Father Raniero Cantalamessa on Unclean Spirits

ROME, JAN. 27, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher to the Pontifical Household, on this Sunday's liturgical readings.

* * *

Fourth Sunday of Ordinary Time, Cycle B
(Deuteronomy 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 7:32-35; Mark 1:21-28)

The Unclean Spirit Came Out of Him

"Then a man with an unclean spirit cried out: 'What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.' Jesus then rebuked him saying: 'Be silent and come out of him!' And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying out with a loud voice, came out of him." What to think of this episode narrated in this Sunday's Gospel and of many other similar incidents present in the Gospel? Do "unclean spirits" still exist? Does the devil exist?

When we speak of belief in the devil, we must distinguish two levels: the level of popular beliefs and the intellectual level (literature, philosophy and theology). On the popular level, or the level of customs, our present situation is not that different from the Middle Ages, or the 14th-16th centuries, sadly famous for the importance given to diabolical phenomena. There no longer are, it is true, Inquisition trials, deaths at the stake for the possessed, witch hunts and similar things; but practices that have the devil at the center are even more widespread than they were then, and not only among the poor and popular classes. It has become a social (and commercial!) phenomenon of vast proportions. More than that, it could be said that the more one tries to expel the devil out the door, so much more does he return through the window; the more he is excluded from faith, the stronger he gets in superstition.

Things are very different at the intellectual and cultural level. Here the most absolute silence already reigns about the devil. The enemy no longer exists. R. Bultmann, the author of the demystification, wrote: "One cannot make use of electric light and the radio, one cannot make use of medical means and clinics in case of illness and at the same time believe in the world of spirits."

I believe that one of the reasons that many find it difficult to believe in the devil is because they look for him in books, whereas the devil is not interested in books, but rather in souls. Paul VI reaffirmed forcefully the biblical and traditional doctrine on this "dark agent and enemy that is the devil." He wrote, among other things: "Evil is no longer only a deficiency, but an efficiency, a living, spiritual, perverted and perverting being, terrible reality, mysterious and dreadful."

In this realm, however, the crisis has not happened in vain, without bearing even positive fruits. In the past, talk of the devil was often exaggerated; he was seen where he was not; many offenses and injustices were committed with the pretext of fighting him; much discretion and prudence is necessary not to fall in the enemy's game. To see the devil everywhere is no less deflecting than to see him nowhere. St. Augustine said: "The devil rejoices when he is accused. More than that, he wants you to accuse him; he accepts gladly all your recrimination, if this serves to dissuade you from making your confession!"

Therefore, one understands the Church's prudence in discouraging the indiscriminate practice of exorcism by people who have not received any mandate to exercise this ministry.

Our cities are full of people who make exorcism one of the many paid practices and they boast of removing "spells, the evil eye, bad luck, malignant negativities on people, houses, enterprises, commercial activities." It is surprising that in a society such as ours, so alert to commercial frauds and willing to denounce cases of excessive credit and abuses in the exercise of a profession, many people are found willing to swallow such hoaxes.

That day, even before Jesus said anything in the synagogue of Capernaum, the unclean spirit felt ejected and obliged to come out in the open. It was Jesus' "holiness" that seemed "untenable" for the unclean spirit. The Christian who lives in grace and is temple of the Holy Spirit, bears in himself some of this holiness of Christ, and it is precisely the latter which operates, in the environments where he lives, a silent and effective exorcism.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Article: Neutrality Follies

An incisive article by Richard Bastien, a Canadian freelance writer, on the recent ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court on group sex and partner-swapping. The full article follows.

*~*~*~*~*

The Supreme Court recently concluded, in a 7-2 ruling, that clubs that feature group sex and partner-swapping do not harm Canadian society and should not be considered criminal. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin justified this decision by noting that "over time, courts increasingly came to recognise that morals and taste were subjective, arbitrary and unworkable in the criminal context…".

In making this statement, Beverly McLachlin has in effect declared that one of the basic principles underpinning the Canadian legal system is that the law should never be used to enforce morality. In other words, enacted laws should be morally neutral.

This is not only wrong, it is absurd. It is impossible to conceive of any law that does not have a moral basis. Even a bad law has a moral basis, ie, it is based on a false morality.

One cannot imagine a law that does not have some kind of moral rationale. For example, the law that imposes gasoline taxes is based on the notion that people who drive around town should in some way pay for doing so. The law that provides for our progressive income tax system assumes that some people ought to pay proportionately more for government services accessible to all. The law that sets speed limits is based on the moral idea that we need to be concerned about the safety of other people on the road.

The judgment rendered by Beverly McLachlin is flawed not only because it suggests that laws can be devoid of any moral basis but, more importantly, because it is inherently inconsistent. People who insist upon upholding the concept of moral neutralism (the notion that there are no universal objective moral standards by which our behaviour can be judged) are themselves non-neutral.

It is logically impossible to commit to neutralism without committing to a particular value, whether it is social peace, tolerance, multiculturalism, individualism, etc. Any such commitment entails a violation of neutralism. This points to an even deeper problem, which is that there can be no such thing as moral neutrality. The problem is not that neutralism is something difficult to achieve. The problem is that it is unachievable. And it is unachievable because it is inconceivable. It is simply impossible to make statements about social life without expressing some kind of preference about the criteria that should govern such life.

In short, neutralism is for cranks.

Does that mean that, in so far as morality and the law is concerned, there is no choice other than being either a fool or a bigot? The answer is no, subject to two provisos: (a) enacted laws should be based on an objective moral order; (b) the law should enforce morality only when the public interest is at stake.

As regards the first point, the origin of enacted laws is the natural moral law, a concept that was first developed by Roman legal scholars long before Christianity appeared. It is a non-sectarian defence of objective, universal moral principles. Judges can make decisions based on natural law because it is sustainable independently of any religious or philosophical argument. To refrain from killing, stealing or raping women is not the expression of a "subjective, arbitrary and unworkable" preference, but a universal, objective moral truth easily understood by people of all cultural backgrounds.

Beverly McLachlin and her like would respond that the real issue is whether private acts, such as group sex between consenting adults, are harmful to society. The answer is that sex is both a private and a public matter. Our sexuality is meant to bond man and woman and to create new life. And the bonding and the creation of new life cannot be separated. Marriage and the family are natural institutions through which human beings are created, nurtured, educated and socialised. We first learn to interact with others through our parents and our siblings. Only after that first stage do we learn to interact in society. And social scientists keep reminding us that, without a proper family environment, kids are less prone to be socially responsible.

