Wednesday Liturgy: Precious Blood for Young Children

ROME, JULY 29, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q1: I am a religion teacher at a primary school in the United States. Right now we are learning about the sacraments, particularly about the Eucharist. My students (ages 10 to 11) have asked me many times why the "wine" is not offered to children, even when they are serving at the altar as acolytes. I assume that the prohibition to drink alcohol in the United States until you are an adult has to do with it, but as my son once told a friend who is a priest, it is not wine -- it is the Blood of Christ. Is there any rule or policy regarding distributing the "wine" to children, other than the same pastoral reason for which it is not distributed to the whole congregation, for the sake of time? -- B.L., Key Biscayne, Florida

Q2: In our own church, at busy Masses we have the habit of having one Eucharistic minister going down to the back of the church in order to distribute Communion. Personally I would much prefer to see Communion distributed from the step of the sanctuary. I was wondering if the rubrics have any guidelines on the matter. I find distribution at the rear of the church leads to a big crowd of people clustering around the minister and making reception of Communion look a bit of a mess. -- J.McE., Dundalk, Ireland

A: Unless there are specific diocesan policies, I know of no general rule excluding children from receiving the Precious Blood.

Certainly in most Eastern Churches, which always administer Communion under both species, even very small children receive the Eucharist in this manner. Many of these Churches distribute the two species together, directly to the mouth, using a special spoon.

Although I am unaware if the question has been legally tested in the United States, I doubt that there are serious legal concerns regarding distribution of the Precious Blood to children.

If the U.S. Supreme Court can justify admitting the use of an illegal hallucinogen to a specific group in the name of religious freedom, then a few drops of what is apparently an alcoholic beverage is unlikely to muster a challenge.

Of more concern is the possibility of an adverse reflex reaction to wine on the part of young children unused to its strong taste, especially when the most common form of distribution is directly from the chalice. It is also more likely that children could drop the chalice.

This difficulty can be remedied by initiating children to Communion under both kinds under the form of intinction in which a corner of the host is dipped in the chalice and placed directly upon the tongue. This allows them to gradually become accustomed to the taste as well as obtaining the spiritual benefit of receiving both species.

It has the added advantage of introducing them to the possibility of receiving the host on the tongue in places where receiving on the hand has not only been permitted but has become the only option explained to young children.

Regarding the manner of distributing Communion, No. 160 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (U.S. version) says:

"The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

"The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

"When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood."

The expression "as a rule" means that this is the best option. But it does not exclude other possibilities if logistical difficulties make it impractical for all to approach the presbytery or sanctuary in a reasonable lapse of time.

However, other solutions should always ensure a dignified approach to Communion and the possibility of making a suitable act of reverence including kneeling in those countries where the bishops' conferences have not specified another habitual form of reception (as is the case of Italy and most other countries).

Going to the back of the church, as our reader has noticed, can lead to disorganization. This makes it easier for hosts to fall and for people with evil intentions to steal a sacred host.

Therefore, in conclusion, it is best that all communicants approach the presbytery area to receive Communion, even from several ministers. If this is not practically possible, then I would suggest using side altars as suitable distribution points. If there are no suitable side altars, then I suggest setting up temporary fixed spots for distributing the Eucharist at which the minister of holy Communion remains in place while the faithful approach him or her.

If possible, this place could be slightly elevated above the floor so as to make administration easier for the minister and facilitate the possibility of kneeling to those faithful who choose to do so.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Cohabiting Brides and Grooms

ROME, JULY 29, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Pursuant to the question relating to cohabitating couples (see July 15), several readers asked questions as to what weddings a Catholic should not attend.

This is a very delicate question and one which sometimes sparks bitter division among families, especially as relatives often instinctively allow the heart to rule the head when faced with clearly erroneous choices made by loved ones.

It is necessary to point out that there are no specific Church norms governing this practice. A generalized lack of catechesis combined with a sometimes aggressively pluralistic society have made necessary a loosening of stricter pastoral practices that would have reigned just a generation ago.

There sometimes is no simple answer, and persons with doubts about particular situations should consult their pastor before making a final decision.

One general principle could be that a Catholic should not attend a wedding in which the person is entering into an objectively irregular state. This would include cases where a Catholic enters into a second union after having divorced a living spouse, and without having received an annulment.

Certainly, concrete situations can be hardest to evaluate, and God alone is the final judge of each person's heart. Yet, a Catholic cannot approve of an action by which relatives deprive themselves of the possibility of benefiting from the sacraments.

True love for our relatives must embrace concern for their eternal salvation and cannot be limited to their temporal happiness.

In making clear that in conscience they cannot support their relative's decision by their presence, they should strive to retain human affection and support and avoid a breach in social relationships.

Other cases, while serious, might require less radical reactions. For example, if a relative decides to be married in a civil, Protestant or non-Christian ceremony. The Church considers the wedding invalid, since all Catholics are obliged to observe the canonical form or at least be granted a dispensation from the bishop.

Although the wedding is invalid, Church law has several means of subsequently validating it provided there are no other impediments. This is not the case with our earlier example, even though the second union may be sanctified after the death of a legitimate spouse or after a definitive decree of annulment has been issued.

In deciding how to react, Catholics should take into account their relative's level of catechesis and practice. It is very different if the relative is making an incorrect choice out of ignorance or fully aware that he is disobeying Church laws. The relative's degree of faith knowledge also influences the possibility of his understanding a loved one's refusal to attend the ceremony.

The Catholic should also do all that can reasonably be done so that their kith and kin marry in good standing. They are often ignorant of the fact that, for a good reason, the bishop can dispense from the Catholic ritual so that a wedding according to the rites of another faith is considered as valid in Catholic eyes. This dispensation is rarely granted in the case of civil marriages, but it is always possible to hold a private ceremony later that validates the marriage.

If the Catholic party has done all that is possible and there is obstinate refusal to at least ask for a dispensation, then the Catholic loved one should refrain from attending the ceremony.

If one sees that it is simply ignorance, and nothing but bitterness is to be gained by refusing to attend the celebration, or at least the reception, then one could attend while making one's disapproval clear. But this kind of case is best discussed with one's pastor ahead of time.

Seek the Treasure That Awaits: Gospel Commentary for 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Father Raniero Cantalamessa is the Pontifical Household preacher. The readings for this Sunday are 1 Kings 3,5:7-12; Romans 8:28-30; Matthew 13: 44-52.

* * *

ROME, JULY 25, 2008 (Zenit.org).- What did Jesus want to say with the two parables of the hidden treasure and the precious pearl? More or less this: The decisive hour of history has arrived. The Kingdom of God has come on earth.

Specifically, it is about himself and his coming on earth. The hidden treasure and the precious pearl are nothing other than Jesus himself. It is as if, with these words, Jesus wished to say: Salvation has come to you freely, by God's initiative. Make a decision, take advantage of the opportunity, do not let it escape from you. It is the time to decide.

What comes to my mind is the day World War II ended. In the city, partisans and allies opened the storerooms with provisions left by the German army when it retreated. In a flash, the news reached villages in the country and all ran at top speed to take all those wonderful things. Some arrived home full of blankets, others with baskets of provisions.

I think that with these two parables Jesus wished to create such an atmosphere. He wanted to say: Run while you have time! There is a free treasure that awaits you, a precious pearl. Do not lose the opportunity.

Except that, in Jesus' case, what is at stake is infinitely more serious. One's all is at stake. The Kingdom is the only thing that can save us from the highest risk of life, which is to lose the reason why we are in this world.

We are in a society that lives on insurance. People insure themselves against everything. In some countries, it is a kind of mania. There is even insurance against bad weather during vacations. Among all, the most important and frequent insurance is that of life.

However, lets reflect for a minute. Of what use is this insurance and against what does it insure us? Against death? Of course not. It ensures that, in case of death, some one receives an indemnity.

