Catholic Metanarrative

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Wednesday Liturgy: "Midnight Mass" at 9 p.m.

ROME, DEC. 23, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Editor's note: Two years ago this column mentioned that it was not liturgically correct to bring forward the Christmas "Midnight Mass" to 9 p.m. and that rather the vigil Mass should be used.

In response an Anaheim, California, reader wrote: "I understand your point about anticipating 'Mass of Christmas' on Christmas, but would like to make two points regarding celebrating 'midnight Mass' at 9 p.m. or at midnight. First, the missal does not refer to 'Midnight Mass'; it refers to 'Mass at Night.' While many celebrate it at midnight, there is no requirement to do so or to limit it to midnight. Second, the rubrics permit the interchange of the readings of all four Christmas Masses (vigil, during the night, at dawn, and during the day). This considerably explains the options regarding the time and texts to be used."

A: With respect to the readings, the General Introduction to the Lectionary, No. 95, states: "For the vigil and the three Masses of Christmas both the prophetic readings and the others have been chosen from the Roman tradition." Our reader is correct in saying that for pastoral reasons the readings of the four Masses may be interchanged, provided that the proper order (Old Testament, Epistle, Gospel) is respected. This allows a pastor to choose the most adequate readings for the specific assembly.

However, the possibility of a pastoral choice of readings does not really affect the question regarding the times for the three Christmas day Masses. And I would respectfully disagree with our reader that the "Midnight Mass" may be anticipated.

According to No. 34 of the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and Calendar:

"The Mass of the vigil of Christmas is used in the evening of 24 December, either before or after evening prayer I.

"On Christmas itself, following an ancient tradition of Rome, three Masses may be celebrated: namely, the Mass at Midnight, the Mass at Dawn, and the Mass during the Day."

I admit that the official translation given here as "Mass at Midnight" is more of an interpretation than a literal translation of the Latin original, which more precisely says "Mass during the night." It is a valid interpretation, however, because the night referred to is the first night (that is, early morning) of Dec. 25 and not the waning hours of Dec. 24. As the first Mass of Dec. 25, the midnight start is the earliest possible hour. Celebrating the "Mass at night" at 3 a.m. is possible but improbable.

I would accept that if the Mass were to finish after midnight, some "moving forward" of the celebration would be allowable. This even happened at the Vatican last year when the Mass exceptionally began at 11 p.m., although the Pope's calendar for 2008 has him reverting to the midnight hour.

All this hairsplitting regarding arcane Mass formulas need not perturb our readers as they prepare to welcome the newborn Christ into their hearts and homes. The important thing is to attend any of the available Masses and allow the mystery of the Incarnation to transform our lives.

A blessed and holy Christmas to all!

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Christmas Cribs in Church

ROME, DEC. 23, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


In response to our piece on the placement of the Christmas crib (Dec. 9), several readers mentioned a norm in the Book of Blessings. One wrote:

"The Book of Blessings (1544), while allowing for the placement of the manger in the church, forbids its placement in the presbyterium. From my understanding this might not prohibit its placement in the sanctuary (such as on a side altar no longer used) but would not permit the crèche to be placed around or in front of the altar, chair, ambo or tabernacle. Would this be your understanding also?"

I would first of all point out that the rite of blessing a manger in church, and hence the accompanying rubric, is found in the English-language Book of Blessings but not the original Latin. Therefore, this norm is not universally applicable.

All the same, it is a sensible norm, and I think the interpretation offered by our reader is valid. It is best to keep the crib separate from the immediate sanctuary area so as to make it easier for private devotion and avoid possible occasion of distraction during Mass.

I do not believe that this norm would exclude the custom of placing an image of the infant Jesus in the sanctuary area. This custom is quite common in many places, including St. Peter's Basilica where an image of the Infant is customarily placed on a stand located at ground level in front of the high altar. Besides this image, there is also a fully populated Nativity scene in another part of the basilica and the huge display in the square outside.

Speaking about the relative authority of documents, a reader commented: "In your recent response on cribs in church, you stated that 'Although they have no legal authority outside of the United States, the U.S. bishops' conference guidelines on church buildings Built of Living Stones makes some sensible suggestions on this topic that can be applied everywhere.' This implies these guidelines have legal authority in the United States, but this is not the case. My understanding is that documents similar to this one were one reason the Holy See recently placed new restrictions on what bishops' conferences can publish without proper approvals."

I believe that our correspondent is confusing this document with its predecessor Environment and Art. The earlier document, questionable on many points, had been issued by a committee of the bishops' conference and had never been approved by the full body of bishops. In spite of this, some liturgical experts endowed it with an authority bordering on divine revelation.

On the contrary, the year 2000 document Built of Living Stones was expressly issued to replace the earlier document with something more authoritative. It was discussed and approved by the entire bishops' conference and reflects and incorporates many universal norms.

Because they are guidelines, and not particular law, this document did not require specific approval from the Holy See. Its norms, however, while lacking the legal weight that comes with legislation, are much more than a series of helpful suggestions that can be taken up or left aside according to taste.

The document allows for exceptions in particular circumstances. But because this class of document is backed by the bishops, their indications should generally be observed and applied in the spirit of obedience and in virtue of "sensus Ecclesiae," which desires to do all things as the Church desires to do them.

Monday, December 22, 2008

Article: Sola scriptura minus the scriptura

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY

I knew we had to take a look at Newsweek's cover story when I read the first line. It was just that bad.


It was written by senior editor Lisa Miller who oversees all of the magazine's religion coverage. Which is pretty shocking when you look at the unbelievable ignorance on display in her grossly unfair first paragraph:

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel -- all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments -- especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple -- who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love -- turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

How many things are wrong with that opening line? (Beyond the junior high-worthy snarkiness of the "let's try" opening, I mean.) How about that "religious conservatives" don't argue that civil marriage should be defined "as the Bible does." I mean, it would be nice if Newsweek or other mainstream outlets took the time to learn what religious conservatives have to say about marriage before they attack it. Is that so much to ask?

When I started looking at the media coverage of this hot topic, I had to do just that. As a libertarian, I was unfamiliar with why people thought the state should define marriage, much less why it should be defined in such a way as to limit it to a certain number or sex of people. And what I found is that there is an unbelievable wealth of argument in favor of traditional marriage. And most of it is based (no, not in the fevered imaginations of what Hollywood and the media elite think religious conservatives believe) but in Natural Law. In this way of thinking, society defines marriage as a sexual union between a husband and wife, based around the ideas that babies are created via intercourse, that procreation is necessary for the survival of society and that babies need fathers as well as mothers. So the entire premise of this article is wrong, if you look at it that way.

But if you are going to pretend that opposition to same-sex marriage is based Sola Scriptura, could we at least get our Scripture right?

This is such hackery that it's offensive. Abraham and Sarah, while certainly noted for their eventual trust in God were basically poster children for marital disobedience when they didn't trust God to provide them with children. Even though he promised them they would have offspring. Sarah was a jealous and cruel slavemaster and Abraham was pliant and cowardly during their Hagar offensive. In fact, if you are reading the Old Testament as a self-improvement book based on anything other than the commandments from God, you are an idiot. God's chosen people, some of them with great and abiding faith, are sinful disasters -- the lot of them.

I hold sacred the New Testament model of marriage and find Miller's comments to be beneath contempt. I also wonder what, if anything, she has read from the New Testament.

The rest of the piece is about as worthless and mendacious as the opening paragraph. She repeatedly pretends that marriage is not defined in Scripture -- although the two examples I gave above manage to define it unambiguously as a heterosexual union. Even her own mentions of the patriarchs prove the point that Biblical marriage is heterosexual in nature.

When my husband read the opening graph of this train wreck of a hit piece, he wondered if these words of Jesus, found in the Gospel of Matthew, indicated indifference to family:

And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Would that be the indifference that Miller is referring to? Because it really just doesn't sound indifferent to me. This quote from Jesus comes in a larger section on, well, earthly attachments. One part notes that only those who have the gift of celibacy are to be celibate. I have no doubt that my elementary school-age nieces know these things. Shouldn't Lisa Miller?

And while St. Paul does endorse single life enthusiastically, for those who are able (a key point left out of Miller's little opening paragraph), he writes extensively about marriage. In fact, he's normally picked on for his clear endorsement of traditional marriage, as in Ephesians 5:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

There is nothing lukewarm about this. In fact, there is nothing lukewarm about any of the writings of Paul.

Now, as a member of a contemporary marriage, albeit one that isn't so foolish as to think marriage is about gender equality or romantic love, I can honestly say that the Bible has been the only guide that has helped my husband and myself. We turn to it constantly to be reminded that the husband is to sacrifice for the wife and the wife is to respect the husband (these things don't come naturally to either my husband or myself).

And yet Miller discounts our faith by saying that "of course" a contemporary married couple wouldn't turn to Scripture as a guide for marriage. Just who does she think she is? And why does she have the cover story of Newsweek?

The rest of the piece is about as worthless and mendacious as the opening paragraph. She repeatedly pretends that marriage is not defined in Scripture -- although the two examples I gave above manage to define it unambiguously as a heterosexual union. Even her own mentions of the patriarchs prove the point that Biblical marriage is heterosexual in nature.

