Catholic Metanarrative

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Wednesday Liturgy: Ensuring Enough Hosts for Good Friday

ROME, MARCH 27, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: If a priest is pastor of more than one parish church and divides up the celebration of the Easter triduum among these parishes, should he, for the liturgical action on Good Friday, consecrate extra hosts on Palm Sunday at the church where the Good Friday liturgical action is celebrated? Or should he transport extra hosts for the liturgical action in his car from the church where he celebrated the Mass of the Lord's Supper? Would it be permitted to allow the faithful to venerate the cross on Good Friday after the Stations of the Cross celebrated at a time and church distinct from the primary liturgical action of Good Friday? Would this veneration as devotion, not as liturgical rite, be inadvisable because it could confuse people? -- B.K., Garnett, Kansas

Q: I am a pastor in a sub-parish. A few days before Holy Week, two of my parishioners asked, "Father, is it possible for someone to come to the church on Good Friday with his or her own cross and, when it is time for veneration, do an act of veneration from where he or she is?" They asked me this (one of them was a nurse) for hygienic reasons: Some people might have a contagious disease. I tried to tell them that it is more appropriate to use one cross, and that is an act of faith, believing that our salvation came from one cross. And it is that same faith which prevents us from getting any contamination. My answer seemed not to satisfy them. -- J.C., Morogoro, Tanzania

A: As these questions relate to Good Friday, I will attempt to handle these together.

There is certainly a difficulty with a priest who has two or more parishes, but I fear that the solution proposed is not legitimate.

The 1988 circular letter "Paschales Solemnitatis" and the norms of the new Latin Missal are clear that the Mass of the Lord's Supper and the Good Friday service are related in such an intimate way that they should generally be celebrated in the same church. The document states:

"46. The Mass of the Lord's Supper is celebrated in the evening, at a time that is more convenient for the full participation of the whole local community. All priests may concelebrate even if on this day they have already concelebrated the Chrism Mass, or if, for the good of the faithful, they must celebrate another Mass.

"47. Where pastoral considerations require it, the local Ordinary may permit another Mass to be celebrated in churches and oratories in the evening, and in the case of true necessity, even in the morning, but only for those faithful who cannot otherwise participate in the evening Mass. Care should nevertheless be taken to ensure that celebrations of this kind do not take place for the benefit of private persons or of small groups, and that they are not to the detriment of the main Mass.

"According to the ancient tradition of the Church, all Masses without the participation of the people are on this day forbidden.

"48. The Tabernacle should be completely empty before the celebration. Hosts for the Communion of the faithful should be consecrated during that celebration. A sufficient amount of bread should be consecrated to provide also for Communion on the following day.

"49. For the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, a place should be prepared and adorned in such a way as to be conducive to prayer and meditation, seriousness appropriate to the liturgy of these days is enjoined so that all abuses are avoided or suppressed. When the tabernacle is located in a chapel separated from the central part of the church, it is appropriate to prepare the place of repose and adoration there.

"53. It is more appropriate that the Eucharist be borne directly from the altar by the deacons, or acolytes, or extraordinary ministers at the moment of communion for the sick and infirm who must communicate at home, so that in this way they may be more closely united to the celebrating Church.

"54. After the post-Communion prayer, the procession forms, with the crossbar at its head. The Blessed Sacrament, accompanied by lighted candles and incense, is carried through the church to the place of reservation, to the singing of the hymn 'Pange lingua' or some other eucharistic song. This rite of transfer of the Blessed Sacrament may not be carried out if the Liturgy of the Lord's Passion will not be celebrated in that same church on the following day.

"55. The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a closed tabernacle or pyx. Under no circumstances may it be exposed in a monstrance.

"The place where the tabernacle or pyx is situated must not be made to resemble a tomb, and the expression 'tomb' is to be avoided. The chapel of repose is not prepared so as to represent the 'Lord's burial' but for the custody of the eucharistic bread that will be distributed in Communion on Good Friday.

"56. After the Mass of the Lord's Supper the faithful should be encouraged to spend a suitable period of time during the night in the church in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament which has been solemnly reserved. Where appropriate, this prolonged eucharistic adoration may be accompanied by the reading of some part of the Gospel of St. John (chapters. 13-17).

"From midnight onwards, however, the adoration should be made without external solemnity, because the day of the Lord's passion has begun."

Therefore, since the tabernacle should be empty before the Mass of the Lord's Supper, it would not be correct to use hosts from Palm Sunday.

While the above norms do not positively exclude the possibility of privately bringing the hosts consecrated at the Mass of the Lord's Supper to another church for Good Friday (thus eliminating the possibility of having an altar of repose at either church), the general sense of Norm 54, as well as the description of the rites in the missal, presuppose that both rites are celebrated in the same church.

If the people of all the parishes cannot come together for a single celebration, then the possibility remains of requesting permission from the bishop of celebrating a second Mass of the Lord's Supper and consequently two celebrations of the Passion on Good Friday. It is certainly very taxing on the priest but is probably the best pastoral solution.

The celebration of the Easter Vigil is not associated in this way and may be celebrated independently of the other two functions. For how to set up the paschal candle in churches where the vigil is not celebrated, we suggested a possible solution on April 11, 2006.

With respect to the question of the veneration of the cross, the document indicates the following:

"68. For veneration of the cross, let a cross be used that is of appropriate size and beauty, and let one of the forms for this rite as found in the Roman Missal be followed. The rite should be carried out with the splendor worthy of the mystery of our salvation: both the invitation pronounced at the unveiling of the cross, and the people's response should be made in song, and a period of respectful silence is to be observed after each act of veneration -- the celebrant standing and holding the raised cross.

"69. The cross is to be presented to each of the faithful individually for their adoration since the personal adoration of the cross is a most important feature in this celebration; only when necessitated by the large numbers of faithful present should the rite of veneration be made simultaneously by all present.

"Only one cross should be used for the veneration, as this contributes to the full symbolism of the rite. During the veneration of the cross the antiphons, 'Reproaches,' and hymns should be sung, so that the history of salvation be commemorated through song. Other appropriate songs may also be sung (cf. n. 42).

"71. After the celebration, the altar is stripped; the cross remains however, with four candles. An appropriate place (for example, the chapel of repose used for reservation of the Eucharist on Maundy Thursday) can be prepared within the church, and there the Lord's cross is placed so that the faithful may venerate and kiss it, and spend some time in meditation.

"72. Devotions such as the Way of the Cross, processions of the passion, and commemorations of the sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary are not, for pastoral reasons, to be neglected. The texts and songs used, however, should be adapted to the spirit of the Liturgy of this day. Such devotions should be assigned to a time of day that makes it quite clear that the Liturgical celebration by its very nature far surpasses them in importance."

On the basis of these last two numbers I suggest it is inadvisable to combine the veneration of the cross with the Way of the Cross in any way, as it is more than likely to confuse the faithful.

Also, questions of hygiene should not be neglected in rites such as the veneration of the cross. If an objective danger exists, then proper measures should be taken to avoid contagion. God will not necessarily offer his protection in all such cases.

The solution, however, is not for each person to bring his or her own cross, as this would weaken the symbolism of the rite of veneration, but rather to substitute another gesture of veneration that does not require physical contact. The missal itself proposes the gesture of a simple genuflection before the cross as a possible sign of veneration, as well as other gestures belonging to the local culture.

Therefore, in areas where there is a fairly high risk of contracting a disease, the pastor could suggest the possibility that each person may make a genuflection or some other suitable gesture before the cross instead of the customary kiss.

Some readers asked about the rules of fasting. We dealt with this subject on March 14 and 28, 2006.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Ending the Morning and Evening Prayer

ROME, MARCH 27, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

After our March 13 column on morning and evening prayer, a reader from Honduras asked: "Regarding morning/evening prayer during holy Mass: Does either M/E prayer begin immediately after the sign of the cross or after the penitential rite? Does not the M/E prayer supplant the penitential rite? Do the rubrics for M/E prayer during holy Mass oblige everyone or can the bishop 'do whatever he wants'?"

When either morning or evening prayer is joined to Mass it may begin in one of two ways. Nos. 93-94 of the introduction to the Liturgy of the Hours outlines the procedure. While these rubrics allow for some flexibility, as universal law they oblige everybody including bishops:

"93. In particular cases, if circumstances require, it is possible to link an hour more closely with Mass when there is a celebration of the liturgy of the hours in public or in common, according to the norms that follow, provided the Mass and the hour belong to one and the same office. Care must be taken, however, that this does not result in harm to pastoral work, especially on Sundays.

"94. When morning prayer, celebrated in choir or in common, comes immediately before Mass, the whole celebration may begin either with the introductory verse and hymn of morning prayer, especially on weekdays, or with the entrance song, procession, and celebrant's greeting, especially on Sundays and holydays; one of the introductory rites is thus omitted.

"The psalmody of morning prayer follows as usual, up to, but excluding, the reading. After the psalmody the penitential rite is omitted and, as circumstances suggest, the Kyrie; the Gloria then follows, if required by the rubrics, and the celebrant says the opening prayer of the Mass. The liturgy of the word follows as usual.

"The general intercessions are made in the place and form customary at Mass. But on weekdays, at Mass in the morning, the intercessions of morning prayer may replace the daily form of the general intercessions at Mass.

"After the communion with its communion song the Canticle of Zechariah, Blessed be the Lord, with its antiphon from morning prayer, is sung. Then follow the prayer after communion and the rest as usual."

No. 96 indicates that vespers are joined with Mass in the same manner. Thus whenever one of these offices is joined to Mass the penitential rite is omitted. While the "Lord have mercy" may be omitted it is probably better to sing or recite it.

As No. 93 states, joining the office with Mass is for "particular cases when circumstances require"; it is not foreseen as a daily practice, especially in a parish setting. In this case it is probably better to celebrate both rites separately, omitting only the final blessing and dismissal at the end of the Divine Office.

Another reader, from Oregon, asked: "1) Please, could you explain why the Divine Office used in America is different from that used in other English-speaking [areas]. This may help us understand why there are prayers at the end of every psalm in the American version while in others, including the Latin original, there are no psalm prayers. 2) Please, could you also explain how any of the hours could be combined with Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament?"

Since questions of liturgical translation depend on each national episcopal conference, the U.S. bishops decided that they wanted their own translation of the Divine Office. As a result, there are two English-language versions: the four-volume U.S. version and the three-volume version for the rest of the world.

Those who are obliged to pray the Divine Office should normally use the official version for their country. Those who are not obliged, or any English speaker who lives in a non-English-speaking country, may choose either version.

All the same, as the complete breviary is a hefty investment, a priest who, for example, moves to the United States from another country, could continue to use the other English version, or pray the office in his native language or in Latin.

In these cases he should follow the local calendar regarding particular solemnities and feasts, and, as far as possible, particular memorials of saints. This may be done either by borrowing a local breviary for texts that only exist in that version, or using the texts found in the common.

I find that the American version of the English-language breviary is more user-friendly and more up-to-date with the celebrations of the new saints. The other English version has not been updated since the first edition in 1973 but is, in my opinion, a far better translation.

The psalm prayers are mentioned in No. 112 of the introduction: "Psalm-prayers for each psalm are given in the supplement to The Liturgy of the Hours as an aid to understanding them in a predominantly Christian way. An ancient tradition provides a model for their use: after the psalm a period of silence is observed, then the prayer gives a resume and resolution of the thoughts and aspirations of those praying the psalms."

The American editors decided to incorporate the psalm prayers found in the separate supplement into the text of the four-week cycle of psalms. These psalm prayers are always optional and may be omitted. When they are prayed, however, the norms are not clear if the prayer is recited before or after the repetition of the antiphon, as repeating the antiphon is also optional. Either way is probably legitimate.

The Liturgy of the Hours may be prayed before the Blessed Sacrament exposed, but there is no specific ritual that links the two practices into a single rite.

Monsignor Peter Elliott in his "Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite" describes the process with characteristic clarity:

"681. The Liturgy of the Hours, especially Lauds or Vespers, may be celebrated before the Blessed Sacrament exposed. In this case, the celebrant goes to the chair to commence the office, described below in Chapter 12. During the incensation of the altar, the celebrant and deacon(s) genuflect together whenever passing the monstrance. The copes, dalmatics and stoles should be of the color of the day or season, but the humeral veil is white.

"743. Vespers or Lauds may also be celebrated before the Blessed Sacrament exposed, as indicated in the previous chapter. Unless exposition has already commenced some time before the celebration of the hour, the procession enters, all kneel and the Host is exposed by an assistant deacon or priest. A eucharistic hymn is sung, and incense is offered as usual. Having reverenced the Blessed Sacrament, the celebrant then goes to the chair and commences the office.

