it were widely known that his own parent contradicted it by his way of living.

It might even have been a cause of difficulty to some if it were known that he was studying in the seminary, as it is not infrequent for seminarians in these countries to engage in active pastoral work on Sundays by directing Communion services for Catholics at outstations where Mass is not celebrated.

This is, of course, no reflection on the intrinsic worth and even sanctity of the prospective seminarian, who is in no way responsible for a parent's foibles.

It appears to be a sad consequence of pastoral reality in a concrete situation which may be extremely hard to fathom and comprehend for those of us who live in a different reality.

Since such things as social stigmas vary with time and place, in some cases it might be possible for a candidate to pursue a vocation in a different cultural environment.

History provides several examples of how the stigma associated with illegitimacy varied over the centuries and how consequently the canonical norms were enforced with more or less rigor.

In some periods illegitimate children were easily accepted as part of the family, often regularized through adoption or other legal tactics, and not infrequently entered Church service.

The 16th century, for example, saw a Pope (Clement VII 1523-34), a brilliant military commander (John of Austria), and a great artist (Leonardo da Vinci) accepted at the pinnacle of society -- in spite of being born out of wedlock.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: How to Understand Purification

We received some very enlightening comments and questions after our remarks on the rite of purification (Jan. 31).

Before embarking on this theme I wish to mark an oversight on my part which a reader from Melbourne, Australia, kindly pointed out to me and which obliges me to revise my former reply.

The reader wrote: "Regarding the question on First Communion from an Extraordinary Minister you made no mention of the 2004 instruction 'Redemptionis Sacramentum,' which has: '[87.] … Moreover First Communion should always be administered by a Priest and never outside the celebration of Mass.' Does this change your answer of Jan. 31, that it is OK for an extraordinary minister to administer the chalice at a first Communion?"

Well, it certainly strengthens my overall argument against the practice which inspired the original column.

It is not totally clear if this text would specifically forbid an extraordinary minister from administering the chalice after the child has received the Body of Christ. I would opine that it does, because, although Christ is received whole and entire under either species, if Communion is given under both kinds then it is the whole rite that encompasses the act of first Communion and not just the reception under the species of bread.

An extraordinary minister could hold the chalice for the priest if Communion under both kinds is given by intinction (by dipping the Host into the Precious Blood).

Returning to purification, a Marquette, Michigan, reader asked: "Could you describe the correct way vessels should be purified." We addressed this topic in some detail in a follow-up on Feb. 8, 2005.

A priest from San Francisco commented: "Is it true that pouring an equal amount, or more, of water into the chalice renders the consecrated wine in the chalice unconsecrated? If this is so -- and I would say that it must be because the sign of the sacrament is wine, and not totally diluted wine -- does this change the rules for purification? In other words, can what is in the chalice, if it is no longer consecrated, be poured down an ordinary sink, or does it need to be poured into the ground if not consumed?"

It is true that Christ's sacramental presence would cease should excess water (or even unconsecrated wine) be added to the Precious Blood. This is in conformity with the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas as we mentioned in another follow-up last July 5.

However, this is not a respectful way of treating the sacred species and could even be considered as a sacrilegious act.

In conformity with liturgical norms, the Precious Blood must be consumed in its proper state at the altar before the purification rites begin. If the quantity is too much for the priest and deacon to consume personally, the extraordinary ministers of holy Communion may assist in doing so immediately after finishing their ministry.

As "Redemptionis Sacramentum," No. 107, says: "Furthermore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed, and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms."

Finally, another priest from Bishopton, Scotland, offered some interesting observations on the word "purification" which I will share with our readers. He wrote:

"On purification perhaps I can shed a little light as the answer given is, I think, inadequate! The word is a challenging one at first but perhaps this will help. In the ancient world the great division recognized in culture (even pre-Christian) is the gap between the sacred and the profane.

"This gap cannot be bridged easily or casually -- the crossing of it is always marked and a special caste (e.g. priests) was necessary for this. Objects too, if they were used in both spheres, have to go through a process too -- it's called purification.

"If your chalice (simply a word for cup in its original Latin form -- 'calix') is used for both sacred (Mass) and profane (drinking at a meal) uses (and this was not uncommon in the earliest days of the church -- our understanding of the Real Presence and associated devotions and careful cleansing being a later part of our history) we must mark this. Chalices were thereafter purified before their use in Mass (hence 'purus-facere') but to mark their return to profane use they were also subject to a process -- the same one.

