Wednesday Liturgy: Scriptural Basis of the Mass as Sacrifice

ROME, SEPT. 26, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Where are we commanded to have a sacrifice in our formal worship of God? Protestants, for the most part, worship with singing, some collective prayers and long sermons. Where in the Bible does it say that proper worship contains a sacrifice? Also a review of where in the Bible the Mass parts come from and why we include them in Mass would be useful. Again, it will come down to convincing a "sola scriptura" believer that Scripture says we must do it. Any help would be appreciated. -- J.C., Leavenworth, Kansas

A: A full answer to this question exceeds the possibilities of this column. There are, however, many worthy resources available online. Web sites such as Catholic Answers contain, among other elements, Father Mitch Pacwa's "Is the Mass a Sacrifice?"

The Old Testament contains many divine commands to perform sacrifices. All of the complex liturgical rituals described in Leviticus, for example, are ostensibly commanded by God through Moses.

Perhaps the most important sacrifices commanded by God in the Old Testament were those in which the Almighty sealed a covenant. This includes the one with Noah after the flood, the pact made with Abraham, and above all the sacrifice of the paschal lamb in Egypt, a covenant that was completed 50 days later with another sacrifice at Sinai.

It was this covenant that was renewed each year at the Passover by means of a sacrificial ritual that was a "memorial" ("zikkaron" in Hebrew). It was not a mere recalling but rather one that ritually made present and ratified and renewed the saving events that had occurred so many years before.

For Catholics, the central divine command to worship, using a sacrifice, came from the lips of Christ when he told the apostles at the Last Supper, "Do this as in memory of me."

In doing so, he specifically recalled the Jewish Passover as a memorial and applied it to himself and his upcoming sacrifice on the cross, with a totally new and definitive meaning.

In this context Our Lord's words "This is my body, which is given for you" (Luke 22:19) correspond to those of Exodus 12:27: "[This ritual] is the sacrifice of the Passover in honor of Yahweh" when he freed Israel from slavery in Egypt.

The words "For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28) echo those of Exodus 24:8 when Moses says: "This … is the blood of the covenant that Yahweh has made with you."

We are thus before a unique sacrifice, the memorial sacrament of Christ's paschal sacrifice. Through it he has brought salvation to all mankind and sealed a new and eternal covenant in his blood.

Although the apostles probably did not immediately grasp the full meaning of Christ's gesture in the cenacle, their reflection on his words and actions and their familiarity with the Passover as a memorial quickly led them to understand that Our Lord had commanded them to repeat the ritual that he had established.

They understood that this ritual was the definitive paschal sacrifice which made present Christ's unique sacrifice on Calvary and in doing so ratified and renewed the new and eternal covenant.

Therefore, God has commanded us to worship with a sacrifice, his own unique sacrifice.

All other forms of ritual sacrifice have fallen by the wayside as Christ's sacrifice has an infinite worth that absorbs all the values and intentions expressed in the ancient sacrifices.

The Mass is a sacrifice insofar as it is the memorial that ritually renews and makes present to us, in time, Christ's once-and-for-all sacrifice on the cross.

The personal prayers and sacrifices of Christians reach their fulfillment when they are united to Christ's sacrifice through full, devout and active participation at Mass.

As to where in the Bible the various parts of the Mass are found, the answer is less clear. In a way it is everywhere and nowhere.

Everywhere, because the entire Mass is animated by Scripture. Almost all of the prayers and texts have a scriptural background and the entire rite is developed as a fruit of Christ's command to continue his actions.

Nowhere, in the sense that we will not find explicit commands to say, "Sing the Sanctus after the preface." Rather, the ritual has developed over time as a response to the scriptural exhortation to pray, to repeat the sacrifice, etc.

In this case even a Protestant would have to accept that the details of his worship (songs, psalms and long sermons, etc.) are found in the Bible only in very general terms.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Withholding Communion

ROME, SEPT. 26, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

In light of our piece on withholding Communion (Sept. 12) I wish to address a question from a priest writing from Yangon, Myanmar (formally Burma): "Does the real presence of Jesus remain in the Blessed Sacrament when it is consumed by an unbeliever?"

A distinction needs to be made: Christ's real presence in the Blessed Sacrament derives from the consecration and does not depend on the personal belief of the person who receives.

The Real Presence thus briefly remains in any person who receives the sacred Host.

Another factor altogether is the increase of sanctifying grace which accompanies the reception of holy Communion. In this case only the baptized believer receives a spiritual benefit; the non-baptized lacks the initial gift of sanctifying grace which is developed by holy acts such as receiving Communion.

If an unwary nonbeliever receives holy Communion in good faith, God may freely grant him or her special actual graces corresponding to the sincerity of the intentions with which the Host was received.

Among such graces could be to awaken interest in the meaning of this gesture for Catholics and a desire to know more about the Christian faith in general, eventually leading to embracing the faith.

Of course, this would depend on Divine liberality and such a remote possibility may never be used to flout the Church's norms on intercommunion.

According to these norms, Communion may never be given to someone who is not baptized.

For the non-Catholic baptized, we have mentioned the norms in our columns of Aug. 17 and 31, 2004.

Article: The Most Difficult Sacrament

KNOCK, Ireland, SEPT. 25, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is an excerpt from a homily delivered by Bishop Philip Boyce during the Raphoe Diocesan Pilgrimage to the Marian shrine at Knock last month. The excerpt focuses on the sacrament of reconciliation.

* * *

Confession is the most challenging and difficult of the sacraments, because in it we lay bare our inmost thoughts, our weaknesses and sins that shame us, our deepest motives. This we do to another human person, a priest who, we know in faith, takes the place of God. It can be very humiliating. And yet we get untold benefits of freedom, forgiveness, peace, healing and strength from this sacrament. We sin as individuals. We also have to make an individual confession. It does us good to go on our knees, put our sinful deeds into words before an ordained priest, face up to the truth about ourselves and entrust our lives to God's merciful and just love.

Indeed, in a Synod for Europe held in 1991, the bishops saw the sacrament of reconciliation playing a fundamental role in the recovery of hope for our ancient continent. They said: "One of the roots of the helplessness that assails many people today is found in their inability to see themselves as sinners and to allow themselves to be forgiven, an inability often resulting from the isolation of those who, by living as if God did not exist, have no one from whom they can seek forgiveness" (John Paul II, "Ecclesia in Europa," No. 76). In some ways they are among those whom St. Paul describes as "having no hope and without God in this world" (Ephesians 2:10).

