Catholic Metanarrative

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Wednesday Liturgy: Concelebrants From Different Rites

ROME, JUNE 26, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: Are there special norms for the celebration of Mass when priests of different rites concelebrate? -- A.E., New York

A: The 1983 Code of Canon Law for the Latin rite is silent regarding this subject, but it was specifically addressed in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches promulgated in 19--

Canon 701 of this code states: "For a just cause and with the permission of the eparchial bishop, bishops and presbyters of different churches 'sui iuris' can concelebrate, especially to foster love and to manifest the unity of the Churches. All follow the prescripts of the liturgical books of the principal celebrant, avoiding any liturgical syncretism whatever, and preferably with all wearing the liturgical vestments and insignia of their own Church 'sui iuris.'"

Unlike most canons, this one lists no sources for its indications in earlier documents, thus confirming that it was specifically composed to address a relatively new situation. As it is the only norm available, its indications are also applicable to Roman-rite priests.

To this may be added the injunction of the instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," No. 113: "Where it happens that some of the Priests who are present do not know the language of the celebration and therefore are not capable of pronouncing the parts of the Eucharistic Prayer proper to them, they should not concelebrate, but instead should attend the celebration in choral dress in accordance with the norms."

Therefore a priest, with sufficient dominion of the language, may receive permission to concelebrate in a Mass of a rite different from his own. This permission may be for a specific situation or habitual, as may be the case of some Eastern priests studying or residing in Latin-rite institutes or priestly residences.

The priest should normally participate in the vestments of his own rite, as was clearly visible in Pope John Paul II's funeral and Benedict XVI's installation Mass where each of the Eastern cardinals who concelebrated wore his own proper vestments.

Canon 7--2 of the Eastern code, however, allows for exceptions to be made to this rule if proper vestments are unavailable. This could easily happen to an Eastern priest traveling in Europe or America or, less likely, a Latin-rite priest in an Eastern country. In such cases he may concelebrate using Latin or Eastern vestments.

As the canon says, there should be no attempt to syncretize or mix elements of different rites. Only one rite may be followed.

The texts and rubrics of some Eastern rites have been translated into several languages. In some cases these translations are for study purposes only, and priests may never concelebrate using a translation that has not been formally approved for liturgical use by the proper authorities.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: When a Host Isn't Swallowed

ROME, JUNE 26, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Some readers took umbrage toward the affirmation in our June 12 column on corruption of the host: that Christ's real presence would no longer subsist in a microscopic fragment of the host.

A clarifying link to an earlier reply was provided in the earlier piece. However, given that not all of our readers have access to the Internet, I will restate the essential point here.

My reply was principally based on an application of the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologiae" III pars q -- In the corpus of the fourth article of this question, "Whether the sacramental species can be corrupted," the Angelic Doctor affirms:

"An accident can be corrupted in another way, through the corruption of its subject, and in this way also they can be corrupted after consecration; for although the subject does not remain, still the being which they had in the subject does remain, which being is proper, and suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be corrupted by a contrary agent, as the substance of the bread or wine was subject to corruption, and, moreover, was not corrupted except by a preceding alteration regarding the accidents.

"Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid corruptions; because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as tobe incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain."

Thus, our discussion dealt specifically with the theme of corruption of the host by reduction "to fine particles that the species of bread no longer remain."

This is a different question to that of Christ being really present in small particles or fragments of a host while retaining the species of bread. So long as the species of bread remains, Christ is really present and it is even possible to administer Communion to the sick or persecuted using very small pieces of hosts or even drops of Precious Blood.

Thus, while Christ would certainly not be present in microscopic or no longer visible fragments, it is almost impossible to establish a dividing line when dealing with small but visible particles -- and the Church has never wished to pronounce on this theme.

In part this is due to the objective difficulty and danger in making such a demarcation, but also so as avoid giving any justification whatsoever for a lackadaisical manner of treating the sacred species.

Even when specifically asked about this question in the 1960s, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith merely recalled the necessity of observing due reverence for all fragments by carefully following all Church norms regarding the purification of sacred vessels and altar linens as well as the proper procedure for cleansing the area if a host should happen to fall to the floor.

I hope that this clarifies Church doctrine on this matter for our concerned readers. As for me, my intention is always to coincide with the Church's teachings.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Article: Business Ethics and Christianity

By Father John Flynn, L.C.


ROME, JUNE 24, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Confrontations over globalization no longer make headlines, but many concerns remain over the future of the world economy. In past months the question of growing economic inequality has come under increasing attention.

Globalization has delivered many benefits, argued a front-page article published May 24 by the Wall Street Journal. The article did concede, however: "As trade, foreign investment and technology have spread, the gap between economic haves and have-nots has frequently widened, not only in wealthy countries like the United States, but in poorer ones like Mexico, Argentina, India and China as well."

The experience of the last few years is showing that those with education and skills benefit from globalization. Others, without these advantages, are not so fortunate. While not forgetting the benefits of globalization for many millions of people, the Wall Street Journal also expressed concern that the growing inequalities could provoke a backlash that would damage trade and investment.

Earlier this year, U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke also warned of problems stemming from economic inequality. In a speech given Feb. 6 to the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce in Nebraska, Bernanke defended the idea that the free market does not guarantee an equality of economic outcomes, allowing as it does the possibility for unequal rewards due to differences in effort and skill.

Slipping down the ladder

"That said, we also believe that no one should be allowed to slip too far down the economic ladder, especially for reasons beyond his or her control," he added in the text posted on the Federal Reserve Board site.

Outlining evidence from a variety of sources, the Federal Reserve chairman pointed out that over the last few decades economic well-being in the United States has increased considerably. At the same time, he observed that "the degree of inequality in economic outcomes has increased as well."

Bernanke admitted the difficulty of resolving the question of how to maintain a balance between a market system that uses economic incentives and stimulates growth, and the need to protect individuals against adverse economic outcomes.

Proposing solutions to this problem involves value judgments beyond the realm of economic theory, Bernanke concluded. He did, however, suggest a range of possible measures, ranging from education and job training, to helping individuals and families bear the cost of economic change, as ways to affront the problem of inequality.

A similar position was expressed in an opinion article by Danny Leipziger and Michael Spence, published in the Financial Times on May 15. The authors, respectively a vice president at the World Bank and a 2001 Nobel laureate in economics, argued that in the globalization debate the most important issue is "who benefits and who loses."

"Globalization is a positive sum game in the aggregate but one that produces both winners and losers," they also observed.

Leipziger and Spence supported improvements in education to help workers affront the current situation. In addition, they called for better safety nets, more investment in infrastructure and assured access to services such as health care.

Dignity of the person

Amid the ongoing debate over issues of economics and ethics, Benedict XVI has addressed these issues on several occasions in recent months. On May 26 he spoke to a group of young people from Confindustria, the General Confederation of Italian Industry.