The Kingdom of Heaven is also life insurance against death. "Whoever believes in me, even though he die, shall live," said Jesus. Thus we also understand the radical need posed by such a "deal": to sell everything and leave it all. In other words, to be prepared, if necessary, for any sacrifice.

However, not to pay the price of the treasure or the pearl, which, by definition, do not have a "price," but to be worthy of them.

In each of the parables there are, in fact, two actors: an evident one, that goes, sells and buys; and a hidden one, taken for granted. The author taken for granted is the former proprietor who did not realize that in his field there was a treasure and sold it cheaply to the first bidder. It is the man or woman who had the precious pearl, did not realize its value, and gave it to the first merchant passing by, perhaps for a collection of false pearls.

How can we not see in this warning that is addressed to those of us who sell our faith and Christian heritage for nothing?

However, the parable does not say "a man sold everything he had and started to look for a hidden treasure." We know how such stories end: One loses what one had and finds no treasure. These are stories of dreamers, of visionaries.

No, man found a treasure and, because of this, sold all he had to buy it. In a word, it is necessary to have found the treasure to have the strength and joy to sell everything.

Leaving the parable to one side, we must first find Jesus, meet him in a personal, new and convincing way. Discover him as friend and savior. Then it will be child's play to sell everything.

It is something that will be "full of joy," as the proprietor mentioned in the Gospel.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Article: Opus Dei Marks 1 Year in Russia, Notes Richness of Christianity's History There

By Miriam Díez i Bosch


MOSCOW, JULY 24, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The Opus Dei prelature has completed a year of service in Russia, a year in which its members say they have learned the great richness that the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches can contribute to one another.

Opus Dei opened houses in Russia one year ago. The archbishop of the Mother of God Archdiocese in Moscow gave two parishes to priests of the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross, which is an association of clergy intrinsically united to Opus Dei. It is made up of the clergy of the prelature, who are automatically members, and other diocesan priests and (transitional) deacons. The Prelate of Opus Dei is its president.

To mark the first anniversary of Opus Dei's work in Russia, Masses were celebrated on or near the June 26 feast of the prelature's founder, St. Josemaría Escrivá

Father Alejandro Burgos, one of the priests who took a Russian parish, told ZENIT that "Russia has always been a Christian country, with great love for Mary, who has especially protected her. The imprint of Communism has been very deep, but at present there are quite a few positive elements: a good percentage of Russians are already baptized. The asphyxiating laicism, which so undermined religious life in the West, does not exist."

"Moreover, to speak of faith in Russia is to speak of ecumenism," he said. "Personal relations between Catholics and Orthodox in general are not bad. We enjoy plurality in unity, as we feel great unity in the faith and the great richness that each confession can contribute to the other."

Among the things which have most impressed the Opus Dei faithful is "the great faith and devotion of many Russian faithful who were able to sacrifice themselves for Christ for so many years," Father Burgos added.

To learn

Gabriela Santa Maria, one of the faithful who is in Russia to take part in this new apostolic endeavor, explained to ZENIT that "although for the time being it is on a small scale, we ome with the hope of being able to support these Russian brothers of ours and the Church in this country, and to learn much from them. We know that our work here is just beginning, and that for years many men and women sacrificed much to live their faith with integrity."

"The Christian spirit is essential, as is that of the Opus Dei, to pursue what unites, to try to work and collaborate sincerely with all men of good will in the many fields of common interest," she added. "This way of working is what a pluralist world urgently needs, and what is expected of Christians, who must be salt and light.

"With joy we can say that in Russia we can count on the affection of many people belonging to the Orthodox Church, and also non-Christians who feel attracted to the profound and relevant message of St. Josemaría."

In this year dedicated to St. Paul, celebrated both by the Catholic and Orthodox Church, "we are praying especially for Christian unity," explained Santa Maria.

"Since our arrival in Moscow," she continued, "we have counted on the affection of the [Orthodox] patriarchate, as expressed, for example, by the vice-president of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department of Foreign Ecclesial Affairs, archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, who welcomed Opus Dei's personal prelature and pointed out that its energy and fidelity "to Christian ideals merit great respect."

For his part, Father José Antonio Senovilla García, Opus Dei's vicar in Moscow, said that the prelature has gone to Russia to "help the people encounter Jesus Christ and thus find God in daily life. We have come to learn from the Russian people."

Article: A gardener must be a philosopher but never an atheist

PAUL JOHNSON

Gardeners come close to the spirit of life and its creator. They are not wild enthusiasts, but gentle philosophers, and we may be sure that no great gardener is an atheist.

Somebody asked: 'How do you express your love of country in this leaden age? How do you sweep aside the multicultural poison and simply assert -- “I am an English patriot?”' I answer: 'Create a garden, or help those who do so.' There is no more English activity than gardening, and it has been so for over a thousand years. Indeed, there were Anglo-Saxon gardens before: traces remain. Gardens grew under castle walls, and were tended by the wives of men who wore chain mail. They took the place of water lilies when the moats were peaceably drained. The first great English essay, written by Francis Bacon early in the 17th century, is 'Of Gardens'. I have just reread it. It is long, elegant but detailed and full of ripe knowledge, about nature and our intimate relationship with her.

Bacon is particularly good on the scents and smells of a garden which, stirred by faint breezes, he compares, in its coming and going, to the warbling of music. Thus he gives advice on planting accordingly, to create varying odours all the year round. He distinguishes between passive smells, and those you can arouse. Thus: 'Those which perfume the air most delightfully, not passed by as the rest, but being trodden upon and crushed, are three: that is, burnet, wild-thyme and watermints. Therefore you are to set whole alleys of them, to have the pleasure when you walk or tread.' Of course, you say, flowers had much stronger scents in that golden age. Not necessarily so: Bacon complains that some flowers which ought to smell gloriously do not, and instances bays, rosemary and sweet marjoram; and he complains that some flowers, once in bloom, expend their scent quickly: 'Roses, damask and red, are fast flowers of their smell, so that you may walk by a whole row of them, and find nothing of their sweetness; yea, though it be in a morning's dew.' The flower, he says, that 'yields the sweetest smell in the air, is the violet, especially the white double violet'. As true today as when he wrote.

I was thinking of Bacon the other weekend when I went to an open garden day at one of our finest Somerset villages, Stogumber. There were 15 gardens on display, all within easy walking distance so each could be visited without undue fatigue. It is a noble place, crowded with old houses, kept beautifully painted, and with a pleasing mediaeval church, whose collection of silver vessels was likewise on show. Walking its sleepy lanes, and popping in every few paces to inspect a garden behind its proud cottage, was a rare delight. One sometimes thinks that Old England is gone for good, and looking around parts of London nowadays with its atmosphere of a degraded Levantine bazaar crowded with embittered people, it is hard to deny the malign change. But in West Somerset, on such an occasion, Old England is very much alive: gentle, personal, courteous, smiling, welcoming, anxious to show you what has been created, and explain it.

Gardening is like raising children, in a way: full of unexpected changes, even shocks; requiring a great deal of patience and love, and willingness to go with nature instead of trying to bend it to your will.

These small gardens on show at their best time of year are more fun and interesting than the grander affairs. To begin with, each is totally individual, made by one devoted person, or a couple. Then, the creators are there, on the spot, to answer your questions and tell of the experiments, surprises, disappointments and glories of their craft. What is so remarkable is the ingenuity with which each square foot of garden is put to use, to create intensity, variety and contrasts, an air of spaciousness and generosity in an acre or less. I saw nothing repetitive, no horticultural clichés, but on the contrary, originality and imagination, especially in the juxtaposition of colour, shape, size and texture of leaf, as though the gardener was a painter, composing carefully not only for the telling detail but the general effect. And they are quick to tell you of the happy accident, the surprise emergence in due season of an unusual bloom, unexpected but refreshing, and welcome. 'That was a surprise,' they say. 'But then you never know exactly what is going to come up, or what precisely is happening in the winter under the soil.' Gardening is like raising children, in a way: full of unexpected changes, even shocks; requiring a great deal of patience and love, and willingness to go with nature instead of trying to bend it to your will.