Thanks be to God, we should say, for our faith and for the sacrament of confession!

At times we do not appreciate the treasures we have in our Catholic faith. At other times we take them for granted. Yet many are those who experience the spiritual benefits of confession. The first effect and principal purpose of this sacrament is reconciliation with God. Anyone who makes a good confession with a contrite heart and a firm purpose of amendment is sure that God has blotted out the sin that weighed on his conscience. That person is certain of having been restored to God's friendship and to the blessings of a child of God.

A silent weight is lifted off the mind as a result of a good confession. The gnawing worry caused by a troubled conscience gives way to peace of soul. As our Catechism says: "For those who receive the sacrament of Penance with contrite heart and religious disposition, reconciliation is usually followed by peace and serenity of conscience with strong spiritual consolation. Indeed the sacrament of Reconciliation with God brings about a true 'spiritual resurrection,' restoration of the dignity and blessings of the life of the children of God, of which the most precious is friendship with God" (CCC 1468).

I remember one time I visited a Marian shrine on mainland Europe, in Belgium. One evening as I walked around I met a lady who was looking for the confessional area and may not have been receiving the sacraments very often. "Father, could you tell me where I could get the sacrament of …" and she hesitated for a minute. Then she continued: "Where I could get the sacrament of resurrection." I thought it was a very good description of confession. For that is what it truly is: a sacrament that gives a true spiritual resurrection from sin to friendship with God, from slavery to freedom, from darkness to light.

If we have committed a grave or mortal sin, we must go to individual confession before receiving holy Communion. But we need not be great sinners or be away from the sacrament for years or have grave sins on our conscience to go to confession. In fact, the Church asks those who wish to make progress in holiness, or who are more deeply united to God in the religious or consecrated life, to avail of the sacrament of reconciliation more frequently -- not because they are greater sinners but because they need more grace and strength to live a holy life. "The purpose of the sacrament of penance is to make saints as well as to save sinners" (L. Trese). In fact the grace of this sacrament gives strength for the journey ahead; it inoculates against temptation and heals the wounds we receive in the good fight of every day against the weaknesses and selfish inclinations of our fallen nature.

Confession is indeed the sacrament of pardon and of new life. It is often a forum where a soul receives advice, encouragement, counsel and direction. This sacrament accompanies a Christian on the way to perfection. "It would be an illusion to want to strive for holiness in accordance with the vocation that God has given to each one of us without frequently and fervently receiving this sacrament of conversion and sanctification" (John Paul II, March 27, 2004). In fact, it contains limitless possibilities of healing and growth.

Moreover, this sacrament reconciles us not only with God, but also with others whom our sin has wounded or against whom our sinful ways have set up a barrier of discord or enmity. Here we are reconciled with the Church whose life our sin had weakened. We are reconciled with our brothers and sisters with whom our fraternal communion was damaged by our sinful actions. We are also reconciled with ourselves in our inmost heart and regain our peace of conscience.

A famous convert, John Henry Cardinal Newman, who knew what it was to be deprived of sacramental confession and then who experienced its benefits, once wrote:

"How many are the souls, in distress, anxiety or loneliness, whose one need is to find a being to whom they can pour out their feelings unheard by the world? Tell them out they must; they cannot tell them out to those whom they see every hour. They want to tell them and not to tell them; and they want to tell them out, yet be as if they be not told; they wish to tell them to one who is strong enough to bear them, yet not too strong to despise them; they wish to tell them to one who can at once advise and can sympathize with them; they wish to relieve themselves of a load, to gain a solace, to receive the assurance that there is one who thinks of them, and one to whom in thought they can recur, to whom they can betake themselves, if necessary, from time to time, while they are in world" ("The Present Position of Catholics," p. 351).

And later he added the phrase in a sermon: "Happy all Catholics, if they knew their happiness" (Sermon Notes, p. 200).

Although the sacrament of penance may be "laborious" at times, it has been seen since the first centuries of Christianity as a "second plank following shipwreck" (Tertullian), that is, another chance to have sins committed after baptism forgiven and a broken or weakened friendship with Christ restored. In a world threatened by sin, it is a sacrament given to us to enable us to grow in the spiritual life and reach union with God.

Father Cantalamessa on Being No. 1, for Christ

ROME, SEPT. 22, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by the Pontifical Household preacher, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, on next Sunday's liturgy.

* * *

If Any One Would Be First ...
25th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Wisdom 2:12,17-20; James 3:16--4:3; Mark 9:30-37

"And he sat down and called the Twelve; and he said to them, 'If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.'" Does Jesus condemn with these words the desire to excel, to do great things in life, to give the best of oneself, and favors instead laziness, a defeatist spirit and the negligent?

So thought the philosopher Nietzsche, who felt the need to combat Christianity fiercely, guilty in his opinion of having introduced into the world the "cancer" of humility and self-denial. In his work "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" he opposes this evangelical value with the "will to power," embodied by the superman, the man of "great health," who wishes to raise, not abase, himself.

It might be that Christians sometimes have misinterpreted Jesus' thought and have given occasion to this misunderstanding. But this is surely not what the Gospel wishes to tell us. "If any would be first": therefore, it is possible to want to be first, it is not prohibited, it is not a sin. With these words, not only does Jesus not prohibit the desire to be first, but he encourages it. He just reveals a new and different way to do so: not at the cost of others, but in favor of others. He adds, in fact: "he must be last of all and servant of all."

But what are the fruits of one or the other way of excelling? The will to power leads to a situation in which one imposes oneself and the rest serve; one is "happy" -- if there can be happiness in it -- and the rest unhappy; only one is victor, all the rest are vanquished; one dominates, the rest are dominated.

We know with what results the idea of the superman was implemented by Hitler. But it is not just Nazism; almost all the evils of humanity stem from that root. In the Second Reading of this Sunday, James asks himself the anguishing and perennial question: "What causes wars?" In the Gospel, Jesus gives us the answer: the desire for predominance. Predominance of one nation over another, of one race over another, of a party over the others, of one sex over the other, of one religion over another.

In service, instead, all benefit from the greatness of one. Whoever is great in service, is great and makes others great; rather than raising himself above others, he raises others with him. Alessandro Manzoni concludes his poetic evocation of Napoleon's ventures with the question: "Was it true glory? In posterity the arduous sentence." This doubt, about whether or not it was truly glory, is not posed for Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Raoul Follereau and all those who daily serve the cause of the poor and those wounded by wars, often risking their own lives.