"744. At the Magnificat, having prepared incense at the chair, the celebrant and assistants come before the altar, genuflect and kneel while the celebrant incenses the Eucharist. They rise, go up to the altar, genuflect and continue the incensation as usual, and they genuflect together whenever they pass the monstrance.

"745. Clergy and servers should take care not to turn their backs to the monstrance and to maintain a spirit of decorum and prayerful recollection appropriate to the occasion. The final intercessions of Vespers may be made standing before the altar. The final blessing and dismissal are omitted. The eucharistic hymn and incensation of the Host, the prayer and Benediction follow, as described in the previous chapter. Reposition may take place as usual, unless exposition is to continue beyond this liturgical celebration."

Monday, March 26, 2007

3rd Lenten Sermon of Father Cantalamessa

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 25, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the Lenten sermon delivered Friday by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa in the presence of Benedict XVI and officials of the Roman Curia. The Pontifical Household preacher delivered the reflection in the Redemptoris Mater Chapel of the Apostolic Palace.

* * *

1. The beatitudes and the historical Jesus

The research on the historical Jesus, so in fashion today -- whether it be conducted by scholars who are believers or the radical research of nonbelievers -- hides a grave danger: It can lead one to believe that only what, for this new approach, can be verified of the earthly Jesus is "authentic" while all the rest would be nonhistorical and therefore "inauthentic." This would mean unjustifiably limiting God's means for revealing himself to history alone. It would mean tacitly abandoning such a truth of faith as biblical inspiration and therefore the revealed character of Scripture.

It appears that the attempt not to narrow New Testament research to the historical approach is beginning to gain momentum among various biblical scholars. In 2005 a consultation on "Canon Criticism and Theological Interpretation" was held at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome with the participation of eminent New Testament scholars. The consultation had the purpose of promoting the aspect of biblical interpretation that takes the canonical dimension of the Scriptures into account and integrates it with historical research and the theological dimension.

From all this we conclude that the "word of God," and therefore that which is normative for the believer, is not the hypothetical "original nucleus" variously reconstructed by historians, but that which is written in the Gospels. The results of historical research must be taken seriously because they even guide the understanding of the posterior developments of the tradition; but we will continue to pronounce the exclamation "The Word of God!" at the end of the of the reading of the Gospel text, not at the end of the reading of the latest book on the historical Jesus.

These observations are particularly helpful when we deal with the use we should make of the Gospel beatitudes. It has come to be known that the beatitudes have reached us in two different versions. Matthew has eight beatitudes, Luke only four, followed by corresponding contrary "woes"; in Matthew the discourse is indirect: "Blessed are the poor ... blessed are the hungry"; in Luke the discourse is direct: "Blessed are you who are poor ... blessed are you who hunger"; Luke has "poor" and "hungry," Matthew has poor "in spirit" and hungry for "justice."

After all the critical work done to distinguish that which, in the beatitudes, comes from the historical Jesus and that which comes from Matthew and Luke,[1] the task of the believer of today is not to choose one of the versions as authentic and leave the other aside. What needs to be done rather is to gather up the message contained in both versions and -- according to the contexts and necessities of today -- give precedence, from time to time, to one or the other perspective as the two Evangelists themselves did in their time.

2. Who are the hungry and the satiated?

Following this principle, let us reflect today on the beatitude of the hungry, taking Luke's version as our point of departure: "Blessed are you who hunger, for you will be satisfied." We will see later that Matthew's version, which speaks of "hunger for justice" is not opposed to Luke's version but confirms and reinforces it.

The hungry of Luke's beatitude are not in a different category from the poor mentioned in the first beatitude. They are the same poor people considered in their most dramatic condition: the lack of food. In a parallel way the "satiated" are the rich, who in their prosperity, can satisfy not only their needs but also their wants in regard to food. It is Jesus himself who is concerned to explain who the satiated and who the hungry are. He does this with the parable of the rich man and the poor man Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). This parable also looks at poverty and prosperity under the aspect of lack of food and superabundance of food: the rich man "feasted sumptuously every day"; the poor man desired in vain "to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table."

The parable, however, explains not only who the hungry and the satiated are but also and above all why the former are called blessed and the latter are called unfortunate. "One day the poor man died and was carried by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried ... and was tormented in Hades." This reveals where the two roads lead: the narrow one of poverty and the broad and spacious one of thoughtlessness.

Prosperity and being satiated tend to enclose man in an earthly horizon because "where your treasure is, there is your heart" (Luke 12:34); gluttony and drunkenness weigh down the heart, suffocating the seed of the word (cf. Luke 21:34); they cause the rich man to forget that that very night he might be asked to give an account of his life (Luke 16:19-31); they make entering into the kingdom "more difficult than the passing of a camel through the eye of a needle" (Luke 18:25).

The rich man and the other rich people of the Gospel are not condemned just because they are rich but for the use they make or do not make of their riches. In the parable of the rich man Jesus makes it clear that there is a way out for the rich man: He could think of Lazarus at his door and share his sumptuous feast with him.

The remedy, in other words, is for the rich to make friends with the poor (cf. Luke 16:9); the unfaithful steward is praised for doing this but in the wrong way (Luke 16:1-8). Satiety, however, drains the spirit and makes it very difficult for one to follow the road to assisting the poor; the story of Zaccheus shows how it is possible but also how rare it is. Thus we can understand the reason for the "woe" directed to the rich and satiated; but it is a "woe" that is more of a "Look out!" than a "Be accursed!"

3. He has filled the hungry with good things

From this point of view the best commentary on the beatitudes of the hungry and the poor is that pronounced by Mary in the Magnificat.

"He has shown the strength of his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts; he has cast down the mighty from their thrones, he has exalted the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, he has sent the rich away empty-handed" (Luke 1:51-53).

With a series of strong aorist verbs, Mary describes a reversal and a radical change of places among men: "He has cast down -- he has exalted"; "he has filled -- he has sent away empty-handed." Something has already happened or typically happens in God's acting. Looking at history, it does not seem that that there has been a social revolution in which the rich, by a stroke, have been impoverished and the hungry have had their fill. If therefore what we expected was a social and visible change, history suggests that a lie has been told.

The reversal has happened, but in faith! The kingdom of God has been revealed and this has provoked a silent but radical revolution. The rich man is like a person who has set aside a large sum of money; during the night there is a coup d'�tat and the value of the money has dropped 100%; the rich man wakes up the next morning but he does not know that he has been reduced to poverty. The poor and the hungry, on the contrary, have gained an advantage because they are better prepared to accept the new reality, they do not fear the change; they have a ready heart.

St. James, addressing the rich, said: "Weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted" (James 5:1-2). Even here there is no report from the time of St. James that the wealth of the rich rotted in the granaries. What the apostle is saying rather is that something has come which has made the wealth of the rich lose all its value; a new wealth has been revealed. "God," St. James writes, "chose the poor of the world to make them rich with faith and heirs of the kingdom" (James 2:5).

More than an "incitement to cast down the mighty from their thrones and exalt the lowly," as it has sometimes been written, the Magnificat is a salutary admonition addressed to the rich and powerful about the tremendous danger they are courting; it is just like the "woes" Jesus pronounces in the parable of the rich man.

4. A parable with contemporary relevance

It is not enough for a reflection on the beatitude of the hungry and the satiated to stop at an explanation of their exegetical significance; it must also help us to read the situation around us with evangelical eyes and to act in accord with the meaning of the beatitude.

The parable of the rich man and the poor man Lazarus repeats itself today in our midst on a global scale. The two characters stand precisely for two hemispheres: The rich man represents the Northern Hemisphere (Western Europe, America, Japan); Lazarus is, with a few exceptions, the Southern Hemisphere. Two characters, two worlds: the "First World" and the "Third World." Two worlds of unequal greatness: What we call the "Third World" in fact represents "Two Thirds of the World." (The usage of this new term is growing.)

Someone has compared the earth to a spaceship on a voyage through the cosmos. In the spaceship one of the three astronauts consumes 85% of the resources present and takes it upon himself to try to grab the remaining 15%. Waste is normal in the rich countries. Years ago research conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture determined that of 161 billion kilos (354.9 billion pounds) of food products, 43 billion -- that is, a fourth -- end up in the garbage. If we wanted to, we could easily recover about 2 billion kilos (4.4 billion pounds) of this food that has been thrown away, a quantity that would be sufficient to feed 4 million people for one year.

Indifference -- pretending not to see, "passing to the other side of the road" (cf. Luke 10:31) -- is perhaps the greatest sin committed against the poor and hungry. Ignoring the great multitude of hungry, beggars, homeless, those without medical care, and above all those without hope for a better future -- Pope John Paul II wrote in the encyclical "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis" -- "means becoming like the rich man who pretended not to know the beggar Lazarus laying at his gate."[2]

We tend to put between ourselves and the poor double glass panes. Double panes -- much in use today -- prevent cold and noise from entering; whatever reaches us gets muffled and weakened. And in fact we see the poor move about, get upset, and cry out behind the television screen, on the pages of the newspaper and missionary magazines, but their cry reaches us from far away. It does not reach the heart or only touches it for a moment.

The first thing to do in regard to the poor, therefore, is to break the "double panes," overcome indifference and insensitivity, throw down the defenses, and allow ourselves to be invaded by a healthy unease on account of the frightening misery that there is in the world. We are called to share the sigh of Christ: "I feel compassion for this crowd that has nothing to eat": "Misereor super turba" (cf. Mark 8:2). When we have the occasion to see what misery and hunger is with our own eyes, visiting the villages in the rural interior or on the outskirts of great cities in certain African countries (this happened to me some months ago in Rwanda), we are choked up by compassion and left without words.

The elimination or reduction of the unjust and scandalous abyss that exists between the satiated and the hungry of the world is the most urgent and most enormous task that humanity has left undone as we enter the new millennium. It is a task in which the religions above all must distinguish themselves and cooperate beyond all rivalry. Such a momentous undertaking cannot be promoted by any political leader or power influenced by the interests of their own nation and often by powerful economic forces. The Holy Father Benedict XVI gave an example with the forceful appeal he directed to the members of the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See: "Among the key issues, how can we not think of the millions of people, especially women and children, who lack water, food, or shelter? The worsening scandal of hunger is unacceptable in a world which has the resources, the knowledge, and the means available to bring it to an end."[3]

6. "Blessed are they who hunger for justice"

I said at the beginning that the two versions of the beatitude of the hungry, that of Luke and that of Mark, do not pose alternatives but go together. Matthew does not speak of material hunger but of hunger and thirst for "justice." There have been two basic interpretations of these words.

One, in line with Lutheran theology, interprets Matthew's beatitude in light of what St. Paul will later say about justification through faith. To have hunger and thirst for justice means being aware of one's own need for justice and the impossibility of attaining it on one's own and therefore the need humbly to wait for it from God. The other interpretation sees in this justice "not that which God himself does or that which he grants but rather that which he demands from man";[4] in other words, the works of justice.

Following this interpretation, which has for quite some time been the more common and the more plausible exegetically, the material hunger of Luke and the spiritual hunger of Matthew are no longer unconnected. Helping the hungry and the poor is among the works of justice and, indeed, according to Matthew it will be the criterion for the separation of the just and the reprobate at the end (cf. Matthew 25).

All the justice that God asks of man is summarized in the double precept of love of God and neighbor (cf. Matthew 22:40). It is the love of neighbor that should move those who hunger for justice to concern themselves with those who hunger for bread. It is from this great principle that the Gospel acts in the social realm. Liberal theology understood this principle well.

"In no part of the Gospel," writes one of the most illustrious representatives of liberal theology, Adolph von Harnack, "do we find it taught that we should be indifferent to our brothers. Evangelical indifference (not worrying about food, clothing, the concerns of tomorrow) more than anything else expresses that which each soul should feel in regard to the world, in regard to its goods and enticements. However, when it is a question of our neighbor, the Gospel does not want to hear about indifference, but imposes love and piety. In other words, the Gospel considers the spiritual and temporal needs of our brothers as inseparable."[5]

The Gospel does not incite the hungry to seek justice on their own, to rise up. In the time of Jesus, unlike today, the poor had no theoretical or practical instrument to do this; so the Gospel does not ask of them the useless sacrifice of losing their lives following some zealot, some Spartacus. Jesus himself will confront the wrath and sarcasm of the rich with his "woes" (cf. Luke 16:14); he does not leave this job to the victims.

To try to find at all costs in the Gospel models and explicit invitations addressed to the poor and the hungry to rise up and change their situation on their own is foolish and anachronistic and loses sight of the true contribution that the Gospel can make to their cause. In this connection Rudolph Bultmann is right when he writes that "Christianity ignores every project for transforming the world and it does not have proposals to present for the reform of political and social conditions,"[6] even if this claim is in need of some qualification.