Gardens, especially small ones tended by one person, reflect character, and express aesthetic temperament, even a philosophy of life. I was particularly taken by one delicately composed of pale shades, which put me in mind of Milton's Lycidas:

Bring the rathe primrose that forsaken dies,
The tufted crow-toe, and pale jessamine,
The white pink, and the pansy freaked with jet,
The glowing violet,
The musk-rose, and the well-attired woodbine,
With cowslips wan that hang the pensive head,
And every flower that sad embroidery wears.

Gardens display tidy minds and tempestuous ones, the energies of the adventurous spirit and the cosy conservation of the virtuous one.

By contrast, there was the blazing border based upon what Bacon calls the 'French marigold', but composed of many other fierce orange and yellow blooms, and a few furnace-reds. It sounds a horror but was actually, in its own bold way, a masterpiece of taste and vivacity, as though van Gogh, wisely advised by Fantin-Latour, had designed it in an inspired moment. But as the lady who created it said: 'Oh, a lot of it was sheer luck, you know. Never happen again, most likely. But then, you don't want too many repeats in gardening do you? I'm all for changing each year.'

I admired, too, the lady who had created a neat, spruce, serpentine path leading into the heart of her garden, with variegated mosses and plants of many shades of green, punctuating the granite squares -- a miniature work of grand art, worthy of Vermeer. Gardens display tidy minds and tempestuous ones, the energies of the adventurous spirit and the cosy conservation of the virtuous one. Odd that Freud took no interest in the gardener's mind; but then he was a city Herr, all parterres and privets. As well as all kinds of primitive instincts and irrational skills, there is a strong intellectual and spiritual element in raising plants, which both reflects personality and helps to shape it. All gardeners are economists, but of various kinds: expansionists and gradualists, exuberant or cautious. As Keynes said, gardeners can be bulls and bears, too. There is the kind, for instance, who can make perfectionist use of the daisy, recognising the truth of Chaucer's point in the Prologue to The Legend of Good Women:

That wel by reson men it calle may
The 'dayesye' or elles the 'ye of day',
The emperice and flour of floures alle.

There is also the kind that makes superb use of contrasting light and dark leaves in shrubs, and multiple shades of green, signs of a subtle, highly observant temperament -- what you might call a Dorothy Wordsworth mind.

The Old Testament is full of references to flowers, especially their fragility, their evanescence. Samuel warns: 'All the increase of thy house shall die in the flower of their age,' and the Voice in Isaiah says: 'All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.' Gardeners know this. They perceive that dying is inherent in nature, and so is rebirth and renewal. Gardeners come close to the spirit of life and its creator. They are not wild enthusiasts, but gentle philosophers, and we may be sure that no great gardener is an atheist.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Paul Johnson. "A gardener must be a philosopher but never an atheist." The Spectator (July 2, 2008).

This article is from Paul Johnson's "And another thing" column for The Spectator and is reprinted with permission of the author.

THE AUTHOR

Paul Johnson, celebrated journalist and historian, is the author most recently of George Washington: The Founding Father. Among his other widely acclaimed books are A History of the American People, Modern Times, A History of the Jews, Intellectuals, Art: A New History, and The Quest for God: Personal Pilgrimage. He also produces brief surveys that slip into the pocket, such as his popular The Renaissance and Napoleon. He is a frequent contributor to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Spectator, and the Daily Telegraph. He lectures all over the world and lives in Notting Hill (London) and Somerset.

Copyright © 2008 Paul Johnson

Wednesday Liturgy: Leaving Right After Communion

ROME, JULY 21, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Unfortunately some in the parish have developed the poor habit of leaving Mass immediately after Communion. I estimate around 30%, or approximately 225 people, leave early. Our church holds 750, so the disappearance is definitely noticeable. Could you provide a theological discourse on why this is not appropriate behavior? -- D.S., Port Charlotte, Florida

A: This is a perennial problem, but one which must be faced with patience, insisting, as St. Paul would say, "Opportune et inopportune" (in season and out of season), until the message reaches home.

This question reminded me of the story of a saintly priest who had the same problem with one of his devout parishioners who attended daily Mass but left immediately after Communion. He solved the problem by ordering two altar boys with lighted tapers to walk on either side of him as soon as he started to leave the church and accompany him all the way to his carriage.

When, after three days repeating this action, the somewhat flustered and embarrassed gentleman asked the priest for an explanation, he was told that since Christ was still present in him as he left the church, his presence had to be honored by lighted candles. Needless to say, he never left early again.

This anecdote could serve as a starting point for the priest to reflect with the people on the importance of giving thanks for the gift of Mass, of being spiritually nurtured by God's word, of participating in his unique sacrifice, and by receiving Communion.

This also requires that there is effectively a period of silence after the Communion song and that the priest, deacon and other ministers lead by example, dedicating two or three minutes to silent reflection at the chair.

On occasion the priest may assist the people by directing a brief meditative prayer of thanksgiving. This is especially effective at so-called children's Masses for, while the prayer is ostensibly directed toward the children, it often serves adults just as much.

Another point to be emphasized is the importance of assisting at the entire Mass. There are many plastic images to illustrate this, but most can grasp that if their boss, or the local mayor, summons them to a meeting, they would not dare leave before their host has formally brought it to a close. Even more is this true when a beloved parent, sibling or lifelong friend invites us to spend time with them.

If we behave thus before mere human authority and relationships, then how much more should it be true when our host is the Father who created us, the Son who died and rose for us, and the Spirit who gives us life.

Let us leave courtesy aside for a moment and return to thanksgiving. The Mass is something we celebrate together as Church and as a worshipping assembly united to Christ through the priest. It is not just something we do as individual Christians.

In the same manner, our thanksgiving for Mass cannot be reduced to the individual sphere and must be carried out as Church. This collective thanksgiving is done through the priest at the closing prayer to which all respond "Amen."

Finally, the Mass is intimately united to Christian life and mission. The final blessing and dismissal send us forth to transmit what we have received to our brothers and sisters. If we leave directly after Communion, then we lose this important component of our spiritual life.

From a very material standpoint one could also see if there is some tangible motivation that leads so many of the faithful to leave early. Is there a bottleneck in the parking lot? Are Mass schedules too close together? If there are real practical inconveniences involved, then theology alone will be ineffective in changing people's habits until these are resolved.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Using Classrooms for Mass

ROME, JULY 21, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

A question related to our July 8 column on classroom Masses was on file from a Filipino correspondent. He asked: "Here in the Philippines, some of the shopping malls have a practice of having the Eucharist celebrated in them, most especially during Sundays. Coming to Mass in malls has been a practice of some of the families who frequent them, especially during Sundays. Some of these Masses are even televised. Could you comment on this? Is it really allowed?"

As with all habitual Masses outside of sacred spaces, such celebrations would have to be authorized by the bishop.

There are several things to be taken into account. There is no particular difficulty in having a chapel within a mall, just as they are found in other places with large conglomerations of people, such as airports, where people may take a spiritual break before the Blessed Sacrament and employees with irregular work shifts can attend Mass.

There is at least one religious congregation that specializes in setting up chapels in busy city areas so that Mass, confession, and adoration are available close to where people spend most of their time.

If this is the case with a mall Mass, then it is something worthwhile.

But herein lies the difficulty. Making Mass available at a mall on a Sunday could easily be seen as cooperating with a prevailing cultural trend that empties the Lord's Day of its sacredness and converts it into just another shopping day.

One could argue that it is best to offer the Mass where people are to be found, but the question remains if this is best for the common good. Sunday has a social as well as a religious function in predominantly Christian societies: It permits as many families as possible to be together for prayer and social interaction.

Although it will always be necessary for some people to work on Sundays, the commercialization of those days ties down an ever-growing number of families and thus weakens already fragile social bonds.

