Article: The Secret of the Poor Souls in Purgatory

An interview with Maria Simma of Austria
Maria Simma (1915-2004)

Today, very little is taught in regular catechism classes about Purgatory, about the suffering that the Poor Souls experience in order to be completely purified to be able to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet Purgatory does exist, and the sufferings that the Poor Souls experience there are very real. Since 1940 (she was then aged 25), a privileged soul, named Maria Simma, has had regular visits from the souls in Purgatory to explain their sufferings and to ask for prayers and Masses to be released from Purgatory.

Her local Bishop and parish priest told her she could make known these visitations as long as there were no theological errors.



The following are excerpts taken from a booklet entitled: The Amazing Secret of the Souls in Purgatory, published by Queenship Publishing Co (Note: Maria Simma died on March 16, 2004, in Sonntag, at the age of 89.)

Sr. Emmanuel with Maria Simma Maria, can you tell us how you were visited for the first time by a soul in Purgatory?

Yes, it was in 1940. One night, around 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, I heard someone coming into my bedroom... I saw a complete stranger. He walked back and forth slowly. I said to him severely: "How did you get in here? Go away!" But he continued to walk impatiently around the bedroom as if he hadn't heard. So I asked him again: "What are you doing?" But as he still didn't answer, I jumped out of bed and tried to grab him, but I grasped only air. There was nothing there.

So I went back to bed, but again I heard him pacing back and forth. I wondered how I could see this man, but I couldn't grab him. I rose again to hold onto him and to stop him from walking around; again, I grasped only emptiness. Puzzled, I went back to bed. He didn't come back, but I couldn't get back to sleep.

The next day, after Mass, I went to see my spiritual director and told him everything. He told me that if this should happen again, I shouldn't ask, "Who are you?" but "What do you want from me?" The following night, the man returned. I asked him: "What do you want from me?" He replied: "Have three Masses celebrated for me, and I will be delivered."

So I understood that it was a soul in Purgatory. My spiritual director confirmed this. He also advised me never to turn away the poor souls, but to accept with generosity whatever they asked of me.

And afterwards, the visits continued?

Yes. For several years, there were only three or four souls, above all in November. Afterwards, there were more.

What do these souls ask of you?

In most cases, they ask to have Masses celebrated and that one be present at these Masses. They ask to have the Rosary said and also that one make the Stations of the Cross.

Maria, do the souls in Purgatory have, nevertheless, joy and hope in the midst of their suffering?

Yes. No soul would want to come back from Purgatory to the earth. They have knowledge which is infinitely beyond ours. They just could not decide to return to the darkness of the earth. Here we see the difference from the suffering that we know on earth. In Purgatory, even if the pain of the soul is just terrible, there is the certitude of living forever with God. It's an unshakeable certitude. The joy is greater than the pain. There is nothing on earth which could make them want to live here again, where one is never sure of anything.

Maria, can you tell us now if it is God who sends a soul into Purgatory, or if the soul itself decides to go there?

It is the soul itself which wants to go to Purgatory, in order to be pure before going to Heaven.

Maria, at the moment of death, does one see God in full light or in an obscure manner?

In a manner still obscure, but, all the same, in such brightness that this is enough to cause great longing.

Maria, can you tell us what the role of Our Lady is with the souls in Purgatory?

She comes often to console them and to tell them they have done many good things. She encourages them.

Are there any days in particular on which She delivers them?

Above all, Christmas Day, All Saints Day, Good Friday, the Feast of the Assumption, and the Ascension of Jesus.

Maria, why does one go to Purgatory? What are the sins which most lead to Purgatory?

Sins against charity, against the love of one's neighbor, hardness of heart, hostility, slandering, calumny - all these things. Charity covers a multitude of sins.

Here, Maria gives us an example which really struck her which I would like to share with you. She had been asked to find out if a woman and a man were in Purgatory. To the great astonishment of those who had asked, the woman was already in Heaven and the man was in Purgatory. In fact, this woman had died while undergoing an abortion, whereas the man often went to church and apparently led a worthy, devout life. So Maria searched for more information, thinking she'd been mistaken but no, it was true. They had died at practically the same moment, but the woman had experienced deep repentance, and was very humble, whereas the man criticized everyone; he was always complaining and saying bad things about others. This is why his Purgatory lasted so long. And Maria concluded: "We must not judge on appearances."

Other sins against charity are all our rejections of certain people we do not like, our refusals to make peace, our refusals to forgive, and all the bitterness we store inside. Maria also illustrated this point with another example which gave us food for thought. It's the story of a woman she knew very well. This lady died and was in Purgatory, in the most terrible Purgatory, with the most atrocious sufferings. And when she came to see Maria, she explained why.


She had had a female friend. Between them rose a great enmity, caused by herself. She had maintained this enmity for years and years, even though her friend had many times asked for peace, for reconciliation. But each time, she refused. When she fell gravely ill, she continued to close her heart, to refuse the reconciliation offered by her friend, right up to her deathbed.

Maria, please tell us: who are those who have the greatest chance of going straight to Heaven?

Those who have a good heart towards everyone. Love covers a multitude of sins.

What are the means which we can take on earth to avoid Purgatory and go straight to Heaven?

We must do a great deal for the souls in Purgatory, for they help us in their turn. We must have much humility. This is the greatest weapon against evil, against the Evil One. Humility drives evil away.

The Holy Mass

Maria, can you now tell us what are the most effective means to help deliver the souls in Purgatory?

The most efficient means is the Mass.

Why the Mass?

Because it is Christ who offers Himself out of love for us. It is the offering of Christ Himself to God, the most beautiful offering. The priest is God's representative, but it is God Himself who offers Himself and sacrifices Himself for us. The efficacy of the Mass for the deceased is even greater for those who attached great value to the Mass during their lives. If they attended Mass and prayed with all their hearts, if they went to Mass on weekdays - according to their time available - they drew great profit from Masses celebrated for them. Here, too, one harvests what one has sown.

A soul in Purgatory sees very clearly on the day of his funeral if we really pray for him, or if we have simply made an act of presence to show we were there. The poor souls say that tears are no good for them: only prayer! Often they complain that people go to a funeral without addressing a single prayer to God, while shedding many tears; this is useless!

Earthly Sufferings

There is another means, very powerful, to help the poor souls: the offering of our sufferings, our penances, such as fasting, renunciations, etc., - and of course, involuntary suffering, like illness or mourning.

Maria, you have been invited many times to suffer for the poor souls, in order to deliver them. Can you tell us what you have experienced and undergone during these times?

The first time, a soul asked me if I wouldn't mind suffering for three hours in my body for her, and that afterwards I could resume working. I said to myself: "If it will all be over after three hours, I could accept it." During those three hours, I had the impression that it lasted three days, it was so painful. But at the end, I looked at my watch, and I saw that it had only lasted three hours. The soul told me that by accepting that suffering with love for three hours, I had saved her twenty years of Purgatory!

Yes, but why did you suffer for only three hours to avoid twenty years of Purgatory? What did your sufferings have that was worth more?

It is because suffering on earth does not have the same value. On earth, when we suffer, we can grow in love, we can gain merits, which is not the case with the sufferings in Purgatory. In Purgatory, the sufferings serve only to purify us from sin. On earth, we have all the graces. We have the freedom to choose. All of this is so encouraging because it gives an extraordinary meaning to our sufferings. The suffering which is offered, voluntary or involuntary, even the smallest sacrifices we can make, suffering or sickness, mourning, disappointments... if we live them with patience, if we welcome them in humility, these sufferings can have an unheard-of power to help souls.