The piece then goes on to pretend that homosexuality isn't really mentioned much in Scripture (except when it's talking about, you guessed it, King David and Jonathan!) and, of course, discounts St. Paul's teachings on the matter as not really about homosexuality but modern-day sins having nothing to do with homosexuality. Not that the actual New Testament passages, such as this one, are included in the story:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Some may find that passage ambiguous. Many will not. But what's amazing is that Miller actually also writes that Scripture never once refers to sexual relations between women. Um, if you don't know what the Bible says, you probably shouldn't preach about it, you know?

And yet preach with unhinged emotion is precisely what Miller does. She never once speaks with an actual opponent of same-sex marriage. She never once speaks with someone who knows anything about the Biblical model of marriage as understood for thousands of years. This piece is disgusting, unfair and unworthy of a high school graduate. It is the opposite of thought-provoking. It's a post-frontal lobotomy exegesis of Scripture. This is journalism? This is how people are supposed to cover the news, today?

She actually uses Miss Manners to defend liturgical changes in marital rites. I mean, really. This is a serious topic. We have had the majority populace of three dozen states now vote to define marriage as a heterosexual union. I know the news industry is suffering but perhaps one reporter could go actually research what these people think.

Instead we learn nothing about the principled opposition to same-sex marriage and instead get blasphemy and some of the most cliched reading of Scripture to appear in print. Thanks, Newsweek. Thanks a bunch.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Mollie Hemingway. "Sola scriptura minus the scriptura." Get Religion.org (December 9, 2008).

Reprinted by permission of GetReligion.org and Mollie Hemingway. The original posting of this article is here.

THE AUTHOR

Mollie Hemingway is a Washington writer who writes for Get Religion. She is the author of Losing Our Religion.

Copyright © 2008 Get Religion


Article: Say it loud and proud: 'Merry Christmas'

THEO CALDWELL

One recent December, a tour guide on Canada's Parliament Hill was overheard referring to the "Christmas Trees" in the main hall.

When the guide's heresy was reported to her superiors, she was firmly told that the decorated greenery were most certainly not "Christmas trees," and a heated debate ensued as to just what to call the arboreal splendour. It was decided that guides would refer only to "Festive Bushes" for the remainder of the holiday season.

But this year, Quebec Premier Jean Charest quickly corrected an overeager staffer who declared that a "Holiday Tree" would be lighted in the provincial capital. Charest's commonsensical statement that it was, in fact, a "Christmas Tree" was a welcome rebuke to the seasonal game of sensitivity and silly bears that goes on every year.

In this cold world, a kind word is always welcome, so if one person genuinely hopes for another to enjoy his or her holiday, or wishes to greet that person in the spirit of the season, far be it from me to cast a stone. But, in the weeks leading up to Dec. 25, if you make a conscious choice to avoid saying "Merry Christmas," there's a good chance you have decided that a divine gift that was meant for all mankind, and in which billions of people rejoice each year, is too offensive a notion to cross your lips.

Yes, yes, I know -- folks say "Happy Holidays" and other insipid stuff because not everyone is Christian, so this is a way to be inclusive. But there is no inclusion to be had by euphemizing the warmest wish of a particular religion, presuming it to be objectionable to non-believers.

Of course, there are many different religions and faiths in the world. This is something folks are taught by the age of, say, four or five. So, if you are older than this, yet you eschew "Merry Christmas," what you are putting forward is that one of the world's religions is uniquely unsuitable for public acknowledgement.

No one frets about being "inclusive" during Passover or Ramadan, nor should they. Ironically, the purported inclusiveness of the "Season's Greetings" police is actually about exclusion. To wit, it's about excluding just one religion, Christianity, from any rightful place in modern society.

Christians, the sensitivity cops point out, are in the majority, and so their holidays do not merit the same exclusive attention and protection as those of other religions. But is tolerance a numbers game? Is courtesy quantifiable? Is the respect a religion merits inversely proportional to its number of believers? Is it calculated like a marginal tax rate, off the last adherent rather than the last dollar earned?

The left has long since extrapolated vague, fashionable notions of history -- from the horrors of the Crusades to the dull intolerance of the 1950s -- to name Christianity the culprit for all the world's evil. And so, budding iconoclasts can tee off on the faith, or inflict their petty "Holiday Tree" policies with impunity. And well they might, for it is a riskless proposition. The worst that will happen is they may stumble across a column like this one, calling courage-free conformity by its name.

Indeed, those politically correct paragons who browbeat Christians in movies and television, classrooms and print, would be much more credible if, just once, they decided to try their censorious tactics on one of those religions where the practitioners react, shall we say, stringently to being muzzled or criticized.

Christians, the sensitivity cops point out, are in the majority, and so their holidays do not merit the same exclusive attention and protection as those of other religions. But is tolerance a numbers game? Is courtesy quantifiable? Is the respect a religion merits inversely proportional to its number of believers? Is it calculated like a marginal tax rate, off the last adherent rather than the last dollar earned?

Christmas is about Jesus Christ, Son of God, coming down to Earth to show us how a proper life should be lived, then dying unpleasantly for our sins. Believe it or don't. I may not be the world's greatest Christian, but we do one another no favours by pretending this happiest of holidays is about anything but Him.




ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Theo Caldwell, "Say it loud and proud: 'Merry Christmas'." National Post, (Canada) December 19, 2008.

Reprinted with permission of the National Post.

THE AUTHOR

Theo Caldwell, B.A., M.Sc., is President of Caldwell Asset Management Inc., an author and columnist, and an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

Copyright © 2008 National Post

Article: Dark days when you had to be polite to bankers

PAUL JOHNSON

I am old enough to remember the last slump -- I was three in 1932 and lived in the Potteries in North Staffordshire, always a precarious area economically, and badly hit by slack trade.

Most of the workers in the pot bank were women and girls, traditionally paid low wages, and now subjected to pay cuts. The men worked in the pits, if they were lucky. My mother, who came from Lancashire, and had a song for everything, used to sing:

Colliery lads make gold and silver.

Factory lads make brass.

Who would marry a hand-loom weaver,

When there's plenty of colliery lads?

In the wasteland not far from our house, there were curious piles of stones and boulders, making a lunar landscape. They had been put there to make the roads for a big new housing-estate, planned in the prosperous 1920s, now abandoned. Unemployed men sat among them, smoking briar pipes of shag or cigarette butts, or with just an empty clay one clamped in their mouths. Lanky young men kicked aimlessly at an old football. A small private railway ran at the bottom, carrying coal trucks to the main line. At that point, there was the concrete skeleton structure of a big new Primitive Methodist church. Only one brick wall had been built. Then, I suppose, the money ran out and all work ceased. There were big pools of rainwater among the foundations, up-ended rusty iron trucks, bits of broken machinery, a forlorn pile of unused bricks. It was a haunted place, where earnest people had once hoped to pray but the Almighty had turned a deaf ear.

If you followed this little railway line in the opposite direction, into the countryside, you eventually came to the Chatterley Whitfield coal pit. There was some activity. The wheels spun vigorously on the giant lift, and black-faced men got out of what were called 'the cages', as the early morning shift came up from the coalface. They were glad to be out of the darkness, and in the fresh air, and were friendly. ''Ello, ginger,' they'd say to me. 'Can I warm my' ands at thy fiery locks?' I and my big sisters used to wander around the place. No one stopped you in those days. Miners, waiting their turn to go down, squatted on their heels, took out tins in which they kept shreds of tobacco from fag ends, and made themselves what they called 'bonfires', very skilful work. A notice said: 'No Hands Required.' This puzzled me. What did they want hands for when they were required? And were they chopped off and packed in bundles, like firewood? My sisters explained: 'It means there's no work.'

To get work was the end of existence in those days.

To get work was the end of existence in those days. My father, who ran the Burslem Art School, was hag-ridden by the need to find work for his pupils as they approached 16, and leaving-time. A few brilliant ones got scholarships and went on to the senior college, learning sculpture, or oil painting, drawing from the nude, the 'life class' -- the lucky ones. Most just longed to work in the pot banks as designers, decorators and skilled hand-painters. He would say: 'Jobs are gold now,' another phrase that puzzled me. When not teaching, he would scurry round the various offices, of Doulton's, Crown Derby, Royal Staffs and so on, hoping to pick up news of vacancies before they were advertised and 'snapped up'. (Another good term: I imagined wide-jawed crocodiles waiting to gobble a 'vacancy'.) He made it his business to know all the managers and be pleasant to them, retailing gossip from 'the London studios', then slipping in a casual query: 'Like a good teapot designer? There's a clever girl called Molly Trentham. She draws a beautiful curved line. Neat colour-work.' 'Oh, aye? Why not send the lass along and we'll give 'er a try.' The girl would not get more than £1 a week. But that was a big help in a Thirties household, which might be home to what was then called 'a long weak family' (meaning three or four children under ten).