Only one doubt remains. What to think of antagonism in sports and competition in business? Are these things also condemned by Christ's words? No, when they are contained within the limits of good sportsmanship and good business, these things are good, they serve to increase the level of physical capability and ... to lower prices in trade. Indirectly, they serve the common good. Jesus' invitation to be the last certainly doesn't apply to cycling or Formula 1 races!

But precisely, sport serves to clarify the limit of this greatness in relation to service. "In a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize," says St. Paul (1 Corinthians 9:24). Suffice it to remember what happens at the end of a 100-meter flat race: The winner exults, is surrounded by photographers and carried triumphantly in the air. All the rest go away sad and humiliated. "All run, but only one receives the prize."

St. Paul extracts, however, from athletic competitions also a positive teaching: "Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable [crown, eternal life, from God]." A green light, therefore, to the new race invented by Christ in which the first is the one who makes himself last of all and serves all.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Wednesday Liturgy: Non-liturgical Music in Cathedrals

ROME, SEPT. 19, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: In what circumstances can a cathedral be used for a non-liturgical purpose such as a concert of secular operatic arias? -- B.N., Bunbury Australia

A: This theme was addressed in a declaration on "Concerts in Churches" published by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments in November 1987 (Protocol No. 1251/87). The English version of the text appeared in Sacred Music, Volume 114, N. 4 (Winter) 1987. Among other sites it is available electronically at adoremus.org.

For brevity, we will limit ourselves to quoting its practical norms. It is also possible that individual bishops' conferences or even individual bishops publish norms that apply these principles to concrete situation:

"III. Practical Directives

"8. The regulation of the use of churches is stipulated by canon 1210 of the Code of Canon Law:

"In a sacred place only those things are to be permitted which serve to exercise or promote worship, piety and religion. Anything out of harmony with the holiness of the place is forbidden. The Ordinary may, however, for individual cases, permit other uses, provided they are not contrary to the sacred character of the place.

"The principle that the use of the church must not offend the sacredness of the place determines the criteria by which the doors of a church may be opened to a concert of sacred or religious music, as also the concomitant exclusion of every other type of music. The most beautiful symphonic music, for example, is not in itself of religious character. The definition of sacred or religious music depends explicitly on the original intended use of the musical pieces or songs, and likewise on their content. It is not legitimate to provide for the execution in the church of music which is not of religious inspiration and which was composed with a view to performance in a certain precise secular context, irrespective of whether the music would be judged classical or contemporary, of high quality or of a popular nature. On the one hand, such performances would not respect the sacred character of the church, and on the other, would result in the music being performed in an unfitting context ….

"9. Sacred music, that is to say music which was composed for the Liturgy, but which for various reasons can no longer be performed during a liturgical celebration, and religious music, that is to say music inspired by the text of sacred scripture or the Liturgy and which has reference to God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, to the saints or to the Church, may both find a place in the church building, but outside liturgical celebration. The playing of the organ or other musical performance, whether vocal or instrumental, may: 'serve to promote piety or religion.' In particular they may:

"a. prepare for the major liturgical feasts, or lend to these a more festive character beyond the moment of actual celebration; b. bring out the particular character of the different liturgical seasons; c. create in churches a setting of beauty conducive to meditation, so as to arouse even in those who are distant from the Church an openness to spiritual values; d. create a context which favors and makes accessible the proclamation of God's word, as for example, a sustained reading of the Gospel; e. keep alive the treasures of Church music which must not be lost; musical pieces and songs composed for the Liturgy but which cannot in any way be conveniently incorporated into liturgical celebrations in modern times; spiritual music, such as oratorios and religious cantatas which can still serve as vehicles for spiritual communication; f. assist visitors and tourists to grasp more fully the sacred character of a church, by means of organ concerts at prearranged times.

"10. When the proposal is made that there should be a concert in a church, the Ordinary is to grant the permission 'per modum actus.' These concerts should be occasional events. This excludes permission for a series of concerts, for example in the case of a festival or a cycle of concerts.

"When the Ordinary considers it to be necessary, he can, in the conditions foreseen in the Code of Canon Law (can. 1222, para. 2) designate a church that is no longer used for divine service, to be an 'auditorium' for the performance of sacred or religious music, and also of music not specifically religious but in keeping with the character of the place.

"In this task the bishop should be assisted by the diocesan commission for Liturgy and sacred music.

"In order that the sacred character of a church be conserved in the matter of concerts, the Ordinary can specify that:

"a. Requests are to be made in writing, in good time, indicating the date and time of the proposed concert, the program, giving the works and the names of the composers.

"b. After having received the authorization of the Ordinary, the rectors and parish priests of the churches should arrange details with the choir and orchestra so that the requisite norms are observed.

"c. Entrance to the church must be without payment and open to all.

"d. The performers and the audience must be dressed in a manner which is fitting to the sacred character of the place.

"e. The musicians and the singers should not be placed in the sanctuary. The greatest respect is to be shown to the altar, the president's chair and the ambo.

"f. The Blessed Sacrament should be, as far as possible, reserved in a side chapel or in another safe and suitably adorned place (Cf. C.I.C., can 928, par. 4).

"g. The concert should be presented or introduced not only with historical or technical details, but also in a way that fosters a deeper understanding and an interior participation on the part of the listeners.

"h. The organizer of the concert will declare in writing that he accepts legal responsibilities for expenses involved, for leaving the church in order and for any possible damage incurred.

"11. The above practical directives should be of assistance to the bishops and rectors of churches in their pastoral responsibility to maintain the sacred character of their churches, designed for sacred celebrations, prayer and silence."

Father Cantalamessa Asks: Who Is Jesus for You?

ROME, SEPT. 15, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the Pontifical Household, on the liturgical readings for this Sunday's liturgical readings.

* * *

Who Do You Say That I Am?

Isaiah 50:5-9a; James 2:14-18; Mark 8:27-35

The three synoptic Gospels refer to the episode of Jesus when, in Caesarea Philippi he asked his apostles what people thought of him. The common fact in the three Gospels is Peter's response: "You are the Christ."

Matthew adds: "the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16) which could, however, be a manifestation due to the faith of the Church after Easter.

Soon the title "Christ" became Jesus' second name. It is mentioned more than 500 times in the New Testament, almost always in the composite form "Jesus Christ" or "Our Lord Jesus Christ."

However, it was not so in the beginning. Between Jesus and Christ a verb was understood: "Jesus is the Christ." To say "Christ" was not to call Jesus by his name, but to make an affirmation about him.