"This helps us understand why women were purified after childbirth. It was not that they needed to be cleansed, but that they had been involved in a sacred process -- bearing children (the result of procreation -- participating in God's work of creation); their moving back into the mundane or secular ('profane,' if you like) had to be marked, hence their 'churching.' This reminds us of the very positive and profoundly spiritual nature of this process and rite. I hope this helps!"

Focused Link: The Virtue of Prudence

It is defined as the intellectual virtue which rightly directs particular human acts, through rectitude of the appetite, toward a good end. Emotional well-being, we will argue, comes about through a certain structuring of the entire network of human emotions, one that results from a proper disposing of the emotions by the virtues. If we are correct, then prudence is the mother of emotional health. And if virtue is the secret to looking beautiful, then prudence is, in many ways, the mother of beautiful character. For it is prudence that determines the mean of reason in all human actions and situations.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0282.html

Focused Link: The Law of the Gift: Understanding the Two Sides of Love

How does a person know if he is in a relationship of authentic, committed love or just in another disappointing romance that will not stand the test of time?

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0072.html

Article: Self-Discipline May Beat Smarts as Key to Success

By Jay Mathews
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 17, 2006; Page A10

Zoe Bellars and Brad McGann, eighth-graders at Swanson Middle School in Arlington, do their homework faithfully and practice their musical instruments regularly. In a recent delayed gratification experiment, they declined to accept a dollar bill when told they could wait a week and get two dollars.

Those traits might be expected of good students, certainly no big deal. But a study by University of Pennsylvania researchers suggests that self-discipline and self-denial could be a key to saving U.S. schools.

According to a recent article by Angela L. Duckworth and Martin E.P. Seligman in the journal Psychological Science, self-discipline is a better predictor of academic success than even IQ.

"Underachievement among American youth is often blamed on inadequate teachers, boring textbooks, and large class sizes," the researchers said. "We suggest another reason for students falling short of their intellectual potential: their failure to exercise self-discipline. . . . We believe that many of America's children have trouble making choices that require them to sacrifice short-term pleasure for long-term gain, and that programs that build self-discipline may be the royal road to building academic achievement."

But how, educators, parents and other social scientists want to know, do you measure self-discipline? Duckworth, a former teacher studying for a doctorate in psychology, and Seligman, a psychology professor famous for books such as "Learned Optimism," used an assortment of yardsticks, including questions for the students (including how likely they are to have trouble breaking bad habits, on a 1-to-5 scale), ratings by their teachers and parents and the $1-now-or-$2-later test, which the researchers call the Delay Choice Task.

The results: "Highly self-disciplined adolescents outperformed their more impulsive peers on every academic-performance variable, including report card grades, standardized achievement test scores, admission to a competitive high school and attendance. Self-discipline measured in the fall predicted more variance in each of these outcomes than did IQ, and unlike IQ, self-discipline predicted gains in academic performance over the school year."

The study looked at one group of 140 eighth-graders and another group of 164 eighth-graders in a socioeconomically and ethnically diverse magnet school in a Northeast city. The names of the city, the school and the students were not revealed, so this reporter attempted a very small and unscientific version of the Delay Choice Task at Swanson.

Of the 10 eighth-graders approached during their lunch period, eight chose to forgo $1 right away in exchange for $2 in a week. The mothers of Zoe and Brad, who both declined the $1 offer, said they were not surprised by their children's decisions and thought the correlation of self-discipline with academic success made sense.

"I remember when Zoe was in the second grade, they had to do this poster of what they would do with $1 million," recalled her mother, Arlene Vigoda-Bellars, a former journalist. Her daughter said she would use it to go to Harvard. In preparation for that college competition, Zoe is taking intensified algebra and second-year Spanish, has a voice scholarship at a music school and plays first flute in Swanson's symphonic band.

Bertra McGann, a technical writer married to a Foreign Service officer, said that when Brad was 4, the family lived in Kenya and he was put in a class with older students. "He would come home from school and hand me the flashcards and work on his sight reading -- an extraordinary amount of self-discipline for a 4-year-old," she said. Now 13, Brad plays clarinet and basketball and earned his black belt in tae kwon do by practicing two hours a day, six days a week for two years.