To amuse these important men, my father would call for paper and get me to draw caricatures of prominent politicians. By then I was seven or eight and could do Hitler, with moustache, baggy eyes and quiff over his brow, swastika armband and thumbs stuck in his belt. Or Musso with his huge chin. 'Ee, lad, that's grand. Can'st do the Russian man, then. Stalin. Eh?' Certainly I could do him, with his huge, down-turning moustache and eyebrows, hair swept back. And Churchill: button nose, cigar, bow-tie. 'Ere, Neville, cum and look at this. The lads drawn Mr Churchill. Can'st do the Labour bloke, Attlee, lad?' But Mr Attlee was beyond me. So was Ramsay MacDonald, not yet an extinct volcano.

There was hardship, as I could see, but no destitution. I never saw anyone begging. My mother used to say: 'Oh, the poor people. They are so patient.' They were: and cheerful too. There were smiles and laughter; a lot of jokes.

I followed the cartoonists avidly in such newspapers as came my way. Strube, in the Daily Telegraph, had an agricultural figure, labelled 'Idle Acres', leaning on a scythe. 'What's that?' I asked my sisters. 'A very dangerous instrument indeed. Never touch one.' There was also a tall man labelled 'Five million unemployed', lanky, downcast, hands in pockets. I saw such men at the street corners. Too poor to go into the pub. Not allowed to sit around in the reading-room of the library. Their mothers or wives would drive them out: 'I won't have you under my feet.' I dimly perceived that someone who had no job suffered not just want but loss of manhood, as opposed to someone in work, or what my mother called 'a good position', who was often referred to by his wife, in Potteries speech, as 'the Master'.

I never saw anyone selling matches. Chestnuts, yes, in winter: a cheerful sight with a brazier, and men clustering near to keep warm: 'Ere! Don't block the customers, thou!' Then there were Sandwich Men, another mysterious term, walking up and down with a board: 'Woodbines: Fourpence for Ten.' It was beneath the dignity of a grown man to collect horse-manure to sell to allotment-holders at a penny a bucket. But boys did it, pathetic urchins, glad to earn sixpence in a day's smelly work. Sixpence was real money then. It was the highest price ever charged in Woolworths, then in its heyday, a store in every town, however small. You could get a toy there for a penny; a good one for tuppence.

There was hardship, as I could see, but no destitution. I never saw anyone begging. My mother used to say: 'Oh, the poor people. They are so patient.' They were: and cheerful too. There were smiles and laughter; a lot of jokes. Good comedians. Elsie and Doris Waters. Old Mother Riley and Her Daughter (a husband-and-wife team). George Formby and his ukelele, singing: 'If you could see what I can see/ When I'm cleaning winders.' (My mother disapproved of him.) The cinemas did well. It was their heyday too. When Disney's Snow White came to town, the queue stretched all round Waterloo Square into Nelson Street. There was no crime, that I ever heard of. No demos. Nothing. Just resignation. Out with my father, he introduced me to Mr Perkins, a squat little man, manager of the Midland Bank. 'He's walking tall,' said my father mysteriously. 'He can decide whether a firm goes under.' 'Goes under what?' 'Don't ask so many questions. And remember: always be polite to bankers. You never know.' Bankers were much respected in those days.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Paul Johnson. "Dark days when you had to be polite to bankers" The Spectator (December 12, 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

Article: Meditation on Christmas Eve

ANGELO GIUSEPPE RONCALLI (POPE JOHN XIII)

These moving words were written on Christmas Eve, 1902 by a young Italian named Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli who was studying for the priesthood in Rome.

Night has fallen; the clear, bright stars are sparkling in the cold air; noisy, strident voices rise to my ear from the city, voices of the revellers of this world who celebrate with merrymaking the poverty of their Saviour. Around me in their rooms my companions are asleep, and I am still wakeful, thinking of the mystery of Bethlehem.

Come, come, Jesus, I await you.

Mary and Joseph, knowing the hour is near, are turned away by the townsfolk and go out into the fields to look for a shelter. I am a poor shepherd; I have only a wretched stable, a small manger, some wisps of straw. I offer all these to you, be pleased to come into my poor hovel. I offer you my heart; my soul is poor and bare of virtues, the straws of so many imperfections will prick you and make you weep--by oh, my Lord, what can you expect? This little is all I have. I am touched by your poverty. I am moved to tears, but I have nothing better to offer you. Jesus, honour my soul with your presence, adorn it with your graces. Burn this straw and change it into a soft couch for your most holy body.

Jesus, I am here waiting for your coming. Wicked men have driven you out, and the wind is like ice. I am a poor man, but I will warm you as well as I can. At least be pleased that I wish to welcome you warmly, to love you and sacrifice myself for you.


This was written on Christmas Eve, 1902 by a young Italian named Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli who was studying for the priesthood in Rome. Two years later he graduated as a doctor in theology and was ordained. The world now remembers him as Pope John XXIII.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Wednesday Liturgy: Extraordinary Ministers and Both Species of Communion

ROME, DEC. 16, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: I understand that the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion is to be just that, "extraordinary." I also understand that the distribution of the Blessed Sacrament under both species to all the faithful has been allowed by the U.S. bishops' conference, given its fuller sign value. Thus my question is this: Which trumps which? It is almost unheard of for a parish to distribute Communion under both species without recourse to extraordinary ministers. Is it preferable to avoid using extraordinary ministers and distribute under one species only? Or is it preferable to distribute under both species and have recourse to extraordinary ministers on an ordinary basis? -- V.D., New York

A: I would say that the word "extraordinary" has several shades of meaning and this probably leads to some confusion.

From the liturgical point of view, an extraordinary minister is one who performs a liturgical act in virtue of a special delegation and not as an ordinary minister. Thus, in the case of Holy Communion, the ordinary ministers are the bishop, priest and deacon. That is, it is a normal part of their ministry to distribute Communion.

Anyone else who distributes Communion does so as an extraordinary minister. That is, it is not a normal part of their liturgical functions, but they have received this mission in virtue of a delegation. The instituted acolyte receives this delegation ex officio, so to speak, in virtue of his institution. He may also purify the sacred vessels in the absence of the deacon as well as expose and reserve the Blessed Sacrament in a simple manner for a period of adoration.

All other ministers act in virtue of a habitual delegation from the local bishop, usually acting through the pastor, or an immediate ad hoc delegation from the priest celebrant to respond to difficult circumstances.

Therefore, the status of extraordinary minister is not dependent on the ministry's frequency but rather pertains to the nature of the ministry itself. Even if one were to assist in administrating Communion every day for several years, one never becomes an ordinary minister in the canonical or liturgical sense.

Another case of the concept of extraordinary minister is the role of a priest with respect to the sacrament of confirmation in the Latin rite. Canon law Nos. 882-888 state that the bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation, but the law foresees the possibility of priests administering this sacrament under certain conditions.

For most other sacraments, especially penance, Eucharist, holy orders and anointing of the sick, there is no possibility of extraordinary ministers.

However, the current use of the word extraordinary is not unknown in liturgical norms. For example, the 2004 instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum" says: "It is the Priest celebrant's responsibility to minister Communion, perhaps assisted by other Priests or Deacons; and he should not resume the Mass until after the Communion of the faithful is concluded. Only when there is a necessity may extraordinary ministers assist the Priest celebrant in accordance with the norm of law" (No. 88).

This same document refers to the practice of Communion under both species:

"[100.] So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ's faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.

"[101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ's faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned ."

Thus, while Communion under both species is praised there might be circumstances where prudence recommends forgoing it because of the practical difficulties entailed. Hence "Redemptionis Sacramentum" continues in No. 102:

"The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ's faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that 'more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration.' The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated."

From this text we can adduce that, in principle at least, Church norms recognize the possibility of using well-formed extraordinary ministers to assist in distributing Communion under both species. Therefore, rather than one norm trumping the other, it is a question of evaluating all the pertinent circumstances before deciding what to do. The mere fact of having to use extraordinary ministers does not appear to be a sufficient reason not to proceed with Communion under both species, provided that the ministers are duly qualified.

While Communion under both species is graced with indubitable spiritual advantages, it is not an absolute value and, as the norms suggest, it should be omitted if there is any danger of profanation or due to serious practical difficulties.

Nobody is deprived of any grace by not receiving from the chalice, as Christ is received whole and entire under either species.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: On Paraliturgies

ROME, DEC. 16, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


In our column on the theology and status of paraliturgies (Dec. 2), we mentioned that we did not know of their figuring in any official documents.

An attentive reader has managed to find four mentions of paraliturgy in official documents published since 1975. The word was found in two papal documents: Paul VI's exhortation on the missions "Evangelii Nuntiandi," and John Paul II's exhortation on penance "Reconciliatio et Paenitentia." It also appeared in a document on migration from the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Travelers and in the 1994 "Instrumentum laboris" of the special synod of bishops for Africa.

None of these documents can be classified as liturgical legislation, and the mention of paraliturgy merely acknowledged the existence of this category of celebration without attempting any definition.

From the response of some readers, it appears that there is widespread confusion between the two categories of liturgy and paraliturgy. It appears that for many, the concept of liturgy is reduced to the celebration of Mass, the other sacraments, and, for some, the Liturgy of the Hours, while all other rites are classed as paraliturgies.