The upshot is that we need stable marriages and families, not because the Church says so, but because they are vital to the future of a healthy society. One cannot deny that enacted laws have a moral grounding without tacitly denying that there exists a natural law. If we believe that the law is a pure invention of the human mind, then what we have traditionally called justice is sheer arbitrariness. And every man and woman knows deep in his or her heart that cannot be so.

Father Cantalamessa's Follow-up on Limbo and the Unbaptized

ROME, JAN. 24, 2006 (Zenit.org).- A commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, published Jan. 6 in ZENIT, prompted questions about the status of unbaptized children who die.

The topic has been under the consideration by the International Theological Commission, at the urging of Pope John Paul II (see ZENIT, Oct. 7, 2004).

Father Cantalamessa, the preacher to the Pontifical Household, offered these further reflections on the topic.

* * *

Some readers have said that they are perplexed by my affirmation that unbaptized children will not go to limbo but to heaven, which I expressed in my recent commentary on the Gospel of the feast of Christ's Baptism, published by ZENIT News. This gives me the opportunity to clarify the reasons for my affirmation.

Jesus instituted the sacraments as ordinary means to salvation. They are ordinarily necessary and people who can receive them and refuse are accountable before God. But God didn't bind himself to these means. Also of the Eucharist Jesus says: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man you shall not have life" (John 6:53), but this doesn't mean that anyone who has never received the Eucharist is not saved.

Baptism of desire and the feast of the Holy Innocents are confirmations of this. Some may counter that Jesus is involved in the death of Innocents who died because of him, which is not always the case of unbaptized babies. True, but also of what is done to the least of his brothers Jesus says: "You have done it to me" (Matthew 25:40).

The doctrine of limbo has never been defined as dogma by the Church; it was a theological hypothesis mostly depending on St. Augustine's doctrine of original sin and was abandoned in practice long ago and theology too now dismisses it.

We should take seriously the truth of God's universal will for salvation ("God wants everybody to be saved," 1 Timothy 2:4), and also the truth that "Jesus died for all." The following text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to hold exactly the same position:

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism" (CCC, 1261).

I don't think that to affirm that unbaptized babies are saved will encourage abortion. People who neglect Church doctrine on abortion are scarcely concerned about other doctrines of the same Church. Even if there were grounds for such a fear, the abuse of a doctrine should never prevent us from holding it.

I must confess that the mere idea of a God eternally depriving an innocent creature of his vision simply because another person has sinned, or because of an accidental miscarriage, makes me shudder … and I am sure would make any unbeliever happy to stay away from the Christian faith. If hell consists essentially in the deprivation of God, limbo is hell!

Wednesday Liturgy: An Alb Alone; Delayed Penance

ROME, JAN. 24, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: 1) Can a priest celebrating a private Mass in a chapel wear simply an alb with a stole on the ground of convenience and nothing more? 2) When does it become sinful for a penitent who has gone to confession to delay his penance (satisfaction) given to him or her by a priest after the confession? Does this prevent him/her from receiving holy Communion in the Mass which comes up before the penance is begun or completed? -- A.E., Onitsha, Nigeria

A: The answer to the first question is relatively simple: no.

Except in those few cases where the Holy See has granted a special dispensation from using the chasuble, it must be used by a single celebrant in all celebrations, or by at least the principal celebrant in concelebrations.

As "Redemptionis Sacramentum," No. 123, states: "The vestment proper to the Priest celebrant at Mass, and in other sacred actions directly connected with Mass unless otherwise indicated, is the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole. Likewise the Priest, in putting on the chasuble according to the rubrics, is not to omit the stole. All Ordinaries should be vigilant in order that all usage to the contrary be eradicated."

The second question requires some nuance.

It is necessary to recall that accepting the penance is one of the essential acts of the penitent. And thus is necessary for the validity of the confession itself.

It is one thing to accept the fulfillment of the penance and another to actually fulfill it. The state of grace is restored immediately on receiving absolution and a delay in fulfilling the penance does not affect this. Subsequent failure to fulfill the penance, however, can be sinful if due to neglect.

From this principle a person may receive the Eucharist and the other sacraments immediately after confession even if, for some good reason, they have not yet been able to fulfill the penance.

In principle, one should complete the penance as soon as possible, preferably before leaving the church after making one's confession.

On some occasions, however, the nature of the penance itself implies some delay or is spread out over time. If the sin has merited a more severe penance -- such as praying the 20 mysteries of the rosary, visiting a specific sanctuary, or a day of fasting -- then clearly they must be carried out later, albeit within a reasonable time.

At times external circumstances may arise which limits fulfilling a penance in the short term. If, for example, after accepting a penance to visit a certain place, or fast for some time, a person develops a condition impeding the penance, then he does not fall into any sin.

If a person has not fulfilled a penance due to neglect, laziness or forgetfulness, then this fact must be confessed in a subsequent confession. It is not necessary to confess the non-fulfillment of a penance which has been delayed but which one has the intention of fulfilling as soon as practically feasible.

On the other hand, if unforeseen circumstances have made fulfillment of a previously accepted penance excessively burdensome, the penitent may explain the difficulty to either the same or another confessor, who may substitute the original penance for another one which is possible to fulfill.

In the same way, if, at the moment of confession, a priest were to impose a penance which a person would find impossible to fulfill -- for example, fasting to a person suffering from diabetes -- then the person should explain the circumstances so that the priest may change his mind.

Wednesday Litrugy: Follow-up: Using Deacons as Readers and Servers

ROME, JAN. 24, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Some readers commented on our column regarding deacons serving as lectors (Jan. 10). A Texas reader mentioned that it was a legitimate practice before the liturgical reforms.

"In the older form of the Roman rite," the reader wrote, "the priest reads the epistle and Gospel by himself at low Mass. Priests can act as deacons and subdeacons; deacons can act as subdeacons at high Mass. A cleric of high order can always act liturgically in a role normally reserved for a cleric of lower order…. In the uneducated mind of this layman, it seems that this kind of adaptation can be tolerated, both by church law and in practice, in the seminary setting without too much fuss."

(The order of subdiaconate, by the way, was abolished by Pope Paul VI for the present Roman rite; it had functions similar to those of the present instituted acolyte.)

I would say that while there is no specific law that would forbid a priest or deacon from acting as a lector or acolyte if necessary, it would certainly be against the spirit of the present liturgy for him to serve in this capacity if someone who could carry out these duties was available.

A further difference in past and present law is that while present law foresees, for example, that a concelebrating priest may carry out the deacon's functions, or proclaim the Gospel even if not concelebrating, in no case does he ever wear the deacon's vestment, the dalmatic. In the former liturgy, priests serving as subdeacons and deacons would wear the subdeacon's tunic and the dalmatic.

