Catholic Metanarrative

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Father Cantalamessa on the First World and Lazarus

ROME, SEPT. 28, 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 Rich Man who Dressed in Purple Garments and Fine Linen
26th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Amos 6:1, 4-7; 1 Timothy 6:11-16; Luke 16:19-31

The principal thing to bring to light in regard to the parable of the rich man in this Sunday's Gospel is his contemporary relevance. At the global level the two characters are the two hemispheres: The rich man represents the northern hemisphere (western Europe, America, Japan) and the poor man, Lazarus, with a few exceptions, represents the southern hemisphere. Two characters, two worlds: the first world and the Third World. Two demographically and geographically unequal worlds: The one that we call the Third World in fact represents two-thirds of the world. This is a usage that is beginning to take hold. The third world is beginning to be called the "two-thirds world."

The same contrast between the rich man and Lazarus exists also within both worlds. The rich live side by side with the poor Lazaruses in the third world -- and the solitary luxury that exists in these countries stands out all the more in the midst of the miserable majority -- and there are the poor Lazaruses who live side by side with the rich in the first world. Some persons in the entertainment business, in sports, finance, industry, and commerce have contracts worth millions, and all of this is in the sight of millions of people who, with their meager wages or unemployment subsidy, do not know how they are going to be able to pay the rent or pay for medicine and education for their children.

The most detestable thing in the story that Jesus tells is the rich man's ostentation, the way he makes a show of his wealth with no consideration for the poor man. His life of luxury is manifested in two areas, in dining and in clothing: The rich man feasted sumptuously and dressed in purple garments and fine linen, which in those days was the vesture of kings. The contrast is not only between a person who stuffs himself with food and a person who dies of hunger but also between one who changes his clothes every day and one who does not own a thread.

Here in Italy there was once a piece of clothing presented at a fashion show that was made of gold coins and cost over a billion lira. We have to say this without hesitation: The global success of Italian fashion and the business it has created have gone to our heads. We do not care about anything anymore. Everything that is done in the fashion sector, even the most obvious excesses, enjoys special treatment. Fashion shows that sometimes fill television news so much that other more important news is put aside, bring to mind the scenes in the parable of the rich man.

But so far we have not touched on anything new. What is novel and unique in this evangelical denouncement has to do with the perspective from which the events are seen. Everything in the parable is seen retrospectively from the epilogue to the story: "When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried." If we put this story on the screen we could very well begin with this ending beyond the grave and then return to the previous events in a kind of "flashback."

Many similar denouncements of wealth and luxury have been made over the centuries but today they sound rhetorical and resentful or pietistic and anachronistic. But Jesus' denouncement, after 2,000 years, retains intact its explosive power. Jesus does not belong to either party in this matter but is one who is above rich and poor and is concerned with both -- and perhaps more with the rich since the poor are less in danger!

The parable of the rich man is not motivated by any resentment toward the wealthy, by a desire to take their place, as are many human denouncements, but by a sincere concern for their salvation. God wants to save the rich from their wealth.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Wednesday Liturgy: Using Multiple Ciboria and Chalices

ROME, SEPT. 25, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Can you advise as to the correct procedure when arranging ciboria and chalices on the altar following the receiving of the gifts? Given that during a large celebration there will be a number of chalices and ciboria, is it appropriate to arrange them symmetrically giving pride of place to the celebrant's chalice and ciborium? There are those self-proclaimed liturgists who would insist that as there "is only ONE bread and ONE body," only the celebrant's chalice and paten/ciborium should be placed centrally on the corporal and the additional vessels should be placed "to one side." This seems to me to fly in the face of consecration of the elements. -- I.M., Island of Jersey, United Kingdom

A: Among the most explicit norms touching on this theme are the norms published by the U.S. bishops' conference on Communion under both kinds. Although these norms have no legal force outside of the States, they are indicative and have been approved by the Holy See.

Among other practical suggestions they say:

"32. Before Mass begins, wine and hosts should be provided in vessels of appropriate size and number. The presence on the altar of a single chalice and one large paten can signify the one bread and one chalice by which we are gathered 'into the one Body of Christ, a living sacrifice of praise.' When this is not possible, care should be taken that the number of vessels should not exceed the need.

At the Preparation of the Gifts:

"36. The altar is prepared with corporal, purificator, Missal, and chalice (unless the chalice is prepared at a side table) by the deacon and the servers. The gifts of bread and wine are brought forward by the faithful and received by the priest or deacon or at a convenient place. (Cf. GIRM, no. 333). If one chalice is not sufficient for Holy Communion to be distributed under both kinds to the Priest concelebrants or Christ's faithful, several chalices are placed on a corporal on the altar in an appropriate place, filled with wine. It is praiseworthy that the main chalice be larger than the other chalices prepared for distribution."

On the one hand, these norms present the preferred situation of a single chalice and one large paten. On the other, they bow to the reality of many different situations and wisely abstain from offering rigid proposals for all circumstances.

This same flexibility may be used in responding to the question at hand.

While certainly pride of place must always be given to the celebrant's chalice and paten, placing them directly in front of him, other chalices and ciboria may be arranged either beside the principal vessels on a single large corporal or on other corporals placed upon the altar.

In some very large concelebrations with many vessels, a special corporal covering almost the entire altar table and placed before Mass is sometimes used, as the vessels take up most of the available space.

Among the factors to be taken into account is the number of vessels. If we are speaking of but one or two extra vessels, then having everything on a single corporal is probably preferable. If there are many vessels, then extra corporals would be preferred, located in such a way so as not to block the view of the main vessels and also respecting common-sense symmetry and aesthetics.

Other elements to be considered include the size of the altar, the logistics of the various movements, the number of concelebrants and faithful, and the method chosen for distributing holy Communion. Since all of these might vary from one celebration to the next, there is no universal rule that can be applied to all cases.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Spanish Homilies Read by a Layman

ROME, SEPT. 25, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Several attentive readers offered input on our Sept. 11 commentary regarding a layman reading a priest's homily in Spanish.

Some readers illustrated the huge difficulties faced by many priests seeking to accommodate the influx of Spanish-speaking parishioners throughout the continental United States, including in some unexpected regions.

One reader pointed out these difficulties are often compounded by the fact that not all immigrants speak the same variety of Spanish. And there are even rural immigrants from countries such as Peru and Mexico for whom Spanish is not their first language.

In such cases, even standard Spanish can leave them perplexed in a similar way as happens to English-speaking Americans visiting England who discover the truth behind Churchill's quip that they are two countries separated by the same language.

In my earlier reply I had supposed that the solution of simultaneous translation was rather uncommon. An experienced reader, however, informed me that this is often the preferred and best solution in many parishes.

He wrote: "Simultaneous translation maintains the original 'communicative' rapport of the pastor with his flock. My recent experience of this situation in the USA is that the level of English among the [Spanish-speaking] listeners is extremely diverse. Some will understand 100%, others 80%, 50%, etc. Those who have no knowledge of English have the live translation, and they can also perceive the personality of the priest in his intonations, facial expressions and gestures. It establishes a much more personal relationship than simply listening to a written text read to them.

"I have seen priests do this in an engaging way that manages to create a very lively rapport with the congregation, even without the homilists' speaking a single word of their language. In the situation described, there are surely people willing to do the simultaneous translation and, in the end, all will benefit greatly from it."

If an immediate simultaneous translation is not feasible, but it is possible for someone to translate the text of the homily ahead of time, then I believe that the best solution is that the priest preach the homily in English and after each paragraph or principal point some other person read the translation, preferably using a different microphone.

While I know of no official document forbidding it, I still maintain that having a layperson read the whole homily in lieu of the priest is not a proper solution. The nature of the homily as a communication of the ordained minister should be preserved as far as possible.

Likewise it is necessary to avoid even the appearance of any confusion of ministerial roles or of a layperson delivering the homily. Most regular parishioners are capable of distinguishing between a layperson reading and preaching the homily. But in the highly mobile U.S. society, visitors are frequent, and it is best to avoid all possibility of scandal.

It is also true that some input from the lay reader is inevitable as nobody can read a text without putting himself into it. Words that are read are never merely someone else's communication.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Father Cantalamessa on Dishonest Wealth

ROME, SEPT. 21, 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.


* * *

Make friends with wealth
25th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Amos 8:4-6; 1 Timothy 2:1-8; Luke 16:1-13

This Sunday's Gospel presents us with a parable that in certain respects has important contemporary relevance: the parable of the dishonest steward. The central character of the parable is the farm manager of a landowner, a well-known figure in our Italian countryside when the sharecropping system was still in existence.

Like all good parables, this one is like a miniature play, full of movement and scene changes. The actors in the first scene are the steward and the master and the scene ends with the master firing the steward: "You can no longer be my steward."

The steward does not even try to defend himself. His conscience is not clear. He knows that he is guilty of what the master has discovered.