The best thing to do, Maria tells us, is to unite our sufferings to those of Jesus, by placing them in the hands of Mary. She is the one who knows best how to use them, since often we ourselves do not know the most urgent needs around us. All this, of course, Mary will give back to us at the hour of our death. You see, these sufferings offered will be our most precious treasures in the other world. We must remind each other of this and encourage each other when we suffer.

Let me add something important: the souls in Purgatory can no longer do anything for themselves; they are totally helpless. If the living do not pray for them; they are totally abandoned. Therefore, it is very important to realize the immense power, the incredible power that each one of us has in our hands to relieve these souls who suffer. We wouldn't think twice about helping a child who has fallen in front of us from a tree, and who had broken his bones. Of course, we would do everything for him! So, in the same way, we should take great care of these souls who expect everything from us, attentive to the slightest offering, hopeful for the least of our prayers, to relieve them from their pain. And it might be the finest way to practice charity.

Maria, why can one no longer gain merits in Purgatory, when one can on earth?

Because at the moment of death, the time to earn merits is over. For as long as we are living on earth, we can repair the evil we have done. The souls in Purgatory envy us of this opportunity. Even the angels are jealous of us, for we have the possibility of growing for as long as we are on earth. But often, the suffering in our lives leads us to rebellion, and we have great difficulty in accepting and living it.

How can we live suffering so that it bears fruit?

Sufferings are the greatest proof of the love of God, and if we offer them well, they can win many souls.

But how can we welcome suffering as a gift, and not as a punishment (as we often do), as a chastisement?

We must give everything to Our Lady. She is the one who knows best who needs such and such an offering in order to be saved. We should not always consider sufferings as a punishment. It can be accepted as expiation not only for ourselves, but above all for others. Christ was innocence itself, and He suffered the most for the expiation of our sins. Only in Heaven will we know all that we have obtained by suffering with patience in union with the sufferings of Christ.

Maria, do the souls in Purgatory rebel when faced with their suffering?

No! They want to purify themselves; they understand that it is necessary.

What is the role of contrition or repentance at the moment of death?

Contrition is very important. The sins are forgiven, in any case, but there remains the consequences of sins. If one wishes to receive a full indulgence at the moment of death - that means going straight to Heaven - the soul has to be free from all attachment.

Maria, I would like to ask you: at the moment of death, is there a time in which the soul still has the chance to turn towards God, even after a sinful life, before entering into eternity - a time, if you like, between apparent death and real death?

Yes, yes! The Lord gives several minutes to each one in order to regret his sins and to decide: I accept, or I do not accept to go and see God. Then we see a film of our lives. I knew a man who believed in the Church's teachings, but not in eternal life. One day, he fell gravely ill and slid into a coma. He saw himself in a room with a board on which all his deeds were written, the good and the bad. Then the board
disappeared as well as the walls of the room, and it was infinitely beautiful. Then he woke up from his coma, and decided to change his life.

Maria, does the devil have permission to attack us at the moment of death?

Yes, but man also has the grace to resist him, to push him away. So, if man does not want anything to do with him, the devil can do nothing.

Maria, what advice would you give to anyone who wants to become a saint here on earth?

Be very humble. We must not be occupied with ourselves. Pride is evil's greatest trap.

Maria, please tell us: can one ask the Lord to do one's Purgatory on earth, in order not to have to do it after death?

Yes. I knew a priest and a young woman who were both ill with tuberculosis in the hospital. The young woman said to the priest: "Let's ask the Lord to be able to suffer on earth as much as necessary in order to go straight to Heaven." The priest replied that he himself didn't dare to ask for this. Nearby was a religious sister who had overheard the whole conversation. The young woman died first, the priest died later, and he appeared to the sister, saying: "If only I had had the same trust as the young woman, I too would have gone straight to Heaven."

Maria, are there different degrees in Purgatory?

Yes, there is a great difference of degree of moral suffering. Each soul has a unique suffering, particular to it; there are many degrees.

Maria, are the sufferings in Purgatory more painful than the most painful sufferings on earth?

Yes, but in a symbolic way. It hurts more in the soul.


What happens to people who have committed suicide? Have you ever been visited by these people?

Up to now, I have never encountered the case of a suicide who was lost - this doesn't mean, of course, that that doesn't exist - but often, the souls tell me that the most guilty were those around them, when they were negligent or spread calumny.

At this moment, I asked Maria if the souls regretted having committed suicide. She answered yes. Often, suicide is due to illness. These souls do regret their act because, as they see things in the light of God, they understand instantly all the graces that were in store for them during the time remaining for them to live - and they do see this time which remained for them, sometimes months or years -- and they also see all the souls they could have helped by offering the rest of their lives to God. In the end, what hurts them most is to see the good that they could have done but didn't, because they shortened their lives. But when the cause is illness, the Lord takes this into account, of course.

Are there priests in Purgatory?

Yes, there are many. They didn't promote respect for the Eucharist. So Faith overall suffers. They are often in Purgatory for having neglected prayer - which has diminished their Faith. But there are also many who have gone straight to Heaven.

What would you say, then, to a priest who really wants to live according to the Heart of God?

I would advise him to pray much to the Holy Spirit - and to say his Rosary every day.

Have you been visited by souls who, on earth, practiced perversions? I am thinking, for example, about the sexual domain.

Yes, they are not lost, but they have much to suffer to be purified. For example: homosexuality. This truly comes from the Evil One.

What advice would you give, then, to all those people afflicted by homosexuality, with this tendency in them?

Pray a lot for the strength to turn away from it. They should above all pray to the Archangel Michael; he is the great fighter par excellence against the Evil One.

What are the attitudes of heart which can lead us to losing our soul for good, I mean going to Hell?


It is when the soul does not want to go towards God, when it actually says: "I do not want."



Jesus said that it was difficult for a rich person to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Have you seen such cases?

Yes! But if they do good works, works of charity, if they practice love, they can get there, just like the poor.

Father Cantalamessa on the Priesthood

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

* * *

"Chosen from and for men"
30th Sunday in Ordinary Time (B)
Jeremiah 31:7-9; Hebrews 5:1-6; Mark 10:46-52

The Gospel passage recounts the cure of the blind man of Jericho, Bartimaeus.

Bartimaeus is someone who does not miss an opportunity. He heard that Jesus was passing by, understood that it was the opportunity of his life and acted swiftly. The reaction of those present -- "and many rebuked him, telling him to be silent" -- makes evident the unadmitted pretension of the wealthy of all times: That misery remain hidden, that it not show itself, that it not disturb the sight and dreams of those who are well.

The term "blind" has been charged with so many negative meanings that it is right to reserve it, as the tendency is today, to the moral blindness of ignorance and insensitivity. Bartimaeus is not blind; he is only sightless. He sees better with his heart than many of those around him, because he has faith and cherishes hope. More than that, it is this interior vision of faith which also helps him to recover his external vision of things. "Your faith has made you well," Jesus says to him.

I pause here in the explanation of the Gospel because I am anxious to develop a topic present in this Sunday's second reading, regarding the figure and role of the priest. It is said of a priest first of all that he is "chosen from among men." He is not, therefore, an uprooted being or fallen from heaven, but a human being who has behind him a family and a history like everyone else.

"Chosen from among men" also means that the priest is made of the same fabric as any other human creature: with the emotions, struggles, doubts and weaknesses of everybody else. Scripture sees in this a benefit for other men, not a motive for scandal. In this way, in fact, the priest will be more ready to have compassion, as he is also cloaked in weakness.

Chosen from among men, the priest is moreover "appointed to act on behalf of men," that is, given back to them, placed at their service -- a service that affects man's most profound dimension, his eternal destiny.