Every business, the Pope noted, should be considered first and foremost as a group of people, whose rights and dignity should be respected. Human life and its values, the Pontiff continued, should always be the guiding principle and end of the economy.

In this context, Benedict XVI acknowledged that for business, making a profit is a value that they can rightly put as an objective of their activity. At the same time the social teaching of the Church insists that businesses must also safeguard the dignity of the human person, and that even in moments of economic difficulties, business decisions must not be guided exclusively by considerations of profit.

The Pope also dealt briefly with the theme of globalization. This is a phenomenon, he commented, that gives hope of a wider participation in economic development and riches. It is a process not without its risks, however, leading in some cases to worsening economic inequality. Echoing the words of Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI called for a globalization characterized by solidarity and without marginalization of people.

Other principles that need to guide the economy are justice and charity, Benedict XVI explained in a message, dated April 28, to the president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Mary Ann Glendon. The letter was sent on the occasion of the plenary session of the academy, held April 27-May 1.

The pursuit of justice and the promotion of the civilization of love, the message stated, are essential aspects of the Church's mission in its proclamation of the Gospel. Justice and love cannot be separated, the Pope observed, because of the Church's experience of how the two were united in "the revelation of God's infinite justice and mercy in Jesus Christ."

Justice, he continued, must be "corrected" by love, a love which inspires justice and purifies our efforts to build a better society. "Only charity can encourage us to place the human person once more at the center of life in society and at the center of a globalized world governed by justice," the Pope stated.

Labor market

The Pope took a closer look at some of the problems facing workers in a couple of speeches earlier this year. In a message dated March 28, sent to participants in the 9th International Youth Forum organized by the Pontifical Council for the Laity, Benedict XVI commented that in recent years economic and technological changes have radically changed the labor market.

This has given hope to young people, the Pontiff conceded, but it also brings with it the need for greater skills and education, and the demand that workers be prepared to travel, even to other countries, in searching for jobs.

Work, he explained, is part of God's plan for humanity and through it we participate in the work of creation and redemption. We will live this better, the Pope urged, if we remain united to Christ through prayer and sacramental life.

Then, on March 31, Benedict XVI spoke to a gathering of Confartigianato, an association of Italian artisans. Work is part of God's plan for man, even if because of original sin it has become more of a burden, the Pope explained.

It is important, he exhorted, to proclaim the primacy of the human person and the common good over capital, science, technology and even private ownership. As Christians, we can testify to the "Gospel of work," in our daily lives, the Pope reminded them.

The Pontiff also had words for those directing workers, in an address to a group from the Italian group, the Christian Union of Business Executives on March 4. Justice and charity, the Pope said, are inseparable elements in the social commitment of Christians.

"It is incumbent on lay faithful in particular to work for a just order in society, taking part in public life in the first person, cooperating with other citizens and fulfilling their own responsibility," said the Pope.

"Unfortunately, partly because of current economic difficulties, these values often run the risk of not being followed by those business persons who lack a sound moral inspiration," he also noted. Values which, together with sound economic policies, could go a long way in finding solutions to the ethical challenges in a globalized world.

Article: The Search for Perfection

By Father John Flynn, L.C.

ROME, JUNE 25, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The desire for perfect babies combined with the possibilities of biotechnology is taking an ever-higher toll. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and other forms of screening enable the detection of genetic defects, leading either to embryos being eliminated before implantation when combined with in vitro fecundation, or to abortion in the case of pregnancies already in progress.

Philosopher Michael J. Sandel considered some of the ethical questions involved in this practice in the book "The Case Against Perfection," published in May by Belknap Press. A professor of government at Harvard University, Sandel starts his brief book by asking if, even when no harm is involved, there is something troubling about parents "ordering up a child" with certain genetic traits.

Sandel's approach is nonreligious and does not fully embrace the position of the Church. For example, he defends embryonic stem cell research. Nevertheless, the book provides a useful series of reflections which invite the reader to consider the implications of both eliminating individuals with genetic defects and also efforts to "improve" physical or mental capabilities.

This "drive to mastery," as Sandel terms it, runs the risk of destroying our appreciation of the gifted character of human powers and achievements. In other words, "that not everything in the world is open to any use we may desire or devise."

When it comes to parenthood, Sandel comments that unlike our friends, we do not choose our children. "To appreciate children as gifts is to accept them as they come, not as objects of our design, or products of our will, or instruments of our ambition."

Thus, he continues, the problem with wanting to choose children with or without certain genetic characteristics is in the hubris of the parents. Such a parental disposition, he adverts, "disfigures the relation between parent and child." As a result the unconditional love that a parent should have toward a child is placed at risk.

Sandel also warns that if we erode the sense of the gifted character of human powers and achievements we will damage three important elements in society: humility, responsibility and solidarity.

A school for humility

Parenthood is a school for humility, according to Sandel, in which we care deeply about our children, and also live with the unexpected. When it comes to responsibility, the more we become involved in determining our genetic qualities, the greater the burden we will bear for the talents we have and how we perform.

For example, once giving birth to a child with Down syndrome was considered a matter of chance. Today parents who of children with Down syndrome or other disabilities feel blamed for not having eliminated the child before birth.

In turn, this growth in responsibility could well damage solidarity, Sandel continues, because there is a very real risk that those who are less fortunate will come to be seen not as disadvantaged, but as simply unfit.

Sandel is not the only one to be worried over what happens to those who are less fortunate in the genetic stakes. A number of press articles over the last few months have taken up the matter of the elimination of embryos detected with Down syndrome.

On May 9 the New York Times published an article reporting that, following a new recommendation by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, doctors have begun to offer a screening procedure to all pregnant women, regardless of age, for Down syndrome. About 90% of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis normally choose to have an abortion, the article reported.

The article then went on to describe the efforts by some parents to educate the medical profession about the fulfilling lives that children suffering from disabilities can lead. Advances in medical treatment and appropriate attention means that, despite not inconsiderable difficulties, Down syndrome children can achieve much in their lives.

Morally wrong

The New York Times returned to the argument on May 13 with another article. Among other testimonies was that of Sarah Lynn Lester, a supporter of abortion rights, who nevertheless continued her pregnancy after learning her child had Down syndrome. "I thought it would be morally wrong to have an abortion for a child that had a genetic disability," she told the newspaper.

Earlier this year the Canadian Down Syndrome Society launched a public awareness campaign to counter the trend toward genetic testing, reported the National Post newspaper Jan. 10.

The campaign came just as the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada released a recommendation that all expectant mothers undergo screening for Down syndrome.

The article also quoted Dr. Will Johnston, president of the Vancouver-based organization Physicians for Life, who said his members find the move toward more fetal screening to be troubling.

"I think it shows our inability as a culture to be as inclusive and accepting of diversity as we would like to think we are," he said.

Italy is another country where genetic screening is increasing. According to a March 11 report in the national daily newspaper La Repubblica, by 2005 no less than 79% of Italian women were having three or more ultrasound examinations during pregnancy.