While it is true, as our reader observed, that "active participation" is above all a spiritual and internal act, it is likewise true that present liturgical norms rightly stress that this inner participation is fostered if the celebration truly manifests the whole body of the Church in her different orders and ministries.

The liturgical celebration in the seminary, rather than an exception, should really be the paradigm for celebration in the diocese. It should teach the seminarians how to "actively participate" both internally and externally in exercising, first of all the royal or common priesthood of all the faithful, and then the different ministries and the degrees of orders.

A seminarian who has not learned how to exercise his royal priesthood while still a layman will have difficulty in fully appreciating the exercise of the sacrament of orders and in inculcating true active participation in the faithful under his care.

A couple of other questions from readers addressed related topics.

One correspondent asked: "Is it proper that a lay reader also be an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion if there is another reader or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion also available?"

While it is preferable, although not obligatory, that the reader be distinct from the acolyte, there is no incompatibility between reader and extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.

Indeed, if the reader were also an instituted lector, he enjoys a certain precedence in serving as an extraordinary minister over someone who is not an instituted minister.

In the same manner, if an instituted acolyte serves Mass, he has precedence over any other extraordinary minister, provided of course, that an extraordinary minister is really necessary.

Finally, a San Antonio, Texas, reader asked: "There seems to be a lot of confusion as to when a permanent deacon should wear the dalmatic and whether the stole is worn inside or outside of the dalmatic. Some pastors won't allow the stole to be worn on the outside so as to not confuse them for priest."

Confusion indeed! By the way, there is no difference, with respect to liturgical vestments, between the permanent and the transitional deacon. The dalmatic is the recommended vestment for both.

The deacon's stole is always worn underneath the dalmatic.

This norm, however, also applies to the priest who should wear the stole under the chasuble. The usage of wearing the stole over the chasuble is a fad that seems to be slowing losing ground to traditional practice as well as benefiting good taste and decorum.

Liturgical tradition elucidates this point by saying that the stole, as a symbol of priestly authority, should always be covered by the chasuble, the symbol of priestly charity.

Father Cantalamessa on True Conversion

ROME, JAN. 20, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, Pontifical Household preacher, on this Sunday's Gospel.

* * *

(Jonah 3:1-5,10; 1 Corinthians 7:29-31; Mark 1:14-20)

Repent and Believe in the Gospel!

After John was arrested, Jesus went to Galilee preaching the Gospel of God and said: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the Gospel." We must immediately eliminate two prejudices. First: conversion does not refer only to nonbelievers, or to those who say they are "lay"; all of us indistinctly have need to be converted. Second: conversion, understood in a genuinely evangelical sense, is not synonymous with resignation, effort and sadness, but with freedom and joy; it is not a regressive but a progressive state.

Before Jesus, to convert always meant a "going back" (the Hebrew term, "shur," means to reverse course, to go back on one's steps). It indicated the act of the one who, at a certain point of life, realized that he was "not on course"; then he paused, reconsidered; decided on a change of attitude and returned to observance of the law and the Covenant with God. He made a real change of direction, a "U-turn." Conversion, in this case, has a moral meaning; it consists of changing customs, of reforming one's life.

This meaning changes on Jesus' lips. To convert no longer means to go back to the ancient Covenant and observance of the law; rather, it means to make a great leap forward and to enter the Kingdom, to cling to the salvation which has come to men gratuitously, by the free and sovereign initiative of God.

Conversion and salvation have exchanged places. There no longer is, as before, the conversion of man and therefore salvation as God's recompense; rather, salvation is first, as generous and gratuitous offer of God, and then conversion as man's response. In this consist the "glad tidings," the joyful character of evangelical conversion. God does not wait for man to make the first step, to change his life, to do good works, almost as if salvation is compensation for his efforts. No; grace precedes, it is God's initiative. In this, Christianity is distinguished from all other religions: it does not begin with preaching duty but gift; it does not begin with the law, but with grace.

"Repent and believe": This phrase does not mean therefore two different and successive things, but the same fundamental action: Convert, that is, believe! By believing, be converted. Faith is the door through which one enters the Kingdom. If it had been said: The door is innocence, the door is exact observance of all the commandments, the door is patience, purity, one might say: it's not for me; I'm not innocent, I am lacking in this or that virtue. But we are told: The door is faith. It is not impossible for anyone to believe, because God has created us free and intelligent precisely to make the act of faith in him possible for us.

Faith has different faces: There is the faith-assent of the intellect, faith-trust. In our case, it is a faith-appropriation, that is, an act by which one appropriates for oneself something, almost by arrogance. St. Bernard even uses the verb usurp: "What I cannot obtain on my own I usurp from the side of Christ!"

"To convert and believe" means, precisely, to do a kind of sudden and ingenuous action. With it, even before making an effort and acquiring merits, we obtain salvation, we also appropriate to ourselves a "kingdom." And it is God himself who invites us to do so, he loves to see this ingenuity, and he is the first to be surprised that "so few respond."

"Convert!" is not, as we see, a threat, a thing that makes one sad and obliges one to walk with one's head bowed, thus taking longer. On the contrary, it is an incredible offer, an invitation to freedom and joy. It is Jesus' "good news" to men of all times.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Wednesday Liturgy: Moms Giving First Communion

ROME, JAN. 17, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Sunday last an acquaintance of my wife's remarked, in passing, that it had been a stressful spring, "You know, with first Communion and all." The lady explained that at her parish in Virginia, mothers (as in moms) administer first Eucharist to their children. She was "so nervous [she] almost couldn't say 'the Body of Christ'" and had to be prompted. Have you ever heard of such a thing, and is it not a gross liturgical/sacramental abuse? -- L.L., Washington, D.C.

A: This practice is not only unlawful but is also rather poor pastoral practice. From the legal point of view, an analogous case was dealt with in the instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," No. 94. To wit:

"It is not licit for the faithful 'to take … by themselves and, still less, to hand … from one to another' the sacred host or the sacred chalice. Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass."

A mother and child are in a similar relationship to that of spouses with respect to the above norm.

Extraordinary ministers of holy Communion are commissioned by the bishop to respond to concrete pastoral needs. Appointing a parent as ad hoc extraordinary minister can never correspond to such a necessity.

Apart from the legal consideration, one could honestly ask, what kind of message is conveyed by such initiatives.

Perhaps, the thought is that since mothers gave life and nurture to the children, then it is somehow appropriate that they should also be the first to give them the Bread of life.

If this, or any similar reasoning, is behind it I sincerely believe that the practice actually weakens both the importance of first Communion, and the importance of the role of parents in bringing their children to the altar rail for the first time.