The way of the beatitudes is not the only way for confronting the problem of wealth and poverty, hunger and content; there are others, made possible by the progress of social consciousness, to which Christians rightly give their support and the Church guidance with its social teachings.

The great message of the beatitudes is that, regardless of what the rich and satiated do or do not do for them, even so, in the actual state of things, the situation of the poor and the hungry for justice is preferable to that of the former.

There are structures and aspects of reality that cannot be observed with the naked eye but only with the help of a special light, with infrared or ultraviolet rays. Much use is made of these in satellite photos. The image obtained with this light is very different and surprising for those who are used to seeing the same panorama in natural light. The beatitudes are like infrared rays: They give us a different image of reality, in fact the only true one because it shows what will remain after the "figure of this world" has passed.

7. Eucharist and sharing

Jesus has left us the perfect antithesis of the rich man's feast, namely, the Eucharist. It is the daily celebration of the great feast to which the master will invite "the poor, the deformed, the blind, and the lame" (Luke 16:21), that is, all the poor Lazaruses who are wandering about. In the Eucharist perfect "table fellowship" is realized: There is the same food and the same drink, and in the same amount for all, for the one who presides, for the one who arrives last, for the wealthiest and the poorest of the poor.

The link between material bread and spiritual bread was quite visible in the early Church, when the Lord's Supper, which was called "agape," took place in the context of a fraternal meal in which common bread and Eucharistic bread were shared.

To the Corinthians who were divided on this point St. Paul wrote: "When you meet together it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk" (1 Corinthians 11:20-22). This is a grave accusation; it intends to say: "Your gathering is no longer a Eucharist!"

Today the Eucharist is no longer celebrated in the context of a common meal, but the contrast between those who have more than enough and those who lack necessities has assumed a global dimension. If we project what Paul describes in the local church of Corinth onto the universal Church, we are disturbed by the realization that this (objectively but not always as a matter of guilt) is what is happening today. Among the millions of Christians on the various continents who will be participating in Mass next Sunday there will be those (such as ourselves) who will return to homes where they have every good from God at their disposition and there will be others who have nothing to give their children to eat.

The recent postsynodal exhortation on the Eucharist forcefully reminds us: "The food of truth demands that we denounce inhumane situations in which people starve to death because of injustice and exploitation, and it gives us renewed strength and courage to work tirelessly in the service of the civilization of love."[7]

The money which the Church designates for this purpose -- for the sustaining of the various national and diocesan charities, soup kitchens for the poor, initiatives for providing food in developing countries -- this is the best-spent money. One of the signs of the vitality of our traditional religious communities are the soup kitchens that exist in almost every city, which distribute thousands of meals every day in a respectful and hospitable climate. It is a drop in the ocean but even the ocean, Mother Teresa of Calcutta said, is made up of many small drops.

I would like to end with the prayer that we say every day before meals in my community: "Bless, O Lord, this food that from your bounty we are about to take, help us to provide also for those who have no food and grant that we may participate one day in your heavenly meal. Through Christ our Lord."

* * *

[1] Cf. J. Dupont, "Le beatitudini," 2 vol. Edizioni Paoline, 1992.
[2] John Paul II, "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis," No. 42.
[3] "Address of Benedict XVI delivered in the Vatican Apostolic Palace to members of the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See," Monday, January 8, 2007.
[4] Cf. Dupont, vol. 2, pp. 554 ff.
[5] A. von Harnack, "Il cristianesimo e la societ�," Mendrisio, Cultura Moderna, 1911, pp. 12 ff.
[6] R. Bultmann, "Il cristianesimo primitivo," Milano, Garzanti, 1964, p. 203.
[7] "Sacramentum Caritatis," No. 90.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Father Cantalamessa on Families

ROME, MARCH 23, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by the Pontifical Household preacher, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, on the readings for this Sunday's liturgy.

* * *

Jesus, the woman, and the family
Fifth Sunday of Lent
Isaiah 43:16-21; Philippians 3:8-14; John 8:1-11

The Gospel of the Fifth Sunday of Lent is about the woman surprised in adultery whom Jesus saves from stoning. Jesus does not intend to say with his gesture that adultery is not a sin or that it is a small thing. There is an explicit, even if delicate, condemnation of adultery in the words addressed to the woman at the end of the scene: "Do not sin anymore."

Jesus does not intend to approve the deed of the woman; his intention is rather to condemn the attitude of those who are always ready to look for and denounce the sin of others. We saw this last time in our look at Jesus' general attitude toward sinners.

As we have been doing in these commentaries on the readings for the Sundays of Lent, we will now move from this passage to expand our horizon and consider Christ's general attitude toward marriage and the family, as this can be discerned in all the Gospels.

Among the strange theses about Jesus advanced in recent years, there is also one about a Jesus who supposedly repudiated the natural family and all familial relationships in the name of belonging to a different community in which God is the father and all the disciples are brothers and sisters. This Jesus is supposed to have proposed an itinerant life like that of the philosophical school known as the Cynics in the world outside Israel.

There are words of Christ about familial bonds that actually perplex at first glance. Jesus says: "If someone comes to me and does not hate his father, his mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26).

These are certainly hard words but already the Evangelist Matthew is careful to explain the meaning that the word "hate" has in this context: "Whoever loves his father and mother ... son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:37).

Jesus does not ask us therefore to hate our parents and children, but to not love them to the point of refusing to follow Jesus on their account.

There is another perplexing episode. One day Jesus says to someone: "Follow me." And the man responds: "Lord, let me go first and bury my father." Jesus replies: "Let the dead bury the dead; you go and proclaim the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:59ff).

Some critics let loose on this. In their eyes, this is a scandalous request, disobedience to God who orders us to care for our parents, a clear violation of filial duties!

The scandal of these critics is for us a precious proof. Certain words of Christ cannot be explained as long as he is considered a mere man, even if an exceptional one. Only God can ask that we love him more than our father and that, to follow him, we even renounce attending our father's burial.

For the rest, from a perspective of faith like Christ's, what was more important for the deceased father: that his son be at home in that moment to bury his body or that he follow the one sent by God, the God before whom his soul must now present itself?

But maybe the explanation in this case is even more simple. We know that the expression, "Let me go and bury my father," was sometimes used (as it is today) to say: "Let me go and be with my father while he is still alive; after he dies I will bury him and come follow you."

Jesus would thus only be asking not to indefinitely delay responding to his call. Many of us religious, priests and sisters, find ourselves faced with the same choice and often our parents have been happier for our obedience to Jesus.

The perplexity over these requests of Jesus arises in large part from a failure to take into account the difference between what he asked of all indistinctly and what he asked only of those who were called to entirely share his life dedicated to the kingdom, as happens in the Church even today.

There are other sayings of Jesus which could be examined. Someone might even accuse Jesus of being the cause of the proverbial difficulty in agreement between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law since he said: "I have come to separate son from father, daughter from mother, daughter-in-law from mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:35).

But it will not be Jesus who divides; it will be the different attitude that each member of the family takes toward him that will determine the division. This is something that painfully occurs even in many families today.

All of the doubts about Jesus' attitude toward the family and marriage will fall away if we take into account the whole Gospel and not only those passages that we like. Jesus is more rigorous than anyone in regard to the indissolubility of marriage, he forcefully confirms the commandment to honor father and mother to the point of condemning the practice of denying them help for religious reasons (cf. Mark 7:11-13).

Just consider all the miracles that Jesus performed precisely to take away the sorrows of fathers (Jairus and the father of the epileptic), of mothers (the Canaanite woman, the widow of Nain!), and of siblings (the sisters of Lazarus).

In these ways he honors familial bonds. He shares the sorrow of relatives to the point of weeping with them.

In a time like our own, when everything seems to conspire to weaken the bonds and values of the family, the only thing that we have not set against them yet is Jesus and the Gospel!

But this is one of the many odd things about Jesus that we must know so that we are not taken in when we hear talk of new discoveries about the Gospels. Jesus came to bring marriage back to its original beauty (cf. Matthew 19:4-9), to strengthen it, not to weaken it.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Wednesday Liturgy: When Reading the Passion

ROME, MARCH 20, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: The music director of our parish has some rather liberal ideas of how he uses music during Mass. Once, the reading of the Passion was stopped at the moment when we were kneeling in remembrance of Christ's dying moment. The music director then had the assembly sing three verses of "Were You There." After the music, the Passion was completed. I find this more than a bit bizarre. Is this sort of practice considered something that is allowed during a Mass? -- C.S., Homosassa, Florida

Q: During the Gospel readings on Palm Sunday and Good Friday (the Passion of our Lord) the readings normally have parts assigned for the priest, the laity and other lectors. But in our parish, the choir director divides the readings in chunks between lectors and the priests and deacons without order. And the choir sings at particular places with a chorus that is not related to the Passion of Our Lord. Is that proper? -- E.K., San Diego, California

Q: Until a few years ago in our parish, people stood during the reading of the Passion as they always do when the Gospel is read. However, a pastor decided that since those readings were very long, people would concentrate better if they sat. When the words of Jesus' death are proclaimed, everyone kneels, and then they go back to sitting. I personally find it makes no sense to sit comfortably while listening to the words of the part of the Gospel which proclaim the most painful moments of Jesus' life, while during all other Masses of the year, we stand. -- M.P., Toronto

A: Since these three questions are closely related, I will attempt to answer them together.

In the Florida case, the music director is not doing a good job by interrupting the text of the Passion but rather shows a certain lack of knowledge of the ceremony's rhythm and tradition. The same could be said of the director in San Diego.

Likewise, neither the music director nor anyone else cooperating in the liturgy should be allowed to have the final word in organizing a liturgical celebration. It is incumbent upon a pastor to supervise and guide such participants so as to assure that the faithful receive an authentic Catholic liturgy.

In 1988 the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments published "Paschales Solemnitatis," a "Circular Letter Concerning the Preparation and Celebration of the Easter Feasts." Regarding Good Friday it states:

"58. On this day, when 'Christ our passover was sacrificed,' the Church meditates on the passion of her Lord and Spouse, adores the cross, commemorates her origin from the side of Christ asleep on the cross, and intercedes for the salvation of the whole world.

"64. The Order for the Celebration of the Lord's Passion (the Liturgy of the Word, the adoration of the cross, and Holy Communion), that stems from an ancient tradition of the Church, should be observed faithfully and religiously, and may not be changed by anyone on his own initiative."

Indeed, Good Friday is perhaps the most archaic of all liturgical services. For centuries it conserved elements, such as the general intercessions, that had disappeared from other parts of the liturgy.

"Paschales Solemnitatis" continues in No. 66: "The readings are to be read in their entirety. The responsorial psalm and the chant before the Gospel are to be sung in the usual manner. The narrative of the Lord's passion according to John is sung or read in the way prescribed for the previous Sunday (cf. n. 33). After the reading of the passion a homily should be given, at the end of which the faithful may be invited to spend a short time in meditation."

The aforementioned No. 33 says:

"The passion narrative occupies a special place. It should be sung or read in the traditional way, that is, by three persons who take the parts of Christ, the narrator and the people. The passion is proclaimed by deacons or priests, or by lay readers. In the latter case, the part of Christ should be reserved to the priest.

"The proclamation of the passion should be without candles and incense, the greeting and the signs of the cross are omitted; only a deacon asks for the blessing, as he does before the Gospel.

"For the spiritual good of the faithful the passion should be proclaimed in its entirety, and the readings which precede it should not be omitted."

This indication would appear to exclude any intervention of the choir; however, it is also common practice in some places, notably St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, to use a fourfold division of parts: Christ, narrator, other individuals, and the multitude. This latter role is carried out by the choir who sing phrases such as "Crucify him" in dramatic polyphony.

At the Vatican the Passion is thus sung in Italian on Palm Sunday and in Latin on Good Friday.

The fourfold division can also be used in a read Passion, with a group of readers taking the part of the multitude.

Other interventions of the choir -- such as singing songs that do not form part of the Gospel text or that interrupt its reading -- should be totally excluded from the celebration.

Finally, as our Toronto reader points out, most of the faithful attending the reading of the Passion expect to make the sacrifice of standing during the reading and associate themselves in this manner with the Lord's suffering. Of course, elderly people and anybody with particular physical difficulties who find it hard to remain standing for long periods can freely sit down if necessary.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Masses for Non-Catholic Officials

ROME, MARCH 20, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

In the wake of our response on praying for public officials (March 6) a West Hartford, Connecticut, reader commented: "Does the Gospel not say: 'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you'? This kind of righteousness that holds back prayers at Mass smacks of the attitudes of the Pharisees. Of course we ought to pray for these people at Mass."