The tests, however, can sometimes have a tragic outcome. On March 7 the Italian news agency ANSA reported on the case of a 22 week-old fetus aborted because of a mistaken diagnosis of a defective esophagus.

After the ultrasound examination, which erroneously seemed to reveal a problem, the mother decided to abort. The baby survived the abortion, but the following day ANSA reported that it had died.

Cosmetic screening

As biotechnology develops, genetic screening seems destined to expand even further, with ominous consequences for babies. On May 6 the London-based Sunday Times reported that the Bridge Center Fertility clinic had received the go ahead from the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority to screen a couple's embryos in order to create a baby without eyes affected with cross-eye, also known as a squint.

The article also noted that screening has now started for some forms of cancer and early-onset Alzheimer's.

"We will increasingly see the use of embryo screening for severe cosmetic conditions," Gedis Grudzinskas, medical director of the clinic, told the Sunday Times.

David King, director of Human Genetics Alert, was critical of the decision to allow such screening. "We moved from preventing children who will die young to those who might become ill in middle age," he noted. "Now we discard those who will live as long as the rest of us but are cosmetically imperfect."

Concern over such trends was also expressed by Benedict XVI in an address given Feb. 24 to members of the Pontifical Academy for Life. "A new wave of discriminatory eugenics finds consensus in the name of the presumed well-being of the individual, and laws are promoted especially in the economically progressive world for the legalization of euthanasia," the Pontiff warned.

In today's increasingly secularized world our consciences face increasing obstacles in distinguishing the correct path to take on these and other issues, the Pope added. This is due both to a growing rejection of the Christian tradition and also to a distrust of the capacity of our reason to perceive the truth, he explained.

"Life is the first good received from God and is fundamental to all others; to guarantee the right to life for all and in an equal manner for all is the duty upon which the future of humanity depends," the Holy Father concluded. A duty made increasingly urgent in the face of increased pressures to manipulate life.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Father Cantalamessa on the Birth of John the Baptist

ROME, JUNE 22, 2007 (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.


* * *

He will be called John
Solemnity of the Nativity of John the Baptist
Isaiah 49:1-6; Acts 13:22-26; Luke 1:57-66,80

This year the Solemnity of the Nativity of John the Baptist is celebrated in the place of the 12th Sunday in Ordinary Time. This is an ancient feast that goes back to the fourth Century.

Why June 24? In announcing the birth of Christ to Mary, the angel tells her that her cousin Elizabeth is in her sixth month. So, John the Baptist had to be born six months before Jesus and in this way the chronology is respected.

The reason why it is June 24 instead of June 25 is because of the ancient way of calculating, which was according to calends, ides and nones. Naturally, these dates have a liturgical and symbolic value rather than a historic one. We do not know the exact day and year of Jesus' birth and so we do not know exactly when John was born either.

The devotion to John the Baptist spread rapidly and many churches throughout the world were dedicated to him. There have been 23 Popes who have taken his name. To the last one, John XXIII, the phrase from the fourth Gospel has been applied: "There came a man sent by God and his name was John." Few know that the seven musical notes -- do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti -- have something to do with John the Baptist. They are derived from the first seven syllables of the first strophe of a liturgical hymn composed in his honor.

The passage from Sunday's Gospel reading talks about the choice of the name John. But what we hear in the first reading and the psalm is also important. The first reading, from Isaiah, says: "The Lord called me from birth, from my mother's womb he gave me my name. He made of me a sharp-edged sword and concealed me in the shadow of his arm. He made me a polished arrow, in his quiver he hid me."

The psalm returns to this idea, namely, that God knows us from our mother's womb: "Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb.... When I was being made in secret, fashioned as in the depths of the earth. Your eyes foresaw my actions."

We have a very reductive and juridical idea of the person that causes a lot of confusion in the debate over abortion. It seems that a child acquires the dignity of a person only when this is recognized by human authorities.

For the Bible the person is he who is known by God, he who God calls by name; and God, we are assured, knows us from our mother's womb, his eyes saw us when we were still being fashioned in the womb.

Science tells us that in the embryo the whole human being who will be is becoming, projected in each tiny detail; to this our faith adds that what we have is not some unknown project of nature but a project of the creator's love. St. John the Baptist's mission is entirely traced out before his birth: "And you, child, will be called prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways."

The Church holds that John the Baptist was already sanctified in his mother's womb by the presence of Christ. That is why she celebrates the feast of his birth. This gives us an occasion to touch on a delicate problem, which has become acute today because of the millions of babies who, above all because of the frightening spread of abortion, die without receiving baptism. What are we to say of them? Are they also in some way sanctified in the womb of their mother? Is there salvation for them?

My answer is without hesitation: Certainly there is salvation for them. The risen Christ says of them too: "Let the children come to me." According to an opinion that has become common since the Middle Ages, unbaptized children go to limbo, an intermediate place in which there is no suffering nor is there the enjoyment of the vision of God.

But what we have here is an idea that has never been defined by the Church as a truth of faith. It was a hypothesis of theologians that, in light of the development of Christian conscience and the understanding of Scripture, we can no longer maintain.

When I expressed this opinion of mine a while ago in one of these commentaries, there were various reactions. Some expressed their gratitude to me for taking this position which lifted a weight from their heart; others reproved me for abandoning the traditional doctrine and minimizing the importance of baptism. Now the discussion is closed because the International Theological Commission, which works for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, published a document in which they affirm the same thing.

I think it would be helpful to return to the question in light of this important document so as to explain some of the reasons that brought the Church to this conclusion.

Jesus instituted the sacraments as the ordinary means of salvation. Therefore, they are necessary, and those who, though able to receive them, refuse or neglect to receive them against their conscience, put their eternal salvation in serious jeopardy. But God is not bound by these means. He can also save by extraordinary means, when the person, by no fault of his own, is deprived of baptism. He did this, for example, with the Holy Innocents, who also died without baptism.

The Church has always admitted the possibility of a baptism of desire and a baptism of blood, and many of these babies have certainly known a baptism of blood, even if of a different nature.

I do not think that the Church's clarification will encourage abortion; if it did, it would be tragic and we would need to seriously worry, not about the salvation of the unbaptized children, but of the baptized parents. It would be making fun of God.

This clarification will give, on the contrary, some ease to the believers who, like everyone, are dismayed in the face of the terrible fate of so many children in today's world.

Let us return to John the Baptist and to Sunday's feast. In announcing the birth of the child to Zechariah the angel says to him: "Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son who you will call John. You will have joy and gladness and many will rejoice at his birth" (Luke 1:13-14). Many did indeed rejoice at his birth if, 20 centuries later, we are still here to speak of that child.

I would like also to convey those words to all the fathers and mothers who, like Elizabeth and Zechariah, are expecting or experiencing the birth of a child: You too can have the joy and gladness in the child God has entrusted to you and rejoice in his birth your whole life long and for eternity!