This is not correct. In short, practically every celebration for which the Church has provided, or even outlined, an official rite can and should be legitimately classified as liturgical. This includes solemn ceremonies such as the Good Friday celebration of the Passion, practically all the blessings contained in the Book of Blessings, and most instances of community celebration of the Word.

It would also include all forms of official rites for the distribution of Communion outside of Mass, though the distribution of Communion in this manner to a parish community must be duly authorized by the local bishop (see instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," Nos. 165-166).

The denomination of a celebration as liturgy does not always require the physical presence of an ordained minister -- but, yes, it does require his virtual presence -- as an assembly can act in a truly liturgical manner only if in hierarchical communion.

Thus a Sacramento, California, reader asked: "In the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, Nos. 85-89 gives a 'Model for a Celebration of the Word of God.' If an RCIA team composed entirely of laity perform one of these celebrations, choosing the readings 'for their relevance to the formation of the catechumens' (RCIA, No. 87), does this constitute a liturgy or a paraliturgy?"

Here a distinction must be observed due to the special condition of the Christian Initiation process.

From what we have said above, this rite would be objectively a liturgical act insofar as it is based on a model proposed by the Church.

From the subjective point of view, it would be liturgical only for those already baptized as only the baptized may act liturgically as members of Christ's Mystical Body participating in his priesthood.

Although the candidates for baptism participating in this celebration cannot act liturgically, and consequently they do not receive a bolstering of sanctifying grace (one of baptism's effects), it is an occasion of increase in actual graces that solidifies and deepens their intention of receiving the sacrament.

The celebration would not be paraliturgical because the fruitful celebration of a paraliturgy also requires the gift of baptism.

Monday, December 08, 2008

Speech: St. Paul: "Model of True Christian Conversion"

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 5, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is the Advent homily Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher of the Pontifical Household, delivered today in the Vatican in the presence of Benedict XVI and the Roman Curia.

This is the first of three Advent sermons the preacher will deliver on the theme "'When the Fullness of Time Had Come, God Sent his Son, Born of a Woman: Going With St. Paul to Meet the Christ Who Comes."

The next two sermons will be held Dec. 12 and 19.

* * *

"But Whatever Gain I Had, I Counted as a Loss for the Sake of Christ"
The Conversion of St. Paul: Model of True Christian Conversion

The Pauline Year is a great grace for the Church, but it also presents a danger: that of reflecting on Paul, his personality and his doctrine without taking the next step from him to Christ. The Holy Father warned against this risk in the homily with which he proclaimed the Pauline Year in the general audience of last July 2, stating: "This is the purpose of the Pauline Year: to learn from St. Paul, to learn the faith, to learn about Christ."This danger has occurred so many times in the past, to the point of giving a place to the absurd thesis according to which Paul, not Christ, is the real founder of Christianity. Jesus Christ was for Paul what Socrates was for Plato: a pretext, a name, under which to put his own thought.

The Apostle, as John the Baptist before him, is an index pointing to one "greater than he," of which he does not consider himself worthy to be an Apostle. The former thesis is the most complete distortion and the gravest offense that can be made to the Apostle Paul. If he came back to life, he would react to that thesis with the same vehemence with which he reacted in face of a similar misunderstanding of the Corinthians: "Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13).

Another obstacle to overcome, also for us believers, is that of pausing on Paul's doctrine on Christ, without catching his love and fire for him. Paul does not want to be for us only a winter sun that illuminates but does not warm. The obvious intention of his letters is to lead readers not only to the knowledge of but also to love and passion for Christ.

To this end I wish to contribute the three meditations of Advent this year, beginning with this one today, in which we reflect on Paul's conversion, the event that, after the death and resurrection of Christ, has most influenced the future of Christianity.

1. Paul's Conversion Seen From Within

The best explanation of St. Paul's conversion is the one he himself gives when he speaks of Christian baptism as being "baptized into the death of Christ" -- "buried with him" to rise with him and "walk in newness of life" (cf. Romans 6:3-4). He relived in himself the paschal mystery of Christ, around which, in turn, all his thought will revolve. There are also impressive external analogies. Jesus remained three days in the sepulcher; for three days Saul lived as though dead: He could not see, stand, eat, then, at the moment of baptism, his eyes reopened, he was able to eat and gather his strength; he came back to life (cf. Acts 9:18).

Immediately after his baptism, Jesus withdrew to the desert and so did Paul, after being baptized by Ananias, he withdrew to the desert of Arabia, namely, the desert around Damascus. Exegetes estimate that there were some 10 years of silence in Paul's life between the event on the road to Damascus and the start of this public activity in the Church. The Jews sought him to death, the Christians did not yet trust him and feared him. His conversion recalls that of Cardinal Newman, whose former brothers of Anglican faith considered a renegade and Catholics looked upon with suspicion because of his new and ardent ideas.

The Apostle had a long novitiate; his conversion did not last a few minutes. And it is in this his kenosis, in this time of deprivation and silence that he accumulated that bursting energy and light that one day would pour over the world.

We have two descriptions of Paul's conversion: one that describes the event, so to speak, from outside, on a historical note, and another that describes the event from within, on a psychological or autobiographical note. The first type is the one we find in the three relations that we read about in the Acts of the Apostles. To it also belong some references that Paul himself makes of the event, explaining how from being a persecutor he became an apostle of Christ (cf. Galatians 1:13-24).

The second type belongs to Chapter 3 of the Letter to the Philippians, in which the Apostle describes what the encounter with Christ meant to him subjectively, what he was before and what he became afterward; in other words, in what the change in his life consisted existentially and religiously. We will concentrate on his text that, by analogy with the Augustinian work, we can describe as "the confessions of St. Paul."

In every change there is a "terminus a quo" and a "terminus ad quem," a point of departure and a point of arrival. The Apostle describes first of all the point of departure, that which was first:

"If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the Church, as to righteousness under the law blameless" (Philippians 3:4-6).

We can easily make a mistake in reading this description: These were not negative titles, but the greatest titles of holiness of the time. With them Paul's process of canonization could have been opened immediately, if it had existed at that time. It is as if to say of one today: baptized the eighth day, belonging to the structure par excellence of salvation, the Catholic Church, member of the most austere order of the Church (the Pharisees were this!), most observant of the Rule, etc."

Instead, there is a point at the top of the text that divides in two the page and life of Paul. It is divided by an adverse "but" that creates a total contrast: "But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed I count everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ" (Philippians 3:7-8).

In this brief text the name of Christ appears three times. The encounter with him has divided his life in two, has created a before and an after. A very personal encounter (it is the only text where the Apostle uses the singular "my," not "our" Lord) and an existential encounter more than a mental one. No one will ever be able to know in-depth what happened in that brief dialogue: "Saul, Saul!" "Who are you, Lord? I am Jesus!" He describes it as a "revelation" (Galatians 1:15-16). It was a sort of fusion of fire, a beam of light that even today, at a distance of 2,000 years, illuminates the world.

2. A Change of Mind

We will attempt to analyze the content of the event. It was first of all a change of mind, of thought, literally a metanoia. Up to now Paul believed he could save himself and be righteous before God through the scrupulous observance of the law and the traditions of the fathers. Now he understood that salvation is obtained in another way. I want to be found, he says, "not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" (Philippians 3:8-9). Jesus made him experience in himself that which one day he would proclaim to the whole Church: justification by grace through faith (cf. Galatians 2:15-16; Romans 3:21 ff.).

An image comes to mind when reading the third chapter of the Letter to the Philippians: A man is walking at night in a thick wood in the faint light of a candle, being careful that it does not go out; walking, walking as dawn arrives, the sun comes out, the faint light of the candle turns pale, to the point that it is no longer useful and he throws it away. The smoking wick was his own righteousness. One day, in the life of Paul, the sun of righteousness arose, Christ the Lord, and from that moment he did not want any other light than his.

It is not a question of a point along with others, but of the heart of the Christian message. He would describe it as "his Gospel," to the point of declaring anathema whoever dared to preach a different Gospel, whether it be an angel or he himself (cf. Galatians 1:8-9). Why such insistence? Because the Christian novelty consists in this, which distinguishes it from every other religion or religious philosophy. Every religious proposal begins by telling men what they must do to save themselves or to obtain "illumination." Christianity does not begin by telling men what they must do, but what God has done for them in Christ Jesus. Christianity is the religion of grace.

There is a place -- and how great it is -- for the duties and observance of the Commandments, but then, as response to grace, not as its cause or price. We are not saved by good works, though we are not saved without good works. It is a revolution of which, at a distance of 2,000 years, we still try to be aware. The theological debates on justification through faith of the Reformation and onward have often hampered rather than favored it because they have kept the problem at the theoretical level, the texts of opposing schools, rather than helping believers to have the experience in their life.

3. "Repent, and Believe in the Gospel"

However, we must ask ourselves a crucial question: who is the author of this message? If it were the Apostle Paul, then those would be right who say that he, not Jesus, is the founder of Christianity. But he is not the author; he does no more than express in elaborated and universal terms a message that Jesus expressed with his typical language, made of images and parables.