St. Paul summarizes the priestly ministry with a phrase: "This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Corinthians 4:1). This does not mean that the priest is indifferent to the needs -- including human -- of people, but that he is also concerned with these with a spirit that is different from that of sociologists and politicians. Often the parish is the strongest point of aggregation, including social, in the life of a country or district.

We have sketched the positive vision of the priest's figure. We know that it is not always so. Every now and then the news reminds us that another reality also exists, made of weakness and infidelity --- of this reality the Church can do no more than ask forgiveness.

But there is a truth that must be recalled for a certain consolation of the people. As man, the priest can err, but the gestures he carries out as priest, at the altar or in the confessional, are not invalid or ineffective because of it. The people are not deprived of God's grace because of the unworthiness of the priest. It is Christ who baptizes, celebrates, forgives; the priest is only the instrument.

I like to recall in this connection, the words uttered before dying by the country priest of Georges Bernanos: "All is grace."

Even the misery of his alcoholism seems to him to be a grace, because it has made him more merciful toward people. God is not that concerned that his representatives on earth be perfect, but that they be merciful.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Wednesday Liturgy: Changing the "Pray Brethren …"

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

Q: A friend of mine has said that it is never permissible, at the opening of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, to say "brothers and sisters" or (even worse) "sisters and brothers" during "Pray -- that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God our Father." I have seen in some regional missalettes that say the priest is allowed to use these words along with "friends" and some others. What is acceptable to say during this part of the prayer? -- C.S., College Station, Texas

A: The present English missal has a footnote after the word "brethren" that says: "At the discretion of the priest, other words which may seem more suitable under the circumstances such as friends, dearly beloved, my brothers and sisters, may be used."

Therefore our correspondent's friend is incorrect in stating that the priest may not substitute other suitable formulas for "brethren."

Certainly no such footnote exists in the new Latin missal but this is quite understandable in a Latin text.

Missals in other major languages have generally opted for a different method for this invitation to pray: that of offering a simple translation of the Latin text plus two or three alternative formulas of greeting from which the priest may choose.

Thus the Spanish missal offers three texts, two with an equivalent of "brethren" and one with an indirect greeting.

The Italian and Brazilian Portuguese missals both offer four texts. The Italian translates the original Latin text as "brethren" and uses "brothers and sisters" in the others. The Portuguese uses "brothers and sisters" in all four cases.

This method offers some variety while removing any danger of arbitrary invention by the priest.

The composition and approval of new alternative texts not found in the original Latin belongs to each individual bishops' conference although it must receive the definitive approval of the Holy See before being incorporated into the missal published for use in each country.

Since all present translations are currently under review it remains to be seen if all of these new texts, duly approved by the Holy See over the last 36 years, will pass a second muster. It is probable that many will be acceptable and will continue to be used.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Scriptural Translations

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

After our Oct. 10 piece on the use of Scripture in the liturgy, an English priest wrote: "I wish Father McNamara had included in his answer that the Church encourages the private reading of the Bible, that much can be gained from reading the context of the passages used at liturgy, and that our inquirer should be encouraged to maintain his devotion to Scripture."

As they say, better late than never, and I happily add my full agreement with our correspondent's suggested addendum.

A reader from Virginia wrote: "The subject article on scriptural translations touches on an important aspect of using the Bible. In speaking about the Bible, in forming thoughts for the day, and in literary discourse, people frequently quote the Bible, many times from what they have memorized. With the multiplicity of translations, especially within one language, we have generated another Tower of Babel, a work of the devil. Do the bishops realize the confusion they have created?"

In all fairness, I do not believe that the bishops are in any way responsible for the confusion mentioned by our correspondent, if indeed such confusion really exists. Indeed, in the long run, using a single liturgical translation for each country is likely to bring about greater, rather than lesser, harmony in biblical knowledge within a nation.

Certainly some difficulty might be caused in international settings, but people who travel frequently are also likely to be equipped to handle these minor differences.

I would also observe that while the King James Bible held sway for a long time in Protestant English, other translations were on offer. And Catholics could also choose from several English versions from well before the use of the vernacular entered into the liturgy.

Thus, there has never been much uniformity in translations and people memorized and quoted whatever Bible they happened to have.

Another question entirely is if the bishops' choice of translation is really the best, from the point of view of literature, pastoral use, and other criteria. On such questions experts may disagree. But in the end all must respect the bishops' choice as they have weighed all of the issues and have opted for what they considered best for the people of God.

Another reader asked: "I was wondering why the New American Bible (St. Joseph Edition) has verses divided up different from the 'Protestant' Bible. For instance, Job 41:1 in the New American Bible is 41:9 in the King James version. Also, periodically through some of the New American Bible the verse numbers are changed around. For instance, in Job 31 it goes verses 2-8 and then goes to 38-40, then to 1 then to 9. What would the reason be for that?"

Chapters and verses do not form part of the original text but were inserted over the centuries by scholars and printers. They are therefore open to question on some points and may sometimes be revised.

Contemporary biblical scholars have access to more ancient manuscripts that did the translators of the King James Bible and one of their tasks is to establish, as far as possible, the original text of each book. They therefore have to judge possible copyist's mistakes and other such interventions.

After much painstaking work, most modern interpreters consider that the above-mentioned verses in Job 31:38-40 were erroneously placed at the end by an earlier copyist and the proper order is as described above. Likewise most experts now consider that Job 41:1-8 really belongs to the conclusion of Chapter 40.

In order to respect the traditional division of chapter and verses, and allow for comparisons between different versions, some modern English Bibles start Chapter 41 at verse 9 instead of creating a new system.

Biblical texts in the liturgy must follow the chapter and verse division of the New Latin Vulgate so as to be sure as to which text the Church proposes for liturgical proclamation.

Finally, some readers asked, When can we expect the new English translation of the Missal?

As one high prelate involved in the process once said: "Two years ago I replied to reporters that the translation would be ready in about two years. Today I can say I am sticking to my original estimate."

The process of translation and approval is slow but is constantly progressing. Seeking a translation that can stand up for many decades and even centuries is no easy task and it should be worth waiting another "two years."

Speech: In Defense of Marriage

EDINBURGH, Scotland, OCT. 21, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Legislative measures in Scotland and elsewhere have jeopardized family life, according to Bishop Philip Tartaglia.

The 55-year-old bishop of Paisley defended marriage and family in this homily to members of the legal profession during the annual Red Mass on Oct. 8 in St. Mary's Cathedral.

* * *

In today's Gospel, Jesus talks of man, woman and children. In fact he talks of husband, wife and children, which we have come to call the family.

The family constituted by parents, a man and woman married to each other, and their offspring, has been the basic cell of society in pre-Christian, Christian and non-Christian cultures for millennia. Until now.

Now a raft of legislative measures here in Scotland as elsewhere has jeopardized, recklessly I think, family life as intended by God's purpose for human beings created in his image and likeness.

As men and women of the legal profession, these legislative measures will be well known to you. Some of them are these: The Family Law Act which makes divorce even quicker and gives quasi-marital status to de facto heterosexual unions. Civil Partnership legislation allows homosexual couples to register their relationships and enjoy a civil status analogous to marriage. The Gender Recognition Act allows people to choose to be male or female irrespective of their sex.

The Catholic Church's view of these kinds of developments here and elsewhere is well known. We have protested all of these measures. Our reaction to civil partnership legislation is typical of our stance. The social teaching of the Church could not be clearer: "By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and family life, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties" [Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, No. 228].

This may seem hard on legislators. Yet I have some sympathy for them! They are making provisions for a very diverse, pluralist, secular society, which is being encouraged to become intolerant of and even hostile to the Christian patrimony of this country. They have to respond to pressure groups and focus groups and all kinds of well-organized, well-financed and very determined alliances. And, while the Catholic Church speaks clearly enough on these matters, the Christian voice is sadly muffled, so legislators can more easily set our opinions aside.