I am in full agreement with this correspondent that we ought to pray for those who govern us, regardless of their religion. But I fear that he may have read too much into the original question.

Our original questioner made a precise technical query regarding the possibility of offering a public Mass "for the intentions" of a governing official who intentionally supports some very anti-Catholic policies. As we explained, this is quite different from asking God, even at Mass, for the overall physical and spiritual welfare of the same official.

I am sure that our original Brookfield, Connecticut, reader is more than sufficiently Catholic to pray often for the official in question who, from the sketch provided, certainly needs them.

Another reader, from Cork, Ireland, mentioned a slightly different case: "A good Methodist lady recently died in our town. Would it be wrong or unwise to pray for her soul publicly with permission from her relatives, or announce the details of her funeral rites? The latter I can see could be dodgy, as it is advertising going to a non-Catholic place of worship. What about praying privately for non-Catholic poor souls?"

As in many cases, there is no simple answer, since the specific pastoral context must be taken into account. From the tone of our correspondent's note I presume that the Methodist woman was well known in the area and esteemed by all.

In such a case I think that a pastor could very well mention the death and even include a petition for the repose of her soul in the prayers of the faithful.

This can be, and often is, done in other circumstances such as when prayers are offered at Mass for the victims of a tragedy that has impacted the national or local community, or when well-known public figures die.

It is also usually possible for a Catholic to be present at the funeral services of people of other faiths out of respect or friendship for the deceased. In such cases a Catholic may join in a prayer or psalm that is not contradictory to his faith. But he or she should not, for example, receive communion at a non-Catholic service, or participate in prayers that explicitly or implicitly deny fundamental Christian truths.

A Catholic may always pray for the deceased of other faiths. Indeed the Church often does so publicly, as in Eucharistic Prayer IV when we ask the Father to "Remember those who have died in the peace of Christ and all the dead whose faith is known to you alone."

Monday, March 19, 2007

2nd Lenten Sermon of Father Cantalamessa

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 18, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the Lenten sermon delivered Friday by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa in the presence of Benedict XVI and officials of the Roman Curia. The Pontifical Household preacher delivered the reflection in the Mater Redemptoris Chapel of the Apostolic Palace.

* * *

1. Who are the meek?

The beatitude on which we wish to meditate today lends itself to an important observation. It says: "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the land." Now, in another passage of the same Gospel, Jesus exclaims: "Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart" (Matthew 11:29). We conclude from this that the beatitudes are not a nice ethical program traced by the master for his followers; they are a self-portrait of Jesus! Jesus is the one who is truly poor, meek, pure of heart, persecuted for the sake of justice.

Here is the limitation of Gandhi's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, which he so much admired. For Gandhi the whole sermon might have just as well been considered apart from the historical person of Christ. "It does not matter to me," he once said, "if someone demonstrated that the man Jesus never lived and that what we read in the Gospels is nothing more than a production of the author's imagination. The Sermon on the Mount will always remain true in my eyes."[1]

On the contrary, it is the person and life of Christ that make of the beatitudes and the whole Sermon on the Mount something more than a beautiful ethical utopia; they make of them an historical reality, from which everyone can draw strength through mystical union with the person of the Savior. They do not merely belong to the order of duties but to the order of grace.

To see who the meek whom Jesus proclaims "blessed" are, it would be helpful to briefly review the various terms with which the word "meek" ("praeis") is rendered in modern translations: "meek" ("miti") and "mild" ("mansueti"). The latter is also the word used in the Spanish translations, "los mansos," the mild. In French the word is translated with "doux," literally "the sweet," those who have the virtue of sweetness. (There is no specific word in French for "meekness"; in the "Dictionnaire de spiritualité," this virtue is treated in the entry "douceur," that is, "sweetness.")

In German, different translations alternate. Luther translated the term with "Sanftmütigen," that is, "meek," "sweet"; in the ecumenical translation of the Bible, the "Einheits Bibel," the meek are those who do not act violently -- "die Keine Gewalt anwenden -- thus the non-violent; some authors accentuate the objective and sociological dimension and translate "praeis" with "machtlosen," "the weak," "those without power." English usually renders "praeis" with "the gentle," introducing the nuance of niceness and courtesy into the beatitude.

Each of these translations highlights a true but partial component of the beatitude. If we want to get an idea of the original richness of the Gospel term it is necessary to keep all the elements together and to not isolate any. Two regular associations, in the Bible and in ancient Christian exhortation, help us to grasp the "full meaning" of meekness: one is the linking of meekness and humility and the other is the linking of meekness and patience; the one highlights the interior dispositions from which meekness flows, the other the attitudes that meekness causes us to have toward our neighbor: affability, sweetness, kindness. These are the same traits that the Apostle emphasizes when speaking about charity: "Charity is patient, it is kind, it is not disrespectful, it is not angry." (1 Corinthians 13:4-5).

2. Jesus, the meek

If the beatitudes are a self-portrait of Christ, the first thing to do in commenting on them is to see how they were lived by him. The Gospels are from beginning to end a demonstration of the meekness of Christ in its dual aspect of humility and patience. Jesus himself, we pointed out, proposes himself as the model of meekness. Matthew applies to Jesus the saying of the Servant of God in Isaiah: "He will no wrangle or cry out, he will not break a bruised reed nor quench a smoldering wick" (cf. Mark 12:19-20). His entrance into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey is seen as an example of a "meek" king who refuses all ideas of violence and war (cf. Matthew 21:4).

The maximum proof of Christ's meekness is in his passion. There is no wrath, there are no threats: "When he was reviled he did not revile in return, when he suffered, he did not threaten" (1 Peter 2:23). This trait of the person of Christ was so stamped in the memory of his disciples that Paul, wanting to swear by something dear and sacred in his second letter to the Corinthians writes: "I entreat you by the meekness ("prautes") and the gentleness ("epiekeia") of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:1).

But Jesus did much more than give us an example of heroic meekness and patience; he made of meekness and nonviolence the true sign of greatness. This will no longer mean holding oneself alone above, above the crowd, but to humble oneself to serve and elevate others. On the cross, St. Augustine says, the true victory does not consist in making victims of others but in making oneself a victim: "Victor quia victima."[2]

Nietzsche, we know, was opposed to this vision, calling it "slave morality," suggested by a natural "resentment" of the weak toward the strong. According to him, in preaching humility and meekness, making oneself small, turning the other cheek, Christianity introduced a type of cancer into humanity which destroyed its élan and mortified life. In the introduction to "Thus Spake Zarathustra," Nietzsche's sister summarized the philosopher's thought in this way: "He believes that, on account of the resentment of a weak and falsified Christianity, all that was beautiful, strong, superior, powerful -- like the virtues that come from strength -- was proscribed and banned and thus the forces that promote and exalt life were diminished. But now a new table of values must be given to humanity, that is, the man who is strong, powerful, magnificent to excess, the 'superman,' which is presented to us with great passion as the goal of our life, our will, our hope."[3]

For some time we have been witnessing this attempt to absolve Nietzsche from every accusation, to domesticate and, in the end, Christianize him. It is said that at bottom he was not against Christ, but against Christians who made self-denial an end in itself, despising life and acting cruelly toward the body. Everyone has apparently betrayed Nietzsche's true thought, starting with Hitler. In reality, he would have been the prophet of a new era, the precursor of postmodernity.

One might say that there has been a lone voice to oppose himself to this tendency, the French thinker René Girard. According to him, all of these efforts have done an injustice, above all to Nietzsche himself. With a perspicacity unique for his time, Girard got to the heart of the matter. With Nietzsche we are faced with two absolute alternatives: paganism or Christianity.

Paganism exalts the sacrifice of the weak for the benefit of the strong and the advancement of life; Christianity exalts the sacrifice of the strong for the benefit of the weak. It is hard not to see an objective connection between Nietzsche's proposal and Hitler's program of eliminating whole groups of human beings for the advancement of civilization and the purity of the race.

Nietzsche does not just target Christianity, but Christ. "Dionysus against the Crucified: this is the antithesis," he exclaimed in one posthumous fragment.[4]

Girard shows that one of the greatest boasts of modern society -- concern for victims, taking the side of the weak and oppressed, the defense of the life that is threatened -- is in truth a direct product of the revolution brought by the Gospel. However, by a paradoxical play of imitative rivalries, these values have been claimed by other movements as their own achievement and this precisely in opposition to Christianity.[5]

In the previous meditation I spoke about the social relevance of the beatitudes. The beatitude of the meek is perhaps the clearest example, but what is said of it is valid for all the beatitudes. They are the manifesto of the new greatness, the way of Christ to self-realization, to happiness.

It is not true that the Gospel kills the desire to do great things and to esteem. Jesus says: "If someone wants to be first, he must become the least of all and the servant of all" (Mark 9:35). The desire to be first is thus legitimate, indeed it is recommended; it is only that the way to first place has changed: It is not reached by raising ourselves up above others, squashing them perhaps if they are in our way, but by lowering ourselves to raise up others together with us.

3. Meekness and tolerance

The beatitude of the weak has come to be extraordinarily relevant in the debate about religion and violence that was ignited following the events of 9/11. It reminds us Christians, above all, that the Gospel leaves no room for doubt. There are no exhortations to nonviolence mixed with contrary exhortations. Christians may, at certain times, distance themselves from it, but the Gospel is clear and the Church can return to it always and be inspired, knowing that it will find nothing else there but moral perfection.

The Gospel says that "he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16), but condemned in heaven, not on earth, by God not by men. "When they persecute you in one city," Jesus says, "flee to another" (Matthew 10:23); he does not say: "Fight back." Once two of his disciples, James and John, who were not welcomed in a certain Samaritan village, said to Jesus: "Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven upon them to consume them?" Jesus, it is written, "turned and reproved them." Many manuscripts also report the tenor of the reproof: "You do not know of which spirit you are. The Son of Man did not come to lose the souls of men but to save them" (cf. Luke 9:53-55).

The famous "compelle intrare," "constrain them to enter," with which St. Augustine, even if with a heavy heart [6], justifies his approval of the imperial laws against the Donatists, and which will be used afterward to justify the coercion of heretics, stems from an obvious forcing of the Gospel text, fruit of a mechanical literal reading of the Bible.

Jesus puts the line in the mouth of a man who had prepared a great feast and, faced with the refusal of those invited to come, he tells his servants to go out into the highways and hedges and "force the poor, the feeble, the blind, and the lame to come" (cf. Luke 14:15-24). It is clear from the context that "force" does not mean anything other than a friendly insistence. The poor and the feeble, as all the unfortunate, might feel embarrassed to come to the house: Wear down their resistance, says the master, and tell them to not be afraid to come. How often we ourselves have said in similar circumstances: "I was forced to accept," knowing that insistence in these cases is a sign of benevolence and not violence.

In a recent book on Jesus that has had a great deal of attention in Italy, the following statement is attributed to Jesus: "And those enemies of mine who did not want me to become their king, bring them here and kill them before me" (Luke 19:27) and it is concluded that it is to statements such as this that "supporters of 'holy war' have recourse."[7] Now it needs to be said that Luke does not attribute these words to Jesus, but to the king in the parable, and we know that all the details of the parable are not supposed to be transferred to reality, and in any case, they are to be transferred from the material to the spiritual level.

4. With meekness and respect

But let us leave aside these considerations of an apologetic sort and try to see what light the beatitude of the meek can shed on our Christian life. There is a pastoral application of the beatitude of the meek that is initiated by the first letter of Peter. It regards dialogue with the outside world: "Worship the Lord, Christ, in your hearts, always ready to answer whoever asks you the reason for the hope in you. But let this be done with meekness ("prautes") and respect" (1 Peter 3:15-16).

From ancient times there has been two types of apologetics, one that has its model in Tertullian, and the other that has its model in Justin; the one aims at winning, the other at convincing. Justin wrote a "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew," Tertullian (or his disciple) wrote "Against the Jews." Both of these styles have had their following in Christian writing (our Giovanni Papini was certainly closer to Tertullian than to Justin), but today the first style is preferred of course.

The martyr St. Ignatius of Antioch suggested to the Christians of his time, in relation to the outside world, this always relevant attitude: "Faced with their rage, be meek; faced with their arrogance, be humble."[8]

The promise linked to the beatitude of the meek -- "they will inherit the land" -- is realized on different levels; there is the definitive promised land of eternal life, but there is also the land which is the hearts of men. The meek win confidence, they attract souls. The saint of meekness and sweetness par excellence, St. Francis de Sales, often said: "Be as sweet as you can and remember that more flies are captured by a drop of honey than with a barrel of vinegar."