When children receive Communion for the first time they receive a gift from God. For the first time they share in something on a par with their parents, something which their parents, by themselves, are incapable of giving. In a sense they take a step in spiritual maturity, in entering into a personal relationship with Christ, and in forming part of the wider family which is the Church.

The fact that holy Communion is primarily God's gift is best expressed by receiving it from the celebrating priest as Christ's representative. Indeed, most pastors rightly reserve the administration of first holy Communion to themselves and almost never delegate this ministry to extraordinary ministers, or even to deacons.

The joy of parents in seeing their children receive Communion should stem from seeing how they have fulfilled part of their mission in assuring their children's spiritual growth in unison with the physical. They have strived hard to form and guide the child and pass on the faith, but they know full well that it is above all God's gift and not theirs.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Lector in an Irregular Relationship

ROME, JAN. 17, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

After our comments on the criteria for choosing suitable lectors and other ministers (see Dec. 20), an Oregon reader asked: "Our parish is in considerable turmoil about many issues, this being one of them: Is it allowed to have a homosexual man who lives with his partner, as a Eucharistic minister?"

As we mentioned before, the instruction "Immensae Caritatis" indicates that the choice of an extraordinary minister "should never fall upon a person whose designation could cause astonishment to the faithful."

Note that the norm does not say "scandal" but "astonishment." This wider, but more ambiguous, category should induce pastors to exercise great pastoral prudence before inviting or accepting people to serve as ministers. They also should weigh carefully any special circumstances that might cause difficulty to a lot of parishioners.

These need not always be negative elements. For example, it might not always be advisable for people actively involved in politics to serve as liturgical ministers if many parishioners find it difficult to dissociate the private and public personae of the former.

Since exercising a liturgical ministry is always a service, nobody is deprived of a right if particular conditions prevent his or her being called.

In the case at hand, we must distinguish between a person who is burdened with same-sex attractions, and a person who is actively living out those attractions.

A person with same-sex attractions who is striving to live a chaste life need not be excluded from lay ministries in the Church, which is not the same as saying that he or she has a right to exercise them.

Here, too, the pastor must weigh carefully the concrete circumstances, such as, for example, the case of a person who had been earlier (and publicly) identified as a practicing homosexual. His or her appearance, say, in the sanctuary, might cause "astonishment" to the faithful who are ignorant of the current spiritual situation.

It is not necessary to serve as a liturgical minister to form part of the Kingdom of heaven. A person who faces special difficulties and who accepts the challenges and sacrifices inherent in living the Christian calling is fully capable of reaching the heights of sanctity.

A person involved in a homosexual relationship cannot serve as a liturgical minister, since this service implies communion with Church teachings and, at least, the daily struggle to live in conformity with those teachings.

In maintaining an ongoing relationship with a same sex-partner, whether openly or hidden, a person dissents from Church teachings and is living in an objectively sinful condition.

Such a person should not normally be receiving holy Communion, much less acting as an extraordinary minister for others.

Certainly, one often hears the argument that only God can know the true condition of someone's soul.

This is true, but since neither the Church, nor for that matter the individuals concerned, are blessed with divine omniscience, they must be guided by objective Church teachings regarding the particular need of those who struggle with same-sex attractions to live chaste lives and avoid all proximate occasions of sin.

Father Raniero Cantalamessa on Purity

ROME, JAN. 13, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher to the Pontifical Household, on this Sunday's liturgical readings.

* * *

Second Sunday of Ordinary Time, Cycle B
(1 Samuel 3:3b-10,19; 1 Corinthians 6:13c-15a,17-20; John 1:35-42)

Glorify God in Your Body

The Gospel passage allows us to be present at the formation of the first nucleus of disciples, from which will first develop the College of Apostles and then the whole Christian community. John is still on the banks of the Jordan River with two of his disciples when he sees Jesus go by and does not hesitate to cry out again: "Behold the Lamb of God!" The two disciples understand, and, leaving the Baptist for good, they start to follow Jesus.

Seeing that they are following him, Jesus turns to them and asks: "What do you seek?" To break the ice, they respond: "Teacher, where are you staying?" "Come and see," he replies. They went, they saw him and that day they stayed with him. That moment became decisive for them in their lives, remembering even the hour it occurred: it was close to four o'clock in the afternoon.

In the second reading, St. Paul illustrates a feature that must characterize the life of Christ's disciple: purity. "The body," he says among other things, "is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. … So glorify God in your body." Given that it is a topic much discussed and vital for our present-day society, it is worthwhile to give it our attention.

Perhaps those who are able to understand best the subject of purity are precisely those who are truly in love. Sex becomes "impure" when it reduces the other (or one's own body) to an object, a thing, but this is something that true love refuses to do. Many of the excesses taking place in this area are somewhat artificial; they are due to an external imposition dictated by commercial or consumerist motives. It is not, as one is lead to believe, the "spontaneous evolution of customs." It is a guided, imposed evolution.

One of the excuses that contributes most to fostering the sin of impurity in the common mentality and to divest it of all responsibility is the idea that in any case, it harms no one, it does not harm the rights or liberty of others except, it is said, in the case of rape or violation.

But it is not true that the sin of impurity ends with the one who commits it. All abuse, no matter where and who commits it, contaminates man's moral environment, causes an erosion of values and creates what Paul defines "the law of sin," illustrating as he does its terrible power to drag people to ruin (cf. Romans 7:14ff).

The first victims of all this are in fact young people. Phenomena so condemned, such as the exploitation of minors, rape, pedophilia, but also certain atrocities committed not on minors, but by minors -- are not born from nothing. They are, at least in part, the result of the climate of exasperated excitation in which we live and in which the most fragile succumb.

It was not easy, once it began, to stop the mudslide that some time ago struck Sarno and other populations of Campania, destroying them. It was necessary to avoid the felling of trees and other environmental damages that made the mudslide inevitable. The same is true for certain tragedies connected to sex: Having destroyed the natural defenses, the tragedies become inevitable.

But today it is not enough to have a purity based on fears, taboos, prohibitions, the mutual escape of man and woman, as if each one of them were, always and necessarily, a trap for the other and a potential enemy, instead of, as the Bible says, "a help." It is necessary to stress defenses that are no longer external but internal, based on personal convictions. Purity must be cultivated for itself, for the positive value it represents for the individual, and not only because of concerns of health or good name to which its transgression exposes one.

Purity ensures the most precious thing that exists in the world: the possibility to approach God. "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God," said Jesus. They will not see him just one day, after their death, but already now: In the beauty of creation, of a face, of a work of art; they will see him in their own hearts.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Article: Forming Priests in Today's Culture by George Weigel

Now that the initial dust over the Congregation for Catholic Education's recent Instruction on homosexuality and candidacy for the priesthood has settled, three points seem worth underscoring.