Jesus began his preaching saying: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the Gospel" (Mark 1:15). With these words he already taught justification through faith. Before him, to be converted meant to "go back" (as indicated by the Hebrew term shub); it meant to return to the broken Covenant, through a renewed observance of the law. "Return to me [...], return from your evil ways," God said through the prophets (Zechariah 1:3-4; Jeremiah 8:4-5).

Consequently, to be converted has a primarily ascetic, moral and penitential meaning and it is affected by changing one's conduct of life. Conversion is seen as a condition for salvation; the meaning is: Repent and you will be saved; repent and salvation will come to you. This is the predominant meaning that the word conversion has on the lips of John the Baptist (cf. Luke 3:4-6). However, on Jesus' lips this moral meaning takes second place (at least at the beginning of his preaching) in regard to a new meaning, unknown until now. Manifested also in this is the epochal leap that is verified between the preaching of John the Baptist and that of Jesus.

To be converted no longer means to return to the ancient Covenant and the observance of the law, but to make a leap forward, entering into the new Covenant, to seize this Kingdom that has appeared, to enter it through faith. "Repent and believe" does not mean two different and successive things, but the same action: repent, that is believe; repent by believing! "Prima conversion fit per fidem," St. Thomas Aquinas would say, the first conversion consists in believing.[1]

God took the initiative of salvation: He has made his Kingdom come; man must only accept, in faith, God's offer and live the demands afterward. It is like a king who opens the door of his palace, where a great banquet is ready, and, being at the door, invites all passersby to enter, saying: "Come, all is ready!" It is the call that resounds in all the so-called parables of the Kingdom: The hour much awaited has struck, take the decision that saves, do not let the occasion slip by!

The Apostle says the same thing with the doctrine of justification through faith. The only difference is due to that which has occurred, in the meantime, between the preaching of Jesus and that of Paul: Christ was rejected and put to death for the sins of men. Faith in the Gospel ("believe in the Gospel"), is now configured as faith "in Jesus Christ," "in his blood" (Romans 3:25).

What the Apostle expresses through the adverb "freely" ("dorean") or "by grace," Jesus said with the image of receiving the Kingdom as a child, namely, as a gift, without putting forward merits, appealing only to the love of God, as children count on the love of their parents.

For some time exegetes have discussed whether or not one must continue to talk about the conversion of St. Paul; some prefer to speak of a "call," rather than conversion. There are those who would like the outright abolition of the feast of the conversion of St. Paul, as conversion indicates a detachment and a giving up of something, and a Jew who converts, as opposed to a pagan, must not give up anything, he must not pass from idols to the worship of the true God.[2]

It seems to me we are before a false problem. In the first place, there is no opposition between conversion and call: a call implies a conversion; it does not replace it, as grace does not replace freedom. However, above all we have seen that evangelical conversion is not about denying something or going back, but a reception of something new, a leap forward. To whom was Jesus speaking when he said: "Repent and believe in the Gospel"? Was he not speaking perhaps of the Jews? The Apostle referred to this same conversion with the words: "But when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed" (2 Corinthians 3:16).

In this light Paul's conversion appears to us as the model of true Christian conversion that consists first of all in accepting Christ, in "turning" to him through faith. It is a finding, not a giving up. Jesus does not say: A man sold all he had and began to look for a hidden treasure; he said: A man found a treasure and because of this sold everything.

4. A Lived Experience

In the document of agreement between the Catholic Church and the World Federation of Lutheran Churches on justification through faith, presented solemnly in St. Peter's Basilica by John Paul II and the archbishop of Uppsala in 1999, there is a final recommendation that seems of vital importance to me. In essence, it says this: The moment has come to make of this great truth a lived experience on the part of believers, and no longer an object of theological disputes between experts, as happened in the past.

The Pauline Year offers us the propitious occasion to live this experience. It could give a shove to our spiritual life, a breath and a new freedom. Charles Peguy recounted, in the third person, the story of the greatest act of faith of his life. A man, he said (and it is known he was speaking of himself) had three sons. On a bad day all three fell ill at the same time. Then he did something audacious. Thinking about it again admiringly, it must be said that it really was a daring act. Just as three children are sometimes gathered together and hoisted, almost jokingly, into the arms of their mother or nurse, who laughs and says to take them away because they are too many and too heavy, so he, daring man that he was, had taken -- one understands with prayer -- his three sick children and had peacefully put them into the arms of him who has charge of all the sorrows of the world. "Look," he said, "I give them to you, I turn and run away, so that you will not give them back to me. I don't want them any more, you see it well! You must be concerned with them." (Apart from the metaphor, he had gone on foot on a pilgrimage from Paris to Chartres to entrust his three sick children to Our Lady). From that day on, everything went well, naturally, because it was the Holy Virgin who was involved. It is also curious that not all Christians do as much. It is so simple, but no one ever thinks of what is simple.[3]

The story is useful to us at this moment because of the idea of the audacious act; because it relates to what is being discussed. The key to everything, it is said, is faith. But there are different types of faith: there is faith-assent of the intellect, faith-trust, faith-stability, as Isaiah calls it (7:9): of what faith does one refer to when speaking of justification "through faith"? It is a question of an all-together special faith: faith-appropriation!

Let us listen to St. Bernard on this point who says, "What I cannot obtain by myself, I appropriate (usurp!) with trust from the pierced side of the Lord, because he is full of mercy. My merit, therefore, is God's mercy. I am certainly not poor in merits, as long as he is rich in mercy. If the mercies of the Lord are many (Psalm 119:156), I too will abound with merits. And what about my justice? O Lord, I will remember only your justice. In fact, it is also mine, because you are for me justice on the part of God."[4] It is written, in fact, that "Christ Jesus ... became for us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption" (1 Corinthians 1:30) -- for us, not for himself!

St. Cyril of Jerusalem expressed, with other words, the same idea of the audacious act of faith: "O extraordinary goodness of God toward men! The righteousness of the Old Testament pleased God in the toil of long years; but what they were able to obtain, through a long and heroic service acceptable to God, Jesus gives to you in the brief space of an hour. In fact, if you believe that Jesus Christ is the Lord and that God has resurrected him from the dead, you will be saved and introduced into paradise by the same one who introduced the good thief."[5]

Imagine, writes Cabasilas, when developing an image of St. John Chrysostom, that an epic fight is taking place in the stadium. A courageous man has confronted the cruel tyrant and, with enormous effort and suffering, has beaten him. You have not fought, you have made no effort or suffered wounds. However, if you admire the courageous man, if you rejoice with him over his victory, if you weave a crown for him, stir and shake the assembly for him, if you bow with joy to the winner, if you kiss his head and shake his right hand; in sum, if you are so delirious for him as to consider his victory yours, I tell you that you will certainly have a part of the winner's prize.

But there is more: Suppose the winner had no need of the prize he won, but desires, more than anything else, to see his supporter honored and considers the prize of his fight the crowning of his friend, in such a case, will that man, perhaps, not obtain the crown if he has not toiled or suffered wounds? Of course he will obtain it! Well, it happens in this way between Christ and us. Although not having yet toiled and fought -- although not having yet any merit -- nevertheless, through faith we extol Christ's struggle, admire his victory, honor his trophy which is the cross and valuable for him, we show vehement and ineffable love; we make our own those wounds and that death.[6] Thus it is that salvation is obtained.

The Christmas liturgy will speak to us of the "holy exchange," of the "sacrum commercium," between us and God realized in Christ. The law of every exchange is expressed in the formula: That which is mine is yours and that which is yours is mine. It derives that, that which is mine, namely sin, weakness, becomes Christ's; that which is Christ's, namely holiness, becomes mine. Because we belong to Christ more than to ourselves (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20), it follows, writes Cabasilas, that, inversely, the holiness of Christ belongs to us more than our own holiness.[7] This is the thrust in the spiritual life. Its discovery is not done, usually, at the beginning, but at the end of one's own spiritual journey, when all the others paths have been experienced and one has seen that they do not go very far.

In the Catholic Church we have a privileged means to have a concrete and daily experience of this sacred exchange and of justification by grace through faith: the sacraments. Every time I approach the sacrament of reconciliation I have a concrete experience of being justified by grace, "ex opere operato," as we say in theology. I go out to the temple and say to God: "O God, have mercy on me a sinner" and, like the publican, I return home "justified" (Luke 18:14), forgiven, with a brilliant soul, as at the moment I came out of the baptismal font.

May St. Paul, in this year dedicated to him, obtain for us the grace of making like him this audacious thrust of faith.

* * *

Footnotes

[1] St. Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., I-IIae, q. 113, a.4.

[2] Cf. J.M. Everts, "Conversione e Chiamata di Paolo," in "Dizionario di Paolo e delle sue lettere," San Paolo 1999, pp. 285-298 (summary of the positions and bibliography).

[3] Cf. Ch. Peguy, "Il portico del mistero della seconda virtù."

[4] In Cant. 61, 4-5: PL 183, 1072.

[5] Catechesis 5, 10: PG 33, 517.

[6] Cf. N. Cabasilas, "Life in Christ," I, 5: PG150, 517.