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Wednesday Liturgy: Why No Litanies at a Wedding

ROME, JUNE 19, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: When can litanies be used? Can they be adapted into liturgical celebrations that do not, as such, call for it? Why are they used and for what purpose? The litany is used during baptism, ordination, during blessings and consecrations of places (churches) and people, during the Easter Vigil, etc. The specific situation I am referring to is during a marriage. A marriage is a key moment in a couple's life and they take on a distinctive vocation. I understand the litany is used to recognize, to call on the saints to pray for those being ordained or professed as religious, but the rite does not provide for the litany during the marriage ceremony. If there is one vocation which needs the explicit assistance of the saints, then I think it would be the married vocation. It seems odd that at each of the other major points in a person's life, the litany is sung, but not at the wedding. Would it be appropriate to include a litany of the saints during the rite of a marriage? As the litany could include the formula for the general intercessions, would you see it appropriate to replace the general intercessions with the litany of the saints? -- J.M., Sydney, Australia

A: The litany (from the Greek "lite," or prayer) was a simple and popular form of collective prayer which in the early Church was used before the dismissal of catechumens who could not assist at the prayers of the faithful. Usually a deacon or reader would enumerate a series of simple petitions and the people would respond with a phrase such as "Pray for us."

The origin of the litanic prayer is obscure, and forms of this prayer existed also in Jewish and pagan culture. There is early evidence of the use of the litanic form of prayer in Rome from before the year 225.

The litany of saints is divided into two elements: the invocation of a list of saints, and a series of invocations addressed directly to God which are almost certainly much older that the list of saints.

While the practice of a short list of saints written in Greek may have begun in Rome under Pope Sergius (687-701), it would appear that the litany as we know it today developed in eighth-century Ireland and England from whence they returned to continental Europe a hundred years or so later.

While the litany is found in several various rites, this did not conform to a set plan. Rather, it developed independently in each rite over a different time scale, the earliest evidence of its use being for the baptismal liturgy.

Their essential function is to implore the saints' intercession and God's protection before a particular moment or rite of special significance. They are also sometimes used in processions; for example, a special litany of the saints sometimes accompanies the entrance procession for some especially significant and solemn papal celebrations.

The rite of marriage probably never had a litany because the fixing of the essential lines of this rite antedates the introduction of the litany by several centuries.

While the idea of introducing a litany within the context of a wedding is not without merit, it would not be correct to independently replace the prayer of the faithful for a litany of the saints, as this would alter the established rite of Christian marriage.

Since marriage is one of those rites where the bishops' conference enjoys fairly wide leeway in adapting to local needs, it would not be unthinkable for a particular national conference to propose to the Holy See the introduction of some form of litany.

There would be no particular difficulty, however, in including some form of petition to the saints within the context of the prayer of the faithful. For example, a petition could ask something like: "For N. and N., that they may imitate in their lives those saints who have been sanctified in the married state, especially Sts. Priscilla and Aquila, Sts. N. and N., etc., whose intercession we also invoke this day."

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Masses for the Living and the Dead

ROME, JUNE 19, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Some readers responded to the question (June 5) on whether Mass offered for the living was more efficacious than that offered for the dead.

A meticulous reader did an online search for the supposed quotes of St. Anselm and Pope Benedict XV and turned up several pages that all provided the same quotes, including the same grammatical errors: "A great Doctor of the Church, St. Anselm declares that a single Mass offered for oneself during life may be worth more than a thousand celebrated for the same intention after death," and "Pope Benedict XV tells us, 'The Holy Mass would be of greater profit if people had it offered in their lifetime rather than having it celebrated for the relief of their souls after death. ... The fruits of the Sacrifice of the Mass are in effect much greater efficacy [sic] during one's life than after one's death because the application which is made to those well-disposed among the living is more direct, more certain and more abundant.'"

As our reader points out, none of these sites provide bibliographical references to the sources of these quotes. And an electronic search of St. Anselm's works failed to find any text corresponding to the supposed quote.

This does not prove that the quotes are false, nor that they are doctrinally groundless. But it does remind us to be wary of uncritically using the Internet as a source of knowledge, and to always attempt to verify our sources.

A correspondent from Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, asked: "Several people have told me that having Mass offered for a living person is 'more efficacious' than if that person attended Mass himself. How would you respond to this statement? I would think that attending the holy sacrifice of the Mass oneself, if not prevented by some serious reason such as poor health, would be more efficacious."

In general we should avoid focusing the question of the efficacy of a Mass in such a way that reduces, commodifies or limits the infinite efficaciousness of Christ's holy sacrifice.

It is like asking which is more efficacious, driving oneself or having someone drive for you? In the end the important thing is reaching your destination.

God's granting of grace cannot be standardized. Whether a person receives more spiritual benefit from attending Mass or from having someone offering a Mass for him depends on a plethora of factors ranging from God's liberality to the person's subjective willingness to correspond to the gift of grace.

If any difference might be found it is that, for Catholics, attending Mass (unless legitimately impeded) is a necessary means of spiritual progress and even a necessary means of salvation. Having Mass offered for one, however, does not enjoy the same degree of necessity and some people could even reach sanctity even if nobody ever remembered to offer a Mass for their benefit.

Interview: Faith, Reason and Bioethics

LONDON, JUNE 18, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Rational arguments need to take priority in the debate on bioethical issues, says the director of the Linacre Center for Healthcare Ethics.


Helen Watt, of the only Catholic bioethics center in the United Kingdom and Ireland, recently spoke to ZENIT about the opportunity Catholics now have to engage modern Europe in an authentically grounded ethical debate.

The Linacre Center's International Conference is being held July 5-7 on the topic of "Incapacity and Care: Moral Problems in Healthcare and Research."

Q: How is the ethical debate on health care issues in Europe today different from 30 years ago?

Watt: Thirty years ago, in vitro fertilization was a new and shocking development -- as were the embryo experiments which paved the way for it. Now IVF is standard procedure for anyone who wants to have a child, and does not object to the manufacturing process and attitudes involved. The embryonic child resulting is treated more like a possession than like a new member of the family.

Often the debate is now between extreme libertarians, who defend a frankly consumerist attitude to medicine and parenthood, and those who want to set some limits, but lack the moral framework they need to do so in a credible way. This means that the principled approach offered by the Church often gets pushed to the sidelines -- though fortunately not always.

Q: Where are the main battle lines now drawn with regard to bioethical issues in Europe?

Watt: One battle line is euthanasia, by act and by omission. Another is respect for unborn life, in relation to abortion, IVF and embryo experimentation.

Another battle line is, of course, marriage and parenthood. This last area is closely linked to IVF -- as in, for example, the bid to expunge the requirement in British law that fertility doctors must take account of the child's need for a father.

While some in Britain hope to tighten abortion laws, other countries in the European Union are under pressure to "liberalize" restrictive laws on abortion. There is also a strong push for European Union funding of embryonic stem cell research.