The first point is one of historical and theological context.

On Dec. 8, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, the Church marked the 40th anniversary of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council --- a reforming Council intended by John XXIII to prepare the Church for what John Paul II would later call a "springtime of evangelization."

Historically, we must remember that every great period of reform in Catholic history has included a reform of the priesthood and the consecrated life. Theologically, we must understand that there can be no "reform" of any facet of Catholic life without reference to "form:" in this case, the "form" in question is the priesthood understood as an iconic embodiment of the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ. Christ's eternal priesthood, in turn, involves Christ's spousal relationship with his bride, the Church. Keeping those truths of history and theology in mind is essential for reading the recent Instruction from Rome correctly --- which is to say, as a reforming document.

The second point is one of cultural context.

Living chastity is no easy business in the sex-saturated culture of the contemporary West. It's impossible to walk through a mall, turn on your computer or television, or browse through a bookstore without being bombarded by sexual imagery of every imaginable sort. The challenge of living chastely in these circumstances is a tough one for everybody: single, married or celibate, lay or ordained. That is one important reason why the appropriate authorities in the Church --- pastors, diocesan vocation directors, seminary faculty, seminary rectors, religious superiors, and, above all, bishops --- must be as certain as humanly possible that a man is capable of living the demanding vocation of chaste celibate love before he is called to Holy Orders.

That responsibility cannot be out-sourced to psychologists and psychiatrists. Why? Because, in the final analysis, it's a judgment of pastoral prudence, not a clinical judgment. The evaluation of clinicians can be helpful in forming a judgment about a man's capacity for living chaste celibate love in today's sexual free-fire zone. But the final call rests with the Church's pastoral authorities. And as the Long Lent of 2002 made unmistakably clear, it is a responsibility that cannot be shirked.

Candidates for the priesthood, whether diocesan or religious, also have a responsibility here, particularly given the challenging cultural circumstances in which they propose to serve. Any prospective candidate for ordination should be prepared and willing to demonstrate his capacity to live chaste celibate love before he asks the Church to confirm his vocation to the ordained ministry. Indeed, a willingness to do so might be considered an important sign of whether or not a man's sense that God is calling him to a priestly vocation is a true discernment.

The third point takes us to the bottom of the bottom line.

Will this document make any difference? That is, will it help foster a genuine and enduring reform of the priesthood? That is entirely up to local bishops, in the case of the diocesan priesthood. A bishop must take the time and trouble to know his seminarians before he issues the canonical call to Orders. If a bishop's first real encounter with a man he is to ordain happens on the day of that man's ordination, something is seriously wrong.

As for men's communities of consecrated religious life, which seem to be the primary (albeit not exclusive) locus of unchaste clerical "gay culture" today, no Roman document can substitute for courageous leadership by religious superiors, calling all under their authority to live the "more excellent way" by honoring the majesty of their vows.

In the providence of God, the Long Lent of 2002 could not have been meaningless: it was, in retrospect, a call to the entire Church to take the reform of the Church's ordained ministry with the urgency Vatican II proposed. The recent Instruction is a response to that call, and should be welcomed as such.

George Weigel is a senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

Focused Link: Eight is Not Enough

The full article:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110007776

*~*~*~*~*

There has been much gloomy beard-tugging in recent years about the demographic decline of Western countries. Though it is true that parents in the U.S. are managing to replace themselves--unlike, for example, Europeans--we do not live in an era of big families.

Today fewer than 10% of Americans live in households of five or more people and only 1.8% in families of seven or more. That means that if your family consists of a mother and father and five children, you live where I do, which is statistically on the lunatic fringe. "Omigod, five kids?" people gasp when I tell them. "Are you nuts?"

There is, however, one corner of the U.S. where family size has suddenly expanded to titanic proportions, and it isn't Utah. It's Hollywood.

Three movies out this season suggest that we are experiencing a large-family pop-cultural moment. "Nanny McPhee" features seven grubby, uncontrollable children who drive away nannies by the score. "Cheaper by the Dozen 2," depicts one family of 12 cereal-spilling children and another of eight. "Yours, Mine & Ours" has a gargantuan passel packed into a lighthouse: "Eighteen kids. One house. No way!" goes the movie-poster tagline.

Focused Link: Spirituality may be just what the doctor ordered

The full article:
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051219/COLUMNIST29/51218016/-1/NEWS

*~*~*~*~*

So you have faith in the doctor?

Doctors, it seems, have plenty of faith themselves – religious faith.

That’s the profile emerging from one of the first scientific studies of the religious beliefs among medical doctors in the United States.

Dr. Farr A. Curlin of the University of Chicago, who headed the survey of 1,144 physicians nationwide, picked the topic for several reasons.

Religious belief is strong in the United States. Surveys show that 83 per cent of the population believes in God and 74 per cent in life after death. Patients’ faith in God affects the way they cope with serious illness. It also affects their decisions about medical care, especially as life begins and ends.

Spirituality is getting a higher profile in medicine these days.

Some physicians are praying with their patients. Researchers are studying the use of prayer to treat disease, and how religious belief affects health.

A strong dose of faith may be good medicine.

Focused Link: To the church, he’s public enemy No. 1

How a regression analysis distorts everything human about us ...

The full article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10351693/

*~*~*~*~*

The paper carries the daunting title “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies.” The writing is appropriately dry, but it is dry like tinder is dry, and when it was discovered, the tinder was set alight. Now it is burning hot under the skin of Christian believers and thinkers.

This is what it finds:

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies. ... The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly.”

Interview: Unveiling Opus Dei: An Interview with John L. Allen

Does Opus Dei deserve the infamy inspired by The Da Vinci Code? Or are they at the forefront of bringing the encounter with God into everyday life? We spoke to acclaimed Vatican journalist John L. Allen Jr. about his book on Opus Dei, and the reality behind the perception.

The full interview:
http://godspy.com/reviews/Opus-Dei-An-Interview-with-John-Allen-by-John-Romanowsky.cfm

Article: Outbreak of Faith

An article by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor in "The Observer" (Dec 18, 2005)

*~*~*~*~*

Have you noticed the new secular wobble? I don't mean just the Narnia fuss over resurrected lions, and the shock discovery of a Christian sub-text in a CS Lewis novel. I mean the queasy feeling that goes hand in hand with the loss of confidence in confident rationalism. I mean the way faith keeps erupting outside the windows of secularism, interrupting the clear view of human beings as autonomous, selfish beings, with only this life to believe in.

