Catholic Metanarrative

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Wednesday Liturgy: Marian Masses in Lent and Advent

ROME, FEB. 26, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: The Masses for the weekdays (including Saturdays) of Lent and Advent are assigned Masses. Yet there are Masses in the Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary for the Lenten season and for the Advent season. When is it permitted to use the liturgies from this Collection of Masses during Lent and Advent? -- J.M., Washington, D.C.

A: As No. 21 of the Introduction to the Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary indicates, the collection is destined above all for use in Marian shrines.

These shrines frequently have permission from the Holy See to celebrate Masses of Our Lady on days that would otherwise not be permitted according to the norms of the General Roman Calendar, such as during Advent and Lent.

This concession is usually granted for all days except those indicated in Nos. 1-6 of the table of liturgical days found in most editions of the Roman Missal.

This faculty is usually reserved to priests on pilgrimage or for celebrations for groups of pilgrims and with the requirement to generally use the seasonal readings and not those of the Marian Lectionary (Introduction, No. 31).

For this reason the Masses assigned to Advent, Christmas, Lent and Easter are usually not permitted in settings such as parishes, which do not enjoy any exemption from the rules of the General Calendar. The calendar forbids most votive Masses during these seasons.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 376, does say, however: "On obligatory memorials, on the weekdays of Advent up to and including December 16, of the Christmas Season from January 2, and of the Easter Season after the Octave of Easter, Masses for Various Needs, Masses for Various Circumstances, and Votive Masses are as such forbidden. If, however, required by some real need or pastoral advantage, according to the judgment of the rector of the church or the priest celebrant himself, a Mass corresponding to such a need or advantage may be used in a celebration with a congregation."

Thus, should such an authentic need for a Marian celebration arise during the above-mentioned times, the pastor could choose one of the corresponding Masses from either the Roman Missal or the collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

There are also exceptions which allow two of these formulas to be used outside of the assigned season during ordinary time. No. 28 of the Introduction says that the Christmas formula "Holy Mary of Nazareth (no 8)" may be used if a group of faithful desires to commemorate Mary's exemplary conduct at Nazareth. Likewise, the Lenten formula "Mary Virgin, Mother of Reconciliation (no 14)" may be used when Mass is celebrated in the context of seeking reconciliation and harmony.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Purification of Sacred Vessels in U.S.

ROME, FEB. 26, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Our Feb. 12 column touched on the Holy Father's decision not to renew the indult permitting extraordinary ministers of holy Communion to assist in the purification of the sacred vessels. Subsequently, several readers asked if I could give further explanations as to the reasons behind the decision.

Not being privy to the discussions between the Pope and the U.S. bishops, I think it is necessary to take at face value the reasons cited in Cardinal Francis Arinze's letter. That letter emphasized that the possible manners of distributing Communion rendered the need for many vessels moot, and it did not seem opportune to derogate from a general law that applied to the whole Church.

It is necessary to understand that the norm reserving purification of the vessels to an ordained minister or instituted acolyte applies to the celebration of Mass, or a Communion service presided over by an ordained minister, in which the Church acts as a hierarchically arrayed community. In such a community each minister fulfills his or her precise ministry.

During Mass, the role of extraordinary minister of Communion is to assist the priest and deacon in distributing the Eucharist when this assistance is requisite. No other roles are foreseen for extraordinary ministers during Mass.

Outside of Mass, duly authorized extraordinary ministers may perform other duties such as taking Communion to the sick, conducting Communion services when no ordained minister is available, and exposing the Blessed Sacrament for adoration. In performing these deeds extraordinary ministers offer an invaluable service to the Church and to the good of souls.

In such specific cases, as is logical, authorized extraordinary ministers may perform duties that are normally reserved to the priest or deacon at Mass, such as taking the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle, reserving it after Communion or adoration, and, consequently, also purifying any sacred vessels that need purifying.

Another reader asked why the instituted ministries of lector and acolyte are reserved to males, while readers, servers and extraordinary ministers may be of either sex.

In 1972 Pope Paul VI published an apostolic letter, "Ministeria Quaedam," in which he announced his decision to abolish the erstwhile "minor orders" of porter, lector, exorcist and acolyte and the "major order" of subdeacon, hitherto received in steps by all candidates to the priesthood. Paul VI replaced these orders with the two ministries of lector and acolyte. The new ministries were no longer reserved to seminarians. But because of the historic connection of the ministries with the sacrament of orders, the Holy Father decided that they would be open only to laymen.

In the same document, Paul VI also abolished the historic rite of first tonsure, which canonically ascribed a seminarian to the clerical state. Henceforth, one would be a cleric only upon receiving ordination to the diaconate.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Article: The Peter Pan Syndrome

PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

Why are so many young men — including me — afraid of commitment these days, wonders Zack. Why won't we grow up? Professor Theophilus explains.

As we left campus to catch a bite of lunch, Zack stopped at a pastel green building the locals call Guacamole Memorial. It's a private dorm, the largest in the student ghetto. He glanced at his Mickey Mouse watch. "D’you mind if we turn in here first, Prof? I forgot something."

"Would you like me to wait outside?"

"No, you can come in."

All in all I wished I hadn't; faculty could hardly be more conspicuous in a place like this. Besides, it was co-ed, and as we passed girls in various stages of dress, I felt as though I were visiting a house of ill repute. Zack noticed my uneasiness and laughed.

"After a while you get used to it, Professor T."

"I don't see how."

"There are two theories about that. One is that with all these girls living on the same floor you do, you start feeling like they're sisters. Incest taboo, you know?"

"What's the other theory?"

"Well, there's a lot of incest."

A few paces further was his door. Turning the key, he said "C'mon in. Don't step on the skateboard. I'll be just a sec."

My eyes scanned the room. On the bed was a water gun version of an AK-47 assault rifle; next to it, a pile of comic books. On the desk perched a video game console, decorated with five or six Beanie Babies and a Pokémon. From the ceiling hung a model of a Star Wars craft – I think it was the Millennium Falcon. On the floor, a business textbook was opened to the section on Bayesian analysis; alongside it, a copy of Horton Hears a Who was opened to the section where Horton is vindicated. A couple of limp mylar balloons were attached by laces to a pair of sour athletic shoes. Zack thrust his arm into a pile of clothes, thrashed around, and pulled out a leather wallet. "That's lucky," he said. "I was worried that the washing machine might have hurt it. Let's go."


"I'm terrified to grow up," he blurted. "Lots of my friends are too. Some of them even more than me. Except they don't know it, or else they think that's normal. Why are so many people like that?"


By prearrangement, we headed for the Edge of Night. He ordered a fried egg sandwich, I called for my usual Reuben. No sooner had we given thanks than he got down to business.

"The reason I invited you to lunch, Professor Theophilus, is that I wanted to ask your opinion about something."

"Go ahead."

"What's wrong with me?"

I studied him across the table. "What makes you think there's something wrong with you?"

"Lots of things. For one, next semester I graduate, and I've just been admitted to the M.A. program in my field."

"Do you call that bad?"

"It is if you don't need an M.A."

"But, Zack, if you don't need one —"

"Then why am I planning on getting one? That's just it: I don't know."

"I see."

"Here's another thing. There's this girl, Julie. I think you know her."

"I've seen you with her. Nice girl."

"Well, I'm crazy in love with her. And she says she loves me too."

"Do you call that bad?"

"It is if I don't want to marry her."

"Don't you?"

"I do and I don't."

"Why?"

"That's just it: I don't know that either." He ran both hands through his hair. "I'll never find anyone like her. I can see myself growing old with her. If I don't act soon I'll lose her forever. But I keep telling myself that I can't."

"Do you feel that you're not good enough for her?"

"Of course I'm not good enough for her — nobody could be. But that's not it."

"What is it, then?"

"I must be crazy! Do you think I'm crazy?"

"I wouldn't say crazy."

"What would you say? That I can't handle responsibility?"

I pulled at my beard and considered him. "I happen to know your advisor, Zack. He has nothing but good to say about your senior thesis. And last year, when you ran the Speakers Program for the Student Christian Council, I heard that you were the best chairman they'd ever had. So it isn't that you can't handle responsibility."

He was silent.

"I think you're just afraid to grow up."


"You see, once enough young women stopped holding out for marriage, the bargaining position of the ones who did hold out was undercut. As my grandmother used to say, 'Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?'"


"I'm terrified to grow up," he blurted. "Lots of my friends are too. Some of them even more than me. Except they don't know it, or else they think that's normal. Why are so many people like that?"

"A better question would be 'Why are you like that?'"