The hope is that countries which have recently joined the European Union, such as Poland, will bring fresh insights to the rest of Europe, rather than be themselves caught up in the secular/consumerist drift.

Q: What are the signs of hope that the trend toward the legalization of euthanasia and stem cell research will be halted?

Watt: The Dutch experience has shown how close the link is between voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia, once some lives are deemed not worth living.

While Belgium followed its neighbor and legalized euthanasia, similar legislation was recently defeated in Britain by a coalition of pro-life and palliative care groups -- although there is certainly a need for vigilance with regard to euthanasia by omission.

On the stem cell front, there are wonderful advances being made with adult and umbilical cord stem cells -- ethical alternatives to the use of cells from destroyed human embryos. It's an exciting time for adult stem cell researchers, who can point to many actual treatments of human patients.

Italy is one country that has made huge strides in enacting laws protecting human embryos, showing that progress in this area can be made even after many years of permissive practice.

Q: The issues of IVF, human cloning and embryo screening all revolve around the status of early human life. Why is it so difficult to convince people of the humanity of the embryo, or even to keep it in the common consciousness as an issue?

Watt: It's a combination of pragmatism and a failure of imagination. On the one hand, people want to be able to keep doing embryo experiments and using abortifacient contraception. On the other hand, the embryo is challenging in its appearance, despite the powerful case for its continuity with the older human being.

We live in an image-led age. The embryo is small, and looks different from the adult -- which does not, of course, prevent it having human rights and interests, just like any other child.

The kind of emotional engagement that ultrasound makes possible for older unborn children is often not possible with the embryo. There is a need to appeal to reason rather than just to the emotions.

Q: How can the Church better educate Catholics about contentious ethical issues?

Watt: The Linacre Center specializes in providing arguments for the Catholic view of bioethics which do not require a prior acceptance of the Catholic faith.

We aim to show that the merits of this view can be recognized by anyone of good will using their reason. This approach encourages a robust realism that reaches out to people of other faiths and of no faith.

Recently, Benedict XVI spoke of the need to rediscover the natural law tradition, especially in an age of skepticism and relativism. He was, I think, encouraging the Church to speak out on issues affecting public policy in a way that uses reason to reveal the objective basis for her teaching.

It would be good to see bioethical issues given a little more priority in teaching from the pulpit. Many people are simply unaware that the Church opposes IVF, for example. Even those who know this may be quite unaware of the riches of Catholic theology on sex and marriage.

It is important to reach young people at school and university before they have committed themselves, in their work or personal lives, to secular ideologies. The Linacre Center hopes to do more in this area, funding permitting -- as well as providing information and support to health professionals under pressure to conform to an anti-life culture.

Q: Why do you think the Church's contribution to ethical debates is ignored so readily in modern Europe?

Watt: Ethical debates in Europe vary from country to country. In Britain the dominant philosophy is one of pragmatism coupled with scientism, and a suspicion that any reference to moral absolutes must be religiously grounded.

A result is that there is very little rational debate in bioethical areas. Debate is seen as merely a way of placating the public, or at best reaching a compromise between differing interests without articulating a coherent moral framework.

This is not the case in some other countries, where there are much stronger religious and cultural supports for moral reasoning of a kind that can enlighten our understanding of human life and its purpose.

All too often, the Church is ignored because she is seen as anti-science -- instead of anti-killing -- and as anti-freedom -- instead of anti-oppression of others and enslavement of oneself.

The media is often irresponsible in its portrayal of Church teaching and generally too shallow in its approach to allow people to see the rationality and beauty of the Church's message.

Moreover, it must be said that many of us, both clergy and laypeople, are far too timid when it comes to expressing Church teaching in these areas, and why it is true and good and leads to happiness.

It would be a good start if we began holding our governments to account -- and judging ourselves by the same yardstick by which we assess them. We have a wonderful message to convey, and should do so with confidence and enthusiasm.

Article: Marriage and Religion: a Package Deal

By Father John Flynn, L.C.

ROME, JUNE 18, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The fortunes of family life and religion may well be linked, say experts in recent studies. W. Bradford Wilcox, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, is the author of a research brief published in May by the Institute for American Values' Center for Marriage and Families.

"Churches are bulwarks of marriage in urban America," he affirmed in the brief "Religion, Race, and Relationships in Urban America." Wilcox started by observing that in spite of widespread concern over the breakdown of marriage and family life in contemporary society, so far little attention has been paid on religion's influence for the family.

His attempt to remedy this omission is based on a reading of data from the Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study (FFCW), sponsored by Columbia and Princeton Universities.

The dramatic changes in family structures are graphically illustrated by Wilcox.

-- From 1960 to 2000, the percentage of children born out of wedlock rose from 5% to 33%.

-- The divorce rate more than doubled to almost 50%.

-- The percentage of children living in single-parent families rose from 9% to 27%.

Poor and minority families have suffered even more. In 1996, for example, 35% of African American children and 64% of Latino children were living in married households, compared to 77% of white children.

Wilcox argued that religion can influence family life in four ways.

-- Religious institutions promote norms strengthening marriage, for example, the idea that sex and childbearing ought to be reserved for marriage, and broader moral norms that support happier, more stable marriages.

-- Religious faith endows the marital relationship with a sense of transcendence.

-- In many religious groups there are family-oriented social networks that offer emotional and social support, plus a measure of social control that reinforces commitment to the marital bond.

-- Religious belief and practice provides support to cope with stresses such as unemployment or the death of a loved one. A greater psychological resilience, in turn, is linked to higher quality marriages.

Paradox

Wilcox does, however, admit that religious participation is by no means an automatic guarantee of a happy family life. In fact, what he termed "one of the paradoxes of American religious life," is the contradiction between the high level of religious practice among African Americans -- the highest of any racial group -- and the reality that they have the lowest rate of marriage of any racial or ethnic group.

Turning to an analysis of the data from the FFCW survey, Wilcox argued that it shows how religious attendance -- particularly by fathers -- is associated with higher rates of marriage among urban parents.

Moreover, churchgoing boosts the odds of marriage for African American parents in urban America in much the same way it boosts the odds of marriage for urban parents from other racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Paternal church attendance is particularly important for urban relationships, Wilcox maintains. If a father goes to church regularly, then he is more likely to enter into marriage and also to have a relationship of higher quality.

Benefits of belief

The arguments raised by Wilcox are similar to those put forward by Patrick Fagan in a paper published by the Heritage Foundation last December. In "Why Religion Matters Even More: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability," Fagan argued that "religious practice promotes the well-being of individuals, families and the community."

"Regular attendance at religious services is linked to healthy, stable family life, strong marriages and well-behaved children," he pointed out.

Numerous sociological studies, Fagan continued, show that valuing religion and regularly practicing it are associated with greater marital stability, higher levels of marital satisfaction and an increased likelihood that an individual will be inclined to marry.

Among other points, these studies reveal that:

-- Women who are more religious are less likely to experience divorce or separation than their less religious peers.