Christ, we know, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Mashiah, or Messiah, and both mean "anointed." The term derives from the fact that in the Old Testament kings, prophets and priests, at the moment of their election, were consecrated through an anointing with perfumed oil.

But increasingly in the Bible there clearly is talk of a special anointed or consecrated one who will come in the end times to fulfill God's promises of salvation to his people. It is the so-called biblical messianism, which takes on different hues according to how the Messiah is seen as a future king (royal messianism) or as Daniel's son of man (apocalyptic messianism).

The whole primitive tradition of the Church is unanimous in proclaiming that Jesus of Nazareth is the awaited Messiah. He himself, according to Mark, will proclaim himself such before the Sanhedrin. To the question of the High Priest: "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" He replies: "I am" (Mark 14:61 ff.).

So much more disconcerting, therefore, is the continuation of Jesus' dialogue with the disciples in Caesarea Philippi: "And he commanded them energetically not to speak about him to any one."

However, the motive is clear. Jesus accepts being identified with the awaited Messiah, but not with the idea that Judaism had made for itself of the Messiah. In the prevailing opinion, the Messiah was seen as a political and military leader who would liberate Israel from pagan dominion and establish the kingdom of God on earth by force.

Jesus had to profoundly correct this idea, shared by his own apostles, before allowing them to talk of him as the Messiah. To this end is oriented the discourse that follows immediately: "And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things."

The harsh word addressed to Peter, which seeks to dissuade him from such thoughts: "Get behind me, Satan!" is identical with that addressed to the tempter of the desert.

In both cases, in fact, it is about the same attempt to deflect him from the path that the Father has indicated to him -- that of the suffering servant of Yahweh -- to another which is "according to men, not according to God."

Salvation will come from the sacrifice of himself, from "giving his life in ransom for many," not from the elimination of the enemy. In this way, from a temporal salvation one passes to an eternal salvation, from a particular salvation -- destined for only one people -- one passes to a universal salvation.

Regrettably we must state that Peter's error has been repeated in history. Also certain men of the Church, and even Successors of Peter, have behaved at certain times as if the Kingdom of God was of this world and should be affirmed with the victory (if necessary also with arms) over enemies, instead of doing so with suffering and martyrdom.

All the words of the Gospel are timely, but the dialogue of Caesarea Philippi is so in an altogether special way. The situation has not changed. Also today, people have very diverse opinions on Jesus: a prophet, a great teacher, a great personality. It has become fashionable to present Jesus in shows and novels, in customs and in the strangest messages. The "Da Vinci Code" is only the latest in a long series.

In the Gospel, Jesus does not seem to be surprised by people's opinions, nor does he take time to deny them. He only poses a question to his disciples, and he does so also today: "For you, who am I for you?"

A leap must be taken that does not come from the flesh or from blood, but is a gift of God which must be accepted through the docility of an interior light from which faith is born. Every day there are men and women who take this leap.

Sometimes it is famous people -- actors, actresses, men of culture -- and then they make news. But infinitely more numerous are the unknown believers. At times nonbelievers interpret these conversions as weakness, sentimental crises or a search for popularity, and it might be that in some cases it is so. But it would be a lack of respect of the conscience of the rest to cast discredit on every story of conversion.

One thing is certain: Those who have taken this leap will not go back for anything in the world, and more than that, they are surprised to have been able to live for so long without the light and strength that comes from faith in Christ.

Like St. Hillary of Poitiers, who converted when he was an adult, they are willing to exclaim: "Before knowing you, I did not exist."

[Translation by ZENIT]

Wednesday Liturgy: Withholding Communion at Mass

ROME, SEPT. 12, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I was at a Catholic wedding where the priest only gave the holy Eucharist to the two newlyweds. Later I found out that he did this because he feared a mixed congregation -- some who might not be Catholic or who might be in the state of mortal sin -- and didn't want to risk giving the holy Eucharist to such a person. However, there were many faithful there who felt hurt and offended that we couldn't receive the Eucharist. Was this an appropriate action on the part of the priest? -- J.S., St. Louis, Missouri

A: While the priest showed commendable respect and reverence for the Eucharist, I do not believe he acted correctly in this case.

In diverse societies such as the United States, celebrations such as weddings and funerals almost always convene people of many stripes and different faiths. Therefore the danger of someone incorrectly receiving Communion is very real.

But it is not a new problem, and parishes across the country have found many viable solutions.

In some cases the pastor or another person makes an appropriate announcement either before Mass or before Communion. This announcement tactfully explains that, because it is central to our faith, Communion is reserved to Catholics in the state of grace.

Another means is to clearly print the requirements for Communion and distribute it to those present or even include it in the special booklets that are usually prepared on occasion of weddings.

If he has taken appropriate steps to inform those present of the importance of receiving Communion in the state of grace, then responsibility for an unworthy Communion falls exclusively upon the conscience of the person who receives it.

It is not the priest's task to take pre-emptive action against possible offenses against the Eucharist by limiting the distribution of the sacrament.

Also, the priest should not deprive the faithful who are in the state of grace of the opportunity of fully participating in the Sacrifice of the Mass by receiving Communion. In doing so, he unjustly deprives them of their rights as baptized Catholics.

In conclusion, I offer an excerpt from a sample text to be printed in participation aids. This very useful (document is published by the U.S. bishops' Committee on the Liturgy.

"Guidelines for the Reception of Communion

"For Catholics

"As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (canon 916). A frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance is encouraged for all.

"For Other Christians

"We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us 'that they may all be one' (Jn 17:21).

"Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3).

"For Those Not Receiving Communion

"All who are not receiving Holy Communion are encouraged to express in their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one another.

"For Non-Christians

"We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family."

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: When Youngsters Request Confirmation

ROME, SEPT. 12, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Our Aug. 29 piece on confirmation brought to the fore some questions regarding the validity of this rite when some aspect of the ritual was not followed.

A reader from England wrote: "For the third year running the bishop neglected to physically lay hands on the candidates during a school confirmation. He moved from the introduction 'My dear friends: in baptism ...' through a brief silence (without extending hands) to 'All-powerful God....' I had always understood that in Christian tradition the laying on of hands was a means of conferring of authority and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. What should we feel about these confirmations?"