"I don't know. I guess I think I'll make a mess of things."

He changed the subject.

"Were people of your age afraid of growing up?"

"Lots of people my age still haven't grown up," I said.

"Has it always been that way?"

"I'd say 'No.' Historically, some people have been afraid of growing up, but most have looked forward to it. Even adolescence is an invention of modern times. Prolonged adolescence is more recent still."

"How recent?"

"1950s or 60s, I'd say."

"Isn't that your generation?"

"Yes, we have a lot to answer for."

"What made it different from the generations that came before?"

"Lots of things."

"Like what?"

"Too many to list them all."

"Then list some of them."

I sighed. "Too much free time. Too few responsibilities. Too much disposable income. Enormous high schools in which teens imitated each other instead of grown-ups. Mass higher education for people who weren't really interested in it. Separation of the generations as families moved around to catch economic opportunities. Loss of traditions. Rise of 'experts.' Decline of Christian faith. Resulting loss of the eternal perspective. With that, an increasing inability to set distant goals even for this life. That's just for starters."

"What do you mean, 'just for starters'?"

"I mean that there's an even bigger reason for the change."

"What?"

"The collapse of sexual mores. And with sexual mores went something else: The ancient tacit covenant among all women. You see, once enough young women stopped holding out for marriage, the bargaining position of the ones who did hold out was undercut. As my grandmother used to say, 'Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?'"

"Like most of my friends do."

"Right. But the next part of the story concerns you particularly."

"How do you mean?"


"To a small boy, his father is more than his father — he's his vision of his future, his portrait of adult manhood. If that vision is discredited, then growing up itself is discredited."


"The other big result of sexual laxity was that divorce rates shot up like rockets. This had all sorts of bad effects. A child idealizes his parents. If they couldn't stay married, he thinks, then how could he? He may even blame himself for the divorce. And so he expects to make a mess of things, as adults always do."

Zack looked stricken.

"Worse yet, a lot of divorce means that a lot of kids grow up without dads. If a boy's father deserts his mother, the very idea of fatherhood is diminished in his eyes. That's a catastrophe, and I don't just mean that he's sad about it. To a small boy, his father is more than his father — he's his vision of his future, his portrait of adult manhood. If that vision is discredited, then growing up itself is discredited."

The stricken look on Zack's face continued to deepen.

"This sense of disillusionment spreads through the —"

"Please stop, Professor T."

"I'm sorry."

"No, it's okay. I just need to stop listening for a minute."

We finished our sandwiches. I asked for an espresso. Zack signalled for a refill on his soft drink. He set it down, took a long breath, then exhaled.

We looked at each other.

"So how does a guy —"

"A man, Zack. You're 22."

"I don't feel like one."

"But you are one."

"Then how does — a man — of 22 — start growing up?"

I thought for a little while.

"There are two main things. One was known even to the pagans. The other is a mystery of Christian faith."

"Go on."


"In order to grow up, you've got to start acting like a grown-up. Whatever you do consistently, for good or ill, you become."


"The thing that even the pagans knew is that in order to grow up, you've got to start acting like a grown-up. It's the same with every trait of character. To become courageous, you practice the actions of courageous people. To become frank and open-hearted, you practice the actions of frank and open-hearted people. Whatever you do consistently, for good or ill, you become."

His brow furrowed. "That sounds circular."

"Think about it."

"What's the other one — the Christian thing?"

"Your earthly model of manhood may have been defective, even absent, but a flawless one once walked on earth and reigns in heaven, from which He will return in power. Focus your gaze on the perfect Manhood of the perfect Father's Son. Study it, pray about it, meditate on it — and copy it."

For a long time Zack looked at me goggle-eyed. Then he collected himself, folded his arms, and smirked.

"So you say. But if I'm supposed to do that, then what's Julie supposed to do?"

I wasn't about to be sidetracked.

"Well, Zack," I said, "she can hold you to it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Professor Theophilus (aka J. Budziszewski). "The Peter Pan Syndrome." Boundless Webzine (March 15, 2001).

Boundless wants to cast a vibrant vision for the single years, helping students and others navigate this season while preparing for the challenges and responsibilities of the one to come. Boundless is a work of Focus on the Family.

Reprinted with permission of J. Budziszewski.

THE AUTHOR

J. Budziszewski (Boojee-shefski) earned his doctorate from Yale University in 1981. He teaches at the University of Texas in Austin, in the Departments of Government and Philosophy where he specializes in the relations among ethical theory, political theory, and Christian theology. The focus of his current research is natural law and moral self deception. J. Budziszewski is a former atheist, former political radical, former shipyard welder, and former lots of other things, including former young and former thin. He's been married for more than thirty years to his high school sweetheart, Sandra, and has two daughters. He loves teaching. He says he also loves contemporary music, but it turns out that he means "the contemporaries of Johann Sebastian Bach." He deserted his faith during college but returned to Christ a dozen years later and entered the Catholic Church at Easter 2004. Among a number of other books, he is the author of Ask Me Anything: Provocative Answers for College Students, How to Stay Christian in College, What We Can't Not Know: A Guide, The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man, and Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law. J. Budziszewski is on the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Copyright © 2008 J. Budziszewski

Article: Return to Neverland

PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

Love is in the air … sort of. Professor Theophilus addresses two young ladies' romantic dilemmas.

Dating Peter Pan

Dear Professor Theophilus:

I've been friends with a guy for about eight years, since we were both freshman in college. After graduation, we took jobs in the same city. We get together once or twice a month for full-day adventures in which we go to museums, have long conversations over coffee, go to church together, take photos together, see movies, and go out for lunch or dinner. Usually we split the bill. I maintain that these outings are dates; he disagrees.

During the first year we knew each other, our relationship was romantic. Afterward we grew apart and had serious relationships with other people. Now, we're just really good friends. Neither of us have been in a serious relationship for about three years, but we've still kept our relationship platonic — we don't even hug. But lately, I find that I do have feelings for him, and I think that they are somewhat reciprocated.

However, he says he doesn't want to pursue a relationship with me, or with any girl, because he doesn't think he is ready to get married, and is questioning whether he ever wants to get married. I think he is being immature, as he isn't preparing himself either for marriage or lifelong singleness; I think he just enjoys the benefits of being a bachelor.

I want to break off our friendship, but he says that I am being selfish. Is this kind of selfishness wrong?

Reply

Your name wouldn't be Molly by any chance, would it? No, of course not. You're real; she's fictional. But she could have written your letter. Molly is the girlfriend of long-running Office Hours character Mark Manasseh. They've been dating for several years. The problem? Same as yours. He doesn't admit that they have been dating or that she is his girlfriend.


There is a calling to marriage and a calling to lifelong consecrated celibacy, but there isn't any calling to permanent adolescence. That's not a vocation, it's a condition.


I congratulate your clear vision. For years I've tried to convince my readers that social activities with the opposite sex are inherently unlike social activities with the same. Call them what they are: Dates. Even if we regard them as platonic, they have a different quality. If continued, they arouse different expectations, and they lead to different things. The difficulty is that you can't convince people of what they already know, especially if they are shutting their eyes to it. Your eyes are already open. Good for you.

I also want to congratulate you for your maturity, realism and courage. Why for your maturity? Because one of the things it means to be grown up is to discern and prepare for one's vocation. There is a calling to marriage and a calling to lifelong consecrated celibacy, but there isn't any calling to permanent adolescence. That's not a vocation, it's a condition. But I see that you have a firm grip on the Peter Pan Syndrome.

Why for your realism? A young woman who does have a vocation for marriage would be nuts to throw away her youth hanging around with a man who won't get serious. The biblical "threescore years and ten" pass more quickly than we think. Besides, one of the purposes for which God ordains marriage is children. After a certain age, fertility plummets like a stricken dove. I am guessing that you understand this too.

Finally, why for your courage? As you see clearly, then there comes a point when you must say to a young man, "Now make up your mind." But to do that takes firmness of mind. What if he refuses? What if he says, "I can't decide whether I want you as my wife, or whether I want any wife — why can't we go on as we have?" But refusing to choose is a choice; the meaning of "I can't decide" is "Here is my decision: I want you not as my wife, but as my entertainment." You have the valor to say "goodbye."


You aren't selfish to prepare for your vocation, or to avoid what might keep you from following it. He is selfish to tell you that you shouldn't.


If all my readers had such a firm grip on things, I'd be out of a job. But at the end, your valor slips. You listen to your feelings instead of your judgment.