-- Marriages in which both spouses attend religious services frequently are 2.4 times less likely to end in divorce than marriages in which neither spouse worships.

-- Religious attendance is the most important predictor of marital stability, confirming studies conducted as far back as 50 years ago.

-- Couples who share the same faith are more likely to reunite if they separate than are couples who do not share the same religious affiliation.

Moreover, Fagan pointed out, religious practice is also related to a reduction in such negative behaviors as domestic abuse, crime, substance abuse and addiction.

Losing God

Mary Eberstadt looked at the other side of the coin in the relationship between family and religion in an article published in the June-July issue of the magazine Policy Review. In the article "How the West Really Lost God," she reflected on the causes of secularization, a phenomenon particularly notable in Western Europe.

The thesis often put forward, Eberstadt observed, is that secularism came first and that this had a negative impact on family life in Western Europe. She argued, however: "At least some of the time, the record suggests, they also became secular because they stopped having children and families."

In support of her case Eberstadt pointed out that European fertility in general dropped well before the dramatic demise of religious practice observed in recent decades. Within Europe she cited the example of France, which saw fertility decline much sooner than in many other European countries, and is also a nation where secularism is stronger.

Ireland, by contrast, withstood the winds of secularism until a short time ago, and it was also a country with strong families. The recent erosion of religion in Ireland was preceded by a collapse in Irish fertility, Eberstadt added.

Turning to the United States she commented that the higher level of religious practice could be due to the greater number of children.

Evangelicals and Mormons, who unlike Catholics are not prohibited from using contraceptives, also have larger families. Maybe, Eberstadt posited, there is something about the family that inclines people toward religiosity.

She then examined the dynamic that exists between family life and religion. The experience of birth leads parents to a moment of transcendence. As well, the practice of sacrificing oneself for the good of the family and children may lead people to go beyond selfish pleasure-seeking. In addition, the fear of death, in terms of losing a spouse or child is a powerful spur to faith.

As for the well-known fact that women tend to be more religious than men, maybe Eberstadt argued, this is due to their more intimate participation in the birth of their children compared to a man's role.

While fertility rates in Europe and many other countries are now very low, this could change as the disadvantages of single motherhood and the social and economic consequences of shrinking populations weigh more heavily.

"There is nothing inevitable about the decline of the natural family and thus, by implication, religion too," Eberstadt contended. While quick to admit that, "merely having families and children is no guarantee of religious belief," a resurgence in family life could well strengthen religion.

The authors of the studies cited here would probably be the first to admit that the interaction between religion and the family is complicated and that many other factors play a part in the strengthening or weakening of both. No doubt more research is needed, but these initial efforts point to some interesting relationships.

The natural family, Ebserstadt concludes, "as a whole has been the human symphony through which God has historically been heard by many people." A symphony unfortunately marred by many discordant notes today, but whose return to harmony would be of immense benefit.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Father Cantalamessa on the Pearl of Great Price

ROME, JUNE 15, 2007 (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.


* * *

A Woman Came With an Alabaster Flask of Ointment
11th Sunday in Ordinary Time
2 Samuel 12:7-10,13; Galatians 2:16,19-21; Luke 7:36-8:3

There are some Gospel passages where the teaching is so much connected to the action that the former cannot be fully understood if it is detached from the latter.

The episode of the sinful woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee that will be read at Mass this Sunday is one of these. The opening scene is silent; there are no words, only silent gestures: A woman enters with an alabaster flask of ointment. She nestles at Jesus' feet, washes them with tears, dries them with her hair, and kissing them, douses them with the ointment from her flask.

She is almost certainly a prostitute, because at that time this was what was meant when the term "sinful" was applied to a woman.

At this point the focus turns to the Pharisee who invited Jesus to dinner. The scene is still silent, but only in appearance. The Pharisee is "speaking to himself": "When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, 'If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.'"

The Gospel then takes Jesus' word so as to present his judgment on the actions of the woman and on the thoughts of the Pharisee, and it does this with a parable: "'A creditor had two debtors: One owed him five hundred denarii and the other fifty. Not having anything to pay him with, the creditor forgave both of them their debts. Who will love him more?' Simon answered: 'I suppose the one who he forgave the most.' Jesus said to him, 'You have judged well.'"

Jesus first of all allows Simon to be convinced that he is in fact a prophet since he read the thoughts in his heart; at the same time, with the parable, he is preparing everyone to understand what he is about to say in defense of the woman: "'For this reason I say to you her many sins are forgiven her because she has loved much. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.' Then he said to her, 'Your sins are forgiven you.'"

This year is the 800th anniversary of the conversion of Francis of Assisi. What do the conversions of the sinful woman of the Gospel and Francis have to do with each other? Unfortunately, when we speak of conversion our thought goes instinctively to what one leaves behind -- sin, a disordered life, atheism -- but this is the effect, not the cause of the conversion.

How a conversion happens is perfectly described by Jesus in the parable of the hidden treasure: "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field; a man finds it and hides it again, then he goes, full of joy, and sells all he has and buys the field." It is not said that "a man sold everything he had and then went out in search of a hidden treasure."

We know how the stories that begin this way end. One loses everything he has and does not find any treasure. These are stories of deluded people, visionaries. No, a man finds a treasure and sells all he has to acquire it. In other words, it is necessary to have found a treasure in order to have the strength and the joy to sell all.

This is done with a heart "full of joy," like the man about whom the Gospel speaks. This is how it happened for the sinful woman of the Gospel and for Francis of Assisi. Both had met Jesus and it is this that gave them the strength to change.

The point of departure of the sinful woman of the Gospel and Francis seems to have been different, but this difference was an appearance, external. Deep down it was the same. The woman and Francis, like all of us after all, were searching for happiness and they saw that the life they were leading did not make them happy, but rather it left dissatisfaction and an emptiness in the depths of their heart.

I was reading recently the story of the famous convert of the 19th century, Hermann Cohen, a brilliant musician, idolized as a the young prodigy of his time in the salons of central Europe: a kind of modern version of the young Francis.

After his conversion he wrote to a friend: "I looked for happiness everywhere: in the elegant life of the salons, in the deafening noise of balls and parties, in accumulating money, in the excitement of gambling, in artistic glory, in friendship with famous people, in the pleasures of the senses. Now I have found happiness, I have an overflowing heart and I want to share it with you. ... You say, 'But I don't believe in Jesus Christ.' I say to you, 'Neither did I and that is why I was unhappy.'"