As I say, I have some sympathy for legislators, but not a lot. They should know better what is good for society, and in some cases they do know better but ignore it in the interests of power. For instance, all reputable research shows that children do better with two parents who are husband and wife. But political correctness, very often the enemy of right thinking and freedom of speech, practically forbids this to be said because it will offend some group's sensitivities.

But the main reason I do not have sympathy for the legislators who have enacted these laws is because the truth of marriage and of the family is not just a mystery of faith but belongs to the natural law and is accessible by reason. Even many non-Christian societies have recognized this. Unfortunately, in our times, the minds of many have been so darkened by hubris and by the selfish pursuit of their own gratification that they have lost sight of the natural law which God has written into his creation so that even those who do not believe in him may reach out for the truth and so be disposed, however inchoately, to God's presence in the world. Even if they cannot be blamed for not having faith, I suspect that God will call them to account for ignoring the promptings of their own right reason. They are fortunate that he is more merciful than they are!

So in this context it is more than ever necessary for us to be strengthened, enlightened, consoled and inspired by the Word of God. In today's Gospel, Jesus makes it clear that divorce and remarriage is not the way he wants his disciples to live. Divorce may have been possible to some extent in his time under the Mosaic law, just as it is possible, very much more possible, almost to the point of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, in our society. But it is decidedly not what God wants.

Jesus appeals to the mystery of creation. God made them male and female, man and woman, as the first form of communion between persons. "This is why a man must leave father and mother, and the two become one body. They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has joined together, man must not divide." This is the wonderful vision of marriage which the Catholic Church offers to her children and to all men and women.

It is the vision of marriage which still basically unites Christians, Jews, Muslims and adherents of other respected religions. It is the vision of marriage too which basically inspires any man and woman who marry with true love in their hearts. They want lasting, enduring, faithful love. This vision of marriage is the hope of right reason as well the gift of faith.

Sadly, however, lasting, enduring, faithful love is not always what happens. The Church knows this and, while upholding the sanctity of the marriage bond, has developed a compassionate pastoral attitude to people whose marriages have broken up, encouraging them to remain part of the life of the Church and offering them the things that only the Church can offer to help them to lighten their burden. As you know, there is also the possibility of an annulment appeal to a Church tribunal. As you know, the Scottish Catholic Tribunal investigates among other things serious defects in the original consent exchanged by the couple such as to render that consent null, and so carries out an essential obligation of the Church to bring justice in a timely manner to its appellants.

As you know too, marriage breakdown often ends in a civil divorce. Divorce settlement is bread and butter to the legal profession. Here, Catholic lawyers are in the unenviable position of having to facilitate a legal procedure, civil divorce, which is a grave offense against the natural law because it claims to break the contract to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a chilling but completely realistic description of the pernicious effects of divorce on spouses, children and society: "Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society" (CCC, No. 2385). So no one, my dear brothers and sisters, should ever get blasé about divorce.

At the same time, we know that a civil divorce may be the only way to tidy up what is already a tragic mess for spouses and children. In these circumstances, civil divorce may be the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the safety of one of the spouses, the care of the children or the protection of inheritance. And in these cases, divorce does not constitute a moral offence (CCC, No. 2383). Remarriage is another matter, but that is not usually the concern of lawyers.

So I would hope that Catholic lawyers will bring to this situation their Catholic principles and conscience about the sanctity of marriage which means that saving the marriage is always a possibility and that divorce is never going to be a quick-fix solution to a problem. I am told that good lawyers nearly always first put the case for staying together to their clients who are in the throes of marriage breakdown.

They will, of course, carry out their work to the best of their professional ability in the best interests of their clients and their children. And in the context of the legal profession and in dealing with politicians, legislators and civic leaders, they should not hesitate to defend the sanctity of marriage and to underline the nefarious consequences of a divorce mentality on the common good of our society.

Lawyers are also well placed to bring to the attention of legislators and others the value of public funding for programs of marriage preparation and of marriage counseling which give a high priority to safeguarding and preserving the marriage bond. This would be a worthwhile contribution to creating a social capital of stable family life. This, my dear brothers and sisters, is the kind of witness to which Catholic lay people are called through their baptism, confirmation and membership of the Church.

Finally, my dear brothers and sisters, let me conclude by affirming our faith that Christian marriage is a holy mystery and a noble vocation. It signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ loved his Church. It is based on the consent of a man and woman to give themselves to each other mutually and definitively, in order to live a covenant of faithful and fruitful love. Marriage in Christ gives rise to the Christian home where children receive the first proclamation of the faith. The family home is rightly called "the domestic Church," a community of grace and prayer, a school of human virtues and of Christian charity.

May you who are married have the joy of living in such a union. May you all, in your professional lives, find the strength in Christ to uphold the sacredness of marriage in your work and in the public square, for the common good of our society and of our country.

Father Cantalamessa on Power

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

* * *

The Great Exercise Power
29th Sunday in Ordinary Time (B)
Isaiah 53:2a.,3a.,10-11; Hebrews 4:14-16; Mark 10:35-45

After the Gospel on riches, this Sunday's Gospel gives us Christ's judgment on another of the great idols of the world: power.

Power, like money, is not intrinsically evil. God describes himself as "the Omnipotent" and Scripture says "power belongs to God" (Psalm 62:11).

However, given that man had abused the power granted to him, transforming it into control by the strongest and oppression of the weakest, what did God do?

To give us an example, God stripped himself of his omnipotence; from being "omnipotent," he made himself "impotent."

He "emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:7). He transformed power into service. The first reading of the day contains a prophetic description of this "impotent" Savior. "He grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth. ... He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity."

Thus a new power is revealed, that of the cross: "Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise" (1 Corinthians 1:27). In the Magnificat, Mary sings in advance this silent revolution brought by the coming of Christ: "He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones" (Luke 1:52).

Who is accused under this denunciation of power? Only dictators and tyrants? Would that it were so! It would refer, in this case, to exceptions. Instead, it affects us all. Power has infinite ramifications, it gets in everywhere, as certain sands of the Sahara when the sirocco wind blows. It even gets into the Church.

The problem of power, therefore, is not posed only in the political realm. If we stay in that realm, we do no more than join the group of those who are always ready to strike others' breast for their own faults. It is easy to denounce collective faults, or those of the past; it is far more difficult when it comes to personal and present faults.

Mary says that God "dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart; he has thrown down the rulers from their thrones" (Luke 1:51ff.). She singles out implicitly a precise area in which the "will to power" must be combated: our own hearts.

Our minds -- the thoughts of the heart -- can become a kind of throne on which we sit to dictate laws and thunder against those who do not submit to us. We are, at least in our wishes if not in deeds, the "mighty on thrones."

Sadly, in the family itself it is possible that our innate will to power and abuse might manifest itself, causing constant suffering to those who are victims of it, which is often -- not always -- the woman.

What does the Gospel oppose to power? Service: a power for others, not over others!

Power confers authority, but service confers something more, authority that means respect, esteem, a true ascendancy over others. The Gospel also opposes power with nonviolence, that is, power of another kind, moral, not physical power.

Jesus said that he could have asked the Father for twelve legions of angels to defeat his enemies who were just about to crucify him (Matthew 26:53), but he preferred to pray for them. And it was in this way that he achieved victory.

Service is not always expressed, however, in silence and submission to power. Sometimes it can impel one to raise one's voice against power and its abuses. This is what Jesus did. In his life he experienced the abuse of the political and religious power of the time. That is why he is close to all those -- in any environment (the family, community, civil society) --who go through the experience of an evil and tyrannical power.