Another correspondent, from Australia, presented the following case:

"I am wondering about the validity of the sacrament of confirmation in a ceremony I witnessed recently. Three adults were baptized and confirmed. Matters went quite normally, except that to each confirmand the priest celebrant said, at the anointing: 'N., receive the Holy Spirit.' (Because there were three, I am quite sure I did not mishear. These were the exact words.) Afterward I found myself wondering about the validity of these confirmations. On the one hand, all the surrounding rites and prayers made it clear that we were celebrating the Catholic sacrament of confirmation. And of course, the words have changed dramatically over the years. But, on the other hand, these words seemed excessively 'non-specific' -- one receives the Holy Spirit in every sacrament, after all. … If the confirmations were invalid, or doubtfully valid, as a bystander, am I obliged in charity to do something about it?"

The two question address different aspects of the rite of confirmation.

I have no idea why the bishop would omit the laying on of hands prescribed in this part of the rite. This laying of hands is not done physically but by the bishop, and any priests who might minister the sacrament with him, extending their hands over the candidates.

All the same, while this laying on of hands is prescribed, it is not considered as being necessary for the validity of the sacrament.

The anointing with chrism is also considered as a laying on of hands and this gesture of anointing is the sacrament's essential matter.

For this reason, in the Roman rite, the anointing must always be done by hand and it is not permitted to use an instrument to do so.

Our correspondent could, perhaps, write a polite note to the bishop, simply mentioning that he had noticed this oversight in the rites of confirmation and that it would be good to recover this meaningful gesture.

The second situation is far more delicate. The sacramental formula is "N., be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit."

While it could be argued that this means essentially the same as "N., receive the Holy Spirit" this latter formula is not the sacramental form as currently used in the universal Church.

It is also highly debatable that the formula is truly equivalent, being sealed by the Holy Spirit is not exactly the same as receiving the Holy Spirit which, as our reader points out, happens in baptism and in other circumstances.

Sacramental theology, following St. Thomas Aquinas, holds that a change of wording that does not compromise meaning would be valid, albeit illicit.

The same theological tradition, however, states that under no circumstances may one ever put the validity of the sacraments at risk by using matter or forms that are merely probable.

In this case, the change is such that the confirmation is of doubtful validity and should be conditionally repeated.

Sacramental ministers have a very grave obligation before God and the faithful to be especially careful and precise with the essential rites of a sacrament. Ignorance is no excuse in this case as it is a minister's duty to know how to correctly administer a sacrament.

What can one do as an informed "bystander"? If possible, the problem should be solved immediately and discreetly by telling the priest he is not using a valid formula.

If this is not possible, and especially if the priest refuses to correct the error, the "bystander" should certainly inform the bishop so that he may provide the appropriate remedies.

Article: Ethical Questions Regarding the Use of the Internet

Below is an article by Angel Rodriguez Luño, Professor, Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, on the ethical evaluation on the Internet.

ETHICAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE USE OF THE INTERNET

1. Introduction

The use of the Internet in today's world has become widespread, and will probably only increase in the near future. The Internet provides access, at a very low cost, to many sources of information that are useful for one's study, for trips, current events (newspapers, etc.), timetables for museums and means of transportation, scientific, philosophical and theological publications, library catalogues from all over the world, pictures and photos, encyclopedias, documents of doctrinal interest, commercial and financial information, etc. In addition, it enables one to make purchases that at times save quite a bit of money. In many sectors of work it has become an indispensable or at least very useful instrument, because it saves time and expense and provides knowledge that otherwise would be very difficult to obtain. One of the services connected with the Internet is electronic mail, which makes possible rapid communication with any corner of the world, and helps facilitate a number of other useful services (for example, receiving by e-mail the table of contents of new volumes of scientific or philosophical journals to which one subscribes, often at no cost.)

The Internet is meant to be an open and free network, with no restriction on content. Only activities that are viewed as seriously offensive (terrorism, child pornography, credit card frauds, etc.) are subject to control and prosecution, although the size and complexity of the world-wide web often allows one to evade these controls. The Internet provides the opportunity to pass on to others material with a positive content, thus helping to spread good doctrine and to counteract the ideological monopoly exercised by large editorial chains, television stations, etc. At the same time, it makes available material that may have little scientific value (information that is false or unreliable), pornographic images (more or less "hard-core"), and material that fosters violence, racism or terrorism. It can also facilitate links with unsavory persons (pederasts, prostitutes, obscene conversations or "chat rooms," etc.). Even without falling into these extreme situations, the possibility of freely "surfing" through every corner of the world can arouse one's curiosity and lead to wasting a lot of time, if one lacks discipline and self-control.

Neither good nor evil are specific to the Internet. It is not the only means for doing good nor the only means for doing evil. It isn't true that certain dangers are exclusive to the Internet, since almost all the harmful effects of the web are now being spread through other means of communication. Specifically, experience has shown that allowing adolescents to have a television in their bedrooms that can be turned on at any hour of the day or night is even more harmful, as is the recent availability in schools of small pornographic clips for mobile phones (only the simplest and cheapest mobile phones fail to provide images). Along the same lines, there are telephone numbers that one can access from any fixed or mobile phone offering erotic conversations, etc.

If one had to highlight something that is truly specific to the Internet, it would be the possibility to make good ideas available to many persons without the need to mobilize a large number of persons or expend great financial resources. One can also do a lot of good through movies, the press or television, but it is much harder to do so because it requires having one's own publishing company or production company or television station, or having the possibility to act freely in an already existing company, which is difficult for many reasons and demands an extensive professional preparation. Through the Internet, with a modest outlay of time and money, one can reach many people. It's true that with the same limited resources one can also spread evil, but this is nothing new, since evil is already abundantly spread through the other means of communication. The true novelty introduced by the Internet is that it makes it possible for persons or groups with modest resources, who until now have not been able to intervene positively in the world of public opinion, to spread good on a large scale.

2. Correct use of the Internet

With its specific characteristics, the Internet fosters both good and bad. It functions basically as a vehicle or channel for transmitting facts and information, which broadly speaking can be seen as something good (just as printed books, the telephone, television, etc. are a good). It thus represents a clear advance over previous epochs. As happens with many other technological means (for example, advances in the biological sciences that give rise to so many bio-ethical problems), it makes possible a good use and a bad use of its resources, an expert use and an inexpert one. Except for the case of children, which requires separate consideration, the Internet usually only burns a person who wants to be burned, or who at least likes to play with fire. The problem that it presents is a problem of moral education and strength of convictions in a person who uses it. The Internet is affected by a problem that is widespread in our day and age—progress in human capabilities (in action, in knowledge, in communications, etc.), without first having acquired the knowledge and prudence needed to adequately govern them, so that these increased capabilities will further the good of individuals and societies, rather than leading to their impoverishment and corruption. In this regard, perhaps there is a need to lament the fact that, since it is a relatively new instrument, the various entities responsible for imparting formation (family, school, catechesis, etc.) are not always adequately prepared to provide a well-grounded and incisive education in what refers to its use. This is so despite the reality that formulating and transmitting a culture of the good use of the Internet and the other modern means of communication is an important part of the moral and Christian formation required for today's world.