[7] N. Cabasilas, "Life in Christ," IV, 6 (PG 150, 613).


[Translation by ZENIT]

Article: ‘God on Trial’

CHARLES COLSON

PBS stations around the country are currently running a deeply sobering film that is a must-see for people of faith.

Called God on Trial, the film tells the story of a group of Jewish inmates at Auschwitz who don't understand why God seems indifferent to their suffering. (Because of profanity, disturbing images, and other elements, the film is not suitable for children.)

The film begins on the "day of selection," on which some of the prisoners are chosen for extermination to make room for more prisoners. As the chosen ones await their fate, though some of the prisoners insist that God is still with them and that "suffering is a part of God's plan," many others feel abandoned and bitter. A young man named Moche complains, "[God] should be here, not us. . . . We should put [Him] on trial; then maybe He'll hear us."

So the prisoners decide to bring a charge of "breach of contract" against God for breaking His covenant with the Jewish people. What follows is a compelling exploration of suffering, sin, and faith.

An older man named Kuhn insists, "This is a test of our faith. . . . The point is to keep faith." He even suggests that the Jews have broken the covenant themselves by forgetting their Scriptures and disobeying God's law. But as Kuhn's son Mordechai points out, the new prisoners who have just arrived are devout followers of the Torah, and yet they're being punished along with the Jews who have lapsed from their faith.

The arguments go on and on, covering such subjects as what crime they might have committed, whether the punishment is proportionate, why their torturers thrive if God is just, and whether there might be some possible redemption or purification that will come from their suffering -- the kind of questions that people of faith have always wrestled with. They even face the possibility that God has withdrawn His favor from them and made a new covenant with the Nazis.

The arguments are hard to hear and the film is very hard to watch. Not because we haven't heard arguments against God before -- many of us have been hearing them and debating them for years -- but because we hear them in a situation like this, among men who have so much at stake. As one character remarks, appeals to reason mean little in a world that seems to be run by madness.

But this makes it all the more meaningful when, even though they cannot understand God, they realize how desperately they need Him. One young father who had his three little boys taken from him surprisingly speaks in favor of God: "I know He is here, even though I don't understand Him. . . . Maybe God is suffering with us." Even when they feel furthest from Him, God is embodied in the sacrificial love of some of the prisoners.

I don't want to give away too much here, but I recommend that you watch the film if it airs on your local PBS station, or pick up a copy of the DVD, which will be released in January. Consider watching it with your church group or a close circle of friends. Don't be afraid to wrestle with the emotionally painful and intellectually challenging questions about God and suffering -- and how it could be, possibly, that God suffers with us.



God on Trial 4 of 9



For Further Reading and Information

Learn more about the God on Trial film or order the DVD.

"TV review: Auschwitz Prisoners Put God on Trial," San Francisco Chronicle, 8 November 2008.

"PBS' 'God on Trial' Struggles with Questions of Free Will and Ultimate Evil," Boston Herald, 9 November 2008.

"Weighty Conversations: 'The Boy in the Striped Pajamas'," BreakPoint Commentary, 10 November 2008.




ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Charles Colson. "God on Trial." BreakPoint Commentary November 24, 2008.

From BreakPoint ® Copyright 2008, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries, P.O. Box 17500, Washington, D.C. 20041-0500. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. "BreakPoint ®" and "Prison Fellowship Ministries ®" are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

THE AUTHOR

Charles Colson launched Prison Fellowship in 1976, following a seven-month prison sentence for Watergate-related crimes. Since then, Prison Fellowship has flourished into a U.S. ministry of 50,000 volunteers and has spread to more then 50 countries. Beyond his prison ministry, Colson is a Christian author, speaker, and commentator, who regularly confronts contemporary values from a biblically informed perspective. His "BreakPoint" radio commentaries now air daily across the U.S. and he has written 15 books, including The Faith: Given Once, For All What Christians Believe, Why They Believe It, and Why It Matters, God & Government, Loving God, Answers to Your Kids' Questions, The Line Between Right & Wrong: Developing a Personal Code of Ethics, Against the Night: Living in the New Dark Ages, and How Now Shall We Live: A Study Guide.

Copyright © 2008 Breakpoint


Article: Life lessons from a turtle

ROBERT FULFORD

What Aesop’s fables teach us about ourselves.

Aesop
c. 1638, by Diego Velasquez

A few weeks ago, when the speaker of the house in the Philippine Congress was deposed, a story in the Philippine Sun-Star carried the heading, "Aesop's tales confirmed." The failings of the now ex-speaker, the reporter wrote, recalled Aesop's opinion that men often condemn others for the sins they themselves commit, something for which the speaker was apparently famous. The reporter then brought in not only Aesop's fable about the fox and the grapes but also the one about the oxen and the butchers and Aesop's opinion that the loudest quarrels are usually the most petty.

It's no surprise that a Manila journalist invoked Aesop. For centuries he's been the most pervasive of classical authors, a voice from ancient Greece that remains strong after two and a half millennia. Last year, his name appeared in The New York Times on 18 occasions. No doubt his stories were used without credit at least as often.

If we listen we can hear Aesop's voice in many cultures, including our own. Without Aesop (and many anonymous collaborators over the centuries) we wouldn't know that slow but steady wins the race, familiarity breeds contempt and gods help those who help themselves. We would never have heard about the boy who cried wolf, or for that matter, the wolf in sheep's clothing. We might even count our chickens before they're hatched.

The Aesop fables are the Great Barrier Reef of storytelling. His body of work has grown organically, century by century, accumulating stories the way coral forms a great rock in the sea. There's no such thing as a correct edition of Aesop fables. An Aesop collection is an accretion of tales from known and unknown sources, a collaborative project developed by a regiment of storytellers over the centuries. He left no original text (could he write?) and many tales we have come to know as his were likely concocted by other ancient Greeks after his death -- that is, if he ever actually lived.

Historians have firmly established that Aesop either did or did not live as a slave on the Greek island of Samos in the Aegean Sea during the sixth century B.C.E. Herodotus, writing about a century later, depicts him as part of Greek history.

Aristophanes , in one of his stage comedies, has a character mention either a person or a style of satire named Aesop. Still, we lack absolute proof that he existed.

Naturally he comes to us with no personal image attached. Artists have often guessed how he might have looked, showing him as everything from wise to cynical. There's an imaginary portrait of him in the Prado in Madrid by no less than Diego Velázquez, perhaps the greatest of all painters. His Aesop looks dishevelled, tired and possibly a little bored, wrapped in a shabby brown toga that's carelessly fastened with a sash.

Considered either as a writer or a team of writers, Aesop was one of the great curators of experience.

Considered either as a writer or a team of writers, Aesop was one of the great curators of experience. He helped humanity understand itself. Reality being a confusing mess, we make what sense of it we can by encapsulating experience in simple narrative illustrations. The stories burrow into the marrow of our imagination, until we accept them as part of our nature, forgetting they ever had authors. They become stereotypes, but necessary stereotypes.

Humans need patterns and generalities just to get through the day. Aesop's tales were invented for adults but a couple of centuries ago turned into children's fiction. Today, they appear as juvenile literature, year after year, in newly illustrated, newly paraphrased form, often just one story in a large-format book. Simplified over the years, the stories help children to make sense of the world. As William James pointed out in Principles of Psychology in 1890, the world appears to small children as "one great blooming, buzzing confusion." Aesop's tales are a way of framing experience and sorting out the complications of everyday life.

Over the years, editors and translators have been steadily recreating Aesop. William Caxton, the great printer, brought out the first English edition in 1484, but it was rather distantly linked to the original. First the Greek was translated into Latin, which was translated into French, which was translated into the English Caxton used. But if that process was by the standards of recent scholarship, the book that resulted kept selling until the late 17th century.

Standards have changed. Laura Gibbs, when preparing Aesop's Fables (Oxford University Press, 2002), perhaps the most admired recent edition, worked directly from the ancient Greek.

Today Aesop lives a vivid, prolific and unpredictable life -- the day before yesterday he starred in a London Observer editorial. Last year alone he appeared as a sage in at least three business journals. Readers of Investment News were told, under the heading "What Aesop can teach us," that the story of the dog that saw its reflection in a stream while carrying meat in its mouth (and lost its own meat while lunging for the meat of the dog in the water) has a lesson for investors: Don't be greedy and impulsive.

A journal called Employee Benefit News claimed that organizers of pension plans feel like the fox in The Fox and the Hedgehog, who fears being drained of its blood by flies. Instead of flies, the pensions people fear declining interest rates and burdensome regulations. The Grasshopper and the Ant was recommended to readers of Jewellers Circular Keystone. The ant stored up food for the winter while the grasshopper wasted his time in play. Jewellers should emulate the ant, putting something aside for their trade's equivalent of winter, increased costs for materials and no rise in retail prices.

The most influential of Aesop's literary strategies was using animals to tell all his stories. Why did he do that? G.K. Chesterton, in the introduction to a 1912 edition, explained that to tell moral tales Aesop needed to strip his protagonists of personal qualities and use them "like abstractions in algebra, or like pieces in chess."