You want to break off the relationship, but you hesitate because he objects. Do you need his permission to break up? No, he needs your permission to continue. What claim does he have on you? I thought the whole point was that you want to have claims on each other, but he doesn't. He says you're being selfish. Amazingly, you agree. You ask guiltily, "Is this kind of selfishness wrong?" My dear, you have got it backwards. Marriage and lifelong consecrated celibacy aren't selfish desires. They are callings. You aren't selfish to prepare for your vocation, or to avoid what might keep you from following it. He is selfish to tell you that you shouldn't.

After eight years, you were right to put this man to the test, and he has made his choice. Continue as bravely as you began. If God wants you married, and if you cooperate, then He will provide the man.

Peace be with you,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

Hold that Last Thought — Will he Really?

Dear Professor Theophilus:

I've always trusted that God would provide a husband for me. It's just that He hasn't yet. Or has He? I am starting to get a little confused.

The problem is the lack of prospects. I don't meet anyone in my job, and my church is so large that it is really hard to get to know each other with hundreds of youth meeting in large meetings. And my network consists mainly of girls.

I've pictured my future husband as a real warrior for Christ, intelligent, caring, a real leader. There is one guy, though, who doesn't match all my expectations. He is a friend — I haven't spent any time alone with him because I didn't want to encourage him — but I think he might be interested in me. From a lot of little things, I can tell.


Do you have to be in love to marry?


He faithfully leads a large and important church ministry, his moral standards are high, and he's trustworthy, intelligent, and kind. On the other hand, he's not generally liked. The way he talks to people is sometimes offensive. He's loud, messy, and self-absorbed. He eats unhealthy food, and he doesn't always act with consideration toward others. I've always thought that this guy needs to be married, but whoever does marry him has a big job ahead of her. He says himself that he needs and desires a girl who will be direct and correct him when necessary.

I'm not in love with this guy, but I do appreciate his company, and see that this is mutual. I see that he appreciates my frank opinions. And I do think my encouragement has helped him grow. A part of me tells me that he needs someone just like me to see his weak and strong sides for what they are. Since I have had quite mixed feelings towards this guy, I have avoided being alone with him.

How do I know this is not my future husband? Is my interest just my mother instinct that wants to help him? And is it selfish to care about my needs in a relationship as well? Do you have to be in love to marry? How much importance should I give to common sense, to just knowing we would be a good team? Since I, of course, have faults as well, should I hold his against him?

Reply

I can't tell you whether you should marry this man. Perhaps I can answer your other questions, and perhaps I can help you understand yourself a little better.


[Love] isn't a state of the emotions, like "being in love," but a state of the will. Otherwise it couldn't be promised.


You ask whether it matters that you aren't in love with the man. If by "being in love," you mean being in that particular state of delighted obsession with the beloved, which our culture began to cherish in the late middle ages, then it isn't a sin for two people to marry without being "in love." It is, on the other hand, a sin for them to marry without love — each must have a mutual, deep and firm commitment to the other's true good, and they must have a mutual and total willingness to join their lives. When a man and a woman get married, they actually promise love in that sense to each other. It isn't a state of the emotions, like "being in love," but a state of the will. Otherwise it couldn't be promised.

On the other hand, romantic excitement can help, especially at the beginning. To some people it matters a great deal, so you have to ask whether you would miss it. Even more indispensable is simply liking each other and finding pleasure in each other's company. It's not so clear to me that you like this man much. Plainly, something makes him interesting to you. But you also find some of his qualities repulsive, and you describe your feelings about him as "quite mixed."

What should we make of his bad points? I wouldn't worry too much about the fact that he eats unhealthy food. C'mon, at a certain age, almost all young men do. You should worry, though, that he's loud, self-absorbed, and offensive to others. You say that he's not generally liked; it sounds as though there are some good reasons for this. You wonder whether you are expecting too much in a man. Well, that's possible. Your conception of the ideal husband could be summed up in the word "Hero." In practice, though, you seem more likely to set your sights too low than too high.

What should we make of his good points? Don't be too impressed that the man leads a large and important church ministry. It makes no difference to holiness whether a man makes his living by leading a church ministry or laying bricks; what matters is that he do it all "as though unto the Lord." The fact that the man has shown himself to be moral and trustworthy is much more important. The fact that he is kind would matter too, if it were true; it's just that I can't help wondering how kind he is if he speaks to people offensively, as you say he does.

Why are you interested in him? You've mentioned only two strong motives for attraction. One is what you call your mother instinct, your desire to fix him. Maternal feeling is not a sound basis for marriage; a husband isn't his wife's child, nor is a wife her husband's mother. The other motive is fear of not finding anyone. Instead of being afraid, why not start looking? You say that it's difficult to meet young men at church youth group because there are too many young men there; don't you see something odd about that statement? Is it so hard to turn to the fellow sitting next to you and ask him his name? He may not be the group's leader, but remember what I said about godly bricklayers.


Neither of you has a duty to marry unwisely just because neither of you is perfect.


How much importance should you give to common sense? The answer is "A great deal." You and your future husband can do without continuous romantic excitement, but you can't do without the practical requirements for a solid partnership. I only urge you to think more carefully about what you mean by making a "good team." Of course you should make a good team, but I think you are getting that mixed up again with finding a guy you can fix.

Finally, considering that you too have faults, is it selfish to "hold his faults against him"? That's the wrong way to ask the question. God wants marriages to be happy; asking whether a man's faults are serious enough to make marriage with him miserable isn't being selfish. By the way, he ought to ask the same sensible question about you. Neither of you has a duty to marry unwisely just because neither of you is perfect.

It may seem as though I'm stacking the deck against your friend. Not really. Remember, I don't know him. I'm only pointing out that so far, you haven't made a good case for marrying him. That may not be his fault. You might discover better reasons for marrying him than you've mentioned, and your mixed feelings may sort themselves out in his favor.

Peace be with you,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Professor Theophilus (aka J. Budziszewski). "Dating Peter Pan." TrueU.org (January 10, 2008).

TrueU.org is a community for college students who want to know and confidently discuss the Christian worldview. It is an apostolate of Focus on the Family.

Reprinted with permission of J. Budziszewski.

THE AUTHOR

J. Budziszewski (Boojee-shefski) earned his doctorate from Yale University in 1981. He teaches at the University of Texas in Austin, in the Departments of Government and Philosophy where he specializes in the relations among ethical theory, political theory, and Christian theology. The focus of his current research is natural law and moral self deception. J. Budziszewski is a former atheist, former political radical, former shipyard welder, and former lots of other things, including former young and former thin. He's been married for more than thirty years to his high school sweetheart, Sandra, and has two daughters. He loves teaching. He says he also loves contemporary music, but it turns out that he means "the contemporaries of Johann Sebastian Bach." He deserted his faith during college but returned to Christ a dozen years later and entered the Catholic Church at Easter 2004. Among a number of other books, he is the author of Ask Me Anything: Provocative Answers for College Students, How to Stay Christian in College, What We Can't Not Know: A Guide, The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man, and Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law. J. Budziszewski is on the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Copyright © 2008 J. Budziszewski

Article: The Cross of Christ the Measure of the World

JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me." John xii. 32.

A great number of men live and die without reflecting at all upon the state of things in which they find themselves. They take things as they come, and follow their inclinations as far as they have the opportunity. They are guided mainly by pleasure and pain, not by reason, principle, or conscience; and they do not attempt to interpret this world, to determine what it means, or to reduce what they see and feel to system. But when persons, either from thoughtfulness of mind, or from intellectual activity, begin to contemplate the visible state of things into which they are born, then forthwith they find it a maze and a perplexity. It is a riddle which they cannot solve. It seems full of contradictions and without a drift. Why it is, and what it is to issue in, and how it is what it is, and how we come to be introduced into it, and what is our destiny, are all mysteries.

In this difficulty, some have formed one philosophy of life, and others another. Men have thought they had found the key, by means of which they might read what is so obscure. Ten thousand things come before us one after another in the course of life, and what are we to think of them? what colour are we to give them? Are we to look at all things in a gay and mirthful way? or in a melancholy way? in a desponding or a hopeful way? Are we to make light of life altogether, or to treat the whole subject seriously? Are we to make greatest things of little consequence, or least things of great consequence? Are we to keep in mind what is past and gone, or are we to look on to the future, or are we to be absorbed in what is present? How are we to look at things? this is the question which all persons of observation ask themselves, and answer each in his own way. They wish to think by rule; by something within them, which may harmonize and adjust what is without them. Such is the need felt by reflective minds. Now, let me ask, what is the real key, what is the Christian interpretation of this world? What is given us by revelation to estimate and measure this world by? The event of this season, — the Crucifixion of the Son of God.