These considerations show that the ethical problem of the Internet is the problem of how to use it correctly or, in other words, how to foster the formation and virtues required to use it correctly, both on the part of the one who puts information up on the web and the one who makes use of it. The formation and virtues required to make proper use of this instrument, so that it will truly be a good for the one who uses it, cannot be replaced by any technical means or control measures. All the providers of filters and control systems insist on this point, both because these systems are never perfect and because a person who wants to circumvent them, if he has a bit of expertise, can always find a way to do so. As happens with other means, it is very difficult to prevent an adult intent on doing evil from doing it, and the greater the impediments placed the greater is the price one pays in terms of a loss of freedom and trust (often with counter-productive results), or by slowing down work. A study of the ethical aspects of the Internet has to consider above all the general criteria regarding its correct use. Here one would need to distinguish the various contexts (work, school, family, entertainment, etc.) and the various types of persons. In general terms, one could speak about temperance, common sense, prudence, and concern for the totality of the person and the totality of his faculties and dimensions. Except for certain types of professional work, the Internet (and, in general, the computer) is just another instrument that one employs. Any excessive concentration on it is humanly and ethically harmful. Its use should never isolate one from others (friendships, social relations), nor impede outdoor activities, reading books and magazines in one's field of study or of general interest, consulting other sources of information, having other games and playing sports when one is a child, writing, seeing good movies and plays, concerts, etc.

Making good use of the Internet means always using it for something quite specific. It means looking for something specific, knowing where to find it or employing a search engine that is well-known, seeking to buy a specific product, etc. It would make little sense to go on the Internet without first knowing what one wants to do, simply because one has some time free, or in order to check out new happenings, or because one is tired and wants to rest by "surfing" from one site to another. A well-formed person should refuse to give in on this point, just as one doesn't use a car simply to "drive around," without a clear destination, uselessly wasting time and gas. If one does have some free time, it is better to open up a good book. If it is the case of children who want to play video games, one needs to know which ones and where they are to be found, etc. Also in this case one should seek to do something specific, while keeping in mind that children need to spend time with their friends, take part in outdoor activities, get exercise, acquire the habit of reading, etc. Going on the Internet without a specific and valid reason, merely out of curiosity, already has an ethically negative facet, and can easily give rise to more serious moral evils.

When faced with material that leads or could lead one to commit sins against faith, charity, justice or chastity, one needs to observe the same rules of behavior that apply to other situations (books, the press, conversations, etc.). The moral principles on occasions of sin need to be applied here. A grave moral duty exists to avoid freely chosen proximate serious occasions that are not necessary, and the necessary means must also be employed to render necessary occasions remote. The proximate or remote nature of an occasion, as well as its seriousness, can be taken in either an absolute or a relative sense. That is, a situation can be a serious and proximate occasion for people in general, or it can be a serious and proximate danger only for a specific person or persons, and not for others.

In my opinion, and without seeking to minimize the complex moral problem involved, it would be simplistic to consider the Internet in general as an occasion of sin. Pastoral experience may sometimes focus the question of the Internet along these lines. But reflection on the facts that this experience provides doesn't authorize one to draw a negative conclusion in general. These problems are not present in many people who use the Internet, even daily, and there are many others who do good through it. The majority of people with moral problems in this area are persons'who might have had the same problems even if the Internet didn't exist. It is also true that some people who generally act morally have fallen into certain moral failings only due to the fact that they happened to come upon an immoral web page. But these are by no means the majority of cases. Above all to avoid these situations, and also in the case of children, some technical means providing protection can be of great use. These will be dealt with in the next section.

3. Filters and others protective devices

Given that the Internet makes available both positive and negative content, some technical devices have been developed that impede the passage of negative elements, just as contaminated water is passed through a filter to remove harmful elements. These devices produce an "immediate prevention," which presupposes the "remote prevention" of a cultural and ethical nature that fosters in the person the decision to want to use the Internet well. Without this cultural and ethical component, filters will be of very little use.

The first systems of immediate prevention that were employed functioned on the basis of a list of unsuitable web pages that were blocked from access. This system required constant updating, since someone had to be constantly exploring the Internet to amplify the list of "prohibited" pages. It proved not to be very practical.

With the advent of more powerful personal computers came the development of programs capable of analyzing the content of the page one is seeking to enter on the spot, impeding access if it contains negative content. This system is found in the majority of filters now in use: Optenet, CyberPatrol, CyberSitter, Net Nanny, Surfwatch, X-Stop, Rated-PG. One of the limits these can have is that they only analyze the content in certain languages (for example, the most widespread ones in Italy fail to analyze pages in Russian). They have a high efficacy, but are not foolproof. They can block out articles on moral theology and even books from the Bible because they contain suspicious words ("homosexual," "prostitute"), while permitting access to other pages that may be unsuitable, although they are usually able to block out any material that is highly erotic.

Another method of protection is to catalogue pages using the ICRA system. The person responsible for the page defines it with a scale of criteria that is given him. The user installs on his computer the ICRAplus filter, which is free, and the user himself decides what level of violence, indecent language, nudity, etc., he will accept. To change these criteria one needs to know the password. Unfortunately, few web pages adhere to this system of self-cataloguing, which makes this method relatively ineffective at present.

A third method of protection is to connect to the Internet through a provider that already employs a serious and well-grounded system of filtering. This is the case, for example, with "Davide.it." This is a free and effective system, very appropriate for families, although it isn't perfect; at times it blocks out good material, or fails to block out material that is not very suitable. Experts with good criteria recommend its use in homes with children. Its real limitation is that young people today know a lot about computers, and can open a free connection to another provider without the parents realizing it. The prohibition in Windows XP against setting up other connections is easy to get around.