Religion never went away, of course. Some 75 per cent of Britons profess or support Christian values, and most people step at least once a year into a church, mosque or temple. There is much that confirms, but also much that contradicts, secular Britain; what to make, for example, of the latest statistics for the Catholic Church in England and Wales that show a decline in numbers marrying in church yet an increase in the number of baptisms and priestly vocations?

What I do know is that, in generation after generation, in an un-newsworthy way, people sit up straight and realise God was born to a refugee family, modelled pure love, and was killed by a violent society so we all might enter a relationship of intimacy with Him. And in generation after generation, that astonishing discovery leads to a turnaround in the way people live and think.

Nothing new there: I would be cautious of talking of a revival of faith. But I do see a loss of faith in no-faith. There is a new uncertainty about our certainties, a questioning of the narratives of the Enlightenment which sought to make the individual the ultimate measure and reason the only yardstick.

Science produces miracles, but also poses questions and challenges that cannot be answered from within the laboratory. The dignity of all human beings, the building of peace, the call to committed love - these are all religious challenges, because they require reaching into the depths of our hearts and minds to find out who we are and why we are here. The Judaeo-Christian narrative, which starts from God making us in his image and likeness and then dying and rising for us, has been the constant current of our civilisation, as evident in the rivers that flow outside religion as well as within it.

What is new is that the rejection of religion seems increasingly dogmatic, while the search for the transcendent appears as gentle and humble as the baby in the manger.

Pendulums swing. It is partly our living remorselessly on the surface of things, which has produced a yearning for depth and reflection. The offspring of hype is banality: bombarded constantly with insignificant or excessive claims, we tend to discount all of them. Yet because we are truth-seeking beings, this leaves us yearning for truths so deep they need to be contemplated - as the popularity of monasteries and spiritual sanctuaries shows.

What is new is that the 'dictatorship of relativism' - as Pope Benedict XVI describes our cultural hegemony - faces new cadres of determined opponents.

Pope John Paul II taught the master lesson in what it means to suffer with patience and dignity; in response, millions gathered in vigil around his bedside. The same lesson has been offered in other, smaller classrooms. One of my most moving moments this year was giving Communion to Abigail Witchalls as she lay, paralysed but smiling, in her hospital bed, the victim of appalling brutality who nurtured a child in her womb. Helpless in bed, she had dictated - through blinking eyes - a haiku, which read: 'Still silent body/But within my spirit sings/Dancing in love-light.' She became a channel of God's peace, and now - with the birth of her son and leaving hospital for home - she and her family glimpse the beginnings of a new dawn.

Faith broke out, too, at the Make Poverty History rally in Edinburgh in the summer, when 200,000 people converged on the G8 summit to press world leaders to fulfill their pledges to the globe's poor. I spoke to many people there: whether or not they expressed it in religious language, they were driven by a deep moral indignation, and a marvellous hope. Why, they asked, do our poorest brothers and sisters go to bed hungry, or die needlessly? The rally was a vast movement for human dignity, a moral awakening, comparable to that which sought an end to slavery.

The Spirit moves and suddenly those we regard as condemned become, in our moral imaginations, our family. Faced with global poverty we did not contemptuously ask, 'where is God?' but heard God gently ask us: 'Where is the humanity I made?'

Just as the summit closed, havoc and pain exploded on the streets of London. Terror is a provocation: in its contempt for human beings as political collateral, it tempts us to respond in the same vein. Yet what do we remember, in retrospect, about the response of Londoners to the bombs on the underground? Who forgets the efficiency and care shown by the emergency services, the way that Londoners put their arms around each other, and nursed each other? By their refusal to be corroded by violence, in their countless small acts of compassion, the British showed they believe in God's design for humanity.

Witnesses stepped forward with words to proclaim it. The 7 July attacks in London blasphemed God with violence in the cause of a religion unrecognisable to religious communities; yet the mother of one of the victims, Marie Fatayi-Williams, was given a prophet's tongue, pardoning her son's killers and pleading with tears for reconciliation in the name of the God she knew. What but faith summons from a grief-stricken mother the words: 'Anger begets hatred, begets more violence, so let us forgive'?

We saw Hurricane Katrina as an indictment of society, and so it was: it exposed alarming gaps in the human chain of solidarity. Yet everywhere people appeared to supply new links: like the 200 students who, hearing at Mass that the homeless needed shoes, left theirs at the altar and went home barefoot.

I leave on Christmas Day for Sri Lanka, to see the effects of the tsunami one year on and to give thanks for the astonishing generosity of the British people in assisting relief and reconstruction. That tidal wave of innocent death stunned us all, and left many asking God the question posed in The Brothers Karamazov: was it worth creating a world with so much pain in it?

Anyone who has lost ones they love must reject glib answers to that question. I hesitate before offering any. Yet there are clues, surely, in the confident responses that compassion makes to suffering, in the light that beams from a Marie Fatayi-Williams or an Abigail Witchalls. Why do we love, irrationally and without benefit to ourselves - why are we able to peer beyond pain and loss to the place beyond - if we were not so much more than what we see?

God knows, the world is worth it: the dignity of the divinely-created, divinely-nurtured human being is a wondrous thing, and when it shines through - as it has so often this year - it leaves everything changed. I say it not with satisfaction, but in gratitude: this year the light of the manger has burned very brightly indeed. No wonder that, in its rays, unbelief trembles. Happy Christmas.

Focused Link: Truth and Tolerance, Again

The notion that in matters of religion, but not only in matters of religion, one must make a choice between tolerance and truth is as persistent as it is false. It comes up again in connection with a study designed by sociologists James D. Davidson and Dean R. Hoge that explores how the sexual scandals have influenced Catholic attitudes toward the faith and the Church.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0197.html

*~*~*~* ~*

The study included a nationwide survey of more than a thousand self-identified Catholics, 60 percent of whom are registered in a parish and therefore, presumably, more active than the 40 percent who are not or are not sure whether they are registered.

“The overall picture,” the researchers report, “is one of stability, not decline, although there is more decline in some places, such as Boston. To our surprise, generational differences on the effects of the scandal turn out to be small, as were differences between registered parishioners and others.” “Catholics like being Catholic and are not very likely to leave the Church for other religious groups. Eighty-one percent of Catholics said that ‘being Catholic is a very important part of who I am,’ and two-thirds said they ‘cannot imagine being anything other than Catholic.’ Eighty-two percent said the ‘Catholic Church is very important to me personally,’ and 71 percent said they ‘would never leave the Catholic Church.’”