That made Aesop the ancestor of Walt Disney, E.B. White as a children's author and George Orwell, who in Animal Farm used barnyard animals to satirize the Soviet government. They and thousands of writers and filmmakers have agreed with Aesop that a story of human folly works best when it pretends to be about non-humans.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Robert Fulford. "Life lessons from a turtle." National Post, (Canada) March 4, 2008.

Reprinted with permission of Robert Fulford.

THE AUTHOR

Robert Fulford has been a journalist since the summer of 1950, when he left high school to work as a sports writer on The Globe and Mail. He has since been a news reporter, literary critic, art critic, movie critic, and editor — on a variety of magazines, ranging from Canadian Homes and Gardens to the Canadian Forum. He was the editor of Saturday Night magazine for 19 years, and since he left that job in 1987 he's been a freelance writer. He writes twice a week in the National Post and contributes a monthly column about the media to Toronto Life magazine and writes for Queen's Quarterly. His most recent book is The Triumph of Narrative: Storytelling in the Age of Mass Culture (1999). Robert Fulford is an officer of the Order of Canada and the holder of honorary degrees from six Canadian universities.

Copyright © 2008 Robert Fulford

Article: A Conversation with Peter Kreeft

PAUL CAMACHO

His style, both in teaching and in writing, is as unpretentious as it is fervent: in deeply profound, elegant, and often entertaining ways, Peter Kreeft questions the assumptions of modern thought with the wonderful wisdom and wit of a wider worldview.

Refusing to restrict reason to the narrow confines of modern philosophy, Kreeft draws deeply from all areas of human experience. He is fond of saying that his role of a professor is merely to introduce a student to a great thinker by means of their work, and then to allow them to converse: "Student, meet Socrates. Socrates, meet student." It is our hope that this interview will serve a similar purpose: "Reader, meet Prof. Kreeft."

You received your Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1965 and have been teaching philosophy at Boston College ever since. Why did you decide to become a philosopher?

I did not decide to become a philosopher any more than Fred Astaire decided to become a dancer or Alfred E. Neuman decided to have big ears. It was in my script. Actually, I was at first an English major in college, but I kept looking for the philosophy inside everything I read, so I went for the nut instead of the shell.

You have described philosophy as beginning in wonder. Could you explain what you mean by that, and how that is relevant to our culture of skepticism and cynicism?

I wrote my doctoral dissertation on that: wonder as the origin of philosophy. (1) It begins with surprise, shock. Little kids do it all the time; everything surprises them because they have no ruts yet. (2) Then it becomes intellectual; emotional wonder turns into intellectual wonder. We want to explain these surprises, like uncles and oranges and spiders and tubas. We naturally want to know why. It's a little kid's favorite word. We want to know everything there is to know about everything there is (to paraphrase Lonergan). (3) Finally, the deepest wonder, the fruit of the other two, is appreciation, contemplation: something very close to love. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all say "philosophy begins in wonder." If the thing done today by scholarly cyborgs doesn't, then it's not philosophy. It may be worthwhile to do. So is bookbinding, and computer repair, and news reporting; it's just a different thing. When you wonder, you get all still inside, not wordy. Words that come from wonder come from silence. They have heft, and weight. Words that come from other words are just more members of the chain gang. If that's no longer fashionable, so what? Chesterton says that whoever marries the spirit of the times must soon become a widower.

Who are your heroes, both philosophical and otherwise?

Jesus, Socrates, and my father. And Duke Kahanamoku, Bill Lee, and Chopin.

What have been your most popular classes over the years, and why do you think they have been so popular?

  • Tolkien -- because he's simply the greatest writer of the 20th century, and because I concentrate on just one great book;
  • Augustine's Confessions -- because there has never been another man or another book like it;
  • C.S. Lewis -- because no writer is more clear, honest, reliable, or full of joy;
  • World Religions -- because everyone wants to know the very deepest things in people's hearts and lives.

You have written over forty books, and are perhaps best known to your readers as a Christian apologist. What has it been like to be a faithful orthodox Christian in the field of philosophy?

I just try to tell the truth as I see it. I don't worry about what "the field of philosophy" is doing. The question seems to assume a tension between Christianity and philosophy, faith and reason. I don't feel it at all. In principle, faith and reason are allies because they are two communications from the same Author. In practice, many of the greatest philosophers have been Christians, and this continues to be true even in our secular age.

What has inspired you to write so many books? Why do you think they are so eagerly received?

Greed inspires me. Greed for truth, for one thing: I want to learn, and I learn best by teaching, and writing is a form of teaching. Greed to share the truths I find exciting and joyful with others, too. Greed to create, for another thing. What the artist wants to build with color or the musician with sound, the writer wants to build with words. And also, frankly, greed for enough money to keep a big extended family and a house in Newton. No greed for fame, though; that's just stupid. If anyone likes my books that's because they've stepped into the same boat I've invited them into and enjoyed the ride.

I write the books I want to read, but can't, because no one else writes them, so I have to write them before I can read them. I like to bridge the scholarly and the popular, to do philosophy and theology in a way intelligent readers who aren't academics can profit from. When they asked Mel Gibson what kind of a character he thought he had, he replied, "Somewhere between Saint Francis of Assisi and Howard Stern." I think my books are somewhere between G.K. Chesterton and Tim La Haye.

You are currently on sabbatical -- what are you working on right now? You have been working on a novel for quite some time now, is that to be forthcoming soon? More books in the Socrates Meets series?

Why do journalists always call any Catholic who isn't a heretic or an apostate a "devout" Catholic? Walker Percy used to say he was not a good Catholic, he was a bad Catholic. But that was back when there were lines at the confessionals.

I'm working on a novel that really isn't a novel, but a fictional set of documents that give you an angel's eye view of the connection between Jesus Christ, dead Vikings, the St. Michael statue in Gasson Hall, hopelessly Victorian romantics, sassy Black feminists, Dutch Calvinist seminarians, Jewish mother substitutes, Caribbean rubber dancers, Russian prophets, the disguises of angels, the Palestinian "intifadah," sea serpents, the fatal beauty of the sea, the Unified Field Theory, the Curse of the Bambino, armless nature mystics, two and a half popes, Islam in the art of body surfing, post-abortion trauma, the Great Blizzard of '78, the demon Hurricano, Jesuit philosophers, Nahant, the psychology of suicide, the ecumenical jihad, the victims of the Sexual Revolution, and the end of the world. I hope to get it done before that last item happens. Every September, I speed up if the Red Sox have any chance to get into the World Series, because that would be the apocalypse. Meanwhile, Socrates will meet Sartre, then Descartes, then Kant, then Freud (probably one a year).

You used to be a Reformed Protestant... when and why did you decide to become a Catholic?

I became a Catholic for the only honest reason anyone should: because it's true. I read my way into the Church in the same way Newman did: I tried to prove to myself that the Church Christ established was Protestant and then went wrong, that is, Catholic, later. I found the opposite. For instance, not one Christian in the world for the first 1000 years ever denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Do you think this helps to account for the widespread appeal of your works across traditional denominational divides? What else about your writing explains this popularity?

Jews who become Christians today almost always say they have become better Jews, completed Jews. I think I'm more, not less, Evangelical as a Catholic than I was when I was an Evangelical Protestant. Read the Introduction to C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity for the answer to your question.

Although in many of your works you state that you are defending and explaining what C.S. Lewis calls "mere Christianity," you are also a devout and faithful Catholic and a staunch defender of the Church. After teaching at Boston College, a Catholic university, for over 35 years, what are your thoughts about the role the Church plays at B.C.?

A cafeteria is a place where you pick whatever foods you want. A home is where you eat what Mommy puts on your plate. The Church is not Alice's Restaurant, where "you can have anything you want." It's Mommy, and she puts a lot of strange food on your plate, things you never would have figured out on your own (like the Trinity) and things you don't want to eat (like the spinach of practicing all the virtues, even the unpopular ones, and avoiding the vices, even the popular ones).

Why do journalists always call any Catholic who isn't a heretic or an apostate a "devout" Catholic? Walker Percy used to say he was not a good Catholic, he was a bad Catholic. But that was back when there were lines at the confessionals.

When people ask me the question about how Catholic BC is, I like to say that it's Catholic enough to feel like my home but at the same time pagan enough to feel like a mission field. A university isn't a seminary, and a university in 21st century America is necessarily pluralistic. At the same time, the university historically emerged "from the heart of the Church," (ex corde ecclesia), and a Catholic university is not an anachronism or an oxymoron or a quirky, weird kind of university. The Church does not have direct supervision of BC. Yet if what the Church teaches is not true, there is no reason for BC to exist. Its identity is both Catholic and catholic (universal, open to all truth, and pluralistic). If it loses the first, it will become BU. That's quite possible; that happened to most Protestant universities. If it loses the second, it will become St. John's seminary or Weston School of Theology. That's not going to happen. It's simply silly for anybody to worry about that.

You often speak about "cafeteria-style" Catholics, a category many B.C. students fit into. Could you explain what you mean by this? What can be done to bring Catholics back to orthodoxy, and why is this important?