A final system, devised for the protection of young people, consists in installing the free ICRAplus filter and programming it so that it permits access only to the pages that are expressly listed. The philosophy behind it is the same as that underlying the assembling of a home library. Just as the parents buy only the books they want their children to read, so they decide which web pages their children need for their study, information, rest, play, etc. I think that applying this system in the case of adults is more debatable. In any case, it requires a careful upbringing, which enables a young person to realize why it is helpful for the correct use he wants to make of the Internet. Otherwise, it isn't formative and can even be counter-productive. A young person with this system of protection at home, who when in other places avidly seeks access to all the pages blocked out on his family's computer, shows that his upbringing has been a complete failure. Sooner or later he will be living on his own and making his own decisions, and perhaps he will fall into greater evil than others who have enjoyed more freedom and learned how to administer it. There is abundant pedagogical experience regarding this reality: people who no longer pray or go to Mass because they were forced to pray or to go to Mass in the school they attended when they were young, etc. Many studies exist that oblige one to reflect seriously on how restrictions are set; in any case these restrictions have to be suited to the age and growth of young people.

4. Use of the Internet by children and adolescents at home

Children and adolescents today make extensive use of computers in their homes, including access to the Internet. Since they have not yet attained human maturity and stable moral virtues, they are especially exposed to negative influences. A recent study brought out by the International Crime Analysis Association, entitled "Child Internet Risk Perception," found that 77% of young people between the ages of 8 and 13 use the Internet. But only 26% of their parents keep a close watch on the use their children make of this instrument. 52% of the children interviewed said they had come across pornographic material, and 24% said they had been curious to see what it involved. 13% of the children interviewed said they had been in contact with pederasts, and 70% of these had not mentioned this fact to their parents.

Various groups of experts have studied this problem. The Bishops Conference in the United States brought out an interesting document entitled Your Family and Cyberspace, dated 22 June 2000. The Vatican document, Church and Internet, dated 28 February 2002, says: "For the sake of their children, as well as for their own sakes, parents must 'learn and practice the skills of discerning viewers and listeners and readers, acting as models of prudent use of media in the home.' As far as the Internet is concerned, children and young people often are more familiar with it than their parents are, but parents are still seriously obliged to guide and supervise their children in its use. If this means learning more about the Internet than they have up to now; this will be all to the good. Parental supervision should include making sure that filtering technology is used in computers available to children when that is financially and technically feasible, in order to protect them as much as possible from pornography, sexual predators, and other threats. Unsupervised exposure to the Internet should not be allowed. Parents and children should dialogue together about what is seen and experienced in cyberspace; sharing with other families who have the same values and concerns will also be helpful. The fundamental parental duty here is to help children become discriminating, responsible Internet users and not addicts of the Internet, neglecting contact with their peers and with nature itself."

Parents have to educate their children also in this area, dedicating time and effort, if necessary, to inform themselves about the Internet, since their children make use of it. In the case of children who are still minors, parents have a moral duty to protect them by one of the secure systems discussed above. It is also very advisable that the computer with Internet access be placed where people pass by frequently: the living room, the kitchen, if space is available, etc. Children should also be told never to give out personal information (for example, filling out questionnaires) or make contact with unknown persons. They should also be advised to mention to their parents anything they find strange, to exercise prudence when their friends at school pass on disks to them, etc. If this is explained to them in the right way, children will see these precautions as a help to using computers correctly, which they freely want to do, including criteria such as not "surfing" the Internet without a specific goal, seeking only to fill in the time.

When their children are older, the moral necessity continues to exist of ensuring that the computer they use at home has a filter. Thus one prevents their accidentally coming upon quite objectionable material that could lead them along a bad path and even eventually create an addiction. For example, being confronted with heavily erotic material is a serious and proximate occasion for anyone, and parents have a moral duty to protect their children from these dangers. This is the conduct that upright parents in fact instill in their children: not going to certain places with them, avoiding certain locations, etc. Just as this is not seen as restricting their freedom, so too the precautions mentioned above shouldn't be seen as a lack of respect for their children's freedom.

In families with several children, the parents may notice that one of them is misusing the Internet. In this case, it is hard to give general rules for the best way to react. But usually it is bad pedagogy to insist that "the just must pay for the sins of others," or to force all the children to follow more stringent restrictions than are morally necessary. One has to confront, energetically if need be, the real and specific problem of the child who is not behaving well, while also avoiding the creation of an atmosphere of mistrust or lack of freedom in the family. Normally it is not advisable to prevent all the children from having access to the Internet. It would represent a clear failure in their responsibility to teach their children the correct use of the information media, which whether they like it or not forms part of today's world, and which their children will have to learn how to use at school, at the university, in their future work, and later on in the home they will set up when they marry, guiding in turn the children God gives them. In my opinion, the argument that in former times the Internet didn't exist and no one suffered because of this fact, is a false argument. In the past there were also no cars, planes, telephones, etc., and that is no reason to forgo these means. What is needed is to learn how to use them correctly.

As children grow up, their situation with regard to the Internet becomes that of adults, which the next section will consider.

5. Use of the Internet by adults

The use of the Internet by adults can be considered from two points of view: that of the user and that of those responsible for its use (business, student residence, school, university, etc.).

From the perspective of the user, we will first consider the case of a person with sound morals who uses the Internet for his work or study, and therefore who doesn't seek out unsuitable material or waste time "surfing" aimlessly on the web. If his business, university, school, etc. employs the protection of a proxy or filter (for example, Optenet), the use of the Internet should not give rise to any moral problems.

However, if there is no system of protection (proxy or filter), he will sometimes come across quite negative (pornographic) material. This is inevitable since those promoting these objectionable pages employ many systems to ensure that people are drawn to enter them, even if they don't want to. Those who are experts in the field inform me that this is achieved by various methods. One is to record the most frequent errors people make when typing the name of a popular site (for example, a newspaper or search engine), so that when this mistaken address is typed in one is immediately connected to a pornographic site. Another method involves placing ads on other sites that link to pornographic sites. It is also possible to introduce hidden programs into the operating system (adware, spyware), which constantly multiply and link to immoral sites. Other methods also exist which are too complicated to discuss here.

Given this situation, and the reality of human weakness, it can happen that morally sound people who are sometimes or frequently exposed to heavily pornographic material can fall, and if an effective remedy is not taken, can even become addicted. Therefore serious reasons exist to state in general terms, without prejudging the moral situation of the user, that a person who habitually uses the Internet without any protection, especially if he does so over many hours, will sometimes or often find himself in a proximate occasion of serious sin, which one has a grave moral obligation to avoid. Therefore, for a person working under these conditions, the moral duty exists to use a filter (Optenet, CyberPatrol, etc.).