Some experts expressed doubt about the Delay Choice Task. "I'd assume it was some kind of scam, take the buck and run," said Bob Schaeffer, public education director of FairTest, the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, a nonprofit group that is critical of over-reliance on testing in U.S. schools. Zoe refused to take the $2 at the end of the experiment. "I think it is rude to take money from strangers," she said.

Zoe always does her homework the minute she gets home from school at 2:30 p.m. Her friends, however, are not so diligent. During a telephone interview, Zoe noted that several of her friends' "away messages" -- put up on their online instant-messaging systems to explain why they aren't responding -- said they were doing their homework. "It's Sunday night," she said. "I finished mine Friday."

Some educators said schools can teach self-discipline. Rafe Esquith, an award-winning Los Angeles teacher, often tells his low-income fifth-graders about a study that showed that hungry 4-year-olds willing to wait for two marshmallows were more successful years later than those who gobbled up one marshmallow immediately.

Ryan Hill, director of the TEAM Academy Charter School in Newark, N.J., said students at his school, a Knowledge Is Power Program middle school in a low-income neighborhood, are required to stay at school until their homework is done if TV interfered with study the night before. "Over time, they learn to just do their homework before watching TV, delaying gratification, which becomes a habit of self-discipline," Hill said.

Educational psychologist Gerald W. Bracey noted the power of self-discipline in sports, citing tennis star Chris Evert, who triumphed over more talented players because she practiced more.

Martha McCarthy, an education professor at Indiana University, said such habits could be taught in early grades, with methods such as "giving students time to visit with their friends if they have been attentive during a lesson."

Will there be a Self-Discipline Test, the SDT, to replace the SAT? Most experts don't think so. Clever but lazy college applicants could "pretty easily figure out what the right answers would be to appear self-disciplined," said University of Virginia psychology professor Daniel T. Willingham.

Bruce Poch, vice president and dean of admissions at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif., said self-discipline was good but not necessarily the only key to success. Albert Einstein, Poch said, "wasn't the most self-disciplined kid, at least according to his math grades through school."

That hasn't stopped Duckworth, who has two small daughters, from using her findings at home. Her eldest daughter, Amanda, 4, gets only one piece of saved Halloween candy each night after dinner. Asked why, Amanda says slowly and carefully, "It is de-LAY of gra-ti-fi-ca-tion."

Article: New Poll Reveals Overwhelming Majority of Americans Want Greater Abortion Restrictions

VANCOUVER, January 17, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new poll conducted by Angus Reid for CBS News has revealed that the overwhelming majority of Americans would like to see greater restrictions placed on abortion.

Thirty-three percent of respondents said that abortion should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman’s life; 17% said abortion should be allowed to save a woman’s life; 5% said abortion should not be permitted at all, while 15% said abortion should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now. In total, 70% of respondents favour greater restrictions. Only 27% said that abortion’s availability should remain unchanged – permitted in all cases.

Angus-Reid interviewed 1,151 American adults by telephone, between January 4 and January 8.

Focused Link: Temperance and Emotional Well-Being

Temperance is the first virtue that perfects man’s ability to act well with one’s self from within one’s self.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0281.html

Focused Link: Designed for Sex

Midnight. Shelly is getting herself drunk so that she can bring herself to go home with the strange man seated next to her at the bar. One o’clock. Steven is busy downloading pornographic images of children from Internet bulletin boards. Two o’clock. Marjorie, who used to spend every Friday night in bed with a different man, has been binging and purging since eleven. Three o’clock. Pablo stares through the darkness at the ceiling, wondering how to convince his girlfriend to have an abortion. Four o’clock. After partying all night, Jesse takes another man home, not mentioning that he tests positive for an incurable STD. Five o’clock. Lisa is in the bathroom, cutting herself delicately with a razor. This isn’t what my generation expected when it invented the sexual revolution. The game isn’t fun anymore. Even some of the diehard proponents of that enslaving liberation have begun to show signs of fatigue and confusion.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0125.html

Focused Link: Love and . . . Responsibility?

It is routinely pointed out that about half of all marriages end in divorce. But what is not often discussed is the other half of the equation: the marriages that don't break up. Are those marriages thriving? Do married couples that stay together feel truly close to one another? Do they achieve true, lasting, personal intimacy?

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0071.html

Focused Link: Why I chose love as the theme of my first encyclical

Benedict XVI has published his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, God is love. Why did he write it? Why did he choose this theme? What was his intention? The Holy Father responds to these questions in the text below.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0825.html