5. Learn from me

We could remain for a long time on these pastoral applications of the beatitude of the meek but let us pass to a more personal application. Jesus says: "Learn from me for I am meek." We might object: But Jesus himself was not always meek! He said, for example, not to oppose the evil doer and "to him who strikes you on the right cheek, turn and give him the other" (Matthew 5:39). However, when one the guards strikes him on the cheek during the trial before the Sanhedrin, it is not written that he gave him the other cheek, but that with calmness he replied: "If I said something wrong, show it to me; but if I spoke well, why do you strike me?" (John 18:23).

This means that not everything in the Sermon on the Mount should be understood mechanically in a literal way; Jesus, according to his style, uses hyperbole and images to better imprint the idea on the mind of his disciples. In the case of turning the other cheek, for example, what is important is not the gesture of turning the other cheek (which might sometimes serve more to provoke a person), but not responding to violence with violence, but to win with calm.

In this sense, his response to the guard is an example of divine meekness. To measure its range, it is enough to compare it to the reaction of his apostle Paul (who was himself a saint) in an analogous situation. When, during Paul's trial before the Sanhedrin, the high priest Ananias orders Paul to be struck on the mouth, he answers: "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!" (Acts 23:2-3).

Another matter should be clarified. In the same Sermon on the Mount Jesus says: "He who says to his brother: 'Idiot,' will be subject to the Sanhedrin; and he who says to him: 'Fool,' will suffer the fire of Gahenna" (Matthew 5:22). Now on many occasions in the Gospel Jesus turns to the scribes and the Pharisees, calling them "hypocrites," "fools" and "blind men" (cf. Matthew 23:17). Jesus also reproves the disciples, calling them "idiots" and "slow of heart" (cf. Luke 24:25).

Here the explanation is likewise simple. We need to distinguish between injury and correction. Jesus condemns the words said with anger and with the intention of offending the brother, not those that aim at making one aware of his error and at correcting. A father who says to his son that he is undisciplined, disobedient, does not intend to offend him but to correct him. Moses is called by Scripture "the most mild of all men on earth" (Numbers 12:3), and yet in Deuteronomy we hear him respond to the rebellious Israel: "Thus you repay the Lord, you foolish and senseless people?" (Deuteronomy 12:3).

Let us take are guide here from St. Augustine. "Love and do what you will," he says. If you love, whether you correct or not, it will be from love. Love does no evil to one's neighbor. From the root of love, as from a good tree, only good fruit can grow.[9]

6. The meek of heart

Thus we arrive on the proper terrain of the beatitude of the meek, the heart. Jesus says: "Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart." True meekness is decided there. It is from the heart, he says, that murders, wickedness, calumny come (Mark 7:21-22), as from the boiling within a volcano come lava, ashes, and fiery stones. The greatest explosions of violence begin, says St. James, secretly in "the passions that are stirred up within man" (cf. James 4:1-2). Just as there is an adultery in the heart, there is also a murder in the heart: "Whoever hates his own brother," writes John, "is a murderer" (1 John 3:15).

There is not only the violence of hands, there is also that of thoughts. Inside of us, if we pay attention, there are almost always "trials behind closed doors" going on. An anonymous monk has written pages of great penetration on this theme. He speaks as a monk, but what he says is not just valid for monasteries; he considers the example of inferiors in a religious community, but it is plain that the problem occurs in another way also for superiors.

"Observe," he says, "even for just one day, the course of your thoughts: You will be surprised by the frequency and the vivacity of the internal criticisms made with imaginary interlocutors. What is their typical origin? It is this: The unhappiness with superiors who do not care for us, do not esteem us, do not understand us; they are severe, unjust, or too stingy with us or with other 'oppressed persons.' We are unhappy with our brothers, who are 'without understanding, hard-bitten, curt, confused, or injurious.… Thus in our spirit a tribunal is created in which we are the prosecutor, judge, and jury; we defend and justify ourselves; the absent accused is condemned. Perhaps we make plans for our vindication or revenge."[10]

The desert fathers, not having to fight against external enemies, made of this interior battle with thoughts (the famous "logismoi") the benchmark for all spiritual progress. They also worked out a method for their combat. Our mind, they said, has the capacity to anticipate the unfolding of a thought, to know, from the beginning, where it will go: To excuse or condemn a brother, toward our own glory or the glory of God. "It is the monk's task," said an older monk, "to see his thoughts from afar"[11] and to bar their way when they go against charity. The easiest way to do it is say a short prayer or to bless the person that we are tempted to judge. Afterward, with a calm mind, we can decide how we should act toward him.

7. Put on the meekness of Christ

One observation before concluding. By their nature the beatitudes are oriented toward practice; they call for imitation, they accentuate the work of man. There is the danger that we will become discouraged in experiencing an incapacity to put them to practice in our own lives, and by the great distance between the ideal and the practice.

We must recall to mind what was said at the beginning: The beatitudes are Jesus' self-portrait. He lived them all and did so in the highest degree; but -- and this is the good news -- he did not live them only for himself, but also for all of us. With the beatitudes we are called not only to imitation, but also to appropriation. In faith we can draw from the meekness of Christ, just as we can draw from his purity of heart and every other virtue. We can pray to have meekness as Augustine prayed to have chastity: "O God, you have commanded me to be meek; give to me that which you command and command me to do what you will."[12]

"As the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on the sentiments of mercy, goodness, humility, mildness ("prautes"), and patience" (Colossians 3:12), writes the Apostle to the Colossians. Mildness and meekness are like a robe that Christ merited for us and which, in faith, we can put on, not to be dispensed from pursuing them but to help us in their practice. Meekness ("prautes") is placed by Paul among the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:23), that is, among the qualities that the believer manifests in his life when he receives the Spirit of Christ and makes an effort to correspond to the Spirit.

We can end reciting together with confidence the beautiful invocation of the litany of the Sacred Heart: "Jesus meek and humble of heart, make our hearts like yours" ("Jesu, mitis et humilis corde: fac cor nostrum secundum cor tutum").

* * *

[1] Gandhi, "Buddismo, Cristianesimo, Islamismo," Rome, Tascabili Newton Compton, 1993, p. 53.
[2] St. Augustine, "Confessions," X, 43.
[3] Introduction to the 1919 edition of "Also sprach Zarathustra."
[4] Friedrich Nietzsche, "Complete Works," VIII, Frammenti postumi 1888-1889, Milan, Adelphi, 1974, p. 56.
[5] R. Girard, "Vedo Satana cadere come folgore," Milano, Adelphi, 2001, pp. 211-236.
[6] St. Augustine, Epistle 93, 5: "Before I was of the opinion that no one should be forced into the unity of Christ but that we should only act with words, fight through discussion, and convince with reason."
[7] Corrado Augias and Mauro Pesce, "Inchiesta su Gesù," Milan, Mondadori, 2006, p. 52.
[8] St. Ignatius of Antioch, "Letter to the Ephesians," 10, 2-3.
[9] St. Augustine, "Commentary on the First Letter of John," 7, 8 (PL 35, 2023).
[10] A monk, "Le porte del silenzio," Milan, Ancora, 1986, p. 17 (Originale: "Les porte du silence," Geneva, Libraire Claude Martigny).
[11] "Detti e fatti dei Padri del deserto," edited by C. Campo and P. Draghi, Milan, Rusconi, 1979, p. 66.
[12] Cf. St. Augustine, "Confessions," X, 29.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Article: Is the Conscience Respected?

NEW YORK, MARCH 17, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a text by Carl Anderson,
vice president of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage
and the Family, regarding the respect for conscience in life issues.

* * *

THE CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE
Respect for Conscience in Common Law Countries

Carl Anderson
Vice President, John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and
Family
Supreme Knight, Knight of Columbus
Pontifical Academy for Life XIII General Assembly February 24, 2007

St. Thomas More is recognized in our time as one of the great defenders
of human dignity and the rights of human conscience. We are all
familiar with the famous lines from "A Man for All Seasons" regarding the role
of conscience: In his refusal to sign the oath, More says "what matters
to me is not whether it's true or not but that I believe it to be true,
or rather, not that I believe it to be true, but that I believe it."[1]

St. Thomas More is also rightly regarded as the model Catholic
government official when he says earlier in the play, "when statesmen forsake
their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties …
they lead their country by a short route to chaos."[2]

And how simply, yet profoundly, he set the standard for all those of
the Christian faith who serve in government when he said at the end,
"Tell the King, I die the King's loyal servant, but God's first."

Perhaps we might do well to regard Thomas More as a sure guide for
politicians, reminding them of his approach to government service. As "A
Man for all Seasons" recounts More as saying of his work as chancellor of
England, "I wish no man harm, I speak no man harm, I do no man harm and
if this be not good enough then … "

We might also regard St. Thomas More as a patron of husbands and
fathers. We may recall the way in which More is depicted at the end of his
trial in "A Man for All Seasons." He declares to the court which has just
condemned him that "It was not for the oath but because I would not
consent to the marriage."

Everything we know about St. Thomas More tells us that he cared deeply
for his family and that one of the reasons why he sought so desperately
to avoid a confrontation with the king was to protect his family. Yet,
finally, More was to sacrifice both his life and his family's security
for a principle that gave an eternal meaning and an eternal unity to
his family; that is, the sacramental nature of marriage.

Unquestionably, in agreeing to the dissolution of the king's marriage
there was also an implicit acceding to the possible dissolution of any
marriage. This was a point that could not have been lost on the
chancellor of England and a lawyer of the brilliance of Thomas More. Thus, one
of history's great statesman and men of conscience went to his death
for a principled defense of the sacramental unity of marriage.

Having said this we should remember the observation of Clarence Miller,
one of several editors of the "Complete Works of St. Thomas More." He
enumerates what scholars give as the various "grounds for More's
martyrdom: the integrity of the self as witnessed by an oath, the irreducible
freedom of the individual conscience in the face of an authoritarian
state, papal supremacy as a sign of the supra-national unity of Western
Christendom, past and present."

Then Miller writes, "All of these are true as far as they go. But in
the last analysis More did not die for any principle, or idea, or
tradition, or even doctrine, but for a person, for Christ. As Bolt himself
made More say in the play: "Well … finally … it isn't a matter of
reason; finally it's a matter of love."[3]

And so, I think it is entirely appropriate to remember St. Thomas More
as we explore the richness of the encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" and its
call to the Catholic people to build a culture of life and a
civilization of love. We should begin with recognition that "Evangelium Vitae"
rests, to a considerable extent, upon the foundation provided by John
Paul II's great encyclical on the "Splendor of Truth" and the moral
conscience.

"Veritatis Splendor" takes up the question of the obligations which
truth imposes on Catholics in democratic societies. It observes that the
demands of universal and unchanging moral laws may seem to contradict
"the uniqueness and individuality of the person" and even "represent a
threat to his freedom and dignity" (No. 85). The encyclical also admits
that "in a widely de-Christianized culture, the criteria employed by
believers themselves in making judgments and decisions often appear
extraneous or even contrary to those of the Gospel" (No. 88).

But then John Paul II writes what could have come from the thought or,
perhaps more accurately, from the spirituality of Thomas More. He
states, "It is urgent to rediscover and to set forth once more the authentic
reality of the Christian faith, which is not simply a set of
propositions to be accepted with intellectual assent. Rather, faith is a lived
knowledge of Christ, a living remembrance of his commandments, and a
truth to be lived out. … It is an encounter, a dialogue, a communion of
love and of life between the believer and Jesus Christ … (No. 88).

Or as More had put it, "finally it's a matter of love."

After so many years it is perhaps too easy to view the English Catholic
martyrs of the 16th century as having a sort of determination or even a
certain eagerness for their fate. But the following passage on the
subject of martyrdom written by More while he was in the tower poignantly
reveals something very different.

More wrote in "De Tristitia Christi" of the martyr's encounter with
Christ who says this to his follower: "You are afraid, you are sad, you
are stricken with weariness and dread of the torment with which you have
been cruelly threatened. Trust me. I conquered the world, and yet I
suffered immeasurably more from fear. I was sadder, more afflicted with
weariness, more horrified at the prospect of such cruel suffering drawing
eagerly nearer and nearer.

"Let the brave man have his high-spirited martyrs, let him rejoice in
imitating of them. But you, my timorous and feeble little sheep, be
content to have me alone as your shepherd, follow my leadership; if you do
not trust yourself, place your trust in me. See, I am walking ahead of
you along this fearful road."[4]

Few in the Church have more poignantly depicted the call to holiness
and spiritual perfection than More in this brief description of the
"sequela Christi" to martyrdom.

But the ultimate lesson which More gives us is that for the Catholic,
government service opens a horizon to a type of personal martyrdom.
Certainly, this was the case in More's life and throughout much of the 16th
century. It was equally true throughout much of the 20th century. And
it is also true in the beginning of the third millennium as we
increasingly face a new culture of death.