With his help it is possible not "to be overcome by evil," as he was not -- more than that, to "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21).

[Translation by ZENIT]

* * *

Correction: Last week's commentary by Father Cantalamessa should have read: "However, it is clear that today almsgiving and charity is no longer the only way to use wealth for the common good, or perhaps the most advisable." The word "only" was inadvertently omitted from the English translation. We apologize for the error.

Wednesday Liturgy: The Divine Praises at Adoration

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

Q: What is the most appropriate moment to pray the Divine Praises during adoration of the Blessed Sacrament: immediately following Benediction or once the Sacrament has been returned to the tabernacle? -- A.D., Boston, Massachusetts

A: The Divine Praises, or the prayers of reparation for profanity and blasphemy, are a sequence of acclamations, chiefly composed by Jesuit Luigi Felici in 1797, blessing God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, and all the angels and saints.

The acclamations are usually recited publicly immediately after the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

While the rubrics do not specify that the Divine Praises be recited at all, when they are recited, it is customary to do so before reposing the Blessed Sacrament. This is the Holy Father's practice after imparting Benediction on concluding the Eucharistic procession of the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Monsignor Peter Elliott ably describes the rites concluding Benediction in his renowned ceremonies book: "If the Blessed Sacrament is to be reposed in the tabernacle, then (after the Divine Praises and) during a psalm, hymn, acclamation or appropriate music, the celebrant or the assisting deacon or priest goes to the altar. He genuflects, turns the back of the monstrance toward himself, removes the lunette and places it in the pyx, which he closes. He moves the monstrance to the left of the corporal and may veil it. He then takes the pyx and places it in the tabernacle, genuflecting before he locks the door.

"(If the tabernacle is in a chapel, a server should place a humeral veil over the shoulders of the celebrant or the assistant deacon or priest before he removes the lunette from the monstrance. Torch bearers should precede him to the chapel and then return with him to the sanctuary, unless it is thought more convenient to go directly to the sacristy.) All bow to the altar (or genuflect if the tabernacle is behind or on it) and return to the sacristy led by the thurifer. Sacristans and/or servers carry out their respective duties in the sanctuary and in the sacristy."

Given this description, and the most common practice of the Church, it seems more appropriate to pray the Divine Praises before reposition and not after the tabernacle is closed.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Unauthorized Baptism

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

Several readers wrote in reply to our Oct. 3 column on unauthorized baptism by a grandmother.

A California reader asked: "You remarked that a child should not be baptized if there were no assurance he would be brought up Catholic. What happened to the old idea of baptizing a child whose parents were lackadaisical Catholics in the hope that the grace of the sacrament would bring him back into the Church? That seems to make more sense than not to baptize him at all."

The two cases are not quite the same. As our reader points out, the Church will usually proceed with baptism in the case of children whose parents are less then assiduous in practicing their faith. This is both for the good of the child and because pastoral experience shows that the occasion of a child's baptism can often awaken the parents from their religious torpor.

Even if this does not happen, there is usually a reasonable hope that the child will be offered some opportunity for religious education at the time of first Communion and confirmation.

In the case we dealt with, only one parent was Christian and both had decided not to baptize the child. So there was fairly scant hope of the child being given a Christian upbringing.

Some reasonable, albeit far from certain, assurance of a Christian education is required before baptism. This is because -- barring extraordinary interventions -- sacramental grace is called to be developed within the context of a constantly developing relationship with God and God's family, the Church.

This contextual development of the life of grace is something willed by God as grace perfects, but does not substitute, the natural process of human flourishing.

Regarding the validity of the baptism a reader pointed out: "A baptism using the proper intention, form and matter is always valid ... though perhaps illicit. The child was, in fact, baptized and should be recorded as such. The matter that the parent did not agree is moot in regards sacramental action."

Our reader is correct that the validity depends on the correct intent and the use of the proper matter and form and that the parent's opposition has no bearing at all on the baptism's sacramental validity. This point was made in the original article.

Where our reader goes beyond the original article, and rightly so, is with regards to the registration of the baptism. I had proposed a strategy through which the grandmother could achieve the baptism while avoiding a family feud. However, if this were not possible, then the parish priest should duly register the baptism while noting the special circumstances.

The grandmother should then take the necessary prudential steps to inform the parents, even, as a last resort, in her will, in order to avoid a possible future invalid baptismal ceremony of a person who is already a member of Christ's mystical body.

A rather unusual e-mail came from South Africa: "A couple in our parish had a premature baby who was seriously ill, and in fact, in danger of dying. The baby was kept in an incubator in the intensive care unit of the local hospital. The parents desired the child to be baptized, but because of the medical circumstances, it was not practical.

"The priest then baptized the infant's brother 'by proxy,' that is, the brother was not baptized, but was baptized on behalf of the infant who was in danger of death.

"Is baptism by proxy allowed in these circumstances? What would the rite be? For example, which child's name does the priest say? Could the priest baptize 'through' the glass of the hospital without water? If baptism by proxy is allowed, can one extend that to the other sacraments? Do pastoral needs supersede the liturgical norms, as circumstances require?"

Sad though it is, as the child in question eventually died, it is necessary to admit that the priest made a grave mistake by this action.

The only sacrament that may be celebrated by proxy is matrimony. All of the others require some degree of physical presence and contact of the person receiving the sacrament.

This is not something that the Church can change for she has received the sacraments, along with their inherent limitations, from Christ himself.

In such cases it is almost always possible to baptize the child. A few drops of water on the head, even from a syringe, while saying the proper baptismal formula would have sufficed. If it were impossible for the priest to enter the ward, a doctor or nurse could have performed the baptism.

All the same, although the problem of infants who die before baptism is still being studied from the theological point of view, the Church is confident that a merciful God will not leave the parent's desires and prayers unanswered.

God Is Not Against the Rich, Says Father Cantalamessa

ROME, OCT. 13, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by the Pontifical Household preacher, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, on the readings from the 28th Sunday in ordinary time.

* * *

"How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!"
Mark 10:17-30

A preliminary observation is necessary to clarify any possible ambiguities when reading what this Sunday's Gospel says about wealth.

Jesus never condemns wealth or earthly goods in themselves. Among his friends is, also, Joseph of Arimathea, a "rich man"; Zaccheus is declared "saved," though he kept half his goods for himself which, given his office of tax collector, must have been considerable.

What Jesus condemns is exaggerated attachment to money and property; to make one's life depend on these and to accumulate riches only for oneself (Luke 12:13-21).

The word which God uses for excessive attachment to money is "idolatry" (Colossians 3:5; Ephesians 5:5). Money is not one of many idols; it is the idol par excellence, literally, "molten gods" (Exodus 34:17).

It is the anti-God because it creates a sort of alternative world, it changes the object of the theological virtues. Faith, hope and charity are no longer placed in God, but in money. Effected is a sinister inversion of all values.

"Nothing is impossible for God," says Scripture, and also: "Everything is possible for the one who believes." But the world says: "Everything is possible for the one who has money."

Avarice, in addition to being idolatry, is also the source of unhappiness. The avaricious is an unhappy man. Distrusting everyone, he isolates himself. He has not affection, not even for those of his own flesh, whom he always sees as taking advantage and who, in turn, really nourish only one desire in regard to him: That he die soon to inherit his wealth.

Tense to the point of breaking to save money, he denies himself everything in life and so does not enjoy either this world or God, as his self-denial is not for him.

Instead of having security and tranquility, he is an eternal hostage of his money. However, Jesus does not leave any one without the hope of salvation, including the rich man. The question is not "whether the rich man is saved" (this has never been in discussion in Christian tradition), but "What rich man is saved?"