It is the death of the Eternal Word of God made flesh, which is our great lesson how to think and how to speak of this world. His Cross has put its due value upon every thing which we see, upon all fortunes, all advantages, all ranks, all dignities, all pleasures; upon the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. It has set a price upon the excitements, the rivalries, the hopes, the fears, the desires, the efforts, the triumphs of mortal man. It has given a meaning to the various, shifting course, the trials, the temptations, the sufferings, of his earthly state. It has brought together and made consistent all that seemed discordant and aimless. It has taught us how to live, how to use this world, what to expect, what to desire, what to hope. It is the tone into which all the strains of this world's music are ultimately to be resolved.


Now, let me ask, what is the real key, what is the Christian interpretation of this world? What is given us by revelation to estimate and measure this world by? The event of this season, — the Crucifixion of the Son of God.


Look around, and see what the world presents of high and low. Go to the court of princes. See the treasure and skill of all nations brought together to honour a child of man. Observe the prostration of the many before the few. Consider the form and ceremonial, the pomp, the state, the circumstance; and the vainglory. Do you wish to know the worth of it all? look at the Cross of Christ.

Go to the political world: see nation jealous of nation, trade rivalling trade, armies and fleets matched against each other. Survey the various ranks of the community, its parties and their contests, the strivings of the ambitious, the intrigues of the crafty. What is the end of all this turmoil? the grave. What is the measure? the Cross.

Go, again, to the world of intellect and science: consider the wonderful discoveries which the human mind is making, the variety of arts to which its discoveries give rise, the all but miracles by which it shows its power; and next, the pride and confidence of reason, and the absorbing devotion of thought to transitory objects, which is the consequence. Would you form a right judgment of all this? look at the Cross.

Again: look at misery, look at poverty and destitution, look at oppression and captivity; go where food is scanty, and lodging unhealthy. Consider pain and suffering, diseases long or violent, all that is frightful and revolting. Would you know how to rate all these? gaze upon the Cross.

Thus in the Cross, and Him who hung upon it, all things meet; all things subserve it, all things need it. It is their centre and their interpretation. For He was lifted up upon it, that He might draw all men and all things unto Him.

But it will be said, that the view which the Cross of Christ imparts to us of human life and of the world, is not that which we should take, if left to ourselves; that it is not an obvious view; that if we look at things on their surface, they are far more bright and sunny than they appear when viewed in the light which this season casts upon them. The world seems made for the enjoyment of just such a being as man, and man is put into it. He has the capacity of enjoyment, and the world supplies the means. How natural this, what a simple as well as pleasant philosophy, yet how different from that of the Cross! The doctrine of the Cross, it may be said, disarranges two parts of a system which seem made for each other; it severs the fruit from the eater, the enjoyment from the enjoyer. How does this solve a problem? does it not rather itself create one?

I answer, first, that whatever force this objection may have, surely it is merely a repetition of that which Eve felt and Satan urged in Eden; for did not the woman see that the forbidden tree was "good for food," and "a tree to be desired"? Well, then, is it wonderful that we too, the descendants of the first pair, should still be in a world where there is a forbidden fruit, and that our trials should lie in being within reach of it, and our happiness in abstaining from it? The world, at first sight, appears made for pleasure, and the vision of Christ's Cross is a solemn and sorrowful sight interfering with this appearance. Be it so; but why may it not be our duty to abstain from enjoyment notwithstanding, if it was a duty even in Eden?


This being the case, the great and awful doctrine of the Cross of Christ, which we now commemorate, may fitly be called, in the language of figure, the heart of religion.


But again; it is but a superficial view of things to say that this life is made for pleasure and happiness. To those who look under the surface, it tells a very different tale. The doctrine of the Cross does but teach, though infinitely more forcibly, still after all it does but teach the very same lesson which this world teaches to those who live long in it, who have much experience in it, who know it. The world is sweet to the lips, but bitter to the taste. It pleases at first, but not at last. It looks gay on the outside, but evil and misery lie concealed within. When a man has passed a certain number of years in it, he cries out with the Preacher, "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." Nay, if he has not religion for his guide, he will be forced to go further, and say, "All is vanity and vexation of spirit;" all is disappointment; all is sorrow; all is pain. The sore judgments of God upon sin are concealed within it, and force a man to grieve whether he will or no. Therefore the doctrine of the Cross of Christ does but anticipate for us our experience of the world. It is true, it bids us grieve for our sins in the midst of all that smiles and glitters around us; but if we will not heed it, we shall at length be forced to grieve for them from undergoing their fearful punishment. If we will not acknowledge that this world has been made miserable by sin, from the sight of Him on whom our sins were laid, we shall experience it to be miserable by the recoil of those sins upon ourselves.

It may be granted, then, that the doctrine of the Cross is not on the surface of the world. The surface of things is bright only, and the Cross is sorrowful; it is a hidden doctrine; it lies under a veil; it at first sight startles us, and we are tempted to revolt from it. Like St. Peter, we cry out, "Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall not be unto Thee." [Matt. xvi. 22.] And yet it is a true doctrine; for truth is not on the surface of things, but in the depths.

And as the doctrine of the Cross, though it be the true interpretation of this world, is not prominently manifested in it, upon its surface, but is concealed; so again, when received into the faithful heart, there it abides as a living principle, but deep, and hidden from observation. Religious men, in the words of Scripture, "live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved them and gave Himself for them:" [Gal. ii. 20.] but they do not tell this to all men; they leave others to find it out as they may. Our Lord's own command to His disciples was, that when they fast, they should "anoint their head and wash their face." [Matt. vi. 17.] Thus they are bound not to make a display, but ever to be content to look outwardly different from what they are really inwardly. They are to carry a cheerful countenance with them, and to control and regulate their feelings, that those feelings, by not being expended on the surface, may retire deep into their hearts and there live. And thus "Jesus Christ and He crucified" is, as the Apostle tells us, "a hidden wisdom;" — hidden in the world, which seems at first sight to speak a far other doctrine, — and hidden in the faithful soul, which to persons at a distance, or to chance beholders, seems to be living but an ordinary life, while really it is in secret holding communion with Him who was "manifested in the flesh," "crucified through weakness," "justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, and received up into glory."

This being the case, the great and awful doctrine of the Cross of Christ, which we now commemorate, may fitly be called, in the language of figure, the heart of religion. The heart may be considered as the seat of life; it is the principle of motion, heat, and activity; from it the blood goes to and fro to the extreme parts of the body. It sustains the man in his powers and faculties; it enables the brain to think; and when it is touched, man dies. And in like manner the sacred doctrine of Christ's Atoning Sacrifice is the vital principle on which the Christian lives, and without which Christianity is not. Without it no other doctrine is held profitably; to believe in Christ's divinity, or in His manhood, or in the Holy Trinity, or in a judgment to come, or in the resurrection of the dead, is an untrue belief, not Christian faith, unless we receive also the doctrine of Christ's sacrifice. On the other hand, to receive it presupposes the reception of other high truths of the Gospel besides; it involves the belief in Christ's true divinity, in His true incarnation, and in man's sinful state by nature; and it prepares the way to belief in the sacred Eucharistic feast, in which He who was once crucified is ever given to our souls and bodies, verily and indeed, in His Body and in His Blood. But again, the heart is hidden from view; it is carefully and securely guarded; it is not like the eye set in the forehead, commanding all, and seen of all: and so in like manner the sacred doctrine of the Atoning Sacrifice is not one to be talked of, but to be lived upon; not to be put forth irreverently, but to be adored secretly; not to be used as a necessary instrument in the conversion of the ungodly, or for the satisfaction of reasoners of this world, but to be unfolded to the docile and obedient; to young children, whom the world has not corrupted; to the sorrowful, who need comfort; to the sincere and earnest, who need a rule of life; to the innocent, who need warning; and to the established, who have earned the knowledge of it.


And so, too, as regards this world, with all its enjoyments, yet disappointments. Let us not trust it; let us not give our hearts to it; let us not begin with it. Let us begin with faith; let us begin with Christ...