The second scene is a soliloquy of the steward, who is now alone. He has not yet accepted defeat. He immediately thinks about what he can do to get himself out of this situation and save his future.

The third scene -- steward and tenant farmers -- reveals to us the plan that the steward has devised. He asks the tenants, "And how much do you owe?"

"One hundred measures of wheat," is one reply.

"Here is your promissory note," he says. "Take it and write down eighty." A classic case of corruption and falsehood that makes us think of similar situations in our own society, often on a much larger scale.

The conclusion is disconcerting: "The master praised the dishonest steward for acting prudently."

Is Jesus approving and encouraging corruption? We need to recall to our minds the particular nature of teaching in parables. The moral doctrine that is aimed at is not in the parable taken as a whole, in every detail, but only in that aspect of the parable that the narrator wishes to pick out.

And the idea that Jesus intended to bring out with this parable is clear. The master praises the steward for his resourcefulness and for nothing else. It is not said that the master changed his mind about his decision to fire the man.

Indeed, given the initial conduct of the master and the quickness with which he discovers the new scam we can easily imagine the outcome, which the parable does not report. After having praised the steward for his astuteness, the master orders him to immediately restore the fruit of his dishonest transactions or pay it off in prison if he lacks the means.

It is cleverness that Jesus also praises, outside the parable. In fact, he adds: "The children of this world are more clever in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light."

That man, when he was faced with an emergency situation in which his whole future was at stake, showed a capacity for radical decision-making and great resourcefulness. He acted quickly and intelligently -- even if dishonestly -- to save himself. This, Jesus observes to his disciples, is what you too must do, to save yourselves, not for a worldly future but for an eternal future.

"Life," Seneca said, "is not given to anyone as a possession but as something that we are stewards of." We are all "stewards," so we have to act like the man in the parable. He did not put things off until tomorrow; he did not "sleep on it." There is something too important at stake to be left to chance.

The Gospel itself makes different practical applications of this teaching of Christ. The one that it insists the most on is the one regarding the use of wealth and money: "I tell you, make friends with dishonest wealth, so that when it fails, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings."

In other words, do as that steward did; make friends with those who, when one day you find yourself in trouble, will welcome you. These friends, we know, are the poor.

We know this from what Christ says about his being the recipient of what we do for them. The poor, St. Augustine said, are, so to speak, our couriers and porters: They allow us to begin transferring our belongings now to the house that is being built for us in the hereafter.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Article: Humble Confidence

Humble Confidence

FATHER JEAN C. J. D'ELBÉE

You must believe in the love of Jesus for you. Love calls for love. How do you give Jesus love for love? Before all and above all, by your confidence in Him.

This word, confidence, summarizes the three theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity — sovereign virtues which bring all the others in their train. But if these are the highest virtues, then the greatest heroism is demanded of us in order to realize them in the face of the mystery of a "hidden God."

A man must be heroic to live always in faith, hope, and love. Why? Because, as a result of Original Sin, no one can he certain with the certainty of faith that he is saved, but only with a moral certainty based upon fidelity to grace; and because as sinners we are constantly tempted by doubt and anxiety.

It was in order to resolve this conflict between our desires and our powerlessness that Jesus came to earth and took our infirmities upon Himself. Little Therese understood that it is our state of misery which attracts His mercy.

Before her, St. Paul wrote, “Gladly, therefore, will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me." "I can do all things in Him who strengthens me.” How profound is the theology of St. Paul! He glories in his infirmities; he rejoices in being weak, because Jesus is there.

For it is this confidence, and nothing but confidence, which will open the arms of Jesus to you so that He will bear you up. Confidence will be for you the golden key to His Heart.

In her desire to be holy, and comparing herself to the saints, St. Therese said that there was, between them and herself, the same difference as between a mountain whose summit is lost in the heavens and an obscure grain of sand, trampled under the feet of a passersby. Rather than becoming discouraged, she thought:

The good God would not inspire unattainable desires; I can, then, in spite of my littleness, aspire to sanctity.

For me to become greater is impossible; I must put up with myself just as I am with all my imperfections. But I wish to find the way to go to Heaven by a very straight, short, completely new little way. We ire in a century of inventions: now one does not even have to take the trouble to climb the steps of a stairway; in the homes of the rich an elevator replaces them nicely. I, too, would like to find an elevator to lift me up to Jesus, for I am too little to climb the rough stairway of perfection. So I have looked in the books of the saints for a sign of the elevator I long for, and I have read these words proceeding from the mouth of eternal Wisdom: "He that is a little one, let him turn to me."' So I came, knowing that I had found what I was seeking, and wanting to know, O my God, what You would do with the little one who would answer Your call, and this is what I found:

"As one whom the mother caresses, so will I comfort you. You shall be carried at the breasts and upon the knees they shall caress you.” Never have more tender words come to make my soul rejoice. The elevator which must raise me to the heavens is Your arms, O Jesus! For that I do not need to grow; on the contrary, I must necessarily remain small, become smaller and smaller. O my God, You have surpassed what I expected, and I want to sing Your mercies."

All the theology of little Therese, which echoes that of St. Paul, is summarized and put at our disposal in these lines, on which we could meditate endlessly without exhausting their richness.

What I cannot do myself Jesus will do. He will take me and lift me up to the summit of the mountain of perfection, to the summit of the mountain of love.

It is true that instinctively we seek to climb the rough stairway of perfection instead of taking the gentle elevator of the arms of Jesus. This is because we have been told so often of our miseries. We have been told, and rightly, that we are miserable; and then, we have been told about Jesus that He is good, yes, but not enough that He is wondrously good, infinitely good, infinite charity. No one has told us at the same time that He is Savior before He is Judge and that, in the Heart of God, “justice and peace have embraced.”

We have been trained in the habit of looking at our dark side, our ugliness, and not at the purifying Sun, Light of Light, which He is, who changes the dust that we are into pure gold. We think about examining ourselves, yet we do not think, before the examination, during the examination, and sitter the examination, to plunge ourselves, with all our miseries, into the consuming and transforming furnace of His Heart, which is open to us through a single humble act of confidence.

I am not telling you, "You believe too much in your own wretchedness." We are much more wretched than we ever realize. But I am telling you, "You do not believe enough in merciful love."


We must have confidence, not in spite of our miseries, but because of them, since it is misery which attracts mercy.


We must have confidence, not in spite of our miseries, but because of them, since it is misery which attracts mercy.

Oh, this word, mercy — misericordia — "miseris cor dare, a heart which gives itself to the miserable, a Heart which nourishes itself on miseries by consuming them. Meditate on this word.

St. Thomas says that "to have mercy belongs to the nature of God, and it is in this that His omnipotence manifests itself in the highest degree."

Little Therese perceived this when she wrote these lines which complete and crown her manuscript: "Yes, I sense that even if I had on my conscience all the sins which can be committed, I would go, my heart broken, to repent and throw myself into the arms of Jesus, for I know how much He cherishes the prodigal child who returns to Him. It is not because the dear Lord in His provident mercy has preserved my soul from mortal sin that I am lifted up to Him by confidence and love."

Again, shortly before her death, speaking to Mother Agnes, she said, "You may truly say that if I had committed all possible crimes, I would still have the same confidence; I would feel that this multitude of offenses would be like a drop of water thrown into a flaming furnace." All possible crimes, a multitude of offenses, a drop of water in an immense furnace: that is the proportion.

And this affirmation is so logical, it is irrefutable.

When I have preached this doctrine of confidence in the midst of our misery, taking my support from little Therese, I have often, very often, met with this objection: "Yes, she was marvelously confident, but she could say that ‘from the age of three years she had never refused God anything.’ If I, too, could claim never to have refused Jesus anything since my childhood, it would be easy for me to be confident as she was.

Yes, people have made this objection, and I have always understood why it was made. But she foresaw it and answers it in the last sentence of her great letter to Sister Marie of the Sacred Heart, a fundamental monument of her doctrine. It is like a will:

Oh, Jesus, how much I could say to all little souls about how ineffable Your condescension is.... I feel that if (though this would be impossible) You were to find a soul more weak and little than mine, You would be pleased to shower upon it even greater favors, if it abandoned itself to You with complete confidence in Your infinite mercy.

I imagine very clearly what took place in her spirit and in her heart. She, who so wished to attract little souls to follow her, thought how they would be tempted to discouragement in seeing how faithful she had been, so she declares that, if there were a soul more miserable than hers, it would receive even more favors, as long as it abandoned itself in complete confidence to infinite mercy. This is true, since merciful love is for the miserable.

I want to tell you something in confidence. These words had a decisive influence on the orientation of my own interior life.

One day, seeing that I fulfilled perfectly the first condition of the program, to be weaker than St. Therese, I decided to apply myself with my whole soul to fulfilling the second: to abandon myself in complete confidence.