Contrary to a mischievous report of some years ago that only one-third of Catholics believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the study finds that 83 percent of Catholics agree that in the Mass “the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ.” Belief in the Real Presence is possibly considerably larger than 83 percent, since some Catholics, while not doubting the reality, would phrase differently what they believe happens in the Mass. Also of interest, while fewer than 50 percent of Catholics can name their bishop and a substantial minority thinks lay people should have a greater say in how their parishes are run, there is little support for the kind of angry challenging of the Church’s structure promoted by groups such as Voice of the Faithful and Call to Action. Not surprisingly, on every score of adherence, belief, and practice, registered parishioners score higher than the nonregistered.

Interview: To Clone or Not to Clone

Whether or not embryos should be cloned and then destroyed for their stem cells has been one of the hottest issues in science this year. James Sherley, a professor at MIT, says that the use of cells from cloned embryos is scientifically and ethically dubious.

The full interview:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0088.html

Focused Link: Science, Philosophy, Religion

Over the past four decades modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell — to investigate life at the molecular level — is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0076.html

*~*~*~*~*

Over the past four decades modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. The progress has been hard won. It has required tens of thousands of people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious work of the laboratory. Graduate students in untied tennis shoes scraping around the lab late on Saturday night; postdoctoral associates working fourteen hours a day seven days a week; professors ignoring their children in order to polish and repolish grant proposals, hoping to shake a little money loose from politicians with larger constituencies to feed — these are the people that make scientific research move forward. The knowledge we now have of life at the molecular level has been stitched together from innumerable experiments in which proteins were purified, genes cloned, electron micrographs taken, cells cultured, structures determined, sequences compared, parameters varied, and controls done. Papers were published, results checked, reviews written, blind alleys searched, and new leads fleshed out.

The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell — to investigate life at the molecular level — is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrodinger, Pasteur, and Darwin. The observation of the intelligent design of life is as momentous as the observation that the earth goes around the sun or that disease is caused by bacteria or that radiation is emitted in quanta. The magnitude of the victory, gained at such great cost through sustained effort over the course of decades, would be expected to send champagne corks flying in labs around the world. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka!" from ten thousand throats, should occasion much hand-slapping and high-fiving, and perhaps even be an excuse to take a day off.

But no bottles have been uncorked, no hands slapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go at that.

Focused Link: The Designs of Science

Philosophy is the “science of common experience” which provides our most fundamental and most certain grasp on reality. And, clearly, it is philosophical knowledge of reality that is most in need of defense in our time.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0077.html

*~*~*~*~*

In the October issue of FIRST THINGS, Stephen Barr honored me with a serious response, one fairly representative of the reaction of many Catholics.

I fear, however, that Barr has misunderstood my argument and possibly misconceived the issue of whether the human intellect can discern the reality of design in the world of living things.

It appears from Barr’s essay — and a number of other responses — that my argument was substantially misunderstood.

Focused Link: Concerning Philosophers and Moths

If philosophy is a search for wisdom, then a true philosopher who philosophizes long enough will surely find at least a glimpse of the enticing goal that first animated his search.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0075.html

*~*~*~*~*

Philosopher Anthony Flew, formerly known to the academic world as a leading proponent of atheism and defender of Darwinian Evolution, has told the Associated Press in a recent interview that he has now come to believe in the existence of God.

Professor Flew, who taught for several years at Toronto's York University after retiring from full professorships in England, has come to the conclusion that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. He had stated in the September issue of Philosophy Now that, "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."

Flew reasoned that a god or divine intelligence of some kind must exist in order to explain extremely complex biological systems such as the DNA molecule. The recognition that the irrefutable evidence of design implies the existence of a Designer is a major step in the pursuit of wisdom.

Nonetheless, Professor Flew's god, as he explains, is the god of deism, the Enlightenment's divine "watchmaker" who, after he creates the world and winds it up, then abandons it. This is clever, but heartless god, one worthy of admiration, but certainly not adoration.

Focused Link: It Takes a Family: Moral Truth and the End of Man

An excerpt on Senator Rick Santorum's chapter "Moral Truth and the End of Man". The full article is in this link:

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0198.html

*~*~*~*~*

Truth and goodness go together. This sounds abstract, and in some ways it is; but at the same time, it’s very practical too. If you think about it, to really learn anything, you have to accept and be governed by certain values and certain moral truths. Those include things like the value of hard work (the learning process), of doing your own work when called to demonstrate your knowledge (not cheating on tests), and of respecting others and not disrupting the learning process (good behavior during class), to name a few.

Even the most “value-fearing” village elder can’t really avoid facing the question of moral truth and its place in the learning process. In fact, liberals are just as eager as I am to teach morality to schoolchildren. They are eager to teach them lessons about racial and sexual equality, for example. I agree with them; such moral lessons about equality of opportunity and the intrinsic dignity of every human person before God and the law should be taught. But equality is not a “fact” in any narrow scientific sense — in fact, the more scientifically we look at human beings, the more dissimilar and unequal they are. No, equality is not a “fact,” but rather a moral judgment, a moral commitment — one that I strongly support our schools teaching. Similarly, we should teach our children to make other kinds of proper moral judgments, such as the importance of tolerance, properly understood, of fairness, of proper respect for people, and of proper respect for the natural world.

Wednesday Liturgy: Using Deacons as Readers and Servers

ROME, JAN. 10, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: This year our superiors said that due to the large number of transitional deacons at the seminary, we will be scheduled to serve as readers and altar servers. Is it appropriate? I have never seen something like this. -- (initials withheld) Denver, Colorado.

Q: Please speak about a layperson participating in more than one ministry during any given Mass (for example, a member of the choir being an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist) and the situation of one person being in two or more ministries (for example, both a lector and an usher) during the same pastoral year. -- M.B., The Hague, Netherlands.

A: As both questions dealt with ministries I opted to deal with them together.

Since, apart from my professorial duties, I am also a spiritual director in Rome's largest international seminary for future diocesan priests, I can appreciate the superior's genuine concern for finding an adequate liturgical role for a large number of deacons (a blessed problem indeed). The proposed solution, however, is not the most liturgically appropriate.

It is a general principle in liturgy that each one of the different ministries perform its proper role. And those who have received a ministry have, so to speak, precedence in undertaking this ministry over those who have not received this ministry or even over those who have received the sacrament of holy orders.

As the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Nos. 98-99, say in dealing with the roles of lector and acolyte: "In the ministry of the altar, the acolyte has his own functions (cf. below, nos. 187-193), which he must perform personally." And "In the Eucharistic Celebration, the lector has his own proper office (cf. below, nos. 194-198), which he must exercise personally."

Certainly all deacons have received both ministries and may perform the tasks of lector and acolyte if the need arises and no other ministers are available.

However, since there are also many seminarians who have received the instituted ministries, they should be called upon to serve at the ambo and the altar, reserving the deacons for their proper liturgical role.