Conversion is the way to happiness and a full life. It is not something painful, but the greatest joy. It is the discovery of the hidden treasure and the pearl of great price.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Wednesday Liturgy: When a Host Isn't Swallowed

ROME, JUNE 12, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: How should one dispose of a consecrated host which was placed in the mouth of an ill person who, in the end, was unable to swallow it? -- L.M., Kennesaw, Georgia

Q: In Canada most parishes use several types of missal booklets for either English or French Masses. Once these have expired they are thrown out. The question is, since the majority of people now take Communion in the hand instead of directly by the mouth, particles of the host are bound to become attached to these missals when the communicant returns to their pew. How then should these missals be disposed of? It just doesn't seem right, if they have particles of host on them, to throw them in the garbage. Could you please give us some advice on this problem? -- R.H., Otterburn Park, Quebec

A: A host which has been partially consumed in some way may be disposed of by placing it in water until it has dissolved, and then pouring the water into the sacrarium or into the ground.

If the mishap has occurred outside of a parish -- for example, in a nursing home or hospital with no chapel -- then it should be carefully wrapped in a purificator and brought to the parish for proper disposal.

Some courageous ministers might be willing to consume such a host themselves out of respect, but this is usually not advisable and is unnecessary.

Regarding the second question, I do not think there is really much danger of fragments of hosts remaining on the booklets.

If such were the case, then they would also remain in other places such as the pews, the clothes worn by the faithful and all over the floor. If the Church had considered that there was a serious danger of fragments being deposited in various places as a result of the practice of receiving Communion in the hand, then it would never have contemplated permitting the practice.

This is, of course, presuming that the hosts used are properly produced and not subject to easy fragmentation.

Also, as dealt with in more detail in the follow-up published on July 5, 2005, according to traditional Catholic theology, above all, that of St. Thomas Aquinas, a microscopic fragment is no longer an integral part of the host and may therefore be considered as equivalent to a corrupt host in which Christ's presence would no longer subsist.

Therefore, I believe that the booklets may be disposed of without scruple as regards the possibility of the Eucharistic presence. They still contain God's Word, however, and, while strictly speaking they are not sacred objects like the missal or lectionary, many people have scruples about mixing these booklets with the common trash.

While it is not necessary to go to great lengths to dispose of them, if feasible, it may be better to take them directly to an incinerator or paper recycler rather than mixing them with the common garbage.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Benediction by a Bishop

ROME, JUNE 12, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

After our piece on a bishop giving Benediction (May 29), a reader from Malm«Ó, Sweden, asked: "I've noticed that a bishop may also give a blessing with the Book of the Gospels. Does he do this on more solemn occasions? Is there any difference when giving the blessing with the Book of the Gospels and when giving it with the monstrance and Blessed Sacrament?"

The practice of the bishop imparting a blessing with the Book of the Gospels on certain solemn occasions is a relative novelty in the liturgy.

It may have been introduced by Pope John Paul II. For some time it was considered as a prerogative exclusive to the Holy Father, even though some bishops also began to impart this blessing, probably influenced by televised papal Masses.

Although the norm legitimizing the custom is not mentioned in the Ceremonial of Bishops, it has been incorporated into some recent publications such as the introduction to the Book of the Gospels.

The norm does not specify how this blessing is to be carried out. The general practice seems to be that, after proclaiming the Gospel, the priest or deacon brings the open book to the bishop to be kissed. The priest or deacon then closes the Book of the Gospels and gives it to the bishop who makes a simple sign of the cross with the volume in a manner similar to that of Benediction with the monstrance. In other cases the book is brought, already closed, to the bishop, who takes it, kisses it and then imparts the blessing.

The rubric does not indicate on what solemn occasions this blessing is imparted and apparently leaves the decision to the bishop himself.

The rubric does indicate, however, that only the bishop imparts this blessing and this rite is never carried out by a priest.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Father Cantalamessa on Memory

ROME, JUNE 8, 2007 (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.

* * *

Do This in Memory of Me
Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ
Genesis 14:18-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; Luke 9:11b-17

In the second reading of this feast, St. Paul presents us with the most ancient account we have of the institution of the Eucharist, written no more than about 20 years after the fact. Let us try to find something new in the Eucharistic mystery, using the concept of memorial: "Do this in memory of me."

Memory is one of the most mysterious and greatest powers of the human spirit. Everything seen, heard and done from early childhood is conserved in this immense womb, ready to reawaken and to dance into the light either by an external stimulus or by our own will.

Without memory we will cease to be ourselves, we will lose our identity. Those who are struck by total amnesia, wander lost on the streets, without knowing their own name or where they live.

A memory, once it has come to mind, has the power to catalyze our whole interior world and route everything toward its object, especially if this is not a thing or a fact, but a living person.

When a mother remembers her child, who was born a few days ago and is left at home, everything inside her flies toward her baby, a movement of tenderness rises from her maternal depths and perhaps brings tears to her eyes.

Not just the individual has memory; human groups -- family, tribe, nation -- also have a collective memory. The wealth of a people is not so much measured by the reserves of gold it holds in its vaults, but rather by how many memories it holds in its collective consciousness. It is the sharing of many memories that cements the unity of a group. To keep such memories alive, they are linked to a place, to a holiday.

Americans have Memorial Day, the day in which they remember those who fell in all the wars; the Indians have the Gandhi Memorial, a green park in New Delhi that is supposed to remind the nation who he was and what he did. We Italians also have our memorials: The civil holidays recall the most important events in our recent history, and streets, piazzas and airports are dedicated to our most eminent people.

This very rich human background in regard to memory should help us better understand what the Eucharist is for the Christian people. It is a memorial because it recalls the event to which all of humanity now owes its existence as redeemed humanity: the death of the Lord.

But the Eucharist has something that distinguishes it from every other memorial. It is memorial and presence together, even if hidden under the signs of bread and wine. Memorial Day cannot bring those who have fallen back to life; the Gandhi Memorial cannot make Gandhi alive again. In a sense, the Eucharistic memorial, however, according to the faith of Christians, does do this in regard to Christ.

But together with all the beautiful things that we have said about memory, we must mention a danger that is inherent to it. Memory can be easily transformed into sterile and paralyzing nostalgia. This happens when a person becomes the prisoner of his own memories and ends up living in the past.

Indeed, the Eucharistic memorial does not pertain to this type of memory. On the contrary, it projects us forward; after the consecration the people say: "We proclaim your death, O Lord, and confess your resurrection, until you come."

An antiphon attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas ("O sacrum convivium") defines the Eucharist as the sacred feast in which "Christ is received, the memory of his passion is celebrated, the soul is filled with grace, and we are given the pledge of future glory."

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Wednesday Liturgy: Masses for the Living and the Dead

ROME, JUNE 5, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Is the Mass offered for the living more powerful than after your death? St. Anselm and Pope Benedict XV said they are. Could you please comment. -- S.T., Chicago

A: While our reader did not offer the sources of these comments by St. Anselm and Pope Benedict XV, I will take her word for them.

In what way can we say that one way of offering a Mass is "more powerful" than another?

First of all, it is necessary to clarify that in itself the Mass has the same value of Christ's paschal mystery of which it is the ritual re-presentation. Therefore its value is infinite, and one Mass is not more powerful than another.

Thus, any difference in value must be sought in the effect on the person for whom the Sacrifice is being offered.