She knew the weight of the words she used. She asks self-abandonment, and I shall show you that abandonment rightly understood is the greatest of all renunciations. And she asks more than immense confidence, more than confidence to the point of foolishness; she asks complete confidence — that is to say, a confidence as great as our weakness, as great as our misery.

Of course, when we see ourselves to be so unworthy, so fainthearted, falling every moment, how could we not be tempted against confidence? The question occurs: "Is the love of Jesus, His merciful love, really so great? Is it as great as that?" His merciful love is without limits; His mercy is infinite.

That is why you can and must live this doctrine which the kingdom of Heaven to the most miserable and the road of sanctity to the poorest. I insist so emphatically upon this point because I know that the consideration of our miseries is an objection which returns constantly in our daily struggle to advance in perfection.

And more than St. Paul, more than little Therese, it is the Gospel which teaches us this doctrine of salvation. It is the Gospel where we see that what Jesus asks of us, before above all, is humility and confidence.

Look at the prodigal son. He leaves his father's house. He plays frightful ingratitude toward his father, who is so good; demands his part of the inheritance to go carousing, far away. Soon he finds himself stripped of everything and is forced to reflect. In the depths of his abjection, he has the grace to recall the goodness of his father. “I shall rise up and go to my father.” That is confidence. But, humbly, he recognizes him self to be a sinner: "I shall say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against Heaven and before you; I am not worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of your hired servants. ’”

You know how the father received him, not as a servant, but as a beloved son. Seeing him coming from afar, he runs to meet him; seized with compassion, he throws himself on his neck presses him to his heart, and, embracing him, he tells his servants, "Bring, Bring forth quickly the first robe and put it on him and put a ring on his hand and shoes on his feet; and bring hither the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry.” And there was dancing and music. These eloquent details with which the story ends show us a father exulting in his happiness. And why? He tells us why and repeats it to the jealous older brother: “This my son was dead and has come to life again; was lost and has been found.”

Oh, this desire, this need of the Father of Mercies to retrieve His lost child and give him life! That is the Heart of God!


Remember that, each time you pick yourself up after a fall, the feast of the prodigal son is renewed. Your Father in Heaven clothes you again in His most beautiful cloak, puts a ring on your finger, and tells you to dance with joy.


Remember that, each time you pick yourself up after a fall, the feast of the prodigal son is renewed. Your Father in Heaven clothes you again in His most beautiful cloak, puts a ring on your finger, and tells you to dance with joy. In a living faith, you will not approach the confessional with dragging feet, but as if you were going to a feast, even it you have to make a great effort each time to humble yourself and to conquer the monotony of the routine.

After the absolution, you should dance like the prodigal son did at the request and for the joy of his father. We do not dance enough in the spiritual life.

This marvelous parable gives us a fundamental lesson about education. Parents, educators, give the children confided to your care an understanding of this divine mercy by believing in it and practicing it yourselves. It is this faith which will prevent them from falling again, and, if they fall, they will rise again; they will come back, because you will have acquainted them with the gentleness of God. They will say, "I know how good God is. I know how to abide in His mercy. From the depths of my sin, I shall rise up and go to my father."

They are happy parents who have shown this way to their children, without weakness or compromise, but with a goodness so like that of God that, in their worst difficulties, they can say humbly with tremendous confidence, "I shall rise up and go to my father; I shall rise up and go to my mother; and through them, I shall go to my Father in Heaven." How many young people have lost the Faith, not from having fallen, but from not having been helped, with love, to pick themselves up again as many times as was necessary.

The good thief also teaches us humility and confidence. A whole life of crimes, a whole life of sin: a few minutes before dying, one word of humility and confidence, and he is saved.

In the same way as the prodigal son recognized his guilt, the good thief, speaking to his companion, cries, "For us, this is justice; we have received what we deserve." Then he looks deep into the eyes of Jesus and reads there who He is: the gentle Savior.

"Lord, remember me when You shall come into Your kingdom."

And the ineffable answer is "Amen, I say to you, this day you shall be with me in Paradise." For you, no Hell, not a second of Purgatory. The confident look you gave me, this meeting of our eyes, in my mercy and in your faith, has purified you in an instant and rendered us inseparable. Now you are completely pure and already in Heaven.

A whole life of sin, one humble and confident look toward the Crucified, and there was the first canonized saint, and canonized by Jesus Himself! A thief who stole Heaven!

When you see how miserable you are after an act of infidelity, a failure which has humiliated you, if you look toward Jesus, with the look of the good thief, do you not believe that you will be purified in a moment, in a second, as he was, and more than he, you who make retreats in order to love Jesus better? You will, on the condition that you have the humility of the good thief and his confidence and desire for Heaven.


A whole life of sin, one humble and confident look toward the Crucified, and there was the first canonized saint, and canonized by Jesus Himself! A thief who stole Heaven!


Jesus needs nothing but your humility and your confidence to work marvels of purification and sanctification in you. And your confidence will be in proportion to your humility, because it is to the extent that we realize our need of Jesus that we have recourse to Him, and we sense this need to the extent that we justly realize our unworthiness.

Think of the woman of Canaan: she is a pagan, a foreigner. She asks Jesus to cure her daughter who is possessed by a demon. Jesus lets her see that since He has come for the lost sheep of Israel, He has nothing to do with her. Humbly she accepts this, which is the truth, but confidently she insists, "Lord, come to my aid." And Jesus shows Himself to be apparently even harder. Often He acts in this way with souls to whom He wishes to grant a high place in His love, in order to test their faith. He answers her, "The bread of the children is not to be thrown to the dogs." The Canaanite woman then finds, in her humble confidence, this exquisitely appropriate response: "That is true, Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their master's table." She asks no more than a crumb at the banquet of merciful love! Jesus is conquered.

"O woman, great is your faith; be it done to you as you will": Fiat tibi sicut vis.

"You have stolen my Heart; you have stolen my will from me by your faith filled with love; I can refuse you nothing."

Is it too much to say, after that, that confident souls steal God's omnipotence?

You who are not foreigners, you who are not dogs under the table, but the children of the house by your baptism, you can — you must — go to Jesus with even more assurance than the Canaanite woman, recognizing that you merit nothing, but expecting everything from a completely gratuitous and infinite mercy.

Recall the centurion: it is always the same thing — humility and confidence. "Lord I am not worthy, but speak only a word and my servant shall be healed." And he explains, "I have under me soldiers. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it.

Jesus replies in admiration of such logic: "Amen, I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel.... As you have believed, be it done to you."

In the manner of the centurion, you also must say, "I am not worthy to receive You; I merit nothing; I am an abyss of weakness and cowardice; I make resolutions and do not keep them; I fall over and over again. But Jesus, say only one word, and my soul shall be healed."

Jesus was so delighted by the centurion's words that he filled them to be fixed in the Liturgy of the Mass, to be forever the most perfect preparation for Communion.

I can imagine the centurion in Heaven, enjoying the unspeakable glory and beatitude of hearing these words, which came from his heart, repeated at the moment when Jesus is received in the Host by all priests and all communicants, in all the Masses which are celebrated in the entire world until the end of time. What a Heaven for him! What glory! Why? Because he recognized his own unworthiness, and he believed.

W hen Jesus tests your faith, give Him, like the Canaanite woman and the centurion, these responses that eternal Wisdom inspires in the little ones, and He will be filled with admiration for you, too, and will shower His graces upon you.

What does Jesus lament most when He is with His Apostles? Their lack of confidence. “Men of little faith!” This is the main reproach He makes to them. He does not say to them, "Men of no character, men without energy, without discipline." No, he says, "Men of little faith!"


What does Jesus lament most when He is with His Apostles? Their lack of confidence. “Men of little faith!” This is the main reproach He makes to them. He does not say to them, "Men of no character, men without energy, without discipline." No, he says, "Men of little faith!"


Jesus was crossing the lake of Tiberias in a boat with His disciples. He was asleep in the stern. A great windstorm blew up, and the waves poured into the boat so that it was already filled. Seized with anguish, the disciples awakened Jesus: "Lord, save us; we are perishing!" And rising up, He reprimands the wind and says to the sea, "’Peace! Be still!' And the wind abated and there was a great calm." Then, turning to His Apostles, He asks, "Where is your faith?” I can hear Jesus scolding them with gentleness, but with pain, too: "Why is this? I was in the boat with you — I slept, but I was there — and you were afraid; you were terrified. You doubted either my omnipotence or my love. Do you not know after all who I am, and do you not know after all with what tenderness my heart watches over you continually?" It is truly such doubt that pains and offends Him most.

But you see, we have lost so completely the notion of the entire confidence that He expects of us, that we sometimes make a prayer of the words for which He reproached His Apostles: "Lord, save us; we are perishing!"