Jesus points out to the rich a way out of their dangerous situation: "Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes" (Matthew 6:20); "make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations" (Luke 16:9).

It might be said that Jesus was advising the rich to transfer their capital abroad! But not to Switzerland -- to heaven! Many, says St. Augustine, exert themselves to put their money under earth, depriving themselves of the pleasure of seeing it, at times all their life, just to be sure it is safe.

Why not put it no less than in heaven, where it would be much safer, and where it will be found again one day forever? And how to do this? It is simple, continues St. Augustine: God offers you the carriers in the poor. They are going there where you hope to go one day. God's need is here, in the poor, and he will give it back to you when you go there.

However, it is clear that today almsgiving and charity is no longer the way to use wealth for the common good, or perhaps the most advisable.

There is also honesty in paying one's taxes, to create new jobs, to give a more generous salary to workers when the situation allows it, to initiate local enterprises in developing countries.

In sum, when one makes money yield, makes it flow, they are channels for the water to circulate, not artificial lakes that keep it for themselves.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Wednesday Liturgy: Scriptural Translations

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

Q: I was raised Presbyterian, but with the help and guidance of my wife and a close friend, I joined the Church in 1995. However, one thing that concerns me to this day is the inclusion of the readings in the missal, as opposed to providing a Bible in the pews. How can one be sure of the accuracy of the translation used in the missal? How can one be sure that the entire, unabridged reading is provided? It is as if they are being taken out of context. I understand from my Catholic friends that the English translation used in the missals in the United States is a very poor one, and does not even have the "nihil obstat" or "imprimatur." For example, the texts have been reworked to be more inclusive (gender-neutral). These friends all point me to English translations that are pre-Vatican II. Recently, I learned that there is a new English translation in the works. Is this true? -- J.L. Dallas, Texas

A: There are basically two questions involved. One regards translations and the other the use of partial texts in the liturgy.

There will always be debate and differences of opinion regarding the quality of biblical translations. No translation is perfect, and even our Protestant brethren have their literary squabbles regarding so-called inclusive language and whether it is proper to maintain certain archaic forms.

The choice of which translation to use falls upon the bishops' conference of each country, though the Holy See's approval of its use in the liturgy is also required.

Because of this, English-speaking countries use several different translations. Most use the original Jerusalem Bible. The United States uses an adapted version of the New American Bible (NAB). Canada has temporary permission to use the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), even though the Holy See did not approve this Bible for liturgical use.

Recently the bishops of the Antilles received permission for a lectionary based on a second edition of the Revised Standard Version (RSV Catholic Edition) -- recently published in a new edition by Ignatius Press -- which many consider the best contemporary translation.

A project has begun to develop a lectionary based on an adapted version of the NRSV to substitute the one used in most English-speaking countries, although the United States will not participate. Practically all lectionaries now in use have some form of permission from the Holy See.

In some cases the translations on which the lectionary is based are now out of print. In other cases, such as the NAB and NRSV, the Holy See, because of disagreement regarding some aspects of the translating principles, does not approve the whole translation as such for liturgical use but permits it to be used as a base text for a lectionary. Each text of the lectionary is then revised to make sure that it conforms to the Church's translation principles as enshrined in the instruction "Liturgiam Authenticam."

The result usually leaves most texts intact but changes those where different translating principles might have theological consequences. For example, some translators might substitute "human being" for the biblical expression "son of man" and this could be a literarily accurate translation. Theologically, however, in some situations such a procedure might obscure a possible messianic reference and also make it difficult to understand some interpretations made by the Church Fathers and other classical Catholic writings.

Thus, while the Holy See does not usually pronounce judgment regarding the accuracy, scientific precision, or literary quality of a given translation, it does seek to safeguard that a new translation does not undermine the interpretative tradition in liturgical proclamation.

This is one reason why Catholics cannot at present simply have a Bible in the pews. At the moment, only the above-mentioned lectionary from the Antilles corresponds exactly to a currently published Bible.

This issue, however, is somewhat more delicate, especially for Catholics raised in the evangelical tradition. Why does the Church read selected portions from the Bible, and at times even deliberately leave out some verses of a given passage?

At the risk of sounding facetious, in part it is because the liturgy is older than the Bible.

The liturgy certainly precedes the formation of the New Testament and the definition of the books pertaining to the Old. Indeed the liturgy's relationship with the sacred text is very complex, as the liturgical use of a specific book sometimes determined its inclusion or exclusion from the canon of Scripture.

From a practical point of view, until the advent of the printing press in the 15th century the possession of a complete manuscript of the Bible was a rare luxury. Christians, who were mostly illiterate anyway, received their knowledge of Scripture from the texts read in the liturgy, and from the Bible stories related in sermons or in painting, sculpture and glass.

The selection of readings was first developed in the first centuries of Christianity for the major feasts in order to transmit the essential elements of salvation history. As the celebrations of the Church year reached maturity so did the selection of readings.

In making this selection the Church occasionally "centonized," that is, selected, those passages and verses which best served to transmit a specific message regarding the mystery of salvation. While this process may have left out a verse or two when these touched upon another theme, it never went so far as to create a new text or join texts from distinct passages.

Far more often, it connected passages from different books by reading them within the same celebration thereby establishing an authoritative interpretative relationship between texts. The best example of this are the readings of the Easter Vigil.

These principles still hold even though the Scripture selection available in the present liturgy is vastly greater than before and many Catholics are, thankfully, far more biblically literate than in ages past.

The Church has never doubted its authority to make these selections as within its fold the task of authoritative scriptural interpretation is an ecclesial, not a private or individual, endeavor and one in which it is assisted by the Holy Spirit.

This guidance assures us that the selection the Church has made over the centuries is trustworthy and will never betray the true sense of God's Word even though some selections might not be immediately intelligible to our minds.

Furthermore, the scriptural readings were always considered as being intimately connected with the mystery being realized on the altar. The readings had to be seen as part of the greater picture of salvation history that embraced Scripture, Tradition and the sacramental system.

Scott Hahn's recent book, "Letter and Spirit," on the relationship between liturgy and Scripture would probably lay to rest the doubts of many converts to Catholicism regarding this theme.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Scriptural Basis of the Mass as Sacrifice

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

Following our brief treatment of the Mass as sacrifice (Sept. 26) and an earlier comment regarding the priest's obligation to communicate both species before distributing Communion (June 13 and 27, 2006), it appeared necessary to clarify one point.

One priest explained why he first distributed the hosts to a very small assembly before all take Communion together: "My reason for the priest not communicating before the others is that we are sharing a meal and it is impolite for a host to eat […] before offering food to his guests. At the Last Supper it does not seem that the Lord after breaking the bread ate […] before giving it to the disciples."

Although I do not doubt the sincerity and good faith of this priest's argument, especially in the light of other points he mentions, I still cannot agree with him.

While recognizing that the subject merits a more detailed reply than I am able to give in this venue, I wish to highlight the following points.

It is not quite correct to say that the priest is the host at Mass. The host is Christ who is also the sacrificial meal that is being offered. While the priest acts in Christ's person he does so as a minister.

I believe that a closer, albeit still imperfect, analogy of the celebrant's role is that the priest is at once a guest of honor and headwaiter. He also is invited to the Lamb's supper even though his position and role in this are unique and essential.

At the same time, he is charged with serving up the sacrificial meal exactly as the divine Host has ordained it through the medium of his Church and not according to the personal tastes and ideas of the minister.

Also, while it is true that the Eucharist is certainly a fraternal meal, it is so only insofar as it is a ritual sharing in a sacrificial meal. The convivial or fraternal aspect is one of the fruits of authentic participation in the sacrifice.