Another difficulty is the venue. If Mass is held in some public part of the mall, as seems to be implied by our correspondent, then the necessary separation from the profane cannot be achieved. It is hard to imagine serenely attending or celebrating Mass while people carry on business as usual all around you. This would hardly be a situation worthy of the Lord.

Things might be seen under a different light if commercial activities are suspended during the Mass. But the problem of respecting the integrity of Sunday as the Lord's Day still remains.

Of Weeds and Seeds: Gospel Commentary for 16th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Father Raniero Cantalamessa is the Pontifical Household preacher. The readings for this Sunday are Wisdom 12:13.16-19; Romans 8: 26-27; Matthew 13: 24-43.

* * *

ROME, JULY 18, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Jesus sketched the situation of the Church in the world with three parables. The grain of mustard seed that becomes a tree indicates the growth of the Kingdom of God on earth. Also the parable of leaven in the dough signifies the growth of the Kingdom, not so much in extension as in intensity. It indicates the transforming force of the Gospel that raises the dough and prepares it to become bread.

These two parables were easily understood by the disciples, but not so the third, the seeds and the weeds, which Jesus explained to them separately. The sower, he said, was himself, the good seeds were the children of the Kingdom, the bad seeds were the children of the evil one, the field was the world and the harvest was the end of the world.

In antiquity, Jesus' parable was the object of a memorable dispute that it is very important to keep in mind also today. There were sectarian spirits, the Donatists, who resolved the matter in a simplistic way: On one hand was the Church (their church) made up wholly and solely of the perfect; on the other was the world full of children of the evil one, without hope of salvation.

St. Augustine opposed them: The field, he explained, is, indeed, the world, but it is also the Church, the place in which saints and sinners live side-by-side, and in which there is room to grow and to be converted. "The evildoers," he said, "exist in this way either so that they will be converted, or because through them the good exercise patience."

Hence the scandals that every now and then shake the Church should sadden, but not surprise us. The Church is made up of human persons, not wholly and solely of saints. There are weeds also in every one of us, not only in the world and in the Church, and this should render us less ready to point the finger.

To Luther, who rebuked Erasmus of Rotterdam for staying in the Catholic Church notwithstanding her corruption, the latter responded: "I support this Church in the hope that she will become better, because she is also constrained to bear with me in the hope that I will become better."

Perhaps the main subject of the parable, however, is neither the seeds nor the weeds, but God's patience. The liturgy underlines it with the selection of the first reading, which is a hymn to God's strength that is manifested under the form of patience and indulgence. God's patience is not simply patience, namely, awaiting the Day of Judgment so as to punish more severely. It is forbearance, mercy, the will to save.

The parable of the seeds and the weeds lends itself to a wider reflection. One of the principal motives of embarrassment for believers and of rejection of God by nonbelievers has always been the "disorder" that exists in the world. Ecclesiastes, which in so many instances makes itself the spokesman of doubters and skeptics, noted, "There is the same lot for all, for the just and the wicked" (9:2). And, "Under the sun in the judgment place I saw wickedness, and in the seat of justice, iniquity" (3:16).

At all times, iniquity has been seen as triumphant and innocence as humiliated. "However," noted the great orator Bossuet, "so that the world is not believed to be something fixed and secure, note that sometimes the contrary is seen, namely, innocence on the throne and iniquity on the scaffold. "

The response to this scandal was already found by the author of Ecclesiastes: "And I said to myself, both the just and the wicked God will judge, since there is a time for every affair and on every work a judgment" (3:17). It is what Jesus calls in the parable "the time of harvest." In other words, it is a question of finding the precise point of observation in face of the reality, of seeing things in the light of eternity.

It is what happens with certain modern paintings that, seen up close, seem a medley of colors without order or meaning, but seen from the correct distance they reveal a precise and powerful design.

It is not a question of remaining passive and in expectation in face of evil and injustice, but of struggling with all licit means to promote justice and repress injustice and violence. To this effort, which involves men of good will, faith adds assistance and support of inestimable value -- the certainty that the final victory will not be that of injustice and arrogance, but of innocence.

Modern man finds it difficult to accept the idea of God's Last Judgment on the world and history, but in this he contradicts himself because it is he himself who rebels against the idea that injustice has the last word.

In so many millennia of life on earth, man has become accustomed to everything: He has adapted himself to all climates, and immunized himself against so many sicknesses. However, he has never become accustomed to one thing: injustice. He continues to see it as intolerable. And it is to this thirst for justice that the judgment will respond. This will not be willed only by God, but by all men and, paradoxically, even by the ungodly.

"In the day of the universal judgment," says the poet Paul Claudel, "it is not only the Judge who will descend from heaven, but the whole earth will precipitate the encounter."

How much human affairs change when seen from this angle, even those that are happening in the world today! Let us take the phenomenon, which so humiliates and saddens us Italians, of organized crime. Recently, Roberto Saviano's book "Gomorrah," and later the film made about it, documented the degree of odiousness and contempt of others gathered around the heads of these organizations, but also the sense of impotence and almost of resignation of society in face of the phenomenon.

We saw in the past people of the mafia accused of horrible crimes, defend themselves with a smile on their lips, defeating the judges and courts, gaining strength by the lack of evidence. As if, pretending to be candid before the human judges, they resolved everything. If I could address them I would say: Don't delude yourselves, poor unfortunate ones; you haven't accomplished a thing! The real judgment must still begin. You may end your days in liberty, honored, and finally with a splendid religious funeral, after having left hefty donations for charitable works, but you will not have accomplished anything. The true Judge awaits you behind the door, and you can't cheat him. God does not allow himself to be bribed.

Hence, what Jesus says at the end of his explanation of the parable of the weeds should be a reason for consolation for the victims, and of healthy dread for the violent. "Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with the fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his Kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father."

[Translation by ZENIT]

A God of His Word: Gospel Commentary for 15th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Father Raniero Cantalamessa is the Pontifical Household preacher. The readings for this Sunday are Isaiah 55:10-11; Romans 8:18-23; Matthew 13:1-23.

* * *

ROME, JULY 11, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The readings of this Sunday speak of the word of God with two interlaced images: that of rain and of seed.

In the first reading, Isaiah compares the word of God with rain that falls from heaven and does not return without watering and helping seeds to grow. In the Gospel, Jesus speaks of the word of God as a seed that falls on different terrains and produces fruit. The word of God is seed because it generates life and rain that nourishes life, which allows the seed to grow.

When speaking of the word of God we often take for granted the most moving event of all, namely, that God speaks. The biblical God is a God who speaks!"

"Our God comes and will not be silent," says Psalm 50; God himself often repeats: "Listen, my people, I will speak" (Psalm 50:7). In this the Bible sees the clearest difference from the idols that "have mouths, but do not speak" (Psalm 115).

What meaning should we give such an anthropomorphic expression as "God said to Adam," "thus speaks the Lord," "the Lord says," "oracle of the Lord," and others like them? Obviously it is a way of speaking that is different from the human, a speaking to the ears of the heart.

God speaks the way he writes! "I will place my law within them," says the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:33). He writes on the heart and he also makes his words resonate in the heart. He says so expressly himself through the prophet Hosea, speaking of Israel as an unfaithful bride: "So I will allure her; I will lead her into the desert and speak to her heart" (Hosea 2:16).

God does not have a human mouth or breath; the prophet is his mouth, the Holy Spirit is his breath. "You will be my mouth," he himself says to his prophets. He also says "I will put my word on your lips." This is the meaning of the famous phrase "human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God" (2 Peter 1:21). The spiritual tradition of the Church has coined the expression "interior locutions" for this way of speaking addressed to the mind and heart.