This is not how we should pray, but rather, "With You, Jesus, I cannot perish; You are always in the boat with me; what have I to fear? You may sleep; I shall not awaken You. My poor nature will tremble, oh yes! But with all my will I shall remain in peace in the midst of the storm, confident in You. "

In hours of anguish, think of the Divine Master calming the violent storm with one word. This will be a tremendous source of comfort for you as you wait — peacefully — for Him to waken.

The great tempest is what our sins stir up in our souls. It is there that Jesus must arise in order that "a great calm may descend."

Listen to what little Therese has to say in the fable about the weak little bird who, not having wings strong enough to soar in the heights, at least has eyes and a heart to gaze at the Sun of love: "With bold abandonment, he remains gazing at his Divine Sun. Nothing can frighten him, neither wind nor rain; and if dark clouds come to hide the Star of love, the weak little bird will not move away, for he knows that on the other side of the clouds his Sun continues always to shine."

"I am not always faithful, but I never get discouraged. I abandon myself into the arms of Jesus, and there I find again all that I have lost and much more besides."

"Since He has granted it to me to understand the love of the Heart of Jesus, I confess that He has chased all fear out of my heart. The memory of my faults humiliates me, leads me never to rely on my own strength, which is nothing but weakness; but even more this memory speaks to me of mercy and love. When we throw our faults, with a completely filial confidence, into the devouring furnace of love, how could they not be totally consumed?"

Here we reach an essential point in the "little way." It is that a soul that is disposed to please Jesus in everything, that has committed everything to Him in freely committing its will — and these souls are more numerous than you might think — a soul that has made an oblation as a victim to merciful love (I shall return to this), an act which the weakest souls are called to make because they are "more fitted to the operations of consuming and transforming love,” such a soul, in its thirst for purity, can remember that it is continually purified in the fire of love.

"Ah, since this happy day [of my offering] it seems to me," cries little Therese, "that each moment this merciful love renews me, purifies my soul, and leaves on it no trace of sin.”

She sees herself to be pure, not by her own efforts — no one is confirmed in grace — but because she has been purified and renewed and regenerated in the fire of mercy to which she has delivered herself.

Two months before her death, when someone said to her, "You are a saint," she answered, pointing to the tops of the trees in the garden, golden in the setting sun, "My soul appears to you to be all brilliant and golden because it is exposed to the rays of love. If the Divine Sun stopped sending me His fire, I would immediately become dark and full of shadows."

Thus the soul which suffers to see itself tarnished by its faults and failings, and which exposes itself to the rays of the divine, transforming Sun, can say to Jesus, "Jesus, I come to You completely beautiful, beautiful like the Sun which You are, pure with Your own purity, beautiful with Your own beauty, rich with Your own treasures." That is the copiosa redemptio: "plentiful redemption.'°

See what a life of love is established between Jesus and us in such a union. I need to have constant recourse to Him, but He is always there, and my need for Him is always satisfied. Jesus purifies us each moment, but we must desire it with an immense desire and believe in it.

To the sick who asked Him to cure them on the roads of Palestine, He posed only one question: "Do you believe that I can heal you?" "Yes, Lord!" "Be it done unto you as you have believed."' He says to you now, "Do you believe that I can purify you in a moment and wipe from your soul every trace of sin?" "Yes, Lord, I believe." "Then it is done," replies the Lord, "because you believe, because you do not doubt it, because you know enough to cling to my infinite mercy, because you remember how I treated the prodigal son, the good thief, and the woman of Canaan, when they vanquished me by their humility and confidence. ”

St. Margaret Mary heard Jesus say to her, "Do you believe that I can do it? If you believe it, you will see the power of my Heart in the magnificence of my love."

Moral misery is a sickness much greater than a disease. I desire to be purified much more than the blind man desired to see or the paralytic to walk. We must have this sincere desire — but you do have it; if you did not, you would not be making this retreat.

We touch here upon the very basis of the interior life, the basis of the Redemption, the basis of the Gospel. Live this faith, this hope, and this love. Live the theological virtues, so named because they lead us to God and unite us to Him. Live this humble confidence and "all the rest will be added unto you.”

It is this which intimately unites the soul to Jesus, which brings us heart to Heart with Him, which grafts the branch again into the vine which He is.

"If anyone thirst" — and especially if he thirst for purity and love — "let him come to me; let him drink who believes in me. "

We know that souls who thirst in this way constantly return with fervor to the sacrament of Penance, a marvelous source of humility, and a means to know their faults better and to repent of them in the supernatural joy of confessing them; in spite of natural repugnance, an occasion to renew wholeheartedly the firm purpose of amendment and especially an occasion to plunge themselves once more, like the prodigal son, into the furnace of mercy. Even if they think that their Communions, their use of the sacramentals, their confident acts of love have already purified them, they will go faithfully to receive, along with the absolution, a purification which is most special because it is sacramental, a new effusion upon them of the Blood of Jesus, their only hope, without forgetting that this recourse is necessary only for serious sins.


I imagine you are like me. I need to be happy; I need to live on love; I need to be festive; I need to sing; and for all that, to which my being aspires, I need to know that I am forgiven.


I imagine you are like me. I need to be happy; I need to live on love; I need to be festive; I need to sing; and for all that, to which my being aspires, I need to know that I am forgiven.

Psychiatrists attribute most of the neuroses and mental disequilibrium so common today to the suffering caused by feelings of guilt. The remedy proposed by unbelievers is to suppress the notion of sin, to remove from man the sense of sin. This is obviously a radical remedy. But it does not succeed. The conscience is still there. They may succeed in partially and temporarily stifling it, but they cannot kill it any more than they can kill God.

No, the remedy is the peace which Jesus gives us in the certainty that we are forgiven because we are loved.

St. John declares, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.”

Our love for God is a love of friendship, a love received and given. Since, in friendship, a certain equality is necessary between the two friends, God has made Himself man, brought Himself down to our level, has made Himself like us; and correspondingly, He has raised us up to Himself by sanctifying grace.

Thus we can attain the life of friendship with Him of which St. Thomas speaks with admirable insight: "In the love proper to friendship, he who loves is in his friend by the fact that he makes his own the fortunes and even the misfortunes of his friend. Also it is proper to friends to will the same things." What constitutes friendship, then, is mutual confidence in unity of will.

Jesus has a Heart like ours. He took it in order to be able to love us as we would love Him. That is why a sin of defiance offends and hurts Him more than a hundred sins of weakness.

I have often noticed that to reward an act of confidence, Jesus gives us the occasion to make an even greater act of confidence.

Recall the scene on the lake. The Apostles are in the boat, which is being battered about by waves, for the wind is rough.

At the fourth watch of the night, Jesus comes toward them, walking on the sea. The disciples mistake Him for a ghost and cry out in fear. Immediately Jesus says, "Have confidence; it is I; be not afraid."

Peter says, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water." "Come," answers Jesus. Peter rushes out onto the water, but seeing the violence of the wind, he is afraid, and, as he starts to sink, he cries, "Lord, save me!" Then Jesus extends His hand, takes hold of him, and says, man of little faith, why did you doubt?"'

Peter had made a beautiful act of confidence by jumping out onto the sea. To reward him, Jesus gave him a chance to make an even greater act of confidence by permitting him to sink into the water. Peter made the first act of confidence but, alas, not the second!

Martha and Mary demonstrated their confidence in Jesus in an exquisite fashion at the bedside of the dying Lazarus by sending Him a message which was a prayer of marvelous delicacy and proved how they knew His Heart, His compassion, and His friendship for Lazarus: "Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick!" How touched Jesus must have been by such a prayer! To reward Martha and Mary for the tenderness of their confidence, He permitted Lazarus to die, giving them the chance to demonstrate a confidence a thousand times greater by an act of faith in His omnipotence. Jesus brought

Lazarus back to life, but before He did so, He required, as always, an act of faith.

Jesus reminds Martha who He is: "I am the Resurrection and the Life. He who believes in me, although he be dead, shall live. . . . Do you believe this?" That is the great question, the condition for the miracle. "Do you believe that I can do it? Do you believe that I am going to do it, that I am going to bring your brother back to life?" Martha makes the act of faith: "Yes, Lord . . . I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." She has already said to Him, "I know that whatsoever You will ask of God, God will give it to You. ”

This is what Jesus is like with those who love Him. He does not grant the first prayer; He permits a greater trial. And we become distressed: "I have prayed, and I have not been heard. All is lost; all is finished. God does not listen to me. He does not love me." Because God loves you, He wants to see how far you will push your confidence. He wants to be able to say to you, as He did to the Canaanite woman, "How great is your faith!"

Do not be like Peter sinking in the waves, but rather like Martha and Mary before the tomb of Lazarus, with confidence unto death. Believe, believe in the divine omnipotence! Believe in Love!

"Lord, increase my faith!