The solution might be found in a change of system in organizing diaconal service. It is possible to design a rotation so that every day different deacons serve at Mass and preside over the Divine Office.

Also, full use of all the possibilities of using deacons in the liturgy may be adopted even on ordinary days. For example, by habitually using two deacons at Mass, and by having a deacon expose the Blessed Sacrament and accompany the priest for Benediction and even, if necessary, give the benediction himself.

The second question does not involve so much instituted ministers as lay people who are delegated to perform some of the functions of the instituted ministers or other necessary functions in the course of the celebration.

In principle there is no difficulty whatsoever in such a person fulfilling more than one ministry providing they are physically and temporally compatible.

It is difficult, for example, to serve as part of the choir and simultaneously serve as an extraordinary minister of holy Communion, but since only people who are duly prepared may serve in the latter capacity it is not impossible.

Sometimes it is necessary for lay people to generously undertake several functions that others are unable and unwilling to share.

More than the number of offices, what is important is the spirit that is brought to these acts of service. They should be carried out simply and truly from a desire to serve and give glory to God and never from a vain desire to be a protagonist.

A person who carries out a ministry with such a spirit is always delighted to receive help and cooperation from others and never worries about who does what.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Formula at Priest's Funeral

ROME, JAN. 10, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

After our comments on the position of a priest's casket reflecting his place in the liturgical celebration (Dec. 13) a reader asked: "Is this in the rubrics or is it just a custom? Also in light of the normative posture of priests prior to 1962, was this changed after the Second Vatican Council?"

This norm is found in the rubrics, for example, in the Ceremonial of Bishops, No. 823, which describes it as a custom fittingly continued, for indeed it is a custom which predates the Council by many centuries.

Regarding the expression "The coffin … is placed in the direction that a person held in the liturgical assembly," an English reader considered the phrase "bizarre."

He wrote: "Apart from the odd picture this presents -- of the priest customarily lying on his back with feet facing the assembly -- it should not be assumed that all priests now celebrate Mass facing the people. There is no liturgical law requiring them to do so."

The expression, whether bizarre or not, is taken directly from the Ceremonial of Bishops.

While it is true that Mass is not obligatorily celebrated facing the people, it can still be said that this is the priest's proper position if the entire liturgy is taken into account. The priest usually faces the people to invite them to pray, when imparting a blessing, as well as in some other forms of liturgical prayer and devotion.

A reader from Germany wrote: "Is it liturgically OK for the priest-celebrants to wear black vestments for requiems? What reasons are there for it if so? Is there any liturgical procedure for the procession with the coffin after Mass to the grave?"

Before Vatican II, black was commonly used for funerals and most Masses for the deceased. The liturgical reforms have retained the possible use of black vestments for funerals, but also permit violet and white to be used. As a consequence, black, while legitimate, has fallen into almost total disuse in most of the world.

Since colors sometimes have different cultural connotations, bishop's conferences may solicit permission from the Holy See to use a color typically associated with mourning in that country instead of the usual three options.

There are norms in the Order of Christian Burials, but since funerals, like weddings, frequently have particular local customs, the Holy See usually grants wide berth to bishops' conferences to adapt the rites to local needs, and publish their own orders based on the Latin "Ordo Exsequiarum."

Although these books contain numerous practical details they do not cover everything. Most practical questions, such as reserving seats for relatives, transport to the gravesite, and appropriate music, can be handled by the family, the officiating priest and the undertaker.

Father Cantalamessa Calls for Rediscovery of Sacrament of Baptism

ROME, JAN. 6, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the commentary that Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher to the Pontifical Household, prepared on the Gospel of this Sunday, the Baptism of Jesus. The solemnity of Epiphany was celebrated today in Italy.

* * *

The Baptism of Jesus

(Isaiah 55:1-11; 1 John 5:1-9; Mark 1:7-11)

Rediscovering Our Baptism

"At that time Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. As soon as he came out of the water he saw that the heavens opened and that the Spirit, in the form of a dove, descended on him. And a voice was heard that came from the heavens: 'You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'"

Was it that Jesus also needed to be baptized, as we do? Of course not. With that gesture, he wanted to show that he had become one of us. Above all, he wanted to put an end to the baptism of "water" and inaugurate that "of the Spirit." It was not the water in the Jordan that sanctified Jesus, but Jesus who sanctified the water. Not only the water of the Jordan, but that of all fonts of the world.

The feast of the Baptism of Jesus is the annual occasion to reflect on our own baptism. A question people often ask themselves about baptism is: Why baptize small children? Why not wait until they are older and can decide freely for themselves? It is a serious question, but it can conceal a deceit. In procreating a child and giving him life, do parents first ask for his permission? Convinced that life is an immense gift, they rightly assume that one day the child will be grateful for it. A person is not asked for permission to be given a gift, and baptism is essentially this: the gift of life given to man by the merits of Christ.

Of course, all this assumes that the parents themselves are believers and have the intention to help the child develop the gift of faith. The Church acknowledges their decisive competency in this area and does not want a child to be baptized against their will.

Moreover, no one today says that, by the simple fact that a person is not baptized, he will be condemned and go to hell. Children who die without baptism, as well as people who have lived, through no fault of their own, outside the Church, can be saved (the latter, it is understood, if they live according to the dictates of their conscience).

Let us forget the idea of limbo as the place without joy or sadness in which children who are not baptized will end up. The fate of children who are not baptized is no different from that of the Holy Innocents, which we celebrated just after Christmas. The reason is that God is love and "wants all to be saved," and Christ also died for them!

Quite different, however, is the case of the one who neglects receiving baptism out of laziness or indifference, though aware, perhaps, in the depth of his conscience, of its importance and necessity. In this case, Jesus' word retains all its severity: only "he who believes and is baptized will be saved" (cf. Mark 16:16). There are increasingly more people in our society who for different reasons have not been baptized in childhood. There is the risk that they will grow up and make no decision, one way or another. Parents are no longer concerned about it because they now think that it is not their duty; the children because they have other things to think about; and also because it has not yet entered the common mentality that the person himself must take the initiative to be baptized.

In order to address this situation, the Church gives much importance at present to the so-called Christian initiation of adults. The latter offers the young person or adult who is not baptized the occasion to be formed, to prepare and to decided with full liberty. It is necessary to surmount the idea that baptism is only something for children.

Baptism expresses its full meaning precisely when it is desired and decided upon personally, as a free and conscious adherence to Christ and his Church, although the validity and gift of being baptized as children must not be disregarded for the reasons above explained. Personally, I am grateful to my parents for having had me baptized in the first days of my life. It is not the same to live one's childhood and youth with or without sanctifying grace!

[Translation by ZENIT]