A cafeteria is a place where you pick whatever foods you want. A home is where you eat what Mommy puts on your plate. The Church is not Alice's Restaurant, where "you can have anything you want." It's Mommy, and she puts a lot of strange food on your plate, things you never would have figured out on your own (like the Trinity) and things you don't want to eat (like the spinach of practicing all the virtues, even the unpopular ones, and avoiding the vices, even the popular ones). I'm a Cafeteria Norseman. I love some things in Norse mythology. But I don't believe most of it. For instance, I love thunder, and I love to imagine I hear the hammer of Thor. It's a great image. But I'm not going to live for Thor or die for Thor. Thor didn't die for my sins.

Many B.C. students consider themselves to be Catholics, but state that they have trouble reconciling the Church's teachings with their own "personal beliefs." What would you say to such a student?

Think. And be fanatically honest with yourself. Don't play games with yourself. Lying to others is bad enough, but lying to yourself is like putting out your own eyes. So if your "personal beliefs" are just your feelings, ask yourself why Hitler wasn't as good as you are, because he lived according to his "personal beliefs" and feelings too.

Many of the Church's teachings don't require faith, only reason and honesty. For instance, the value of reason and honesty itself. I'd start by appealing to that. Use your reason. Think. And be fanatically honest with yourself. Don't play games with yourself. Lying to others is bad enough, but lying to yourself is like putting out your own eyes. So if your "personal beliefs" are just your feelings, ask yourself why Hitler wasn't as good as you are, because he lived according to his "personal beliefs" and feelings too. If, on the other hand, your "personal beliefs" are the result of your honest and rational search for truth, and you honestly believe you have good objective reasons for disbelieving some of the essential teachings of the Church, then you must follow your conscience and become a Protestant or a Muslim or a Buddhist or an agnostic or something else. If your personal beliefs contradict the Church's definition of the Catholic faith, then you are not a Catholic, any more than I am a Buddhist if I believe in egotism and war, or a Marxist if I believe in the stock market. That's not a personal insult, just a rational label. Honesty demands "truth in labeling."

What sort of changes have you noticed in your students over the years?

Everybody asks me that. The major answer is: nothing major at all. The human mind and heart doesn't change much. The media thrive on change, so they hype every little change. Really, the two clearest changes I can think of are both little: first, there aren't many sixties style hippies who think they can change the world and bring in the Age of Aquarius any more, they're too busy preparing for law school or med school; and second, their English skills and knowledge of history have deteriorated and their math and computer skills have increased. The elves are leaving Middle-earth and we are approaching The Matrix.

If you had to point to the biggest obstacle in society today facing Orthodox Christianity, what would it be?

Our own sins. They always have social consequences. We construct society, for good or ill, far more than it constructs us. It has no free will; we do. It is merely what we make; we are not merely what it makes. By "orthodox Christianity" I assume you mean the whole nine yards, the whole treatment.. That begins with faith, and truth, and teachings, but it ends with the works of love, with being saints. Only saints can save the world. And only our own sins can stop us from being saints.

There has been a lot of talk among students around campus lately about dissatisfaction with the current "hook-up" culture, in which students have replaced dating with what is described as random, no-strings-attached, inebriated sexual liaisons on weekends. What are your thoughts on this, and on how this can be overcome?

I believe in fear. When the ship is falling apart and sinking, it is better to feel fear than peace and self-esteem.

Perhaps a reading of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah might refresh our memories. At some point, a culture or an individual gets so bad that if they don't stop themselves, God does. No one knows where that point is until it's too late. And that's true for any evil: pride, hypocrisy, selfishness, injustice -- or "random, no-strings-attached, inebriated sexual liaisons," as you so charmingly put it.

I believe in fear. When the ship is falling apart and sinking, it is better to feel fear than peace and self-esteem. There was once an old book that people used to read, back in the Dark Ages. It was the book that taught us all about love and peace and hope and other upbeat stuff. That book also identified "the beginning of wisdom." It was fear: the fear of the Lord. I know psychologists sneer at that today, but I'd rather sneer at psychologists who sneer at God's psychology, than sneer at God's psychology.

What are your thoughts on Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ?

One does not "have thoughts" about that movie. One goes, sees, feels, participates, identifies, agonizes, dies -- something in you dies when you see that movie. Your distance, your safe perch from which to observe, your self-esteem. The movie is really about us. Gibson stands for all of us in that movie. You know how he put himself into it: the hand that hammers Christ's hand to the Cross is Gibson's hand. Your hand. My hand.

My candidate for the greatest line in any movie ever made is the one where Mary asks Christ when He's going to stop, why He has to go that far, after He's fallen down the third time under the Cross, and He picks up His cross -- He embraces it as a man embraces a woman, and turns to Mary and says, with almost a tiny smile, "See, Mother, how I make all things new." And then He goes on and does it.

What are your thoughts on the current debate about gay marriage?

As a philosopher the thing that strikes me most is the brilliant strategy of the gay marriage movement. Like Orwell in 1984 it sees that the main battlefield is language. If they can redefine a key term like "marriage" they win. Control language and you control thought; control thought and you control action; control action and you control the world. Mussolini knew that too. He made it illegal for Italians to say "hi" in the traditional way. The Italian for "how are you?" is "Come sta lei?" "Lei" is the feminine inclusive pronoun. Fascist ideology held that this was emasculating and weak, so you had to say "Come sta lui?" from now on. "Lui" is the masculine pronoun. So no one could say "hi" in Italy without identifying themselves as pro or anti-fascist.

I think you will find that there is an overwhelmingly strong connection between these three agendas: gay marriage, feminism, and abortion. Very seldom do you find people who are for one but not the other, or against one but not the other. And what they all have in common is this attitude toward language...

In America, the feminists have succeeded in exactly the same way. They've labeled the traditional inclusive language, the language of every single one of the great books of Western civilization written in English, as exclusive because it uses "he" and "man" to include women; and they've labeled their new artificial ideological invention, which insists, contrary to historical fact, that "he" and "man" exclude women -- they've labeled this "inclusive" language. And amazingly, nearly everyone follows like sheep! So it will be easy, I think, for them to redefine marriage. Hell, they've already redefined "human beings" or "persons" so that they can murder the littlest ones whenever they want to. Why should they feel any guilt about dishonesty when they don't feel any guilt about murder?

I think you will find that there is an overwhelmingly strong connection between these three agendas: gay marriage, feminism, and abortion. Very seldom do you find people who are for one but not the other, or against one but not the other. And what they all have in common is this attitude toward language: it is what the most powerful and insidious propaganda film in history called "the triumph of the will." Already in Canada it is a crime, punishable by a fine or even imprisonment, to speak against homosexuality in public. Politically incorrect ideas, such as Biblical morality, are now defined as "hate speech."

One of the things I fear from this is an ugly backlash against homosexuals. If the truth is now whatever we will, then just as there is nothing to stop society today from redefining marriage, there is nothing to stop it tomorrow from redefining personal dignity and rights so as to take them away from homosexuals. The Nazis did exactly that. The Church is the best friend of homosexuals, both because she tells them they are made in God's image and have intrinsic dignity and rights and are called to be saints, and because she is the only social force left that insists on moral absolutes -- so when they sin against themselves she says NO, just as she does to heterosexuals who sin against themselves sexually, but when others sin against them she says NO also. No one else dares to say NO. She speaks up for everyone, including homosexuals.

You wrote The Handbook of Christian Apologetics with Fr. Tacelli... what was it like working with him?

Perfect. He did some chapters, I did others. We didn't argue. I was the Navy, he was the Air Force.

You have described yourself as an avid surfer. Could you explain your fascination for surfing, and any connections you see between surfing and spirituality?

In 25,000 words or less? Wait till my novel comes out.

No, the temptation is too strong. Here's three answers: (1) Soul-surfing is becoming one with the wave, which is the form of all energy, and the form the energy of the Big Bang is taking right now, so surfing is a time machine that takes you back to the moment of creation. (2) Surfing is the only thing that never gets boring on earth because what you will do in Heaven is surf in God forever. (3) You have an evil twin who is always with you. He is called your ego. In surfing, you lose him. Surfing is the world's easiest mysticism.

Do you have any final words for the typical Boston College student today?

I hope not. If I had "final words," I would then either die or go dumb. I have no "final words." Let God have that.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Paul Camacho. "A Conversation with Peter Kreeft." Boston College Observer (April 22, 2004).

Reprinted by permission of Peter Kreeft.

THE AUTHOR

Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College. He is an alumnus of Calvin College (AB 1959) and Fordham University (MA 1961, Ph.D., 1965). He taught at Villanova University from 1962-1965, and has been at Boston College since 1965.

He is the author of numerous books (over forty and counting) including: The Snakebite Letters, The Philosophy of Jesus, The Journey: A Spiritual Roadmap for Modern Pilgrims, Prayer: The Great Conversation: Straight Answers to Tough Questions About Prayer, How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Society in Crisis, Love Is Stronger Than Death, Philosophy 101 by Socrates: An Introduction to Philosophy Via Plato's Apology, A Pocket Guide to the Meaning of Life, and The Sea Within: Waves and the Meaning of All Things. Peter Kreeft in on the Advisory Board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Copyright © 2008 Peter Kreeft