According to the teaching of St. Alphonse, it could happen that a person of great moral rectitude who works without a filter may not be exposed to these dangers, either because he exercises a lot of caution or because he doesn't spend much time on the Internet, and the experience of months or even years could verify that these dangers don't exist for him. In this case it is not clear that he has a moral obligation to use a filter. Nevertheless, using one is a prudential measure that is highly recommendable. It prevents unnecessary worry and any morally sound person should not disdain, since no one can be certain he will resist temptations that appear suddenly. Let us turn to another possible situation. If a person who has to work on the Internet, and who doesn't use a filter, should happen to fall into serious sin a number of times because of this fact, his repentance for these sins and consequent purpose of amendment requires employing specific means to ensure at least that the proximate occasion is rendered remote. One of these means is the use of an adequate filter. Others might include working in a place where others pass by or restricting one's use of the Internet to a minimum.

An analogous moral situation is found in those who work with a filter, but who have not yet attained a solid moral life, or who, from time to time, leave the door wide open to temptation. From the point of view of Catholic morality, these people have the pressing duty to avoid anything that could gravely harm their Christian life, putting into practice the necessary means to avoid sin. Depending on circumstances, they may have to stop using the Internet, at least for some months, if it seems that the difficulty in question is due to a specific moment in one's life and will be resolved over time; or they may need to make use of an ICRAplus filter that allows one to access only the web pages definitely required for one's work. In extreme cases one may need to consider changing one's job. If the difficulty arises not only from using the Internet but also from television, magazines, etc., one is faced with a wider problem, and the remedies that need to be employed are also wider.

A final point to highlight is that chronic situations of difficulty are usually marked by several factors: using the Internet without a filter, in one's own room, at night, and without a clear aim. These can be people who are alone or who isolate themselves (although they live in a residence alongside many other person), and who use the Internet to fill in the time, with the attitude at least implicitly at times of seeking satisfaction for their sensuality.

6. Use of the Internet in businesses, residences, educational institutions, etc.

Those who work in businesses, offices, etc. have an obligation in justice to fulfill the hours of work indicated in their labor agreement. Using e-mail or the Internet for other purposes is analogous to using the telephone or reading newspapers and books for purposes that have nothing to do with one's work responsibilities.

A certain flexibility is possible here: for example, an employee may need to make a brief phone call to someone at home. But when those in charge see that clear abuses are taking place, they have a right to limit the use of the Internet: for example, by installing a filter that permits access only to the sites related to one's work, or by blocking access to web pages that can lead to abusive use (music, photos, clips, films, etc.). Those in positions of responsibility should make a prudential judgment regarding the possibility that these measure could turn out to be counter-productive in the end by damaging the spirit of trust and cooperation found in their employees. But it is clear that employees are morally obliged to use the computers and Internet access available to them in a way that accords with their labor contract. The fact that a business refuses to provide means for entertaining oneself or for evading work is not an undue restriction on employees' freedom. Naturally, one should always act here with flexibility and understanding.

A more delicate problem is that presented by residences for students, or for seminarians or priests. On the one hand, an entity of this type will seek to foster a helpful atmosphere and offer certain service: an atmosphere of freedom and trust, a good work environment, respect for people's rightful autonomy and privacy, and Internet access for one's study. On the other hand, it also has a right to demand respect for certain clear norms of behavior, including external moral behavior.

If Internet access is provided in each one's room, residents will most likely spend time "surfing" the Internet, "chatting" with friends, etc. Experience has shown that, even in the case of people with a fairly good moral formation, the Internet is often used in a way that is quite immoral, with clear harm for those involved. At times those in charge of these residences do nothing to counteract this danger, claiming that each person is responsible for his or her own behavior, since after all we are talking about adults. Or they might be afraid of being called puritanical or being accused of not respecting others' freedom. Or they could even argue that God himself, who loves us more than anyone, doesn't prevent the bad use of our freedom. Or they may seek to avoid creating an atmosphere of mistrust, which could be counter-productive, pointing out that residents can always do what they want by going somewhere else or later when they leave the residence, etc.

All these arguments certainly contain an element of truth. Besides, cheap Internet access is easily available to residents through mobile phones or prepaid cards. Therefore the key element is always the formation and moral convictions of the one who uses the Internet. Nevertheless, the question here is not how adults should be allowed to use their freedom, but the services offered by a residence or educational institution. And just as one should seek to provide healthy nourishment or a good work environment, so it is reasonable to also want to offer a sound Internet service. Therefore a well-formed conscience requires that those responsible for these entities install, between the entry point of the line and the student connection, a server with a proxy (which also provides protection against viruses and information pirates) and a filter, or at the very least with a filter. This entails no judgment regarding the users' intentions nor a restriction of their freedom, but is simply the reflection of a sound philosophy regarding the services a residence should offer. It offers an instrument for work, information, rest, etc., but not a pathway to immoral sites. The latter lies outside the aims of any educational entity. A resident would have a right to complain if he wasn't provided with a suitable work place, but not if he isn't offered immoral entertainment.

Depending on specific circumstances (type of residents, etc.), one may want to consider the possibility of employing other measures, for example, setting up a well-designed computer room, and only providing Internet access there. For certain kinds of work requiring the simultaneous use of many books or other materials, this solution presents many problems. In my opinion, it is good to avoid unnecessary restrictions. The use of a proxy and filter is a sufficient guarantee. Perhaps at times this won't be true. This question requires a prudential judgment that takes into account all the circumstances (nature of the institution, etc.), as well as the cost of certain measures for the atmosphere of trust and freedom that one is seeking to foster. Since it is a question of adults, moral formation and personal virtue are indispensable. These measures simply seek to provide reasonable assistance and prevent a cooperation in evil that is totally incompatible with the aims of an educational institution. If it becomes known that one or more persons are using the Internet to engage in scandalous conduct (leading others into evil, storing and distributing obscene photos, etc.), one needs to act decisively with them, while also avoiding restrictions that are unnecessary for the rest, since these measures have counter­productive effects among adults. The ideal one has to aim for is that all who pass through the residence will leave with solid criteria and convictions regarding the use of the Internet, and not simply passively accept restrictions that they will reject as soon as they are free to do so.

From all that has been said above, it is clear that forming people in the virtues required for the correct use of the Internet is an essential part of the moral and Christian formation required today. The technical means of protection and the other measures of prudence demanded by the various situations should be considered within this positive context.

Angel Rodriguez Luño

Professor, Pontifical University of the Holy Cross