The highest and most complete proof of love is to surrender ourselves completely, giving all our confidence to Him whom we love. Be with Jesus as a friend with his friend, very loving and very beloved. Take your weaknesses and faults to Him, as you take Him your acts of generosity. The acts of generosity are for the Judge who is so good; the weaknesses and the faults are for the Savior. And everything is for the Friend.

“I will not now call you servants ... but I have called you friends.”

Confidence, confidence without limits, full, filial, total, all-inclusive: that is what I want you to take away from this retreat. It is this confidence which works all miracles.

Souls are brought back to life by receiving this secret of Heaven. When they have understood, they take wing, they soar, generosity becomes a need for them, and this happens in a spirit of simplicity which removes all danger of presumption and pride.

It is, of course, necessary to admit that we are all abysses of wretchedness, of sin, since the Original Sin of Adam. Yet even so, Jesus wants us to be happy. He wills "that [our] joy may be full.” Peace — His peace — is the happiness which prevails over the suffering of seeing ourselves so full of sin.

Jesus will give us this peace in proportion to our confidence in Him, to the extent that we do not doubt that it is He who saves us, He who purifies us, He who makes us beautiful, He who says to us, "This very day you shall be with me in Paradise.” “Begin your Paradise with me right now because you have understood that I am the Savior and that I came to earth to give men the peace of my Heart, the heaven of my Heart here below."

"Peace to men of goodwill." "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you."

It is such happiness for Jesus to see a soul profit fully from His Redemption and the price of His Blood, for after all, if He came down from Heaven, if He performed all these "foolish" acts of love, the Incarnation, Calvary, and the Eucharist, why was it? In order to make us happy by giving us a hundredfold here below, and the possession of eternal life.

"Behold your King comes to you, meek, and sitting upon an ass.”

Is that an unattainable spirituality? It is nothing but the Gospel, and the Gospel is for everyone. Let us conclude with the admirable exhortation of St. Paul to the Philippians where we find the joy, the charity, the confidence, the prayer, the thanksgiving, and the marvelous peace which surpasses all understanding in Christ Jesus:

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I say, rejoice. Let your modesty be known to all men. The Lord is nigh. Be nothing solicitous; but in everything, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your petitions be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Rev. Jean C. J. d'Elbeé. "Humble Confidence." chapter two from I Believe in Love: Personal Retreat Based on the Teaching of St. St. Thérèse of Lisieux (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2001): 25-53.

Reprinted with permission of Sophia Institute Press.

THE AUTHOR

Rev. Jean C. J. d'Elbeé is a French retreat master who has been profoundly affected by Saint Therese of the Child Jesus’ “little doctrine” He made it the subject of ten spiritual conferences contained in his book I Believe in Love. In the form of a personal retreat, he explains St. Therese’s teaching about confident love, leading readers to a profound personal encounter with Jesus Christ. Through his reflections on Therese’s life and teaching, Fr. d’Elbee unfolds for the reader the inner meaning of the psalmist’s cry, “Lord, You have opened my heart, and I run in the way of Your commandments.”

Copyright © 2001 Sophia Institute Press

Wednesday Liturgy: Altar Cloths

ROME, SEPT. 18, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: Could you clarify why three cloths are used on the altar? We have a discussion ongoing in our parish where there are two schools of thought: Either this has a symbolic reference to the Trinity or, alternatively, has a symbolism linked to the shroud cloths of Christ. -- A.F., Sheffield, England

A: The question of cloths on the altar is dealt with in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 304, which states:

"Out of reverence for the celebration of the memorial of the Lord and for the banquet in which the Body and Blood of the Lord are offered on an altar where this memorial is celebrated, there should be at least one white cloth, its shape, size, and decoration in keeping with the altar's design. When, in the dioceses of the United States of America, other cloths are used in addition to the altar cloth, then those cloths may be of other colors possessing Christian honorific or festive significance according to longstanding local usage, provided that the uppermost cloth covering the mensa (i.e., the altar cloth itself) is always white in color."

Therefore, only one white cloth is obligatory in the present rite unlike the extraordinary form of the Roman rite (the Missal of John XXIII) which specifies three cloths, one of which covers the entire altar table and hangs down the sides almost to the floor. The other two cover at least the table or the stone containing the sacred relic.

The attribution of possible symbolic references for these cloths is not uniform and their history is often entangled. Sometimes in liturgy an object is first used for one reason, for example, covering a sacred object with a cloth as a sign of respect and care.

This was a fairly common practice in the ancient world and is not exclusive to Christianity or even to the specifically religious sphere. It was sometimes applied to civil objects such as symbols of authority or formal copies of imperial decrees.

During the Middle Ages many well-established liturgical customs were interpreted allegorically as bearing on some doctrinal aspect or representing some moment of the Redemption.

In this way some authors interpreted objects such as the altar cloths as representing the Lord's shroud, others as the Trinity. Finally, the allegorical interpretation was sometimes reinforced by being incorporated into the design and decoration of the object itself.

The Church itself has usually refrained from granting official sanction to these allegorical interpretations. In some cases more than one interpretation might be legitimate and even useful for illustrating some particular doctrinal point. In other cases excessive use of allegory can even lead us to miss the main theological point, for example, in explaining the essentially sacrificial nature of the Mass.

Another cloth which may be used on the altar is the antependium, or frontal, which hangs down in front of the altar, usually reaching the ground.

In the Western tradition, it is white or some similar color although in some countries it follows the seasonal liturgical color. It may be adorned or embroidered according to local custom and culture. An antependium enhances the dignity of the altar and helps to clearly define the liturgical season.

Other practical cloths may also be placed on the altar such as an under-cloth and a dust cover which is placed over the altar cloth when not in use so as to keep it clean at all times.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Slide Shows at Homilies

ROME, SEPT. 18, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

In response to our piece on slide shows during homilies (Sept. 4) a reader from Evansville, Indiana, mentioned a case which went beyond a presentation: "Once, our parish priest replaced the homily with a film. As you noted that images may remind people of television, this action by our priest reminded me of a movie theater. It was as if I were watching a movie that did not interest me. While the lights in the church were dimmed, I am sure others felt the same way and some of them may have even taken a short nap in the darkness."

While the homily may not be the place for the use of such media as DVD's and presentations, they can be most useful evangelization tools in other contexts such as catechesis and the continual Christian formation of adults. As another reader pointed out, such modern means are "easy to use, pleasant to view, and draw wonderfully focused lessons and applications. They are often prepared by religious sisters and are the fruit of a lifetime of professional communication in the classroom."

If truly useful, it is even possible to use such means in the church, as it is not always possible or practical to convoke the people at other times or venues. For example, with adequate foresight the pastor could invite the faithful to remain a few minutes after Mass to view a video or presentation on some topic of pastoral or spiritual concern.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Father Cantalamessa on the Joy of Fatherhood

ROME, SEPT. 14, 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.


* * *

His father ran out to meet him
24th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Exodus 32:7-11, 13-14; 1 Timothy 1:12-17; Luke 15:1-32

In this Sunday's liturgy the entire 15th chapter of Luke's Gospel is read. The chapter contains the three "mercy parables": the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son.

"A man had two sons": Anyone who has even the most minimal familiarity with the Gospel on hearing these five words will immediately exclaim, "the parable of the prodigal son!"

On other occasions I have focused on the spiritual significance of the parable; this time I would like to consider an aspect that has received little attention, but which is very relevant at this moment and close to life. At the bottom of the parable is simply the story of a reconciliation between father and son, and we all know that such a reconciliation is essential to the happiness of fathers and children.

Who knows why literature, art, theater and advertisements all concentrate on a single human relationship: the erotic one between man and woman, between husband and wife? It would seem that this is the only thing in life.

Advertisements and the cinema do nothing else but cook up the same dish using a thousand sauces. But we leave another human relationship, that is just as universal and vital, unexplored, one that is another great source of the joy of life: the relationship between father and children, the joy of paternity.

The only piece of literature that really deals with this theme is Franz Kafka's letter to his father. Ivan Sergeyevich Turgenev's famous novel "Fathers and Sons" does not actually treat of the relationship between natural fathers and children but between different generations.

If we serenely and objectively look into the human heart we will find that, in the majority of cases, a good, understanding, and untroubled relationship with his children is, for a mature, adult man, no less important and fulfilling than the relationship between a man and a woman. We know how important this relationship is for both sons and daughters and the tremendous void that is left by its disintegration.

As cancer usually attacks the most delicate organs in men and women, so also does the destructive power of sin and evil attack the most vital relationships in human existence. There is nothing worse in the relationship between a man and a woman than abuse, exploitation and violence, and there is nothing that is exposed to deformation like the relationship between fathers and children: authoritarianism, paternalism, rebellion, rejection, lack of communication.