One more remark I shall make, and then conclude. It must not be supposed, because the doctrine of the Cross makes us sad, that therefore the Gospel is a sad religion. The Psalmist says, "They that sow in tears shall reap in joy;" and our Lord says, "They that mourn shall be comforted." Let no one go away with the impression that the Gospel makes us take a gloomy view of the world and of life. It hinders us indeed from taking a superficial view, and finding a vain transitory joy in what we see; but it forbids our immediate enjoyment, only to grant enjoyment in truth and fulness afterwards. It only forbids us to begin with enjoyment. It only says, If you begin with pleasure, you will end with pain. It bids us begin with the Cross of Christ, and in that Cross we shall at first find sorrow, but in a while peace and comfort will rise out of that sorrow. That Cross will lead us to mourning, repentance, humiliation, prayer, fasting; we shall sorrow for our sins, we shall sorrow with Christ's sufferings; but all this sorrow will only issue, nay, will be undergone in a happiness far greater than the enjoyment which the world gives, — though careless worldly minds indeed will not believe this, ridicule the notion of it, because they never have tasted it, and consider it a mere matter of words, which religious persons think it decent and proper to use, and try to believe themselves, and to get others to believe, but which no one really feels. This is what they think; but our Saviour said to His disciples, "Ye now therefore have sorrow, but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you." ... "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you." [John xvi. 22; xiv. 27.] And St. Paul says, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him." [1 Cor. ii. 9, 14.] And thus the Cross of Christ, as telling us of our redemption as well as of His sufferings, wounds us indeed, but so wounds as to heal also.

And thus, too, all that is bright and beautiful, even on the surface of this world, though it has no substance, and may not suitably be enjoyed for its own sake, yet is a figure and promise of that true joy which issues out of the Atonement. It is a promise beforehand of what is to be: it is a shadow, raising hope because the substance is to follow, but not to be rashly taken instead of the substance. And it is God's usual mode of dealing with us, in mercy to send the shadow before the substance, that we may take comfort in what is to be, before it comes. Thus our Lord before His Passion rode into Jerusalem in triumph, with the multitudes crying Hosanna, and strewing His road with palm branches and their garments. This was but a vain and hollow pageant, nor did our Lord take pleasure in it. It was a shadow which stayed not, but flitted away. It could not be more than a shadow, for the Passion had not been undergone by which His true triumph was wrought out. He could not enter into His glory before He had first suffered. He could not take pleasure in this semblance of it, knowing that it was unreal. Yet that first shadowy triumph was the omen and presage of the true victory to come, when He had overcome the sharpness of death. And we commemorate this figurative triumph on the last Sunday in Lent, to cheer us in the sorrow of the week that follows, and to remind us of the true joy which comes with Easter-Day.

And so, too, as regards this world, with all its enjoyments, yet disappointments. Let us not trust it; let us not give our hearts to it; let us not begin with it. Let us begin with faith; let us begin with Christ; let us begin with His Cross and the humiliation to which it leads. Let us first be drawn to Him who is lifted up, that so He may, with Himself, freely give us all things. Let us "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness," and then all those things of this world "will be added to us." They alone are able truly to enjoy this world, who begin with the world unseen. They alone enjoy it, who have first abstained from it. They alone can truly feast, who have first fasted; they alone are able to use the world, who have learned not to abuse it; they alone inherit it, who take it as a shadow of the world to come, and who for that world to come relinquish it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

John Henry Cardinal Newman. "The Cross of Christ the Measure of the World." In Parochial and Plain Sermons vol. 5 (London & New York: Longman, Green, and Company, 1891).

This article reprinted with permission from Bob Elder, editor of the Newman Reader, an online resource of the writings of Cardinal Newman. The purpose of Newman Reader (NR) is to make the written works of Cardinal Newman available in as complete and accessible a manner as resources allow. Bob Elder may be contacted here. All rights reserved.

THE AUTHOR

Venerable John Henry Newman was born in London, 21 February 1801, and died Birmingham, 11 August 1890. As Vicar of St. Mary's Oxford he exerted a profound spiritual influence on the Church of England. Joining the Catholic Church in 1845 he founded Oratories of St. Philip Neri in Birmingham and London, was the first rector of the Catholic University in Dublin, and was made Cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879. Through his published writings and private correspondence he created a greater understanding of the Catholic Church and its teachings, helping many persons with their religious difficulties. At his death he was praised for his unworldliness, humility, and prayerful contact with the invisible world. He was declared Venerable on 22 January 1991. John Henry Cardinal Newman is the author of many books including, Parochial and Plain Sermons, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, Difficulties of Anglicans, The Idea of a University, Fifteen Sermons Preached Before the University of Oxford Between A.D. 1826 and 1843, and Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

Copyright © 2000-2002 Bob Elder

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Wednesday Liturgy: Crosses on the 14 Stations

ROME, FEB. 19, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Are wooden crosses on top of depictions/paintings of each Station of the Cross required? These have been removed from our church. -- P.C., Laplace, Louisiana

A: The principal document relating to the external form of the Via Crucis, or Way of the Cross, is the Enchiridion of Indulgences, No. 63.

The Church grants a plenary indulgence to a member of the faithful who practices the pious exercise of the Way of the Cross.

In order to obtain this indulgence the exercise must be fulfilled before legitimately erected stations.

For the legitimate erection of the Via Crucis, 14 crosses are needed, to which may be added images or sculptures that represent the station.

According to the most common custom, the pious exercise consists of 14 pious readings to which are added some vocal prayers. However, in order to fulfill the pious exercise all that is required is a meditation on the Lord's passion and death without having to make a particular consideration of each station.

It is necessary to move from one station to the next. But if the stations are done in a large group where moving is difficult, it is sufficient for at least the guide to move from station to station.

The faithful who are legitimately impeded from making the stations may gain the same indulgence by dedicating about 15 minutes to meditating and spiritual reading on the Passion.

Therefore, to answer the specific question at hand: A legitimate Way of the Cross consists of 14 crosses. These may be wooden, stone, metal or some other suitable material. The images are an optional, albeit very useful extra.

The crosses may be relatively small compared to the images or representations, but they should be visible. They may also be located at any suitable place near the images -- above, below, beside or even incorporated within the frame.

Possibly the local parish church could be encouraged to restore the crosses to its Way of the Cross. It could also be a wonderful teaching moment to explain the Church's doctrine on indulgences as well as foment the practice of the Via Crucis.

As No. 133 of the Directory of Popular Piety says:

"The Via Crucis is a journey made in the Holy Spirit, that divine fire which burned in the heart of Jesus (cf. Lk 12, 49-50) and brought him to Calvary. This is a journey well esteemed by the Church since it has retained a living memory of the words and gestures of the final earthly days of her Spouse and Lord.

"In the Via Crucis, various strands of Christian piety coalesce: the idea of life being a journey or pilgrimage; as a passage from earthly exile to our true home in Heaven; the deep desire to be conformed to the Passion of Christ; the demands of following Christ, which imply that his disciples must follow behind the Master, daily carrying their own crosses (cf Lk 9, 23)."

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Laypeople Distributing Ashes

ROME, FEB. 19, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Our response to a Scottish reader regarding a layperson distributing ashes (Feb. 5) prompted another e-mail. A correspondent suggested that I had responded inadequately by referring to the "Shorter Book of Blessings" whose norms apply only to the United States and not to Scotland.

Our reader has a valid point. The American "Book of Blessings," from which the Shorter Book is extracted, is approved by the Holy See and its use is obligatory in the United States.

As is permitted for a book of this nature, the volume contains some original blessings adapted to the pastoral needs of the country and not found in the original Latin benedictional.

These other blessings, among which is the blessing of ashes outside of Mass, have legal currency only in the country for which they have been approved. Priests and laypeople should use the translation of the Book of Blessings adopted by their own conferences.

As the 2001 instruction "Liturgiam Authenticam" states in No. 83: "As regards the editions of liturgical books prepared in vernacular languages, the approbation of the Conference of Bishops as well as the 'recognitio' of the Apostolic See are to be regarded as valid only for the territory of the same Conference, so that these editions may not be used in another territory without the consent of the Apostolic See, except in those particular circumstances mentioned above, in nn. 18 and 76, and in keeping with the norms set forth there."

All the same, one may use any approved translation if giving a blessing in third-language countries, for example, giving a blessing to an English speaker in Germany.

In some cases it is probably also possible to use the original blessings for similar pastoral situation, such as the blessings for parents after a miscarriage.

Regarding the use of laypeople to distribute ashes in Scotland, we may say the following: The Holy See's approval of the American Blessings Book means that, in principle at least, laypeople may be called upon to carry out this function.

The approval, however, only covers the United States, and only the Scottish bishops may legislate for Scotland.

If they have not done so (and I confess that my efforts to find out have met with failure), then the permission cannot be presumed.