In the case of the deceased in purgatory any benefit is received passively, since the soul is no longer capable of performing new meritorious acts. While such a soul is already saved, it cannot increase in sanctity but only purify those imperfections which impede its definitive entrance into glory.

A living person, however, is still capable of growing in sanctifying grace. And so a Mass offered for a person already in God's grace has the effect of offering a gift of increased grace which the person may willingly receive in order to become more Christlike.

As an intercessory prayer, a Mass offered for a person in a state of actual mortal sin may yet supply the grace necessary for repentance even though conversion is always a free acceptance of the grace that is offered.

While the Mass may be offered for other intentions as well (for instance, for those who are ill), I believe that the discourse regarding whether the Mass for the living is more powerful than for the dead lies principally in the above point regarding the possible increase in sanctity. The offering of the Mass may also assist in this increase of sanctity by helping people face their sufferings and trials more deeply united to Christ.

Only the living can become holier, even to the point of directly entering heaven after death. Some might be perplexed by the idea that there can be differences in sanctity in heaven. The saints sometimes used a useful image to describe this possibility.

During life, by freely corresponding with grace, each person prepares his or her own capacity of being filled with God. In heaven, some will be like liqueur glasses; others, beer tankards; others, barrels; and a few oil tankers. The important thing is that all will be filled to the brim, and none will feel the lack of anything necessary for happiness.

Of course, the Church recommends praying and having Masses offered for both the living and the dead, for none should be excluded from our charity.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Head Coverings for Women

ROME, JUNE 5, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Several readers asked for further clarifications after our article on women wearing head coverings (May 22).

One reader said he was told that the new Code of Canon Law did not repeal the former obligation to wear hats and veils, but simply did not mention it.

Although some canonists might accept this hypothesis, it is not the most probable interpretation as it is unlikely that the legislator would have left the faithful in doubt as to the existence of an obligation. By no longer mentioning the custom, the legislator removed it from the realm of obligation while leaving intact the possibility of its remaining as a custom in some places or contexts.

A reader from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, mentioned a particular case: "We have a small group of traditionalist parishioners who come for Mass with their heads (especially women) veiled. Most parts of the Mass they are seen kneeling when everyone else is standing. During Communion they would receive kneeling and will only receive Communion if distributed by a priest and not by lay ministers or religious. There are instances where they refused to come out for Communion because the priest who celebrated the Mass would only give Communion to communicants who are standing. This resulted in them moving from church to church, searching for priests who would give them Communion kneeling. What is the Church's norm on this?"

Other readers mentioned similar cases of women being actively discouraged by priests from wearing hats and veils because they "cause distraction."

The principal reason why St. Paul mandated women to cover their heads was to foment modesty during the liturgy, especially because in the cultural context of the time a woman who did not cover her head conveyed a message of impropriety.

Since modesty is the primary reason, a woman is free to cover her head for the sake of modesty, or simply out of respect for long-standing custom.

While modesty would also advise against using elaborate hats and veils that tend to draw attention to oneself, there is no authority in canon law or in common-sense social mores that would allow a blanket prohibition or discouragement of all head coverings. Priests should be flexible enough to accommodate the various spiritual sensibilities of their flock, except in the case of clear incompatibility with the nature of the sacred rite.

A similar point could be made regarding the so-called Malayan traditionalists. These faithful should be encouraged to participate in the common gestures of the celebration which express unity of prayer and purpose.

Although the priest should try to educate them as to Church norms and genuine piety, it is usually pastorally advisable to be patient and avoid creating unnecessary divisions regarding points that are not always clearly defined in liturgical law.

At the same time, the Holy See has made it clear that even when the bishops' conference has established the practice of receiving Communion standing as a general norm, the faithful who wish to, may kneel down to receive the Host. It has also emphasized in very clear terms that under no circumstances may the faithful be refused Communion simply because they kneel.

Such members of the faithful, however, should also be careful lest their practice cause any disturbance to the flow of the Communion lines and if necessary they should, for example, wait until the end to receive kneeling.

As one version of the classic spiritual adage says, "In important things unity, in less important things liberty, in all things charity."

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Father Cantalamessa on Equal Dignity

ROME, JUNE 1, 2007 (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.

* * *

Equal and Different
Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity
Proverbs 8:22-31; Romans 5:1-5; John 16:12-15

The Gospel for the solemnity, drawn from Jesus' farewell discourses, deals with three mysterious subjects which are inextricably united, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will lead you into the whole truth. All that the Father has is mine" -- the Son! Reflecting on these and similar texts the Church arrived at its faith in the Trinitarian God.

Many ask: But what is this puzzle of three who are one and one who are three? Would it not be easier to believe in a God who is just one, as the Muslims do? The answer is simple. The Church believes in the Trinity, not because it likes to complicate things, but because this truth has been revealed by Christ. The difficulty of understanding the mystery of the Trinity is an argument in favor of, and not against, its truth. No man left to himself would have ever come up with this mystery.

After the mystery has been revealed to us, we intuit that, if God exists, it can be no other way: one and three at the same time. There can only be love between two or more persons; if therefore "God is love," there must be in God one who loves, one who is loved, and the love that unites them.

Christians are monotheists; they believe in a God who is one, but not solitary. Who would God love if he were absolutely alone? Perhaps himself? But then his love would not be really love, but rather egoism or narcissism.

I would like to consider the great and formidable teaching about life that comes to us from the Trinity. This mystery is the maximum affirmation that there can be both equality and diversity: equal in dignity but different in characteristics. And is this not the most important thing that we must learn if we are going to live well in this world? That we can be, that is, different by the color of our skin, because of culture, sex, race and religion, and yet enjoy equal dignity as human persons?

This teaching has its first and most natural field of application in the family. The family must be an earthly reflection of the Trinity. It is made up of persons of different sex (man and woman) and age (parents and children) with all the consequences that derive from these differences: different sentiments, different attitudes and tastes. The success of a marriage and a family depends on the measure by which this diversity knows how to tend toward a higher unity: unity of love, intentions and collaboration.

It is not true that a man and a woman must have the same temperament and gifts; that for them to agree, they must both be either cheerful, vivacious, extroverted and instinctive, or both introverted, quiet and reflective. Indeed we know what negative consequences can follow, even at the physical level, from marriage between relatives within a restricted circle.

Husband and wife do not have each to be the "better half" of the other in the sense of two halves perfectly equal, as an apple cut in two, but in the sense that one is the missing half of the other and the complement of the other. This was God's intention when he said: "It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a help similar to him" (Genesis 2:18). This all presupposes the strength to accept the difference of the other, which is the most difficult thing for us to do and in which only the most mature marriages succeed.

From this we also see how erroneous it is to consider the Trinity a mystery that is remote from our lives, one to be left to the speculation of theologians. On the contrary, it is a mystery that is very close to us. The reason is very simple: We were created in the image of the Trinitarian God, we bear this imprint and we are called to realize the same sublime synthesis of unity and diversity.