In the same vein, although the Last Supper was certainly a meal it was primarily a ritual sacrificial meal. From the point of view of the Jewish Passover ritual, participation in the sacrifice, and not the fraternal or family meal as such, was the center of attention.

It was in this ritual context that Christ inserted a new ritual by substituting himself for the paschal lamb thus establishing the new and eternal covenant.

From the basic rite established by Our Lord the Church quickly developed a new sacrificial ritual quite different from that of the Jewish paschal supper and responding to Christian theology of sacrifice, communion and ministry.

Finally, I fail to see how, after almost 2,000 years of constant and universal practice in all rites of the Church, it has suddenly become "impolite" for the minister to take Communion before distributing it to the faithful.

In cases like this, when we might have doubts about a certain practice, I believe we should humbly allow ourselves to be guided by tradition or to use Chesterton's term the "democracy of the dead," both those holy saints and martyrs who developed our rites, as well as myriad Christians who for centuries have participated in them.

Father Cantalamessa on Marriage

ROME, OCT. 6, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by the Pontifical Household preacher, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, on the readings from this Sunday's liturgy.

* * *

The Two Shall Become One Flesh
Genesis 2:18-24; Hebrews 2:9-11; Mark 10:2-16

The topic of this 27th Sunday of Ordinary Time is marriage. The first reading (Genesis 2:18-24) begins with the well-known words: "The Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.'"

In our days the evil of marriage is separation and divorce, whereas in the time of Jesus it was repudiation. In a certain sense, the latter was a worse evil, because it also implied an injustice in regard to the woman, which, sadly, persists in certain cultures. Man, in fact, had the right to repudiate his wife, but the wife did not have the right to repudiate her husband.

There were two opposite opinions in Judaism, in regard to repudiation. According to one of them, it was lawful to repudiate one's wife for any reason, hence, at the discretion of the husband. According to another, however, a grave reason was necessary, established by the law.

One day they subjected Jesus to this question, hoping that he would adopt a position in favor of one or the other thesis. However, they received an answer they did not expect: "Because of the hardness of your hearts he [Moses] wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

The law of Moses about repudiation is seen by Christ as an unwanted disposition, but tolerated by God (as polygamy and other disorders), because of hardness of heart and human immaturity. Jesus did not criticize Moses for the concession made; he recognized that in this matter the human lawmaker cannot fail to keep in mind the reality in fact.

However, he re-proposed to all the original ideal of the indissoluble union between man and woman -- "one flesh" -- that, at least for his disciples, must be the only form possible of marriage.

However, Jesus did not limit himself to reaffirming the law; he added grace to it. This means that Christian spouses not only have the duty to remain faithful until death; they also have the necessary aids to do so. From Christ's redeeming death comes a strength -- the Holy Spirit -- which permeates every aspect of the believer's life, including marriage. The latter is even raised to the dignity of a sacrament and of living image of the spousal union with the Church on the cross (Ephesians 5:31-32).

To say that marriage is a sacrament does not only mean -- as often believed -- that in it the union of the sexes is permitted, licit and good, which outside of it would be disorder and sin; it means even more yet, to say that marriage becomes a way of being united to Christ through love of the other, a real path of sanctification.

This positive view is the one that Benedict XVI happily showed in his encyclical "Deus Caritas Est" on love and charity. In it the Pope does not compare the indissoluble union in marriage to another form of erotic love; but presents it as the most mature and perfect form, not only from the Christian, but also from the human point of view.

"It is part of love's growth toward higher levels and inward purification that it now seeks to become definitive, and it does so in a twofold sense: both in the sense of exclusivity (this particular person alone) and in the sense of being 'forever.' Love embraces the whole of existence in each of its dimensions, including the dimension of time. It could hardly be otherwise, since its promise looks toward its definitive goal: love looks to the eternal" (No. 60).

This ideal of conjugal fidelity has never been easy (adultery is a word that resounds ominously even in the Bible!). But today the permissive and hedonist culture in which we live has made it immensely more difficult. The alarming crisis that the institution of marriage is going through in our society is easy for all to see.

Civil laws, such as that in Spain, permit (and indirectly, in this way, encourage!) beginning divorce proceedings just a few months after life in common. Words like: "I am sick of this life," "I'm going," "If it's like this, each one on his own!" are uttered between spouses at the first difficulty.

Let it be said in passing: I believe that Christian spouses should accuse themselves in confession of the simple fact of having uttered one of these words, because the sole fact of saying them is an offense to the unity, and constitutes a dangerous psychological precedent.

In this marriage suffers the common mentality of "use and discard." If a device or tool is in some way damaged or dented, no thought is given to repairing it -- those who did such repairs have disappeared -- there is only thought of replacing it. Applied to marriage, this mentality is deadly.

What can be done to contain this tendency, cause of so much evil for society and so much sadness for children? I have a suggestion: Rediscover the art of repairing!

Replace the "use and discard" mentality with that of "use and repair." Almost no one does repairs now. But if this art of repairing is no longer done for clothes, it must be practiced in marriage. Repair the big tears, and repair them immediately.

St. Paul gave very good counsels in this respect: "Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil," "forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other," "Bear one another's burdens" (Ephesians 4:26-27; Colossians 3:13; Galatians 6:2).

What is important is that one must understand that in this process of tears and repairs, of crises and surmounted obstacles, marriage is not exhausted, but is refined and improves. I perceive an analogy between the process that leads to a successful marriage and one that leads to holiness.

In their path toward perfection, the saints often go through the so-called dark night of the senses, in which they no longer experience any feeling, or impulse.

They have aridity, are empty, do everything through will power alone and with effort. After this, comes the "dark night of the spirit," in which not only feelings enter into crisis, but also the intelligence and will. There is even doubt that one is on the right road; if it has not all been an error; complete darkness, endless temptations. They go forward only through faith.

Does everything end then? On the contrary! All this was but purification. After they have passed through these crises, the saints realize how much more profound and selfless their love of God now is, in relation to that of the beginning.

For many couples, it will not be difficult to recognize their own experience. They have also frequently gone through the night of the senses in their marriage, in which the latter have no rapture of ecstasy, and if there ever was, it is only a memory of the past. Some also experience the dark night of the spirit, the state in which the profoundest option is in crisis, and it seems that there is no longer anything in common.

If with good will and the help of someone these crises are surmounted, one realizes to what point the impulse and enthusiasm of the first days was but little compared to the stable love and communion matured over the years.

If at first husband and wife loved one another for the satisfaction it gave them, today perhaps they love one another a bit more with a love of tenderness, free of egoism and capable of compassion; they love one another for the things they have gone through and suffered together.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Wednesday Liturgy: Unauthorized Baptism

ROME, OCT. 3, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I was asked the following question: A woman explained that her son was Catholic, though not a practicing one, who married a Jewish girl and they never had their baby baptized. This woman dearly wanted the child baptized. One day, after Mass, on the way out she stopped at the holy water fount, took some holy water and sprinkled it over the baby's head saying "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." She wanted to know if that was all right to do and sufficient for the child's baptism. -- C.C., Fall River, Massachusetts

A: The question must be answered on two levels: If baptizing the child was the right thing to do; if the woman's actions constituted a valid baptism.

The first question is rather delicate because although the grandmother deeply desired the child's baptism, the education of children usually falls upon the parents who are called to be the primary educators of children.

Canon law (Canon 868) also requires that for an infant to be baptized licitly:

"1. the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent.

"2. there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic Religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason."

At the same time the canon specifies that "An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents."

Even though there are clear historical examples of grandmothers who secretly baptized children under atheistic Communist regimes, this does not appear to be the present case. The baptism should not have been done without the parents' consent.