And yet, it is a speaking in the true sense of the term. The creature receives a message that can be translated into human words. So alive and real is God's speaking, that the prophet recalls with precision the place, day and time that a certain word "came" to him. So concrete is the word of God that it is said it "falls" upon Israel, as if it were a stone (Isaiah 9:7). Or, as if it were bread that is eaten with pleasure: "When I found your words, I devoured them; they became my joy and the happiness of my heart," (Jeremiah 15:16).

No human voice comes to man with the depth with which the word of God comes to him. "Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart" (Hebrews 4,12). At times God's speaking is a powerful thunder that "splinters the cedars of Lebanon" (Psalm 29), at other times it seems like the "tiny whispering sound" (1 Kings 19:12). It knows all the tones of human speech.

This interior and spiritual nature of God's speaking changes radically the moment that "the word became flesh." With the coming of Christ, God also speaks with a human voice, which can be heard not only with the ears of the soul but also of the body.

As we can see, the Bible attributes immense dignity to the word. Attempts have not been lacking to change the solemn affirmation with which John begins his Gospel: "In the beginning was the word."

Goethe has his Faust say: "In the beginning, there was action," and it is interesting to see how the writer comes to this conclusion.

"I cannot give 'the word' such high value," says Faust. "Perhaps I should understand it as 'hearing,' but can hearing be what acts and creates everything? Hence one should say: 'In the beginning force existed.' But no, a sudden illumination suggested the answer to me: 'In the beginning, action existed.'"

However, these are unjustified attempts at correction. John's word or logos has all the meanings that Goethe assigns to the rest of the terms. As we see in the prologue, it is light, life and creative force.

God created man "in his image" precisely because he created him capable of speaking, of communicating and of establishing relationships. He, who has in himself from eternity one word, has created man and gifted him with the word, in order to be, not only "image" but also "likeness" of God (Genesis 1:26). It is not enough for man to speak, but he must imitate God's speaking. The content and motor of God's speaking is love.

From beginning to end, the Bible is no more than a message of the love of God for his creatures. The tones might change, from the angry to the tender, but the essence is always and only love.

God has used the word to communicate life and truth, to instruct and console. This poses the question: What use do we make of the word? In his play "Closed Doors," Sartre has given us a striking image of what human communication can become when love is lacking.

Three persons are introduced, in brief intervals, in a room. There are no windows. The light is at its brightest and there is no possibility to turn it off. There is suffocating heat, and there is only one seat for each one. The door, of course, is closed. The bell is there but does not ring. Who are these people?

They are three dead persons, a man and two women, and the place they are in is hell. There are no mirrors, and they can only see themselves through the words of the others, which gives them the most horrible image of themselves, without any mercy, on the contrary, with irony and sarcasm.

When, after a while, their souls became naked to one another and the faults of which they were ashamed have come into the light one by one and enjoyed by the others without mercy, one of the individuals says to the other two: "Remember, the brimstone, the flames, the tortures with fire. All are stupidities. There is no need of torments: Hell is the others." Abuse of the word can transform life into a hell.

St. Paul gives Christians this golden rule in regard to words: "No foul language should come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for needed edification, that it may impart grace to those who hear" (Ephesians 4, 29). The good word is the one that chooses the positive side of an action and a person and that, even when it corrects, does not offend. A good word is one that gives hope. A bad word is every word said without love, to wound and humiliate one's neighbor. If a bad word comes out of the lips, it will be necessary to retract it.

Not altogether correct are the verses of the Italian poet Metastasio: "Word that comes from within, is no longer worth retracting; The arrow cannot be stopped, when it has left the bow."

A word that issues from the mouth can be retracted, or at least its negative effect can be limited, by asking for forgiveness. Hence, what a gift it can be for our fellow men and what an improvement for the quality of life in the heart of the family and of society!

[Translation by ZENIT]

Article: Breaking the bonds of communion

FATHER RAYMOND J. DE SOUZA

Formal arrangements have yet to be made, but it now appears that the critical decisions have already been taken for a dissolution of the Anglican Communion.

Canterbury Cathedral

Every 10 years, all the world's Anglican bishops meet at the seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Palace. They are scheduled to meet this summer, but already some 250 have decided not to attend, boycotting because of the failure of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, to discipline American and Canadian Anglicans for blessing same-sex unions and ordaining actively homosexual clergy.

Many of those who are not attending Lambeth are in Jerusalem this week for an alternative meeting, to discuss how they see the way forward. The parallel meetings are a clear manifestation that the bonds of communion have broken down. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not in Jerusalem, and is not welcome there. The breach appears irreparable and therefore the Anglican Communion's days as a global community centred in Canterbury are numbered.

That is a sadness for those, like myself, who have affection for the Anglican sensibility. But sensibilities are not doctrines, and it cannot be the case that members of the same communion can hold directly contradictory views on matters of grave importance. The Canadian and American proponents of same-sex marriages are arguing that homosexual acts can be morally good, and even sacramental. The traditional Christian view is that such acts are sinful. That is a gap that cannot be bridged: Either one holds to the ancient and constant teaching of the Christian Church, or one rejects it in favour of a different position. It cannot be that both views exist side-by-side as equally acceptable options.

It is not a disagreement only about sexual morality. It goes deeper than that, to what status the ancient and apostolic tradition has in the Church today. There can be no doubt that the blessing of homosexual relationships is entirely novel and in contradiction to the Christian tradition. So if that tradition no longer holds, it raises questions about the apostolicity of those communities which have abandoned it.

The Jerusalem setting for the alternative bishops' meeting is deliberately evocative -- and provocative. To return to Jerusalem is to return to the roots of the Christian faith, to return to the land of Jesus and the apostles. The choice of Jerusalem is meant to express fidelity to those roots.

An additional sadness for Catholic and Orthodox Christians is that if the Anglican Communion embraces the path of doctrinal innovation, they will be closing the door on closer ecumenical relations. By unilaterally choosing to do what Catholics and Orthodox have always taught is outside our common tradition, they would be choosing the path of division.

That has already become dramatically evident. I remember being at the opening ceremonies of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 in Rome, when pope John Paul II opened the Holy Door at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside The Walls. He invited the then-archbishop of canterbury, Dr. George Carey, and an Orthodox archbishop to open the door together with him, three abreast in unity.

By the time of John Paul's death in 2005, matters had deteriorated significantly. The original draft for his funeral called for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople to offer joint prayers at the conclusion of the funeral Mass, but it never came off. By then it was thought more doubtful, above all in the eyes of the Orthodox, that the Anglican Communion was still in the historic tradition of the apostolic faith.

The Jerusalem setting for the alternative bishops' meeting is deliberately evocative -- and provocative. To return to Jerusalem is to return to the roots of the Christian faith, to return to the land of Jesus and the apostles. The choice of Jerusalem is meant to express fidelity to those roots. Yet Jerusalem also represents something more contemporary, namely the shift in gravity in the Anglican world from north to south. The majority of the bishops present in Jerusalem are from the south, in particular Africa, where Anglicanism is growing and vibrant. In contrast, the Lambeth conference will be held in a country where more Catholics go to church on Sunday than Anglicans, despite being outnumbered some 10 to one. The typical Anglican in church on Sunday is far more likely to be a young African than Canadian, American or English.

The see of Canterbury is one of the Christian world's most venerable, being occupied throughout her history by great saints such as Saint Augustine of Canterbury and Saint Thomas Becket. There will be other archbishops after Dr. Williams, but it seems likely now that none will preside over a global communion.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father Raymond J. de Souza, "Breaking the bonds of communion." National Post, (Canada) June 26, 2008.

Reprinted with permission of the National Post and Fr. de Souza.

THE AUTHOR

Father Raymond J. de Souza is chaplain to Newman House, the Roman Catholic mission at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario. Father de Souza's web site is here. Father de Souza is on the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Copyright © 2008 National Post

Article: An Absentee God?

DINESH D'SOUZA

In my debate with Christopher Hitchens in New York last October he raised a point that I did not know how to answer. So I employed an old debating strategy: I ignored it and answered other issues. But Hitchens' argument bothered me.