We should not generalize. There are beautiful relationships between fathers and children and I myself have known various ones. We know, however, that there are also more numerous negative cases and difficult relationships between fathers and children. In the prophet Isaiah we read this exclamation of God: "I raised and reared these children but they have rebelled against me" (Isaiah 1:2). I believe that many fathers today know from experience what these words mean.

The suffering is reciprocal; it is not like the parable in which the fault is entirely the son's. There are fathers whose most profound suffering in life is being rejected or even despised by their children. And there are children whose most profound and unadmitted suffering is to feel misunderstood, to not be esteemed, to be rejected by their father.

I have focused on the human and existential implications of the parable of the prodigal son. But we are not only dealing with this, that is, with the amelioration of the quality of life in this world.

The undertaking of a great reconciliation between fathers and children and a profound healing of their relationship is something that is important for a new evangelization. We know how much the relationship with an earthly father can influence, positively or negatively, one's relationship with the heavenly Father and thus the Christian life as well.

When the precursor, John the Baptist, was born the angel said that one of his tasks would be "to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers" [cf. Luke 1:17]. Today this is a task that is more important than ever.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Wednesday Liturgy: Spanish Homilies Read by a Layman

ROME, SEPT. 11, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Our parish has one Mass in Spanish. None of the priests and deacons is a native Hispanic, but the priests make every effort on their part to say Mass in Spanish. They are improving. I am one of the deacons and am fluent in Spanish, having lived in Spanish-speaking countries for several years. The pastor has his English homilies translated into Spanish. I read the Gospel in Spanish and sit down while a native Spanish-speaking layman reads the homily. Another priest has his English homily translated also, but he reads it himself. Is it permitted for the layperson to read the homily? -- R.M., Huntersville, North Carolina

A: In first place, one must duly recognize the zeal and effort made by many English-speaking priests in the United States to meet the pastoral needs of the growing Spanish-speaking population.

Learning a new language is never easy, and doing so when one is already advanced in life is yet more daunting.

That said, I do not believe that having a layperson read out a translation of a homily is a viable solution. It is likely to cause confusion and leave the impression that the layperson is actually giving the homily itself, a practice which has been repeatedly prohibited.

Also, a homily is more that just a text that is read; it is closer to a conversation, a personal communication in which the ordained minister explains God's word and exhorts the faithful to live in accordance with what they have heard. Therefore the personal element is very relevant to the efficacy of the communication itself.

With this in mind the best solution is always that the priest read his prepared text. My experience with Spanish speakers is that they are almost universally grateful and edified when the minister makes the effort to speak in their language. They are also very tolerant and forgiving of errors and slip-ups.

While having the deacon read the text avoids the problem of confusing ministerial roles, it is still an imperfect solution from the personal communicative point of view.

Since the deacon may also give the homily, it would probably be better that the pastor entrust him with this task until he acquires a sufficient dominion of the language. Of course, the pastor could indicate to the deacon the principal ideas that he would like the deacon to develop in the homily he delivers.

Another, less perfect, but legitimate, solution would be to deliver the homily in English while someone else, either the deacon or a layperson, either simultaneously translates the homily or reads a prepared text afterward. This kind of solution is more common when the Mass is celebrated by a foreign ecclesiastical dignitary who preaches in a language unknown to most of the hearers.

There might, however, be some extraordinary cases when the homily may be simply read by someone else due to some impediment on the part of the celebrant. This was the case in the final years of Pope John Paul II when his ability to speak clearly was increasingly impaired by illness.

There are many useful pastoral resources available on the Internet for priests and deacons. One of these, ePriest, has a special section offering Spanish-language homilies in text and audio.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Novenas and Devotions During Mass

ROME, SEPT. 11, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

In the wake of our column on mixing devotions and Mass (Aug. 28) a priest from Conway Springs, Kansas, asked for a clarification.

I had written: "[I]t is incorrect to mingle any devotional exercise such as a novena or non-liturgical litanies within the context of the Mass." Our correspondent asked: "Could you clarify the difference between 'non-liturgical litanies' and 'liturgical litanies'? Are the only 'liturgical litanies' those in the sacramentary (e.g., at the Easter Vigil or an ordination)? I was taught that certain litanies, such as of the Sacred Heart, were approved for use within a liturgy of the Church."

By "liturgical litanies" I referred to the various litanies specifically found in the liturgical books for the celebration of Mass as well as other sacraments (such as baptism, ordination and anointing of the sick) and sacramentals, such as the crowning of an image of Our Lady.

These would be the only litanies used as a specific rite within Mass, although some other forms of prayer, such as the prayer of the faithful and the Kyrie, are also technically litanies.

As our correspondent says, there are other approved litanies that may be used in public worship, such as during exposition (if consonant with the aims of adoration) and other public devotions and novenas. The principal approved litanies are found in the Roman Ritual and are also listed in the Enchiridion of Indulgences (concession 22.2 partial indulgence).

The litanies (liturgical and devotional) thus universally approved are the litanies of the Holy Name, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Precious Blood, Blessed Virgin Mary (those of Loreto and the Queenship, which is used as part of the order of crowning an image), St. Joseph and All Saints.

Many other litanies have been approved either for private use of the faithful or in some cases for particular groups.

Among such litanies are the litany of Jesus Christ Priest and Victim, much beloved by Pope John Paul II, and the litany of Divine Mercy, both of which are often prayed in common. Others, usually prayed privately by individuals, include the litany of the Holy Spirit, of the Infant Jesus, of the Blessed Sacrament, of the Passion, and for the souls in purgatory.

The distinction between private and public use derives above all from the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 1259.2). It forbade the public recitation of litanies that had not been approved by the Holy See. This prohibition included not only the public recitation of unapproved litanies by priests but extended to particular groups of the faithful who prayed in common without an ordained minister present.

This canon has not been retained in the present code. And while the law today is somewhat more flexible, it does not necessarily mean that all litanies formally approved for private use can now be publicly used.

There were and are good reasons for not multiplying the number of public litanies. Canon 839.2 of the 1983 Code directs the local ordinary to assure that "the prayers and pious and sacred exercises of the Christian people are fully in keeping with the norms of the Church."

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Article: Marriage Breakdown: Expensive and Divisive

By Father John Flynn, L.C.

ROME, SEPT. 10, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Marriage continues to decline in the United States, bringing with it numerous adverse consequences for individuals, and society in general. This is one of the main conclusions of a recent study.

The National Marriage Report released its annual publication "The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America 2007" this summer. The center is based at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

The authors of the study are two academics well-known for their writings on family and marriage issues: David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. They found that from 1970 to 2005 there was a decline of nearly 50% in the annual number of marriages per 1,000 unmarried adult women.

A significant proportion of this drop was simply due to delaying marriage until an older age. Nevertheless, more people simply don't marry or are unmarried, due to cohabitation and a decrease in the numbers of divorced people to remarry.

The report cites estimates that about a quarter of unmarried women 25-39 are currently living with a partner, and an additional quarter have lived with a partner at some time in the past. As well, over half of all first marriages are now preceded by living together, compared with virtually none 50 years ago.

Cohabitation is more common among those of lower educational and income levels, as well as those who are less religious than their peers.

Myths

The report also rebuts a couple of myths often used by anti-family forces. The first myth is that living together before marriage is useful in order to find out whether the couple can get along, thereby avoiding a bad marriage and an eventual divorce. This is not borne out by the facts, the report observes.

"In fact, a substantial body of evidence indicates that those who live together before marriage are more likely to break up after marriage," the report comments.

The report admits that there are diverse opinions over how the data can be interpreted, but at a minimum the authors conclude: "What can be said for certain is that no evidence has yet been found that those who cohabit before marriage have stronger marriages than those who do not."

The second myth refuted by the report is the affirmation that even though fewer are marrying, those who marry have higher quality marriages. Not so, reply Popenoe and Whitehead, noting that "the best available evidence on the topic" shows a decline over the last 25 years in the number of both men and women who affirm their marriages are "very happy."

Education's role

The report also reveals a growing social divide when it comes to marriage. Among those who have received a university education the institution of marriage has strengthened in the last couple of decades. College-educated women now marry at a higher rate compared with the rest of the population, and they are also less favorably inclined toward divorce than less educated women.

In addition, among those who delay marriage past age 30, college-educated women are the only ones more likely to have children after marriage rather than before.

There is, thus, a growing "marriage gap" in America, notes the report, between those who are well educated and those who are not.

In fact, for those without a university education, "the marriage situation remains gloomy," according to the report. This is due to a combination of a continuing decline in marriage rates and a growing percentage of out-of-wedlock births. By the year 2000, fully 40% of high school drop-out mothers were living without husbands, compared with just 12% of college-graduate mothers, states the report.

Since hitting a high point in the early 1980s, divorce has moderately declined. Overall, the lifetime probability of a first marriage ending in divorce or separation remains between 40% and 50%. The risk of divorce, however, varies quite notably. The chances of divorce are much higher for those who are poor, people who are high-school drop outs, and couples who marry as teenagers. Couples who have a family background of divorce, as well as those who have no religious affiliation, are also more likely to divorce.