We are in a situation analogous to other special permissions, such as extraordinary ministers of holy Communion, female altar servers, and Communion in the hand. In principle, universal law permits all of these but it falls to the corresponding local authority to decide whether they may be legitimately exercised.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Falling in Love With Christ: Gospel Commentary for 2nd Sunday of Lent

Father Raniero Cantalamessa is the Pontifical Household preacher. The readings for this Sunday are Genesis 12:1-4a; 2 Timothy 1:8b-10; Matthew 17:1-9.

ROME, FEB. 15, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Why are faith and religious practice in decline and why do they not seem to constitute, at least not for most people, the point of reference in life?

Why the boredom, the weariness, the struggle for believers in performing their duties? Why do young people not feel attracted to the faith? In sum, why this dullness and this lack of joy among the believers in Christ? The event of Christ's transfiguration helps us to answer these questions.

What did the transfiguration mean for the three disciples who were present? Up until now they knew Jesus only in his external appearance: He was not a man different from others; they knew where he came from, his habits, the timber of his voice. Now they know another Jesus, the true Jesus, the one who cannot be seen with the eyes of ordinary life, in the normal light of the sun; what they now know of him is the fruit of a sudden revelation, of a change, of a gift.

Because things change for us too, as they changed for the three discples on Tabor; something needs to happen in our lives similar to what happens when a young man and woman fall in love. In falling in love with someone, the beloved, who before was one of many, or perhaps unknown, suddenly becomes the only one, the sole person in the world who interests us. Everything else is left behind and becomes a kind of neutral background. One is not able to think of anything else. A very real transfiguration takes place. The person loved comes to be seen as a luminous aura. Everything about her is beautiful, even the defects. One feels unworthy of her. True love generates humility.

Something concrete also changes in one's own habits. I have known young people whose parents could not get them out of bed in the morning to go to school; or they neglected their studies and did no graduate. Then, once they fall in love with someone and enter a serious relationship, they jump out of bed in the morning, they are impatient to finish school, if they have a job, they hold onto it. What has happened? Nothing, it is just that what they were forced to do before they now do because of an attraction. And attraction allows one to do things that force cannot make one do; it puts wings on one's feet. "Everyone," the poet Ovid said, "is attracted by the object of his pleasure."

Something of the kind must happen once in our lives for us to be true, convinced Christians, and overjoyed to be so. Some say, "But the young man or young woman is seen and touched!"

I answer: We see and touch Jesus too, but with different eyes and different hands -- those of the heart, of faith. He is risen and is alive. He is a concrete being, not an abstraction, for those who experience and know him.

Indeed, with Jesus things go even better. In human love we deceive ourselves, we attribute gifts to the beloved that she does not have and with time we are often forced to change our mind about her. In the case of Jesus, the more one knows him and is together with him, the more one discovers new reasons to be in love with him and is confirmed in one's choice.

This does not mean that with Christ too we must wait for the classic "lightning bolt" of love. If a young man or woman stayed at home all the time without seeing anyone, nothing would ever happen in his or her life. To fall in love you have to spend time with people!

If one is convinced, or simply begins to think that it is good and worthwhile to know Jesus Christ in this other, transfigured, way, then one must spend time with him, to read his writings. The Gospel is his love letter! It is there that he reveals himself, where he "transfigures" himself. His house is the Church: It is there that one meets him.

[Translation by Joseph G. Trabbic]

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Satan Exists, and Christ Defeated Him: Gospel Commentary for 1st Sunday of Lent

Father Raniero Cantalamessa is the Pontifical Household preacher. The readings for this Sunday are Genesis 2:7-9; 3:1-7; Romans 5:12-19; Matthew 4:1-11.

VATICAN CITY, FEB. 8, 2008 (Zenit.org)- Demons, Satanism and other related phenomena are quite topical today, and they disturb a great part of our society.

Our technological and industrialized world is filled with magicians, wizards, occultism, spiritualism, fortune tellers, spell trafficking, amulets, as well as very real Satanic sects. Chased away from the door, the devil has come in through the window. Chased away by the faith, he has returned by way of superstition.

The episode of Jesus' temptations in the desert that is read on the First Sunday of Lent helps us to have some clarity on this subject. First of all, do demons exist? That is, does the word "demon" truly indicate some personal being with intelligence and will, or is it simply a symbol, a manner of speaking that refers to the sum of the world's moral evil, the collective unconscious, collective alienation, etc.?

Many intellectuals do not believe in demons in the first sense. But it must be noted that many great writers, such as Goethe and Dostoyevsky, took Satan's existence very seriously. Baudelaire, who was certainly no angel, said that "the demon's greatest trick is to make people believe that he does not exist."

The principal proof of the existence of demons in the Gospels is not the numerous healings of possessed people, since ancient beliefs about the origins of certain maladies may have had some influence on the interpretation of these happenings. The proof is Jesus' temptation by the demon in the desert. The many saints who in their lives battled against the prince of darkness are also proof. They are not like "Don Quixote," tilting at windmills. On the contrary, they were very down-to-earth, psychologically healthy people.

If many people find belief in demons absurd, it is because they take their beliefs from books, they pass their lives in libraries and at desks; but demons are not interested in books, they are interested in persons, especially, and precisely, saints.

How could a person know anything about Satan if he has never encountered the reality of Satan, but only the idea of Satan in cultural, religious and ethnological traditions? They treat this question with great certainty and a feeling of superiority, doing away with it all as so much "medieval obscurantism."

But it is a false certainty. It is like someone who brags about not being afraid of lions and proves this by pointing out that he has seen many paintings and pictures of lions and was never frightened by them. On the other hand, it is entirely normal and consistent for those who do not believe in God to not believe in the devil. It would be quite tragic for someone who did not believe in God to believe in the devil!

Yet the most important thing that the Christian faith has to tell us is not that demons exist, but that Christ has defeated them. For Christians, Christ and demons are not two equal, but rather contrary principles, as certain dualistic religions believe to be the case with good and evil. Jesus is the only Lord; Satan is only a creature "gone bad." If power over men is given to Satan, it is because men have the possibility of freely choosing sides and also to keep them from being too proud (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:7), believing themselves to be self-sufficient and without need of any redeemer. "Old Satan is crazy," goes an African-American spiritual. "He shot me to destroy my soul, but missed and destroyed my sin instead."

With Christ we have nothing to fear. Nothing and no one can do us ill, unless we ourselves allow it. Satan, said an ancient Father of the Church, after Christ's coming, is like a dog chained up in the barnyard: He can bark and lunge as much as he wants, but if we don't go near him, he cannot harm us.

In the desert Jesus freed himself from Satan to free us! This is the joyous news with which we begin our Lenten journey toward Easter.

[Translation by Joseph G. Trabbic]

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Article: Beware of ‘Gentlemen’

REV. PAUL SCALIA

St. Josemaria Escriva once warned against “the man, the ‘gentleman,’ ready to compromise” — because he would, in the saint’s estimation, “condemn Jesus to death again.”

In a similar vein, G.K. Chesterton imagined that “the devil is a gentleman.” Of course, these writers do not mean to disparage the genuine gentleman — the well-mannered, considerate, courteous man. (May we all have such qualities!) Rather, they mean to warn us against the man who allows etiquette and appearances to muzzle his faith — the kind of man who makes social convention the measure of devotion.

Simon the Pharisee provides a good example of such a “gentleman” (cf. Lk 7:36-50). He invites our Lord to his house, but apparently not out of devotion. After all, he omits even the most basic acts of hospitality. More likely, he simply desires the prestige and honor of having a famous rabbi in his house. It is just the thing that he, a religious leader, should do. Such longing for the esteem of others blinds him to the truth of who Jesus is. The Creator and Redeemer of the world enters Simon’s house and he is more concerned with appearances. So when the “sinful woman” enters and worships our Lord through tears of repentance and anointing with oil, poor Simon can only think of “what kind of woman this is” and how Christ should not have any contact with her. We can almost hear him gasp in horror at the violation of etiquette.


In a sense, the world constantly behaves like Simon the Pharisee: inviting Christ on its own terms and resenting any manifestation of faith. As another election year comes upon us, it is important to note how many Catholic politicians have behaved similarly, tailoring their faith to suit the world.


The Pharisee’s attitude is alive and well. We fall into it every time we gloss over our faith or downplay our devotion for fear of appearing “too religious.” How many times have we held our tongues and failed to witness because of what others might think — because it might create an “uncomfortable” situation at the cocktail party, in the carpool line, at the soccer field, etc. How many times have we allowed ourselves to be silenced because we do not want to seem out of place or out of keeping with the culture.