Here's what Hitchens said. Homo sapiens has been on the planet for a long time, let's say 100,000 years. Apparently for 95,000 years God sat idly by, watching and perhaps enjoying man's horrible condition. After all, cave-man's plight was a miserable one: infant mortality, brutal massacres, horrible toothaches, and an early death. Evidently God didn't really care.

Then, a few thousand years ago, God said, "It's time to get involved." Even so God did not intervene in one of the civilized parts of the world. He didn't bother with China or Egypt or India. Rather, he decided to get his message to a group of nomadic people in the middle of nowhere.

Here is the thrust of Hitchens' point: God seems to have been napping for 98 percent of human history, finally getting his act together only for the most recent 2 percent? What kind of a bizarre God acts like this?

I'm going to answer this argument in two ways. First, I'm going to show that Hitchens has his math precisely inverted. Second, I'll reveal how Hitchens' argument backfires completely on atheism. For my first argument I'm indebted to Erik Kreps of the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research.

An adept numbers guy, Kreps notes that it is not the number of years but the levels of human population that are the issue here. The Population Reference Bureau estimates that the number of people who have ever been born is approximately 105 billion. Of this number, about 2 percent were born before Christ came to earth.

"So in a sense," Kreps notes, "God's timing couldn't have been more perfect. If He'd come earlier in human history, how reliable would the records of his relationship with man be? But He showed up just before the exponential explosion in the world's population, so even though 98 percent of humanity's timeline had passed, only 2 percent of humanity had previously been born, so 98 percent of us have walked the earth since the Redemption."

I have to agree with Kreps's conclusion: "Sorry Hitchens." But actually Hitchens plight is worse than this. As I pointed out in a recent three-way debate with Hitchens and radio host Dennis Prager, Hitchens argument poses a far bigger problem for atheism than it does for theism.

The Population Reference Bureau estimates that the number of people who have ever been born is approximately 105 billion. Of this number, about 2 percent were born before Christ came to earth.

To see why this is so, lets apply an entirely secular analysis and go with Hitchens' premise that there is no God and man is an evolved primate. Well, man's basic frame and brain size haven't changed throughout his terrestrial existence. So here is the problem. Homo sapiens has been on the planet for 100,000 years, but apparently for 95,000 of those years he accomplished virtually nothing. Besides some cave paintings, no real art, no writing, no inventions, no culture, no civilization. Both the wheel and Egyptian hieroglyphics are only 5000 years old.

How is this possible? Were our ancestors, otherwise physically and mentally undistinguishable from us, such blithering idiots that they couldn't figure out anything other than the arts of primitive warfare?

Then, a few thousand years ago, everything changes. Suddenly savage man gives way to historical man. Suddenly the naked ape gets his act together. We see civilizations sprouting in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, and elsewhere. Suddenly there are wheels, agriculture, art and culture. Soon we have dramatic plays and philosophy and an explosion of inventions and novel forms of government and social organization.

So how did Homo sapiens, heretofore such a slacker, suddenly get so smart? Scholars have made strenuous efforts to account for this, but no one has offered a persuasive account. If we compare man's trajectory on earth to an airplane, we see a long, long stretch of the airplane faltering on the ground, and then suddenly, a few thousand years ago, takeoff!

Well, there is one obvious way to account for this historical miracle. It seems as if some transcendent being reached down and breathed some kind of a spirit or soul into man, because after accomplishing virtually nothing for 98 percent of our existence, we have in the past 2 percent of human history produced everything from the pyramids to Proust, from Socrates to computer software.

So paradoxically Hitchens' argument becomes a boomerang. Hitchens has raised a problem that atheism cannot easily explain and one that seems better accounted for by biblical account of creation.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Dinesh D'Souza. "An Absentee God?" tothesource (March 9, 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 Investors 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: Adorably "Wall-E"

FREDERICA MATHEWES-GREEN

Pixar's latest creation may not be a favorite for the younger generation, but may attract an older audience.

WALL-E is one of those movies for which the hardest part of the review is coming up with the first sentence. What should one say about the latest offering from that most excellent animation studio, Pixar? That it's surprisingly, delicately, effectively, poignant? That, for that reason, younger children may not quite get it? That the WALL-E character is genuinely charming, and his originality has not been siphoned off by ET or Short Circuit's Johnny 5? That the film succeeds in making an ecological statement without being annoying? That, despite all those worthy elements, there's just something missing -- a plot, perhaps?

Since the last is the most serious charge, I'll deal with it first. The backdrop against which the story unfolds is that the earth has reached a point of such environmental instability that the entire population was evacuated so a cleanup could be launched. The earthlings were ushered onto a fleet of classy outer-space cruise ships (the mother-ship is named the Axiom), where all needs were met and all amusements provided. (The global corporation whose logo appears on every object in both earth and space is named Buy N Large; check out the phony website at BuyNLarge.com. And don't miss the Privacy Policy at the bottom of the page.) Meanwhile, back on earth, a crew of clean-up robots (Waste Allocation Load Lifters -- Earth Class -- WALL-E), has been given the task of returning this planet to a livable condition.

But what was expected to be a five-year hiatus has now stretched to seven centuries. Only one WALL-E is still operating, diligently turning trash into cubes and stacking the cubes into towers. Then a sleek modern robot shows up, sent by the mother-ship to search for signs of earthly life. (Her kind of robot is called EVE, and she looks like a handy combination of penguin, iPod, and egg.) When she encounters a slip of plant life, the now-ancient computer program clicks on to deliver the specimen to the spaceship, and return the humans to earth. But will they ever make it?

And that's about the extent of it -- odd when one considers that Pixar has given us such original stories as Ratatouille (2007) and The Incredibles (2004). There's a longish (maybe too long) opening section in which we get to know WALL-E (are his eyes maybe a little too pathetic -- like a kitten in an alley in the rain?). And then there's a part involving chases and fights and narrow escapes in and around the Axiom. Some kids might find the latter hard to follow; I was not always clear on what Eve and WALL-E were trying to get into or out of or why.

It's a cliché to say of a beautiful-but-thin production that "you come out humming the sets," but WALL-E's greatest strength is visual. The film begins masterfully, as we approach earth from space, and are surprised to pass through a layer of junk and debris. At the same time we begin to hear a jaunty tune that sounds like it came from an old Broadway musical, a male chorus repeating exhortations to "put on your Sunday clothes" and "get out the Brilliantine and dime cigars." The music is coming from WALL-E's built-in recorder, and is a clip from a videotape of "Hello Dolly" that he had found. "And we won't come home until we've kissed a girl!" the chorus proclaims, as the solitary robot continues his endless task. The animators have rendered this landscape as realistically as they can, and it (and WALL-E himself) is rusty, dinged, and gray. The contrast is already wrenching, and the movie's only minutes old.

Another affecting passage shows us how WALL-E cares for Eve after she encounters the bit of vegetation. Her programming apparently requires her to immediately take it and go into hibernation mode, so for a time she appears essentially comatose, with only the blinking green leafy symbol on her chest to indicate the life within. Yet WALL-E still dotes on her, takes her with him everywhere, and even decorates her with Christmas lights for a special evening out. If you've ever seen an elderly couple out for dinner, and one spouse caring for another with Alzheimer's, you know how touching and beautiful this valiant love can be. And when WALL-E and Eve arrive at the Axiom, her still-motionless form is whisked about on a gurney, yet WALL-E desperately tries to cling to her, like an expectant dad in a maternity hospital. (It's not for nothing, I expect, that she is named Eve, who was "the mother of all living" according to Genesis 3:20. And the white robot's searching the earth for a sign of life, and returning with a bit of leafy green, recalls Noah's dove in Genesis 8:8-12).