Politics which too often today has been the arena of personal
self-promotion and egocentrism should be understood rather by the Catholic as a
following of Christ which is open to martyrdom, if not of the bloody
martyrdom suffered by More, than a martyrdom of career and reputation. To
think otherwise is a disservice to the Catholic community and to be
dishonest with one's self.

We might say that John Paul II has a similar vision of the Catholic's
struggle in the face of an increasingly hostile culture when he wrote in
"Evangelium Vitae" the following: "Faced with the countless grave
threats to life present in the modern world, one could feel overwhelmed by
sheer powerlessness: Good can never be powerful enough to triumph over
evil!

"At such times the people of God, and this includes every believer, is
called to profess with humility and courage faith in Jesus Christ, 'the
Word of Life.' The gospel of life is not simply a reflection, however
new and profound, on human life. Nor is it merely a commandment aimed at
raising awareness and bringing about significant changes in society.
Still less is it an illusory promise of a better future. The Gospel of
Life is something concrete and personal, for it consists in the
proclamation of the very person of Jesus" (No. 29).

Thus, what Thomas More had suggested was the sure hope of those
suffering for the truth of the Catholic faith, John Paul II sees as the
guiding star of Catholics in the pro-life movement.

We see also in the life of Thomas More the truth recognized by the
Second Vatican Council when it observed in Gaudium et Spes that, "In the
depths of his conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on
himself, but which holds him to obedience" (No. 16).

In commenting on this reality of the moral life, John Paul II writes in
"Veritatis Splendor" that this law "serve[s] to protect the personal
dignity and inviolability of man, on whose face is reflected the splendor
of God" (No. 90).

As John Paul II continues, this "splendor" of God "is confirmed in a
particularly eloquent way by Christian martyrdom" (No. 90) which when
"accepted as an affirmation of the inviolability of the moral order, bears
splendid witness both to the holiness of God's law and to the
inviolability of the personal dignity of man, created in God's image and
likeness" (No. 92).

Thus, the martyr provides an invaluable and, one might even say,
irreplaceable contribution to the good of society "by reawakening its moral
sense" (No. 93). The moral sense to which the martyrdom of Thomas More
pointed is stated precisely in "Veritatis Splendor": "Only by obedience
to universal moral norms does man find full confirmation of his
personal uniqueness and the possibility of authentic moral growth" (No. 96).

The seeming contradiction between individual freedom and the moral law
is reconciled by the martyr with a beautiful transparency which reveals
the integrity of the human conscience to society.

"Evangelium Vitae" suggests that the encounter between the Christian
and society centers around several key "concepts" which go to the heart
of the Catholic citizen's life in a pluralistic, democratic society. The
Holy Father makes clear that what is at stake in the public debate
regarding abortion and euthanasia, for example, is not simply a
disagreement over "choices" within a pluralistic society, but is instead a grave
threat to the very survival of democracy (Nos. 18-20).

It has become a tenet of popular culture that the Western liberal
democratic ideal has now emerged triumphant in it great struggle with
totalitarian ideologies.[5] In his address to the United Nations, John Paul
II stated, "we are witnessing an extraordinary global acceleration of
that quest for freedom which is one of the great dynamics of human
history."[6]

However, for this pope, history does not represent some inevitable
evolutionary process toward the realization of democracy. Instead, the
present moment is "a turning point" which presents not only an opportunity
to realize the "universal longing for freedom" but also an enormous
threat to freedom. "Evangelium Vitae" (No. 18) points out that this threat
to freedom consists in a great contradiction lurking at the center of
democracy: abortion.

John Paul II begins his analysis of what he terms this "surprising
contradiction" with a deeply pastoral appreciation of the "tragic
situations of profound suffering" which can give rise to "decisions that go
against life" (No. 18).

The Pope takes note of the "suffering, loneliness, [and] total lack of
economic prospects, depression and anxiety about the future" which can
influence decisions regarding abortion, euthanasia and suicide. He
emphasizes that such circumstances can mitigate even to a notable degree
subjective responsibility and the consequent culpability of those who
make these choices which in themselves are evil."[7]

The personal tragedies which lead to decisions concerning abortion, for
example, do not represent the most profound threat to democracy,
however. Such acts are called "tragic" precisely because we recognize them to
be wrongful and we know that the actor has submitted in desperation to
circumstances which he or she felt unable to overcome. These tragedies,
in themselves, do not constitute a threat to the foundation of
democratic society because their "tragic" character testifies to the objective
evil of what is done.

Instead, John Paul II observes democratic society is imperiled by the
insistence that such objectively disordered acts, however subjectively
mitigated, must be transformed from crimes to "legitimate expressions of
individual freedom … and protected as actual rights (No. 18).

It is this inversion of "wrong" actions into "right" actions that John
Paul II insists constitutes "a direct threat to the entire culture of
human rights" (No. 18). This inversion is a direct threat to the future
of democracy because it establishes "a perverse idea of freedom" at the
very heart of democracy.

John Paul II describes this disordered freedom as one which "carries
the concept of subjectivity to an extreme" (No. 19). It is a concept of
freedom which "exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way, and
gives no place to solidarity, to openness to others and service of them"
(No. 19). In short, this concept of freedom ultimately makes democratic
communities impossible and destroys the foundation of democratic
structures because it erodes public consensus regarding the common good.

"Evangelium Vitae" thus moves the engagement between the Catholic and
contemporary society on questions of abortion and euthanasia to a more
dramatic and profound level. Rights advocates often claim that a true
regard for pluralism and democracy requires acceptance of abortion and
euthanasia. They argue that the social divisiveness surrounding these
issues can only be appropriately resolved by their "privatization" or
"deregulation."

In response, John Paul II maintains that the concept of freedom
implicit in abortion and euthanasia "rights" makes true respect for pluralism
and enduring democratic structures impossible. He observes in
"Evangelium Vitae" that such an accommodation is in reality an invitation for
whole communities or classes of people to be "rejected, marginalized,
uprooted and oppressed" (No. 18).

Thus, the abortion freedom, which presents itself as essential to the
realization of human freedom, instead becomes the vehicle by which the
rights of many are denied.

John Paul II traces the cause of this contradiction to the negation of
authentic freedom -- when a concept of freedom is proposed which "no
longer recognizes and respects its essential line with the truth" (No.
19). This separation of truth from freedom creates a culture in which
"any reference to common values and to a truth absolutely binding on
everyone is lost" (No. 20).

The inevitable consequence of this separation of freedom from truth is
to institutionalize a destabilizing form of conflict in communities. As
John Paul II writes, "If the promotion of the self is understood in
terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting
one another [and] society becomes a mass of individuals placed side by
side, but without any mutual bonds" (No. 20). The impossibility of
moral consensus within community ultimately makes impossible the common
life of communities and the realization of the common good.

The separation of freedom from truth also has implications for the role
of reason in public discourse. The greatest of these implications is
the marginalization of reason as the foundation of society. Thus,
"Evangelium Vitae" observes the community is increasingly unable to maintain
itself "as a community in which the 'reasons of force' are replaced by
the 'force of reason'" (No. 19). The result is that society is
increasingly unable to achieve consensus on important moral questions.

Too often this cultural transformation is hidden when the
abortion/euthanasia debate is seen as simply a contest between the freedom of the
individual and the imposition of morality by the state. "Evangelium
Vitae" re-focuses this discourse by opening up a more fundamental issue. The
encyclical views the abortion debate as not primarily an argument over
morality or even over the question of when human life begins or ends.

Instead, the most basic issue is a fundamental conflict over the nature
and the dignity of the human person. In reformulating the discussion in
this way, "Evangelium Vitae" underscores the fact that contemporary
man, for the first time, finds his freedom unhinged not only from the
truth of an objective, external moral order, but also from the moral truth
of his own nature and dignity.

This distortion at the center of the human person has diminished the
possibility of authentic human communion and community. It has left the
human person increasingly defenseless to accelerating threats from the
anti-life culture of nihilism and death.[8]

This anti-life culture threatens not only the life of the human person;
it threatens the life of the human conscience. Indeed, this anti-life
society, in the name of freedom of choice, threatens human life
precisely because it distorts and diminishes the human conscience. Thus, the
encounter between the culture of life and the culture of death takes
place primarily within the human conscience.

The culture of death has made Thomas More not just "a man for all
seasons," but a "man for all Catholics." The culture of death challenges all
of us to bear witness to the splendor of the Catholic conscience.

We should not be surprised that "Evangelium Vitae" calls for "a general
mobilization of consciences and a united ethical effort to activate a
great campaign in support of life" (No. 95). This mobilization of
consciences in defense of life by "the people of life and the people for
life" (No. 6) is at the center of the encyclical's vision of
evangelization.

It is also the foundation of John Paul II's approach to social justice
and the law. In this way, "Evangelium Vitae" provides an extraordinary
response to the "demoralization" of conscience brought about by the
widespread practice of abortion and euthanasia.

However, "Evangelium Vitae" was not the first time the Holy Father
proposed such a role for conscience in the transformation of society. In
reviewing the reasons for the collapse of Marxism throughout Eastern
Europe, John Paul II wrote in "Centesimus Annus" that "the fundamental
error of socialism is anthropological in nature," since socialism rejected
"the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision"
(No. 13).

"Centesimus Annus" makes clear the confrontation between the Church and
any political order which systematically denies human rights must be
focused within the conscience of each person. Like "Evangelium Vitae,"
this earlier encyclical asserts that the mission of the Church in
confronting such a culture is "to increase the sensitivity of consciences"
(No. 52).

"Centesimus Annus" observed that the collapse of communism behind the
Iron Curtain occurred because "the consciences of workers have
re-emerged in a demand for justice" (No. 26).

For example, in Poland in 1980, Father Jozef Tischner defined the
Solidarity movement as inherently linked to a "human dignity that is based
on the conscience of human beings." In a series of sermons given in
Krakow to the leaders of Solidarity, Father Tischner explained that "the
deepest solidarity is the solidarity of consciences."[9]

The "solidarity of consciences." which "Centesimus Annus" understood
was capable of bringing down the anti-life culture of Marxist
totalitarianism, is now proposed in "Evangelium Vitae" as capable of bringing down
the culture of death.

If, as it has been said, truth is the first victim of violence, then
the culture of death is also, and inescapably, a culture at war with the
truth. In fact, the culture of death can only continue in existence by
hiding the truth regarding the nature and dignity of the human person.
One of the most obvious falsehoods undergirding the culture of death is
it refusal to recognize the humanity of the child before birth.

Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun gave legal standing to this
masking of the truth when he wrote in Roe v. Wade -- the case which legalized
abortion throughout pregnancy -- that "We need not resolve the
difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective
disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at
any consensus …"[10]

When the culture of death is expressed in a legal system in this way it
surrounds the citizen and his conscience with a social environment
which separates him from the truth about who he is as a person. Thus, the
legal acceptance of abortion destroys not only the child but, in some
sense, every person.

Writing in 1978, Vaclav Havel provided a deep insight into this
phenomena. In "The Power of the Powerless" Havel wrote, "The profound crisis
of human identity brought on by living within a lie, a crisis which in
turn makes such a life possible, certainly possesses a moral dimension
as well; it appears, among other things, as a deep moral crisis in
society.

"A person who has been seduced by the consumer value system, whose
identity is dissolved in an amalgam of the accoutrements of mass
civilization, and who has no roots in the order of being, no sense of
responsibility for anything higher than his or her own personal survival, is a
demoralized person. The system depends on this demoralization, deepens it,
is in fact a projection of it into society."[11]

The person described by Havel as one "seduced by the consumer value
system": and one whose personality is "dissolved" into mass civilization
does not exist only in Marxist societies. A similar process of
"demoralizing" the human person is underway in the new culture of death within
Western democracies.

Havel's response is worthy of deep reflection precisely because it was
a response which sought to return to the politics of his native
Czechoslovakia a sense of morality in order that people might once again "be
able to live within the truth."[12] The rehabilitation of the
"demoralized" man requires precisely the rehabilitation of his conscience through
the restoration of the relationship between freedom and truth.

Writing during the Second World War, Jacques Maritain explored the
Christian foundations of democratic political structures. He found that in
the Western democracies Christianity had not been able to supplant the
secular conscience but that, instead, Christianity had been able to
achieve what he termed the "evangelical inspiration" of the secular
conscience.[13]

In "Christianity and Democracy," Maritain concluded that "what has been
gained for the secular conscience, if it does not veer to barbarism, is
faith in the brotherhood of man, a sense of the social duty of
compassion for mankind in the person of the weak and the suffering, the
conviction that the political work par excellence is that of rendering common
life better and more brotherly and of working so as to make of the
structure of laws, institutions and customs of this life a house for
brothers to live in."[14]

In short, Maritain proposed that there was an "evangelical inspiration"
of democratic principles which has made democracy possible. Reduced to
its essential character, this Christian "inspiration" of democracy
achieved a political consensus that "Machiavellianism and the politics of
domination" were to be rejected. In their place was established the idea
that "politics depends upon morality because its aim is the human good
of the community."[15]

Thus, Maritain saw a vital and irreplaceable role for the Christian to
engage democratic society at all levels of the political process. But
an "evangelically inspired" secular conscience is not the same as a
Catholic conscience or even a Christian conscience.