Such a tamed, domesticated faith is precisely what the world wants from us, because it does not threaten the world at all. Religion is acceptable, the world tells us, as long as you keep it to yourself. Do not let your devotion interfere with your need to fit in, and you can be as devout as you like. In a sense, the world constantly behaves like Simon the Pharisee: inviting Christ on its own terms and resenting any manifestation of faith. As another election year comes upon us, it is important to note how many Catholic politicians have behaved similarly, tailoring their faith to suit the world. They resemble the Pharisee, for he, too, invited our Lord into his home but drew back when our Lord’s saving truth became socially awkward and more demanding than he wanted.

We should adopt, then, the attitude of the “sinful woman.” She was willing to become, in St. Paul’s words, a “fool for Christ’s sake” (cf. 1 Cor 4:10). Now this does not mean that we must interrupt dinner parties with public displays of devotion. Nor does it mean that we become rude in our witness or unnecessarily disruptive. But it does mean that we not allow the culture’s views to dictate the terms of our devotion. She understood what the Pharisee did not: the Lord’s teaching is for our salvation, not for our comfort and status in society. Indeed, our devotion often does and should interfere with what our culture views as normal. We need not make a scene of things. But naturally, peacefully, calmly and without rancor we must live genuine Catholic lives — even when it makes others uncomfortable.

The woman’s example becomes all the more compelling when we consider that her devotion to our Lord reflects His devotion to us. She can confidently humble — even humiliate — herself in the sight of men because our Lord had already done so in the sight of heaven. Imagine the gasp of the rebel angels as they saw the Son of God humbling Himself to take on our human nature, to dwell among us, and to be delivered into our sinful hands. Perhaps our Lord is so moved by the woman’s profligate display because He sees in it a reflection of His own. May He find in us the same willingness to bear witness and even to be “fools for Christ’s sake.”

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Fr. Paul Scalia. "Beware of ‘Gentlemen’." Arlington Catholic Herald (June 14, 2007).

Reprinted with permission of the Arlington Catholic Herald.

THE AUTHOR

Fr. Paul Scalia is parochial vicar of St. Rita Parish in Alexandria.

Copyright © 2007 Arlington Catholic Herald

Article: Religious Liberty and Anti-Discrimination Laws

JOSEPH KOSTEN

Two recent events involving Roman Catholic hierarchy have once again brought the issue of religious liberty and state affairs into public view.

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver and Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis are both dealing with issues at Catholic institutions that demand insights from Christian faith, not just public policy. While the particulars of the two cases differ, the underlying principle of religious liberty permeates every aspect of both conflicts.

According to proposed Colorado House Bill 1080 (HB 1080), its enactment would “limit the applicability of the exception from compliance with employment nondiscrimination laws for religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies when employing persons to provide services that are funded with government funds.” While ending discrimination appears to be a noble endeavor, this bill actually attacks something very different. It attacks the heart of religious organizations of every denomination.

The freedom to hire without government interference is vital to the survival of religious institutions. In order to effectively promote the message of the organization, both the individual and the message must be in harmony. In all cases, the message consists of either the purpose of the organization, or the product, or both together. (Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver is the largest non-government human services provider in the Rocky Mountain West.) When an individual employed by the religious organization does not share in the harmony of intent, the organization suffers due to this lack of common purpose. This is the case made by Archbishop Chaput. His concern for Catholic Charities and its mission sparked his quick response to the proposed Colorado bill. “When it can no longer have the freedom it needs to be ‘Catholic,’ it will end its services,” he said. For Archbishop Chaput, the very life of the organization depends on coherence with its Catholic identity.


“When it can no longer have the freedom it needs to be ‘Catholic,’ it will end its services,” he said. For Archbishop Chaput, the very life of the organization depends on coherence with its Catholic identity.


Directly related to the issue of religious freedom is the St. Louis case. Recently, Jesuit-run Saint Louis University experienced its own crisis of identity when well-loved basketball coach Rick Majerus publicly championed pro-abortion causes at a Hillary Rodham Clinton rally in the city. Of course, Coach Majerus has the freedom of speech to applaud whatever cause he desires. However, because he works for a Catholic university, he has a responsibility to not publicly demean the mission and beliefs of that organization. By disagreeing with the Catholic Church on core matters of faith and morals, Coach Majerus is blocking the achievement of the purpose of Saint Louis University’s existence.

Archbishop Burke’s demand for disciplinary action against Coach Majerus comes from a deep understanding of Catholic Church law and the need for unity in all fields. Majerus answered: “These beliefs are ingrained in me. My First Amendment right to free speech supersedes anything that the archbishop would order me to do.” Coach Majerus errs. When he accepted the opportunity to coach basketball at a Catholic institution, he agreed to behave in a way befitting a representative of that institution. That being said, the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion is quite clear, and Coach Majerus betrayed the trust placed in him.

Without the liberty to decide who represents its views and who disperses its message to the public, a religious institution or organization lays bare its most vulnerable aspect and welcomes destruction from within. Separation of church and state does not mean that religious institutions may not function within a state, nor does it mean that they can not decide who they hire. Religious liberty demands that an institution be free to decide its own end, and to choose its representatives.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Joseph Kosten. "Religious Liberty and Anti-Discrimination Laws." Acton Institute (January 30, 2008).

Reprinted with permission of the Acton Institute.

THE AUTHOR

Joseph Kosten is currently pursuing a Masters and Doctorate in Social Communications at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross and has been an Acton Rome office intern since September 2006.

Copyright © 2008 Acton Institute

Article: Who Cares?: The Moral Instinct

DINESH D'SOUZA

A recent issue of the New York Times Magazine carried a long piece by cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker called “The Moral Instinct.”

Saint Maximilian Kolbe
(1894-1941)

Pinker's article is part of the Darwinian Cleanup Project. This project is an attempt to plug the holes in Darwinism which has a very hard time accounting for — a) the origin of life, b) consciousness and c) morality. Pinker begins with an interesting comparison between Mother Teresa, Bill Gates and Norman Borlaug (the father of the Green Revolution in agriculture). Pinker argues that while Mother Teresa may have had the noblest intentions, Gates and Borlaug probably did more to help people than the saint of Calcutta. In other words, morality is not simply a matter of intention but also of what one actually does to help people. Excellent point, but what does it have to do with an evolutionary foundation for ethics? Not much.

For the past several decades, leading neo-Darwinists have labored hard to provide a Darwinian basis for morality. The basic idea here is that morality is a form of extended selfishness. The mother who leaps into the burning car to save her children is acting unselfishly from her point of view, but from her genes' point of view, the action is entirely self-interested. The mother is simply trying to ensure that her genes make it into the next generation. Some evolutionists like Robert Trivers extend this logic to explain why we treat even strangers decently and fairly. This is called "reciprocal altruism," which may be translated as "I'll be nice to you, so that you can be nice to me."

This entire framework of Darwinian analysis does not even come close to explaining morality. It confines itself to explaining altruism, and at best it explains "low altruism." But humans also engage in "high altruism" which may be defined as behavior that confers no reciprocal or genetic advantage. A man stands up to give his seat on the bus to an older woman. She is nothing to him, and he is certainly not thinking that there may be a future occasion when she will give him her seat. He does it because he's a nice guy. There's no Darwinian rationale that can account for his behavior.



A man stands up to give his seat on the bus to an older woman. She is nothing to him, and he is certainly not thinking that there may be a future occasion when she will give him her seat. He does it because he's a nice guy. There's no Darwinian rationale that can account for his behavior.


Consider the true story of the Catholic priest Maximilian Kolbe, who was imprisoned in a German concentration camp for his anti-Nazi activities. Each day the Nazis would choose one person from the group for execution. One of the first persons they selected was a man who pleaded for his life, saying he had a wife and children who were dependent on him and he needed to live in order to look after them. Just as the Nazis were about to drag him from the room, the priest stood up and said, "Take me in his place." The Nazis were baffled and refused, but the priest insisted. The man was equally uncomprehending, so the priest told him, "I don't have a family, I am old and won't be missed like you will." The Nazis finally agreed, and the priest went to his death. The man whose place he took survived the war and returned to his family.

Now what is the Darwinian explanation for Kolbe's behavior? It does not exist. Ernest Mayr, a leading evolutionary biologist, admits that "altruism toward strangers is behavior not supported by natural selection." Richard Dawkins concedes that Darwinism cannot even explain why people donate blood, an action he puts down to "pure disinterested altruism." I enjoy reading Pinker, Trivers and the others, but I don't think that the Darwin Cleanup Crew is going to come up with a comprehensive account of morality. The simple reason is that the evolutionary project is necessarily confined to the domain of survival and reproductive advantage — in other words, to the domain of self-interest — while it is the essence of morality to operate against self-interest. The whole point of morality is to do what you ought to do, not what you are inclined to do or what it is in your interest to do.