But the story never does develop much, nor do the characters. An opportunity is given when WALL-E and Eve bust out of the Axiom's "Repair Ward" with a cohort of malfunctioning robots (most memorably, a beach umbrella given to dramatic self-inversions). I was afraid each would then become, predictably, a distinct character who learns that his apparent disability is actually a strength, but the oddball robots get only a brief playtime. And there are a human man and woman, Mary and John, who break out of the hypnotic computer-controlled environment and exchange a few lines, but are likewise whisked to the margins.

WALL-E isn't like the other Pixar movies, and it's not at all what I was expecting. I don't know if this will be the hit with children that the other movies were, but it's the kind of movie that grownups will want to watch more than once.

Apart from WALL-E and Eve, the most interesting character is the skipper of the Axiom, Captain McCrea. Portraits of the vessel's previous captains line the walls of his cabin, and reveal that the human race has been becoming increasingly obese, soft, and baby-like. Captain McCrea can't get into his uniform jacket, but wears it buttoned over the shoulders of his stretchy soft unitard, the garment worn by everyone on the spaceship. Contented humans have nothing to do but ride along in hoverchairs, gazing at personal video screens that serve all their entertainment and communication needs. They eat continually, sucking food from plastic cups through beverage straws (advertisements blare, "Lunch in a cup!" "Cupcake in a cup!"). They are barraged by commercials urging them to buy more, eat more, and hop on the latest fad. "Try blue! It's the new red!" a voice announces, and instantly all the unitards turn blue. A cheery recorded voice calls out, "Consume again soon!"

But Captain McCrea is intrigued by the possibility that vegetable life is sprouting on earth, and begins to overcome his bloated passivity. He asks his computer to define terms like "dancing," "farms," and even "hoe down," and views the images with increasing wonder. Entranced by earth's fertility and beauty, he begins to consider the possibility of returning to inhabit the earth once more, planting "vegetable seeds and pizza seeds." This dream is opposed by the ship's auto-pilot, a HAL-like device called Auto (Otto?), which has a single glowing red eye. Their struggle for power supplies the closing conflict of the movie.

The conflict is somewhat ambiguous, though, because Auto has a pretty good argument on his side. The captain's naiveté and ignorance would seem to make a return to earth disastrous. We're given the further detail that centuries of reduced gravity have caused the human skeleton to become smaller and weaker; Captain McCrea's feet and hands are little more than pudgy blobs. How could such people, with such disadvantages, thrive on earth? Wouldn't a McCrea victory mean a defeat for humanity?

Well, it's only a movie, of course. But I'll urge you to stay for the closing credits, because they offer a resolution to that question that is not just ingenious but satisfying, as well as moving. WALL-E isn't like the other Pixar movies, and it's not at all what I was expecting. I don't know if this will be the hit with children that the other movies were, but it's the kind of movie that grownups will want to watch more than once.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Frederica Mathewes-Green. "Adorably WALL-E." National Review (June 27, 2008).

This article is reprinted with permission from the author Frederica Mathewes-Green.

THE AUTHOR

Frederica Mathewes-Green is a columnist for Beliefnet.com and a contributor to the Christian Millennial History Project multi-volume series. Her books include At the Corner of East and Now (Putnam), The Illumined Heart (Paraclete Press), The Open Door: Entering the Sanctuary of Icons and Prayer (Paraclete Press), and Gender: Men, Women, Sex, and Feminism. She lives in Linthicum, Maryland, with her husband Fr. Gregory, pastor of Holy Cross Orthodox Church. They have three children and three grandchildren.

Copyright © 2008 Frederica Mathewes-Green

Article: The Wisdom of the Mind

DONALD DEMARCO

According to Plato, wisdom is the communion of the soul with reality. By this he meant that wisdom gives us both a broad and reliable understanding of reality.

At the opposite end of the spectrum for ancient Greek thinkers is Narcissus who saw nothing more than his own image as it was reflected in a mountain pool.

The perspective of Narcissus was so narrow that he had no other knowledge by which he could realistically evaluate this image. He mistakenly believed it belonged to another.

Plato was wise, Narcissus was foolish.

This dramatic contrast between the breadth of wisdom and the narrowness of foolishness has been strikingly exemplified in today’s society by two events that took place over the course of the first three months of 2008. The first involves the 67 academics who protested the visit that Pope Benedict XVI was scheduled to make at their school, one founded in 1303 by Pope Boniface VIII and known to the world, ironically, as LaSapienza (the Latin word for "wisdom").

The reason for the protest reflected the narrow belief expressed by the protesters that science does not need nor has ever had any need for religion.

The second involves the 2008 recipient of the prestigious Templeton Prize, Father Michael Heller, who is a world-class scientist and a Catholic priest. His curriculum vitae includes being a visiting professor at the Institute of Astrophysics and Geophysics at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, and researcher at the Institute of Astrophysics at Oxford University, and at the Physics and Astronomy Department of Leicester University in Britain. According to the reverend doctor, the expression, "theology of science" is perfectly defensible.

A passage in the Book of Wisdom (7:15-21) offers a frame of mind that is most conducive to the development of science:

"May God grant me to speak as he would wish and express thoughts worthy of his gifts, since he himself is the guide of Wisdom, since he directs the sages. We are indeed in his hand, we ourselves and our words, with all our understanding, too, and technical knowledge. It was he who gave me true knowledge of all that is, who taught me the structure of the world and the properties of the elements, the beginning, end and middle of the times, the alternation of the solstices and the succession of the seasons, the revolution of the year and the positions of the stars, the natures of animals and the instincts of wild beasts, the powers of spirits and the mental processes of men, the varieties of plants and the medical properties of roots. All that is hidden, all that is plain, I have come to know, instructed by Wisdom who designed them all."

This remarkable correspondence could not happen by chance. Albert Einstein once commented that for him, the most incomprehensible thing of all is that the universe is comprehensible.

This passage represents the synthesis between science and theology, knowledge of creation and recognition of the Creator. It also carries the implication that it belongs to wisdom to perceive the realism of this synthesis. The ancient Greeks held that the microcosm (mind of man) was the tablet upon which the macrocosm (universe) registered its intelligible imprint.

The fact that the human mind is designed to know reality (the way a radio is designed to receive particular radio frequencies) is addressed by St. Thomas Aquinas. The Angelic Doctor explains that reality is situated between two intellects (Res ergo naturalis inter duos intellectus constituta), God’s and man’s. The natural law, from the human point of view, is simply a reflection of the eternal law, from God’s point of view.

By removing God from the equation, there can be no satisfactory explanation as to how the human mind had come to be attuned to reality so that it can mirror its order and intelligibility.

This remarkable correspondence could not happen by chance. Albert Einstein once commented that for him, the most incomprehensible thing of all is that the universe is comprehensible.

The implication of his remark should be evident. How did it happen that the mind of man and the intelligibility of the universe became matched up with each other? Does it not seem that this matching was orchestrated, perhaps even pre-established by God?

Einstein hinted at the answer to this question when commented, and rather famously, that God does not play dice with the world (Gott würfelt nicht).

The well-known cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead had a surprising and yet illuminating experience when she was studying the life and habits of Canadian Eskimos in the far north.

She happened to bring with her two copies of one of her books. The Eskimos were utterly flabbergasted when they encountered for the first time in their lives, two things that were absolutely identical.

To the Eskimos, no two faces, personalities, sunsets or ice floes were ever the same. Being human, and therefore philosophically curious, they knew that there must be a third thing that explained how two separate objects could be utterly identical in appearance, page for page, word for word, letter for letter. Not having ever seen a printing press, they could only wonder what that third thing might be. But they knew, instinctively, that there must be a third thing.

Wisdom allows us to grasp that third factor. It offers a breadth of knowledge that science alone cannot provide. Moreover, as Plato indicated, our soul is made for wisdom.

Specialization and agnosticism cannot bring joy or fulfillment to the human soul. In the address that La Sapienza did not allow Pope Benedict to deliver, the Holy Father made an allusion to St. Augustine who observed that knowledge alone (scientia) inevitably led to sadness (tristitia).