The difficulty all too often today is that the Catholic politician
possesses not a Catholic conscience, but a secular conscience with little
or no evidence of any evangelical inspiration. How often do we hear a
Catholic politician stating a political philosophy or guiding principles
that reflect or move beyond those values Maritain concluded had been
accomplished by the "evangelical inspiration" of the secular conscience?
We must expect more from a Catholic politician than a secular
conscience.

Yet, this obligation brings with it a dilemma. Joseph Cardinal
Ratzinger described it when he asked, how is it possible "to allow faith to
become effective as a political force without transforming it into yet
another element of power?"[16]

Cardinal Ratzinger also put the question in a slightly different way
when he asked, "How can Christianity become a positive force for the
political world without being turned into a political instrument and
without on the other hand grabbing the political world for itself?"[17]

To choose the wrong answer, of course, opens up the prospect of what
Jacques Maritain so aptly described as "the pharisaically Christian
state" -- the state which manipulates both faith and political power in
order to preserve existing power structures.

The answer of "Evangelium Vitae" goes in an entirely different
direction. It is a response which seeks to defend both the Christian and
secular conscience. In doing so, it responds within the context articulated
by the Second Vatican Council: "the civil authority must see to it that
the equality of the citizens before the law, which is itself an element
of the common good society, is never violated either openly or covertly
for religious reasons and that there is no discrimination among
citizens."[18]

"Evangelium Vitae" embraced the democratic ideal and seeks to
evangelize it through a community of believers transformed into a new "people of
life and people for life." Thus, the encyclical attempts to
rehabilitate the secular conscience in regard to the true principles of the
democratic ideal.

What "Evangelium Vitae" brings to this discourse (Nos. 18-24) is a new
awakening of moral sensitivity, the rehabilitation of the concept of
freedom, and the presentation of the role and dignity of conscience. This
threefold approach offers the only enduring opportunity for avoiding an
unprecedented abuse of human rights of the weak, handicapped and
defenseless now being foreshadowed by the culture of death.

This "inspiration" of the secular conscience is possible because, as
John Paul II has observed, "there is a moral logic which is built into
human life and which makes possible dialogue between individuals. … The
universal moral law written on the human heart is precisely that kind
of 'grammar.'"[19]

But we must ask ourselves what is the language which speaks this
"grammar"? It has been argued that the abortion "freedom means that women
must be free to choose self or to choose selfishly. … There is no easy
way to deny the powerful argument that a woman's equality in society
must give her some irreducible rights unique to her biology, including the
right to take the life within her life."[20]

What is surprising here is not so much the ideological basis of the
rhetoric of the abortion "freedom" but its explicit identification with
the culture of death.

But this is not all. If the "right" to abortion may not be limited by
the combined weight of an innocent human being's "right" to life and the
state's interest in the protection of human life, how is it to be
supposed that the "right" to abortion may be limited by a "right" of
conscience?

In contrast to this view of freedom, "Evangelium Vitae" rejects any
"notion of freedom which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute
way" (No. 19). John Paul II's insistence that freedom must have an
"essential link with the truth" is a claim that truth is linked first and
foremost not with some external moral code, but with the true identity and
the true dignity of the human person -- and this must include a
recognition of the inviolability of conscience.

As John Paul II reminded us at the United Nations, "Reference to the
truth about the human person is, in fact, the guarantor of freedom's
future."[21] It is only when the dignity of the human person is recognized
and respected in the public order that it is possible for men and women
to live not only in freedom but in truth.

Common law today is the basis for the legal systems of England and many
other countries formerly under British rule including the United
States, Canada and Australia, among others. England, the land of St. Thomas
More, is also the birthplace of common law. Common law was originally
derived from Natural Law and was seen as above and independent of the
state.[22] Many civil rights -- even those found in the U.S. Constitution
-- are attributed at least in part to the common law system.

"Common law emphasizes assent rather than domination, the community
rather than the state, moral authority rather than physical power."[23]
The system also recognized the value of precedent. However, as St. Thomas
More discovered, even English common law -- the independent tradition
of right and wrong within a community -- was unable to grant him an
exclusion from taking the Oath of Supremacy based on conscience, nor did it
save him from the block.

However, Thomas More held true to his beliefs -- and interestingly --
to common law as well. In his discourse on common law, William
Blackstone, one of its most famous commentator's and a man to whom the
foundational documents of the United States owe a great debt[24] wrote: "Nay, if
any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it [an act contrary
to divine or natural law], we are bound to transgress that human law, or
else we must offend both the natural and the divine."[25]

Thomas More certainly held fast to this principle, as "the king's good
servant, but God's first," however, King Henry made no allowance for a
man's conscience.

Thankfully, England and other common law countries grew more tolerant
of conscience in the years that followed, but to this day there is no
absolute standard in common law countries with reference to exemptions on
behalf of conscience for medical or pharmacy personnel confronted with
issues of conscience, and common law countries struggle to balance the
rights of conscience with perceived "rights" to various medical
procedures.

However, common law countries generally seem to be moving in the
direction of accepting at least some conscience claims, though there are
troubling exceptions. To follow their conscience, providers of health
services have sometimes had to pursue legal action, however, in many cases
the right to conscience seems to have prevailed in common law countries
and thus, in many instances, doctors, other medical staff and
pharmacists such countries can make successful moral objections to performing
certain procedures such as abortions -- or dispensing certain drugs, such
as so-called emergency contraception.

[I have limited this commentary to abortion and the dispensing of
abortifacients since they are the most likely to cause grave moral concern
among health care providers. Moreover, the apparent trend toward
allowing conscience exceptions for health care providers in this area may well
set a precedent in other (newer) areas of medicine fraught with ethical
dilemmas].

The trend toward freedom of religion and conscience has been building
over the past centuries. Certainly, the last hundred years have brought
a greater tolerance of religious ideas in England, with restrictions on
Catholic finally lifted in the early 19th century, and the United
States has, since the late 18th century enshrined religious freedom as a
preeminent right.

There is thus reason to hope that we may be moving toward a situation
in which the precedent will be established that provides a greater
understanding and accommodation of the conscience of the individual health
care provider. However, there is not unanimity of opinion and
contradictory decisions about the freedom of conscience in this area continue.
"'This issue is the San Andreas Fault of our culture,' said Gene Rudd of
the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. 'How we decide this is
going to have a long-lasting impact on our society.'"[26]

While many jurisdictions have moved to incorporate some element of a
conscience exemption into the law, especially in the areas of abortion
and contraception, the absolute right to such an exemption is not yet
universally accepted -- and is the subject of widespread debate and
lobbying by abortion advocates, who often seek to force those in the medical
profession to perform immoral procedures.[27]

Too common are opinions like that of philosophy professor Ken Kipnis:
"If your religious orientation is such that you can't discharge your
professional responsibilities, then you shouldn't take on those
responsibilities in the first place […] You should find other work."[28]

Fortunately the law has often been more generous to healthcare
professionals. With respect to abortion, an early example of a conscience
clause occurs in England. Section 4(1) of the Abortion Act of 1967, states:
"No person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any
statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment
authorised (sic) by this Act to which he has conscientious objection
[…]."[29]

While the burden of proof of the conscientious objection rests with the
person making the claim, a statement under oath that the person indeed
has such an objection "shall be sufficient evidence for the purpose of
discharging the burden of proof."[30]

"Section 4(1) of the 1967 Act … was not in the original bill, but was
introduced in response to concerns that doctors would be under pressure
to perform terminations against their beliefs. Interestingly, one
amendment that didn't make the final act proposed that, "no person [shall
be] … deprived of, or be disqualified from, any promotion or other
advantages by reason of the fact that he has such conscientious
objection."[31]

So it would seem, the protection, while better than nothing, is
limited.

Pharmacists in England also appear to enjoy the benefit of certain
conscience exemptions. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society allows some freedom
of conscience for pharmacists: "The Code of Ethics, Part 2A1(k) states
"that before accepting employment pharmacists must disclose any factors
which may affect their ability to provide services. Where pharmacists'
religious beliefs or personal convictions prevent them from providing a
service they must not condemn or criticise (sic) the patient and they
or a member of staff must advise the patient of alternative sources for
the service requested."[32]

However, because the guidelines do stipulate that a pharmacist must
"advise the patient of alternative sources for the service requested,"
pharmacists objecting to providing a particular prescription may find
themselves in the awkward position of having to be if not actors, at least
accomplices. Some have evidently refused to refer their patients, and
the legal consequences of such actions are, as of now, unclear.[33] In
fact, the issue of referral has become a sticking point in many common
law countries as health care professionals refuse to be involved in
immoral treatment in any way.

It seems that many common law countries have followed England in
allowing physicians and pharmacists to decline to dispense medical services
that they find morally unacceptable -- at least under certain
conditions.

In Canada, a 2002 article in the BC Catholic noted: "They remain
anxious, but Canadian nurses seem to have their right to conscientious
objection worked out, for the most part. The nurses' code of ethics and their
collective agreements recognize their right to withdraw from giving
care that offends their morality as long as the patients they tend are
placed in others' care …

"However, a recent contract cancellation at B.C. Women's Hospital, as
well as developments in other provinces, raises doubt as to whether
nurses do in fact enjoy unfettered freedoms of conscience and
religion."[34]

The article cites several examples of nurses whose hospitals were
forced to participate in abortions, though, in most of the cases, the
results -- sometimes after years of struggle --favored those who held to
their conscientious objection.

The Canadian Medical Association discourages any discrimination
stating: "No discrimination should be directed against doctors who do not
perform or assist at induced abortions. Respect for the right of personal
decision in this area must be stressed, particularly for doctors
training in obstetrics and gynecology, and anesthesia."[35]

"Pharmacists across Canada have the right to refuse to sell the
contraceptive as a 'matter of conscience' as long as they refer customers to
someone who will," the Daily Herald Tribune in Grande Prairie, Alberta,
reported earlier this year.[36]

Both in Canada and in Australia, things seem to be improving for
conscientious objectors. Many legal battles and debates over conscience were
seen over the past 20-30 years, with a shift in favor of conscience as
the norm.

Australia generally allows for conscience exclusions for doctors and
pharmacies. For example, in 2002, along with passage of a liberal
abortion law in Canberra, a conscientious objection amendment allowed doctors
to opt out of the procedure.[37] In many areas of the country including
the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia, Tasmania and
Victoria the law allows medical personnel to opt out of performing
abortions.[38]

The Age in Australia reported in 2003 that "[p]harmacists who are
morally opposed to selling emergency contraception can refuse to dispense
the drug but may leave themselves open to legal action."[39] In 2004 CNS
News reported that a pharmacist "who has moral objections is not
obliged to supply a product, but is expected to refer the customer to an
alternative source." The story went on to report that some pharmacists are
refusing "to refer customers to other suppliers."[40]

As recently as last year the debate continued in Australia: "Health
Minister Tony Abbott believed individual pharmacists had the right to
choose whether they supplied the morning-after pill. But the federal
opposition maintained pharmacists were obliged to offer a full range of
products, particularly in one-chemist towns."[41]

There is some gray area, to be sure, but overall, the idea of a
conscience-exemption for those morally opposed to procedures such as abortion
seems to be making headway in Australia.

In the United States, both the federal government and many states have
provided some conscience exemptions for doctors who are morally opposed
to abortion: "The dispute over abortion access began almost as soon as
the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the procedure in 1973. Six months
later, Congress carved out exceptions for doctors and hospitals with moral
objections to abortion. Forty-seven states passed similar laws.
Louisiana's, one of the most restrictive in the nation, says no one should be
forced to 'recommend or counsel' an abortion, either."[42]

More recently, Congress took steps to protect health care workers
whose consciences prevent them from performing abortions. The Weldon
Amendment became Federal Law in 2004 and gave "federal protection for health
care providers, including hospitals and insurers, who choose not to
participate in abortion."[43]

The amendment stated: "(1) None of the funds made available in this Act
[the federal Health and Human Services appropriations bill for Fiscal
Year 2005] may be made available to a federal agency or program, or to a
state or local government, if such agency, program, or government
subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to
discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for,
provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

"(2) In this subsection, the term 'health care entity' includes an
individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a
provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health
insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility,
organization, or plan."[44]

The amendment was not universally accepted. California' Attorney
General Bill Lockyer quickly filed suit to block the Amendment from taking
effect. [The case is still pending]. For pharmacists in the United
States, the laws vary according to state.