Bottom line

In addition to the personal consequences, the breakdown in marriage and family life over the last few decades has had a severe economic impact. A section of the report looks at the economic benefits of marriage for society.

"Married couples create more economic assets on average than do otherwise similar singles or cohabiting couples," argues the report. Married couples live more frugally, as opposed to two adults living as singles, and they also save and invest more for the future. Men also tend to become more economically productive after marriage, earning between 10% and 40% more than do single men with similar education and job histories.

The increase in divorce has also resulted in more inequality and poverty. The report points out that a large body of research has shown that both divorce and unmarried childbearing increase child poverty. One study even went so far as to show that if family structure had not changed between 1960 and 1998, the black child poverty rate in 1998 would have been 28.4% rather than 45.6%, and the white child poverty rate would have been 11.4% rather than 15.4%.

Divorce also means higher costs for governments, due to such factors as welfare payments and increased juvenile delinquency. The nation's 1.4 million divorces in 2002 are estimated to have cost taxpayers more than $30 billion, the report affirms.

The increase in single-parent families also imposes a high cost on children. By 2006 some 28% of American children lived with just one parent. "This means that more children each year are not living in families that include their own married, biological parents, which by all available empirical evidence is the gold standard for insuring optimal outcomes in a child's development," commented Popenoe in his introductory essay to the report.

Reversing trends

Popenoe also asks how the breakdown in marriage and the family could be repaired. One way to do this is through a cultural transformation led by religion. With the passing of years, Popenoe continues, the United States and other countries have become ever more secular and individualistic. This is particularly the case among young people.

Strengthening religion and the family is one of Benedict XVI's common themes. The family is a priority of the new evangelization, he declared July 5 to a group of bishops from the Dominican Republic present in Rome for their five-yearly visit.

The Pontiff said, "The Church desires that the family truly be the place where the person is born, matures and is educated for life, and where parents, by loving their children tenderly, prepare them for healthy interpersonal relationships which embody moral and human values in the midst of a society so heavily marked by hedonism and religious indifference."

More recently, when responding to questions Sept. 1 posed by the youth gathered for an encounter with the Pope in Loreto, Italy, Benedict XVI stated that the marginalization affecting so many people today in part is due to the fragmentation of families.

The family, he pointed out, "should not only be a place where generations meet, but also where they learn to live, learn the essential virtues, and this is in danger." We need to make sure the family survives and is once more at the center of society, the Pope urged. A task more urgent than ever in the light of current trends.

Sunday, September 09, 2007

Father Cantalamessa on Following Christ

ROME, SEPT. 9, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by the Pontifical Household preacher, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, on the readings from today's liturgy.


* * *

If anyone follows me ...
23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time
Wisdom 9:13-18b; Philemon 9b-10, 12-17; Luke 14:25-33

The Gospel reading for today is one of those that we would be tempted to smooth out and sweeten because it seems too hard for men of today: "If anyone follows me without hating his father, his mother."

Let us immediately make one thing clear: It is true that the Gospel is sometimes provocative, but it is never contradictory. A little further on in the same Gospel of Luke Jesus firmly re-emphasizes the duty of honoring father and mother (Luke 18:20), and in regard to husband and wife he says that they must be one flesh and that man does not have a right to separate that which God has joined together. How, then, can he tell us to hate father and mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters?

We need to keep in mind a certain fact. The Hebrew language does not have comparatives -- it is not possible in Hebrew, for example, to speak of loving something "more" or "less" than another thing. It is only possible to speak of loving or hating. The phrase, "If anyone follows me and does not hate father and mother" should be understood in this way: "If anyone follows me, without preferring me to father and mother." To see that this is so we only need to look at the same matter in the Gospel of Matthew where Jesus says: "Whoever loved father and mother more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:37).

It would be a big mistake to think that this love for Christ enters into competition with the different human loves: for parents, husband and wife, children, brothers and sisters. Christ is no one's rival in love and he is not jealous of anyone.

In Paul Claudel's play "The Satin Slipper," the female protagonist, a fervent Christian, who is deeply in love with Rodrigo, exclaims to herself, almost finding it hard to believe: "Is it permitted, then, this love between creatures? Truly, God is not jealous?" And her guardian angel answers: "How could he be jealous of what he himself has made?" (Act 3, Scene 8).

Love for Christ does not exclude the other loves, but rather orders them. Indeed, it is in him that every genuine love finds its foundation and support and the necessary grace to be fully lived out. This is the meaning of the "grace of state" that the sacrament of marriage confers to Christian husbands and wives. It assures that in their love they will be sustained and guided by the love that Christ had for his Church.

Jesus does not disappoint nor deceive anyone; he asks everything because he wants to give everything; indeed, he has given everything. Someone might ask themselves: "But what right does this man have, who lived 20 centuries ago in an obscure corner of the world, to ask this absolute love of everyone? We do not need to look too far to find the answer, which is in his earthly life about which history tells us: It is because he first gave everything for man. "He loved us and gave himself up for us" (cf. Ephesians 5:2).

In the same Gospel Jesus reminds us what the benchmark and sign is of true love for him: "taking up your own cross." Taking up our own cross does not mean seeking out suffering.

Jesus did not seek out his cross; he took on himself in obedience to the Father what men put on his shoulders and with his obedient love transformed it from an instrument of torture into a sign of redemption and glory.

Jesus did not come to make human crosses heavier, but rather to give them meaning. It has been rightly said that "whoever looks for Jesus without the cross will find the cross without Jesus," that is, he will certainly find the cross but not the strength to carry it.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Wednesday Liturgy: Slide Shows at Homilies

ROME, SEPT. 4, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Are there guidelines for slide shows shown during the homily at Mass? Are there guidelines for who (pastor/bishop) can authorize slide shows? Are there guidelines for the music played during a slide show? Is it OK to have a slide show and no homily? -- M.M., Howell, New Jersey

Q: Each year, in our archdiocese, on two Sundays the homily at all the Masses is replaced by a recorded fund-raising appeal, one for the archdiocesan annual appeal and one for Catholic Charities. The celebrant does not give a separate homily. In the past it has been an audio recording; one year it was to be a video. I am not at all opposed to giving money to the archdiocesan appeal and Catholic Charities, but this seems like an abuse of the rubrics for Mass. -- B.W., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

A: The most recent norms regarding the homily are found in the instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum." Here are two key norms:

"[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself, 'should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate.'

"[67.] Particular care is to be taken so that the homily is firmly based upon the mysteries of salvation, expounding the mysteries of the Faith and the norms of Christian life from the biblical readings and liturgical texts throughout the course of the liturgical year and providing commentary on the texts of the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass, or of some other rite of the Church. It is clear that all interpretations of Sacred Scripture are to be referred back to Christ himself as the one upon whom the entire economy of salvation hinges, though this should be done in light of the specific context of the liturgical celebration. In the homily to be given, care is to be taken so that the light of Christ may shine upon life's events. Even so, this is to be done so as not to obscure the true and unadulterated word of God: for instance, treating only of politics or profane subjects, or drawing upon notions derived from contemporary pseudo-religious currents as a source."

It is clear, therefore, that the priest or deacon who gives the homily must be physically present. Thus, tapes or videos cannot replace the homily.

Likewise the proper place for an appeal is preferably after the post-Communion prayer, although in some cases a priest may effectively tie in a direct appeal with the themes of the liturgy during the homily. If a taped appeal is to be made, a priest may shorten his homily so as not to prolong the Mass.

It could be argued that when the bishop himself makes the tape or video, it is merely a modern version of a pastoral letter. These letters, which the bishop addresses to the whole diocese as its pastor, usually deal with matters of particular concern. Because of their importance they are sometimes read out at Mass in place of the homily.

A case could be made for this argument, but I believe that when dealing with regular annual appeals, and not some particular pastoral concern, it is still better to place them at the end of Mass and not replace the homily.

I am unaware of specific norms regarding the use of slide shows or presentations. But the norms above would certainly exclude the substitution of the homily by a presentation.

Another question is if they may be used as aids to the homily. The question has been debated among pastoral liturgists and I find the arguments against their use more convincing.

Images tend to remind people of television and thus they tend to induce a passivity that distracts from the core message being transmitted by the words.

Some would argue that "an image is worth a thousand words," but this is a fallacy for whatever message is suggested by an image is understood in words by our linguistic intelligence. We think and hear in words, and nothing is understood without words. The spoken word is indispensable for all interpersonal communication.