A university, Benedict reasoned, should be open not only to knowledge of the truth, but also to the good that truth contains. In other words, had La Sapienza allowed him to speak, they would have heard him urge them to be wise.

When Galileo declared that the "book of nature" is written in the language of mathematics, he was implying that someone (God) must have written the book in the first place. His colleague, Johannes Kepler, who formulated the three great laws of astronomy, was exemplifying the same wisdom of the mind when he proclaimed, "My thoughts are following thy thoughts."

A university, Benedict reasoned, should be open not only to knowledge of the truth, but also to the good that truth contains. In other words, had La Sapienza allowed him to speak, they would have heard him urge them to be wise.

In addition Norbert Wiener, the Father of Cybernetics, echoed the same wisdom in reminding his fellow scientists that the laws of induction in logic cannot be established inductively, and advised them to take seriously the notion that "science is a way of life that can flourish only when men are free to have faith."

Sir William Henry Bragg, together with his son, William Lawrence Bragg, won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1915. Sir William was displaying considerable wisdom when he once remarked that "religion and science are indeed opposed to each other, but as the thumb and forefinger are opposed, so together they can grasp."

The Old and New Testaments, in a variety of ways, provide man with a basis and an encouragement to cultivate wisdom of the mind. The notion that God’s creation is ordered means that the physical universe is organized in a rational manner that is consistent, unified and free of contradiction.

The notion that man is created in God’s image gives him the confidence that he is capable of discovering the orderly pattern of nature.

Since every thing that God created is good, it is worthwhile to uncover and utilize the good wherever man finds it.

The Commandment to love is a powerful incentive to utilize what one has discovered and developed for the practical benefit of others.

The notion of the Incarnation means that the Word becomes flesh, the eternal dwells in the temporal, the divine is wedded to the human.

Wisdom is needed in order to grasp these various syntheses. Wisdom is the communion of the soul with reality, recognizing how the supernatural interpenetrates the natural.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Donald DeMarco. "The Wisdom of the Mind." National Catholic Register. (June 1-7, 2008).

This article is reprinted with permission from National Catholic Register. To subscribe to the National Catholic Register call 1-800-421-3230.

THE AUTHOR

Donald DeMarco is adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College & Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut and Professor Emeritus at St. Jerome's University in Waterloo Ontario. He also continues to work as a corresponding member of the Pontifical Acadmy for Life. Donald DeMarco has written hundreds of articles for various scholarly and popular journals, and is the author of twenty books, including The Heart of Virtue, The Many Faces of Virtue, Virtue's Alphabet: From Amiability to Zeal and Architects Of The Culture Of Death. Donald DeMarco is on the Advisory Board of The Catholic Education Resource Center.

Copyright © 2008 National Catholic Register

Article: Myth No. 4: Jesus Didn’t Found the Church

FATHER THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, LC

The neo-atheist authors attack the foundations of Christianity as well as its doctrines, in an attempt to undermine both its historical roots and its internal consistency.

Though the neo-atheist authors such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins take issue with God himself and religion in general, they devote dozens of pages to criticizing Christianity in particular.

They attack the foundations of Christianity as well as its doctrines, in an attempt to undermine both its historical roots and its internal consistency.

To begin with, the atheists question the historical existence of Jesus Christ himself. Next they cast doubt on the reliability of the New Testament texts as a historical document. The issue that concerns us here, however, is the atheists' claim regarding the founding of the Christian Church.

They claim that even if Jesus did exist, he certainly never intended to found a church. This latter innovation -- they assert -- would be the work of the generations that came after him and twisted his original intention.

Here one must inquire after the historical record. Do we have any reason to believe that the founding of a visible community of believers played a part in Jesus' mission on earth? Did Jesus intend to establish a church or didn't he?

Curiously, though our atheist authors may question whether Jesus ever existed and argue that the Gospels tell us nothing about him, they are more than ready to assert categorically that he never intended to found a church.

How they could know this without the help of the Gospel record is a true miracle of atheist logic. Hitchens, for example, states that Jesus' disciples "had no idea that anyone would ever found a church on their master's announcements" and that Jesus himself evidenced "complete indifference to the founding of any temporal church" (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything).

This is a tough claim to process.

The idea of the Church was a familiar concept to early Christians, who universally understood it to be founded by Jesus Christ. The New Testament is replete with references to the Church.

The idea of the Church was a familiar concept to early Christians, who universally understood it to be founded by Jesus Christ. The New Testament is replete with references to the Church.

Writing in the first century, St. Paul refers to the ekklesia (Church) some five dozen times in his letters, and there is no record of anyone standing up and accusing him of innovating something that Jesus never intended.

He speaks variously of the visible Church as Christ's body, as Christ's spotless bride, as the community of Christian believers, as the household of God, as the pillar and bulwark of the truth. He moreover writes of "deacons," "presbyters" and "bishops" -- giving good evidence that a differentiated Christian clergy was in existence as of the first century.

The Apostle John uses the term "church" several times in his third epistle, and another 20-odd times in Revelation, whose authorship is generally attributed to him. The Apostle Peter uses the term "church" in his first letter, and it can be found in the Letter of James as well.

All three of these men formed part of the original band of 12 apostles who, according to Hitchens, "had no idea that anyone would ever found a church on their master's announcements."

Articles in this series

A Theologian Answers the Atheists

Myth 1: Atheists Are Smarter

Myth 2: Religion Does More Harm Than Good

Myth 3: Religion Is Opposed to Science

Myth 4: Jesus Didn’t Found the Church

Either they quickly gathered in a conspiracy to undermine their Lord's wishes (for which there is zero historical evidence) or Hitchens has got the story terribly wrong.

But let us turn to the witness of Jesus himself.

Hitchens doesn't bother to even acknowledge the text that most clearly contradicts his claim. St. Matthew's Gospel records Jesus saying to Peter, in front of the other disciples, "I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). Unlike other thinkers and founders, Jesus left nothing in writing; what we do find is a stated intention to establish a church.

What other evidence can be found of Jesus' project? He carefully selected out 12 "apostles" from among his many followers, and gave them special training as well as explaining many things to them in private that he didn't announce to more general gatherings. This number 12 mirrored the 12 tribes of Israel, the "people of God," and expresses an intention to establish a new Israel.

Early Christians attributed significance to this special "college" of apostles surrounding Jesus. When Judas, one of the twelve, betrays Jesus and later commits suicide, the Christian community hastens to appoint someone else to take his place (Acts 1:15-26). The appointment of successors to the apostles underscores the Christians' sense that the apostles represented an institutional structure that was meant to continue through time, rather than a mere group of individuals. The apostles left behind them a structured community, under the guidance of acknowledged pastors, who built and sustained it. This was understood by all to be a fulfillment of the express wishes of Jesus.

In their attempts to discredit Christianity, our atheists seem blithely uninterested in the historical facts at our disposal. A dispassionate look at the historical record reveals something quite different from what the atheists propose.

Jesus not only intended to found a church -- he really did so.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father Thomas D. Williams, LC. "Myth No.4: Jesus Didn’t Found the Church." National Catholic Register (June 29-July 5, 2008).

This article is reprinted with permission from National Catholic Register and the author. To subscribe to the National Catholic Register call 1-800-421-3230.

THE AUTHOR

Father Thomas D. Williams, LC, is dean of the theology school at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome. He has also worked extensively for Sky News in Britain covering church and ethical issues. For both NBC and Sky News, Father Williams has appeared as analyst on church affairs for CNN, CBS, ABC, and Fox News and now serves as consultant on Vatican affairs for NBC News and MSNBC. He is the author of Greater Than You Think: A Theologian Answers the Atheists About God as well as Spiritual Progress: Becoming the Christian You Want to Be and Who Is My Neighbor? Personalism and the Foundations of Human Rights. Father Williams is on the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Centre.

Copyright © 2008 National Catholic Register