Also, only the priest and deacons are ordinary ministers of the sacrament of baptism and can perform all of the rites. In some extreme conditions where there are no ordained ministers available, lay people have been authorized to perform the essential rites.

An unauthorized lay person should not perform a baptism except in cases of imminent danger of death or other dire situations where not even an authorized lay minister is available.

With respect to the second question regarding the validity of the baptism. As we have seen, the grandmother, no matter how sincere her motives, acted against Church law and should not be imitated. From the description of what she did, however, it would appear to have been a valid baptism and the child is truly baptized. All the same, in order to be certain, it would be necessary for her to give a detailed description of what she did to a priest in case she committed an error regarding matter or form that would cast doubt on the baptism's validity.

What to do? It depends on many factors, but sooner or later the parents should be informed. The grandmother could perhaps avoid having to reveal what she has done by asking permission from the parents to allow her to have the child baptized in a private ceremony, with just herself and the priest, and then take charge of its religious upbringing. If the parents consent, then she could have a priest or deacon complete the baptismal rites and formally register the baptism.

If the parents are very much opposed, then there is little to be done other than to await a suitable moment to inform them that their child is already baptized.

In all cases she should do all in her power to transmit the faith to the child, above all through her living witness to the Catholic faith.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Non-liturgical Music in Cathedrals

ROME, OCT. 3, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Our quoting of the norms regarding concerts of non-liturgical music (Sept. 19) brought to light another question regarding the use of other forms of music in liturgical settings.

A Michigan reader mentioned that his new pastor had banned "patriotic music during the Mass" -- such as "The Navy Hymn" and "America the Beautiful."

"In addition," he writes, "ethnic songs ('Danny Boy') are not to be sung during funeral liturgies even if requested by the family. Also banned: music by Mozart, Handel, Chopin and Beethoven. The congregation must sing all parts of the Mass with Choir, even during special occasions (Christmas, Easter, etc.).

"Our parish is over 50 years old and has an excellent choir and music director. Four previous pastors encouraged excellent music (Latin, traditional, contemporary, gospel, folk). The choir has met with the new pastor and he insists that it is his decision on the type of music and songs that will be sung during the liturgy."

Few themes are more fraught with difficulties than that of suitable music for Mass. We have already discussed several aspects of liturgical music on earlier occasions (see Nov. 11, 25 and Dec. 23, 2003; Jan. 13, 27, Nov. 23, 30 and Dec. 7, 14, 2004).

The pastor is correct that he has final say regarding the kind of music used in church. But his decision must not be arbitrarily based on personal taste but on the criteria and indications found in Church documents as issued by the Holy See, the national bishops' conference, and the local bishop.

The Church has specifically recommended on numerous occasions the use of Gregorian chant and classic liturgical polyphony even though it permits other styles that are in harmony with the sacredness of the Eucharistic celebration, and are not immediately associated with profane contexts.

The Church also recognizes that many classical (usually orchestral) compositions are no longer suitable for common liturgical use even though some of them may still be used on special occasions.

Thus, while it is highly desirable that the congregation habitually sing all parts of the Mass, certain feasts may be highlighted by the choir singing a classical polyphonic Mass or by the assembly learning a Gregorian chant Mass.

It would probably be better to have the assembly sing the Mass with the choir for Christmas and Easter as such a community celebration could be a draw to those Catholics who only rarely practice their faith. There are many other suitable feasts that could be reserved for a classical polyphonic Mass such as Ascension or Trinity Sunday.

The choir may also use Gregorian chant and polyphonic compositions as musical meditations for example to accompany the presentation of gifts and after Communion.

Regarding patriotic songs: Some countries have special Mass formulas to commemorate national holidays such as Australia Day (Jan. 26) and Canada Day (July 1). Hence, it is not contrary to Catholic custom to invoke God's blessing on a particular country by dedicating a national day of prayer.

The use of patriotic hymns on national holidays depends on prevailing custom as well as the text and theology of the hymns in question. Not all patriotic hymns are suitable for the context of the Eucharist and some texts may even express sentiments contrary to Catholic theology.

Likewise, although patriotism is a virtue, the upsurge of patriotic sentiments produced by such hymns is likely to distract our attention away from the holy mystery we are celebrating. Thus, if patriotic hymns are used at all, it is probably better to use them as closing hymns after the final blessing.

With respect to ethnic songs, maudlin Irishman though I am, songs such as "Danny Boy" have no place at the funeral Mass at which only suitable hymns may be used. Otherwise the character of the Mass as the supreme act of intercession for the soul of the departed can be easily obscured.

Such songs may be performed during the wake at the funeral parlor or at some similar reception, along with any eulogies and celebrations of the life of the deceased.

Father Cantalamessa on Salvation

ROME, SEPT. 29, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by the Pontifical Household preacher, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, on next Sunday's liturgy.

* * *

He that is not against us is for us

One of the apostles, John, saw demons cast out in the name of Jesus by one who did not belong to the circle of disciples and forbade him to do so. On recounting the incident to the master, he is heard to reply: "Do not forbid him ... For he that is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:39, 40).

This is a topic of great current importance. What to think of those who are outside, who do something good and show signs of the spirit, yet without believing in Christ and adhering to the Church. Can they also be saved?

Theology has always admitted the possibility, for God, of saving some people outside the ordinary ways, which are faith in Christ, baptism and membership in the Church.

This certainty has been affirmed in the modern age, after geographic discoveries and increased possibilities of communication among peoples made it necessary to take note that there are innumerable people who, through no fault of their own, have never heard the proclamation of the Gospel, or have heard it in an improper way, from conquistadors and unscrupulous colonizers that made it quite difficult to accept.

The Second Vatican Council said that "the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility, in a way known only to God, to be associated with this paschal mystery of Christ and, therefore, to be saved" ["Gaudium et Spes," no. 22. Editor's note].

Has our Christian faith changed? No, as long as we continue to believe two things: First, that Jesus is, objectively and in fact, the only mediator and savior of the whole human race, and that also those who do not know him, if they are saved, are saved thanks to him and his redeeming death. Second, that also those who, still not belonging to the visible Church, are objectively "oriented" toward her, form part of that larger Church, known only to God.

In our Gospel passage, Jesus seems to require two things from these people "outside": that they are not "against" him, that is, that they do not positively combat the faith and its values, namely, that they do not willingly place themselves against God.

Second, that, if they are unable to serve and love God, that they at least serve and love his image, which is man, especially the needy. It says, in fact, continuing with our passage, still speaking of those "outside": "whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward."

However, having clarified the doctrine, I believe it is also necessary to rectify something more: our interior attitude, our psychology as believers. One can understand, but not share, the poorly concealed contrariety of certain believers on seeing every exclusive privilege fall which is linked to their faith in Christ and membership in the Church: "Then, of what use is it to be good Christians?"

We should, on the contrary, rejoice immensely given these new openings of Catholic theology. To know that our brothers outside of the Church also have the possibility of being saved: What is there more liberating and confirming of God's infinite generosity and will than "that all men be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4)? We should make the desire of Moses our own as recorded in Sunday's first reading: "Would that the Lord might bestow his spirit on them all! (Numbers 11:29)."

Knowing this, should we leave everyone in peace in their own conviction and cease to promote faith in Christ, given that one can also be saved in other ways? Of course not.

But what we should do is emphasize the positive more than the negative reason. The negative is: "Believe in Jesus, because whoever does not believe in him will be eternally condemned"; the positive reason is: "Believe in Jesus, because it is wonderful to believe in him, to know him, to have him next to one as savior, in life and in death."

[Translation by ZENIT]