Faith, as St. Paul said, is transmitted above all by hearing -- which is one reason why preaching has always been privileged in Church practice.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: A Sacristan's Duties

ROME, SEPT. 4, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

After our piece on the duties of the sacristan (Aug. 21) a priest kindly notified us of a useful resource for sacristans. He wrote:

"Here is another resource for you in reference to the sacristan question. There is a manual called 'The Sacristy Manual,' published by Liturgy Training Publications, by G. Thomas Ryan. It gives some valuable information."

It is worthwhile mentioning that several Catholic publishing houses have issued useful liturgical guidebooks and resources addressing various aspects of liturgical service. For example, Paulist Press published this year W.T. Ditewig's "The Deacon at Mass," a very recommendable theological and practical guide to what the deacon should and should not do.

I would probably quibble with the author regarding a couple of minor technicalities, but then liturgists are wont to quibble over such things.

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Article: Desperately Seeking Absolution

Important: Nothing beats having to confess to a Catholic priest directly frequently! (Chipi)

Desperately Seeking Absolution

By Mollie Ziegler Hemingway

Thursday, June 14, 2007, 6:49 AM

The thirty-six-year-old man from Sunrise, Florida, had years’ worth of sin to unload. As he prepared to make a confession, he wondered where to begin. Finally, he just let it all out:

“I have been with women who were married. . . . I have done enough drugs to make Keith Richards envious!!!!! I have been extremely hot tempered and violent for the majority of my life. I have stolen things for drugs and money. I have disrespected my both my parents. I have disrespected my marriage by being unfaithful. Truth is I have just about done it all wrong.”

But this confession was not delivered to a priest or pastor. It was typed online at IveScrewedUp.com, a project that Florida’s Flamingo Road Church began at Easter. With the tag line “Confession is good for the soul,” the site says “We hope this is the beginning of a cool journey for you” and says the confessions will be discussed over eleven weekends and that the church hopes the penitents will “hang out with us.”

The site is one of a growing number—both secular and church-sponsored—where the guilty can unload their mental baggage. GroupHug.us has posted half a million confessions; MySecret.tv has more than ten thousand confessions and millions of readers; DailyConfession.com adds hundreds of confessions a day; and PostSecret.com is so popular that books reprinting the beautifully composed postcard confessions sent to the site are on bestseller lists. Anonymous penitents sharing their peccadilloes to an audience of untold numbers of voyeurs is a booming industry.

There’s nothing new with these sites. From 1980 to1995, New York conceptual artist Allan Bridge created The Apology Project, where he encouraged anonymous strangers to confess to his answering machine; from there confessions were compiled into a sporadically published underground magazine. Bridge eventually heard more than ten thousand confessions and had plans to move the project online before his death in 1995.

This market for confessions proves that sin eats away at individuals’ consciences. Although his Apology Project was completely secular, Bridge theorized that “the act of confession and apology is itself a creative act: an attempt to find meaning in the restructuring of one’s experience into a moral tale. Only by finding a moral can one turn the page and move on.”

While Bridge’s summation of his work is redolent with the requisite art-school pretension, the success of his project doesn’t necessarily justify his observation that Americans are eager to put their sin into a moral context greater than themselves. He’s right that many people are desperate to “turn the page and move on,” but it does not follow that they want to find the moral or even understand why they lost the plot in the first place.

While Bridge claimed the Apology Project helped participants “find meaning,” he turned other people’s sins into a profitable enterprise. The Apology Project was the subject of a novel, an HBO thriller, a New Yorker profile and episode of the popular radio program This American Life, among other works.

One of my favorite confessions from the project was from the man who had lost custody of his twin sons after taking pornographic pictures of them. But that wasn’t his confession. His confession was that he’d stolen a priest’s vestments by accident (he thought he was stealing a coat) and assumed a priest’s identity.

“And I heard some confessions, and—and—you know, tried to, you know, make people feel better. I didn’t think I was doing anything bad because I was making them feel better about what they were doing,” the faux-priest told the confession line. That someone would confess imitating a priest to someone imitating a priest is priceless.

And what embodies the American confessional more than daytime television? The Jerry Springer Show features dysfunctional families discussing their prurient problems—family rivalries, complicated extramarital affairs, emetophilia, etc.—before a live audience. Even the supposedly more respectful Oprah has the same model. Springer might have men who marry horses, but Oprah featured defrocked memoirist James Frey confessing and justifying his imagined drug-related sins to the cheers and sympathy of hundreds of Midwestern, middle-aged women.

Many online confession sites leave penitents shouting into the ether, uncertain of who is reading their confession. But LifeChurch.tv—a large evangelical church with “campuses” in multiple states—sponsors a confession site with a wrinkle: the aforementioned MySecret.tv, which gives voyeurs a chance to offer advice and commentary to penitents, some of whom write confessions of a most titillating and salacious kind. When a man explained that he lost, in a high-stakes poker game with a colleague, a pornographic videotape he’d made of himself, his wife, and a prostitute, the first response was: “Wow. That’s hot.”

So where, how, and when does forgiveness come into play, if at all? In what ways are these online confession sites or Oprah shows similar to what you might get from a traditional church’s means of confession? Does the confessing individual forgive himself? Does the community forgive? Where’s the absolution?

American society has placed confession and absolution on two wholly separate tracks. In the church, there is no separation: We confess that we are poor, miserable sinners who have failed to do good and have broken the Commandments. And God absolves us, forgives our sins on account of Jesus’ sacrifice in our place.

As Martin Luther said: “Now mark well what I have said often, that confession consists of two parts. The first is our work and doing, that I lament my sins and desire comfort and renewal of my soul. The other is a work which God does, who absolves me from my sins through His Word spoken by the mouth of man. This is the most important and precious part, as it also makes it lovely and comforting.”

Compare such a comment with the disclaimer that greets visitors to the Flamingo Road Church’s website: “By sending information to this website, the sender has granted Ivescrewedup.com a perpetual, royalty-free license to use, reproduce, modify, publish, distribute, and otherwise exercise all rights with respect to the information, at its sole discretion,” it says in part.

Flamingo Road pastor Troy Gramling says the goal of the online site and the eleven-week-series of discussions is to help congregants learn from their mistakes. This comment gives pause. In churches where private confession and absolution is taken very seriously, the reason why people do it before a priest or pastor is not primarily to learn from their mistakes, empower themselves, or confide in a therapist. The primary purpose is to be absolved.

With Oprah, Jerry, and online confession forums, we absolve ourselves. The culture views confession as psychologically therapeutic. By contrast, the “therapy” that the Church seeks to offer is the healing of the soul. That cannot happen with one’s computer. If the thousands of confessions dealing with online pornography and adulterous email relationships are any indication, penitents might want to forgo online confession and simply get away from the computer altogether.

There’s a flip side to the problem of confession without absolution, and that’s absolution without confession.

Take former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey, who inexplicably titled his memoir The Confession after he did anything but confess his sins. After a male aide claimed the married father sexually harassed him, McGreevey resigned from office with the line “My truth is that I’m a gay American.” This “confession” enabled him to escape from sexual harassment, bribery, and extortion charges. He also escaped from his vows to his wife. McGreevey confessed to suffering for being gay—not for doing anything wrong.

When Rep. Mark Foley was exposed as an ephebophile, he tied his resignation to revelations of his own adolescent sexual relationship with his priest and a drinking problem. Confession requires humility and recognition of one’s complete sinfulness. Blaming other people for the abuses you commit does not make for confession.

Former president Bill Clinton perfected the art of receiving public absolution without meaningful confession. In 1992 he was beset by questions about a well-documented affair with an Arkansas state employee. He neither confirmed nor denied that he had participated in extramarital affairs, but his nebulous acknowledgement of wrongdoing satisfied voters and carried him to the White House.

Thankfully, Americans are a forgiving people. When leaders say they screwed up, we have a hard time not letting them off the hook. But that means that public confession has often times been turned into just another tactic, as opposed to something done out of repentance—for example, it’s hard to find a plea for absolution from a Hollywood celebrity that doesn’t use the time-honored ploy of a trip to drug or alcohol rehab.

Political and celebrity pleas for such absolution usually work. We believe that if someone is even talking about their sinfulness, that somehow makes them better people. Of course, sometimes admitting imperfections without ever doing anything to improve is a great way to keep being a bad person. And is it too cynical to note that the power of these non-confession confessions often depends on their public nature? The admission of a “problem” is not a gut-wrenching aspect of humble penitence but a noble sacrifice worthy of public acknowledgment and reward. Fortunately, when celebrities and politicians slip up they have any number of mass media platforms available to them for offloading.

But the Internet, ever a relentlessly democratizing force, now brings the pseudo-confession as public manipulation into every home in America. Christianity teaches that we are born in sin and struggle with it throughout our lives. The age of the Internet has added a new Warholian twist on this idea, and not for the better. We’re all still sinners but only for fifteen minutes at a time, and relegated to the message board of our choosing.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a journalist in Washington, D.C. She blogs for GetReligion.org.