As of Aug. 1 of this year: "Four states -- Arkansas, Georgia,
Mississippi, and South Dakota -- have passed laws allowing a pharmacist to
refuse to dispense 'emergency contraception' drugs.

"Illinois passed an emergency rule that requires a pharmacist to
dispense FDA-approved contraception.

"Colorado, Florida, Maine, and Tennessee have broad refusal clauses
that don't specifically reference pharmacists, while California
pharmacists have a duty to dispense prescriptions and only can refuse when their
employer approves the refusal and the patient can still access the
prescription in a timely manner."[45]

Unresolved and troublesome issues remain, however. While pharmacists
and medical personnel can often have recourse to a conscience exclusion,
hospitals -- including Catholic hospitals -- are increasingly under
attack by laws requiring them to provide so-called emergency contraception
to rape victims.

"Connecticut is part of a growing number of states that are considering
or have passed legislation requiring hospitals to dispense Plan B or at
least provide information about the emergency contraception to rape
victims.

"According to advocacy groups, Massachusetts, California, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, South Carolina and Washington require hospitals to
dispense the drug. Catholic hospitals are not exempted from those laws,
yet the laws in New Jersey and New York include provisions to appease
the church that prevent the pill from being given if a woman is already
pregnant.

"Similar bills are pending this session in 12 states, including
Connecticut."[46]

The Connecticut bill was defeated, but the trend toward forcing
hospitals to provide unethical treatment is troubling. Also troubling is the
fact that abortion can be made nearly mandatory for physicians in
training, with career consequences if they opt out.

Such is already the case in New York City: "In July 2002 the 11 public
hospitals in New York City imposed mandatory abortion training for all
medical residents. Amid the bad news, an encouraging sign has been
reported. Some 25% (or 38 of the approximately 150 doctors in residency
training) have opted out of the abortion program, though doing so could
compromise their medical careers."[47]

Challenges to the conscience of a health care professional certainly
continue in common law countries, and the current system of dealing with
such issues in these countries is far from adequate, or uniform. The
problems will only grow as new unethical procedures become seen as "the
norm" by some and as a "right" by others.

A good overview of the situation in the United States, at least
occurred in 2002 when the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
submitted a statement to Congress, which included the following: "While the
principle of protection for conscience rights is widely acknowledged, its
implementation has been far from perfect, creating a need for more
comprehensive and forward-looking legislation. Most federal conscience
protections apply only to specific federal programs or are tied to the
receipt of federal funds (5).

"Their scope is limited by this fact, and by the narrow range of
procedures covered. Though the majority of states acknowledge and protect
rights of conscience, their laws suffer from similar inadequacies. Most of
these laws are limited to abortion. Only a few states protect health
care providers from being forced to perform sterilizations. Few existing
laws protect the full range of individuals and institutions that may be
involved in providing health care in our increasingly complex health
care system.

"Many states do not protect the rights of conscience with respect to
newly created technologies such as cloning or embryonic research, or even
current misuses of older technology such as 'surrogate' motherhood.
States have also not addressed the need to protect providers with respect
to new threats to human life at the end of life, such as
physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

"As noted by one commentator: 'As the range of medical technologies
continues to expand ... the number of medical services involving
potentially serious conflicts of conscience is certain to increase.'(6)

"Finally, with new organized threats to conscience on the horizon, it
is especially important for states to expand and strengthen their
existing protections now. These threats have become especially apparent in
recent years in the fields of abortion and contraception, as reviewed
below."[48]

Common law countries certainly have much to do to develop more fully
the ideal of a conscience clause for those in the medical field. However,
the fact that in most common law countries some accommodation at least
seems to be made for the conscience of those in the health care field
provides hope. It may also provide a precedent upon which we can work to
build a society that does not require any protector of life with moral
objections to unethical medical procedures to actively participate in a
culture of death.

It may seem that the discussion of the role of conscience of a Catholic
politician and of a Catholic health care provider are two distinct,
unrelated issues. However, if it is true that much of the difficulty for
Catholic politicians concerns the failure to adequately form a Catholic
conscience or to properly understand the implications of the demands of
conscience on one's public responsibilities, then it is difficult to
see how it will be possible in the future to fashion laws -- either by
legislative or judicial action -- that respect the rights of a properly
formed conscience.

Once again we are reminded of a scene from "A Man for All Seasons,"
this time of the conversation between More and his friend, the Duke of
Norfolk. It is clear that More's stand on conscience is really
incomprehensible to the duke since he asks More to join the other members of the
nobility in agreeing to the demands of the king for the sake of
friendship.

When More asks the duke whether after he has done what has been asked
whether the duke will then follow More into hell for violating his
conscience for friendship's sake, the duke complains of More's obstinacy. In
short, how can we expect those who have failed to take due care of
their own conscience to properly care for the consciences of others?

John Paul II has elevated the role of Catholics by insisting in
"Veritatis Splendor" and "Evangelium Vitae" that any moral consensus within
society must be one which recognizes the three fundamental principles of
the culture of life.

The first is the incomparable value and dignity of every human being
regardless of age, condition or race. This is especially true in the case
of the poor, the weak and the defenseless. And this is also true for
the dignity of the human conscience.

The second is that it is always a violation of human dignity to treat
anyone as an instrument or means to an end. Instead, every person must
be seen as good in himself or herself and never as an object to be
manipulated.

The third principle is that the intentional killing of an innocent
human being, whatever the circumstances and particularly in cases of
abortion and euthanasia, can never be morally justified.

In these moral principles we can see that the Church's mission in
building the culture of life is inseparable from the legacy of the Second
Vatican Council. This is especially the case in regard to the teaching of
the council on conscience, freedom and human dignity.

By insisting that the Catholic people must be "a people of life and for
life" (No. 6), John Paul II has outlined the mission of the Catholic
people in the conversion of culture. In this mission, "Evangelium Vitae"
presents a blueprint for Catholic identity in the third millennium in
which "the dignity of the person and the Gospel of life are a single and
indivisible Gospel" (No. 2).

In becoming "a people of life and for life" Catholics will bear witness
most truly to the truth, to conscience and to the possibility of
building a culture of life. But "a people of life and a people for life" can
only be so if it is at the same time "a community of consciences for
life" or what John Paul II might have called "a great solidarity of
consciences for life."

A Catholic people must have a Catholic conscience and that conscience,
to be Catholic, must be for life.

---------------------

ENDNOTES
1. Robert Bolt, "A Man for All Seasons" (New York: Random House, 1960),
p. 91.
2. Ibid., p. 22.
3. "Complete Works of St. Thomas More", ed. Clarence Miller (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1976), vol. 14, pt. 2, p. 775.
4. Thomas More, "De Tristitia Christi", "Complete Works of St. Thomas
More," ed. Clarence Miller (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976) vol.
14, pt. 1, pp. 3-4.
5. F. Fukuyama, "The End of History and the Last Man" (The Free Press,
New York 1992).
6. John Paul II, Address to the General Assembly of the United Nations,
October 5, 1995; L'Osservatore Romano (English edition, October 11,
1995) p. 8.
7. John Paul II's recognition in No. 18 of the suffering and sense of
hopelessness which often pervades these decisions against life and his
sensitivity in No. 99 in discussing pastoral responses to women who have
had abortions reflect the depth of commitment to "solidarity" which
runs through the encyclical.
8. Carl Anderson, "'Evangelium Vitae' e cultura post-moderna" in
Evangelium Vitae: Enciclica e Commenti (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Citta del
Vaticano 1995) also printed in L'Osservatore Romano 28 April 1995.
9. Jozef Tischner, "The Spirit of Solidarity" (Harper and Row
Publishers, San Francisco 1984) p. 4.
10. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
11. Reprinted in Vaclav Havel, "Living in Truth" (Faber and Faber,
London 1986), p. 62.
12. Ibid., p. 63.
13. Jacques Maritain, "Christianity and Democracy" (Ignatius Press, San
Francisco 1986) (first edition French 1943).
14. Ibid., p. 46.
15. Ibid., pp. 42-43. Certainly not all of Maritain's contemporaries
were as sanguine regarding the influence of Christianity in the modern
democracies. For example, Christopher Dawson wrote in 1938, "It may, I
think, even be argued that Communism in Russia, National Socialism in
Germany, and Capitalism and Liberal Democracy in the Western countries are
really three forms of the same thing, and that they are all moving by
different but parallel paths to the same goal, which is the
mechanization of human life and the complete subordination of the individual to the
state and to the economic process. Of course, I do not mean to say that
they are all absolutely equivalent, and that we have no right to prefer
one to another." See, Christopher Dawson, "Religion and the Modern
State" (Sheed and Ward, New York 1938), p. XV.
16. Joseph Ratzinger, "Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Essays in
Ecclesiology" (St. Paul Publications, New York 1988) (first edition
German 1987), p. 173.
17. Ibid., p. 216.
18. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration on Religious Liberty
Dignitatis Humanae, 6 (1965).
19. Address to the General Assembly of the United Nations, October 5,
1995, op. cit.
20. Naomi Wolf, "Our Bodies, Our Souls", The New Republic, October 16,
1995, p. 33.
21. Address to the General Assembly of the United Nations, October 5,
1995, op. cit.
22. Robert Clinton, "God and Man in the Law: The Foundations of
Anglo-American Constitutionalism." (Lawrence: Univ. of Kansas Press, 1997)
102-103.
23. James Stoner, Jr., "Common-Law Liberty: Rethinking American
Constitutionalism." (Lawrence: Univ. of Kansas Press, 1999) 5.
24. Wayne House, "A Tale of Two Kingdoms: Can There be Peaceful
Coexistence of Religion with the Secular State?" BYU Journal of Public Law.
(vol. 13, 1999) 221.
25. Quoted in Wayne House, "A Tale of Two Kingdoms: Can There be
Peaceful Coexistence of Religion with the Secular State?" BYU Journal of
Public Law. (vol. 13, 1999) 235.
26. Rob Stein, A Medical Crisis of Conscience in The Washington Post
July 16, 2006, A1, (online).
27. Feminist Majority Foundation, Feminist Daily Newswire Sept. 24,
2002
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=6910
28. Stein.
29. Abortion Act of 1967 quoted in
www.consciencelaws.org/Conscience-laws-United-Kingdom/LawUK01.htm
30. Ibid.
31. Jacky Engel, Abortion Law Reform and Conscientious Objection in the
United Kingdom in Nucleus October 2004.
http://www.consciencelaws.org/Conscience-Archive/Documents/Abortion%
20Law%20Reform%20UK.html#13.
32. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, Fitness to
Practise and Legal Affairs Directorate: Fact Sheet: Thirteen, Employing a
Locum/Working as a Locum. November 2005.
http://www.rpsgb.org/pdfs/factsheet13.pdf
33. Terry Sanderson, Nothing for the Weekend, in The New Humanist. May
3, 2005
34. Greg Edwards, Accommodating Conscience in The BC Catholic, Oct.
2002
http://www.consciencelaws.org/Examining-Conscience-Background/
Abortion/ BackAbortion29.html
35. http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/3218/la_id/1.htm
36. Pharmacists in Religious Community Balking at Plan B Pill in The
Daily Herald Tribune, Jan. 31, 2006, p. 7. (Lexis)
37. David McLennan, It's not over say abortion adversaries Canberra
Times. Aug. 24, 2002, C3. (Lexis)
38. http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/nwww/auslawprac.htm
39. Miranda Wood Morning-after Pill Available over the Counter in The
Age Dec. 28, 2003
40. Patrick Goodenough, Objecting Pharmacists Refuse to Sell
'Morning-After-Pill' Cybercast News Service Jan. 6, 2004
41. Danielle Cronin, Morning After Pill Refused: 'Battleground' over
Contraceptives Supply in Canberra Times. April 2, 2005 A9. (Lexis)
42. Bill Walsh, Wording Bolsters Foes of Abortion: Women in Senate are
Ready to Fight It in Times Picayune Nov. 29, 2004, National 1, (Lexis).
43. http://www.nrlc.org/federal/ANDA/HydeWeldonwebnrlnews.html
44. Ibid.
45. States look at pharmacist 'conscience' laws regarding EC in
DrugFormulary Review Aug. 1, 2006, (Lexis).
46. Susan Haigh, Connecticut Bishops Pursuing Stricter Interpretation
of Abortion, Associated Press, March 12, 2006, (Lexis).
47. http://www.projectreach.org/nycDoctors.shtml
48. http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/abortion/kansas202.htm

[Text adapted]