For Christians, morality is not merely a survival strategy; rather, morality refers to the laws of right and wrong which exist objectively or in nature. These laws are ultimately the prescription of God, who created the moral law just as He created the physical laws of nature. In the Christian view, morality is given by God but recognizable through moral reasoning and conscience; consequently, one does not have to be Christian or even religious to know the difference between right and wrong.

The Christian explanation for morality shares with the Darwinian view a skeptical or low view of human nature. Immanuel Kant put it very well when he wrote, “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.” Consequently it is very difficult to live a moral life without God’s help. We appeal to God for grace or divine assistance to help us live better and more virtuous lives than we are capable of living on our own. Great sacrificial figures like Mother Teresa and Maximilian Kolbe have always recognized this, and attributed their actions to a divine force larger than themselves.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Dinesh D'Souza. "Who Cares?: The Moral Instinct." tothesource (January 30, 2008).

This article reprinted with permission from tothesource.

Tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.

THE AUTHOR

Dinesh D'Souza is the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. D'Souza has been called one of the "top young public-policy makers in the country" by Investor’s Business Daily. His areas of research include the economy and society, civil rights and affirmative action, cultural issues and politics, and higher education. Dinesh D'Souza's latest book is What's So Great About Christianity. He is also the author of: The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, Letters to a Young Conservative, What's So Great about America, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus; The End of Racism; Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader; and The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno-Affluence. Dinesh D'Souza is on the Advisory Board of the Catholic Education Resource Center. Visit his website here. Copyright © 2008 tothesource

Article: The Holy Grail of Reprogramming: A New Era for Stem Cells?

REV. TADEUSZ PACHOLCZYK

The recent discovery that regular old garden-variety skin cells can be converted into highly flexible (pluripotent) stem cells has rocked the scientific world.

Two papers, one by a Japanese group, and another by an American group, have announced a genetic technique that produces stem cells without destroying (or using) any human embryos. In other words, the kind of stem cell usually obtained by destroying embryos appears to be available another way. All that is required is to transfer four genes into the skin cells, triggering them to convert into pluripotent stem cells. It has been called “biological alchemy,” something like turning lead into gold. Many are hailing “cellular reprogramming” as a breakthrough of epic proportions, the stuff that Nobel prizes are made of, a kind of Holy Grail in biomedical research.

As important as this advance may prove to be scientifically, it may be even more important to the ethical discussion. It offers a possible solution to a longstanding ethical impasse and a unique opportunity to declare a pause, maybe even a truce in the stem cell wars, given that the source of these cells is ethically pristine and uncomplicated. As one stem cell researcher put it recently, if the new method produces equally potent cells, as it has been touted to do, “the whole field is going to completely change. People working on ethics will have to find something new to worry about.” Thus, science itself may have devised a clever way to heal the wound it opened back in 1998 when human embryos began to be sought out and destroyed for their stem cells. Dr. James Thomson (whose 1998 work ignited the controversy, and who also published one of the new breakthrough papers) acknowledged just such a possibility in comments to reporters: “Ten years of turmoil and now this nice ending.” Whether this nice ending will actually play out remains to be seen, but a discovery of this magnitude, coupled with a strong ethical vision, certainly has the potential to move us beyond the contentious moral quagmire of destroying human embryos.

Change never comes easily, however, and before we can really change, we need to see the reasons why we should change. Each of us is, incredibly, an embryo who has grown up. This biological fact stares researchers in the face every time they choose to “disaggregate” a human embryo with their own bare hands. It makes many researchers edgy, touching them on some deeper level of their being. It makes many Americans queasy and eager to find alternatives. Dr. Thomson, who has overseen the destruction of numerous embryonic humans himself, had the honesty to acknowledge this fact in comments he made to the New York Times recently: "If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough."

Reprogramming eliminates these ethical concerns even as it offers a highly practical and straightforward technique for obtaining pluripotent stem cells. As Dr. Thomson himself put it, “Any basic microbiology lab can do it, and it’s cheap and quick.” Reprogramming is also important because it provides an alternative approach to “therapeutic cloning,” a complex and immoral procedure used to obtain patient-specific stem cells. Reprogramming provides patient-specific stem cells as well, but without using women’s eggs, without killing embryos, and without crossing moral lines.

The sheer practicality of the new reprogramming approach, coupled with its ethical advantages, really make it a no-brainer. Yet despite all these advantages, a number of voices can be heard arguing that the bio-industrial-complex emerging around destructive human embryo research must be safeguarded and expanded. There are at least three reasons for this.


Dr. Thomson, who has overseen the destruction of numerous embryonic humans himself, had the honesty to acknowledge this fact in comments he made to the New York Times recently: "If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough."


First, the financial investment that has already been made in this arena is significant, especially considering certain state initiatives like Proposition 71 in California which devote large sums of state taxpayer money to pursue research that depends on human embryo destruction. Once large sums of money are involved, ethics often becomes the first casualty.

Second, some of the scientists who advocate the destruction of human embryos have never really taken the moral concerns very seriously because the creed they subscribe to is the so-called “scientific imperative,” namely, that science must go forward, as if it were the highest good. It must be able to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, whenever it wants, and nobody should be pushing ethical viewpoints to limit what researchers do. That, of course, is a completely untenable position because we regulate what scientists do all the time. The very mechanism by which we disperse federal money puts all kinds of checks and balances on what researchers can do and there are certain types of research like germ warfare studies or nuclear bomb development that the government strictly regulates already. Other kinds of research are criminal, such as performing medical experiments on patients who don’t give their consent. The idea that we have to allow science to do whatever it wants is little more than “pie-in-the-sky” wishful thinking.

The third reason embryo destructive research will still likely be promoted has to do with abortion. Several astute commentators have noted recently how the whole field of embryonic stem cell research seems to serve as a kind of “hedge” for abortion. In the same way that a garden gets a hedge placed around it in order to protect it, embryonic stem cells are becoming a place holder for abortion. If embryo killing becomes incorporated into the way we cure illnesses and maintain our health as a society, then abortion on demand will be more likely to curry favor in our culture as well. If those trying to protect embryos carry the day, pro-abortionists fear that the same ethical arguments will prevail against abortion.

Several factors will therefore influence how this major new stem cell discovery plays out in the future. One thing is clear, however: those renegade researchers, lawmakers and Hollywood personalities who have long dismissed ethical concerns and advocated human embryo destruction now find themselves at an important juncture because of this breakthrough. We can only hope that in the wake of this discovery, the siren call of harvesting human embryos will cease ringing in their ears and allow for a new era of ethical science in our society.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk. "The Holy Grail of Reprogramming: A New Era for Stem Cells?" Making Sense Out of Bioethics (December, 2007).

Father Tad Pacholczyk writes a monthly column, Making Sense out of Bioethics, which appears in various diocesan newspapers across the country.

This article is reprinted with permission of the author, Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.

THE AUTHOR

Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did post-doctoral work at Harvard. He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, MA, and serves as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia. See www.ncbcenter.org.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) has a long history of addressing ethical issues in the life sciences and medicine. Established in 1972, the Center is engaged in education, research, consultation, and publishing to promote and safeguard the dignity of the human person in health care and the life sciences. The Center is unique among bioethics organizations in that its message derives from the official teaching of the Catholic Church: drawing on the unique Catholic moral tradition that acknowledges the unity of faith and reason and builds on the solid foundation of natural law.

The Center's staff consults regularly on life science issues and medical issues with the Vatican, the U.S. bishops and public policy-makers, hospitals and international organizations of all faiths. Vatican agencies including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pontifical Academy for Life and the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers consult with the Center to help formulate magisterial teaching.

The Center publishes two journals (Ethics & Medics and The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly) and at least one book annually on issues such as physician-assisted suicide, abortion, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research. The latest publication is an update of its Handbook on Critical Life Issues, which examines such topics as the theology of suffering, euthanasia, organ transplantation, and stem cell research.

Inspired by the harmony of faith and reason, the Quarterly unites faith in Christ to reasoned and rigorous reflection upon the findings of the empirical and experimental sciences. While the Quarterly is committed to publishing material that is consonant with the magisterium of the Catholic Church, it remains open to other faiths and to secular viewpoints in the spirit of informed dialogue.

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. is a member of the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Copyright © 2007 Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.