Article: So much for 'settled science'

LORNE GUNTER

You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now likely to take a break for a decade or more. There will be no more warming until 2015, perhaps later.

Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany’s Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U.N.’s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.

Of course, Mr. Keenlyside — long a defender of the man-made global warming theory — was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020), warming would resume with a vengeance.

Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known all along there would be periods when the Earth’s climate would cool even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.

Sorry, but that is just so much backfill.

There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.

If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a 10 or 15-year hiatus.

Last year, in its oft-quoted report on global warming, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a 0.3-degree C rise in temperature in the coming decade — not a cooling or even just temperature stability.

In its previous report in 2001, the IPCC prominently displaced the so called temperature “hockey stick” that purported to show temperature pretty much plateauing for the thousand years before 1900, then taking off in the 20th Century in a smooth upward line. No 10-year dips backwards were foreseen.

It is drummed into us, ad nauseum, that the IPCC represents 2,500 scientists who together embrace a “consensus” that man-made global warming is a “scientific fact;” and as recently as last year, they didn’t see this cooling coming. So the alarmists can’t weasel out of this by claiming they knew all along such anomalies would occur.

This is not something any alarmist predicted, and it showed up in none of the UN’s computer projections until Mr. Keenlyside et al. were finally able to enter detailed data into their climate model on past ocean current behaviour.

Less well-known is that global temperatures have already been falling for a decade. All of which means, that by 2015 or 2020, when warming is expected to resume, we will have had nearly 20 years of fairly steady cooling.

Less well-known is that global temperatures have already been falling for a decade. All of which means, that by 2015 or 2020, when warming is expected to resume, we will have had nearly 20 years of fairly steady cooling.

Saints of the new climate religion, such as Al Gore, have stated that eight of the 10 years since 1998 are the warmest on record. Even if that were true, none has been as warm as 1998, which means the trend of the past decade has been downward, not upward.

Last year, for instance, saw a drop in the global average temperature of nearly 0.7 degrees C (the largest single-year movement up or down since global temperature averages have been calculated). Despite advanced predictions that 2007 would be the warmest year on record, made by such UN associates as Britain’s Hadley Centre, a government climate research agency, 2007 was the coolest year since at least 1993.

According to the U.S. National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th-Century mean for the first time since 1982.

Also in January, Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage was at its greatest summer level (January is summer in the Southern Hemisphere) in the past 30 years.

Neither the 3,000 temperature buoys that float throughout the world’s oceans nor the eight NASA satellites that float above our atmosphere have recorded appreciable warming in the past six to eight years.

Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st Century.

Does this prove that global warming isn’t happening, that we can all go back to idling our SUVs 24/7? No. But it should introduce doubt into the claim that the science of global warming is “settled.”

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Lorne Gunter, "So much for 'settled science'." National Post, (Canada) May 21, 2008.

Reprinted with permission of the National Post.

THE AUTHOR

Lorne Gunter is a regular columnist with The Edmonton Journal, and frequent contributor to the National Post, National Report, and other publications.

Copyright © 2008 National Post

Article: Newman and the Church

RUSSELL SHAW

If, as now seems likely, the Pope is going to beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman in the not too distant future, Catholics all across the ideological spectrum will celebrate the event.

John Henry Cardinal Newman 1801- 1890

Why that's so tells a lot — about Newman and about the Church.

People are beatified for holiness, not their accomplishments. The needed testimony to Newman's holiness apparently resides in the miraculous cure of a permanent deacon in Massachusetts named Jack Sullivan from a seemingly incurable spinal ailment. That said, however, Newman's accomplishments also deserve taking into account.

During his long life — the eminent British churchman lived from 1801 to 1890 — he did and was many notable things: leader of the Anglican reform effort called the Oxford Movement, distinguished but controversial convert to the Roman Catholic Church, founder of the Oratory in England, founding president of a Catholic university in Ireland, noted preacher, author of books now deemed classics.

But his principal accomplishment can be summed up in one word: development.

As Newman pondered the idea of coming over to Rome throughout 1845, he worked steadily on a book. At the end of the year, with the book finished, its author converted. Book and conversion were closely linked.

The book is called An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. A scholarly work reflecting its author's theological and historical acumen, the Essay is a richly illustrated explication of doctrinal development and how it works.

Doctrinal development is not doctrinal change, nor is it the discovery of new doctrines. As Newman uses the expression, it refers to a process of expanding insight into the meaning of the body of truths entrusted to the Church. In the parable of the mustard seed and other such passages, he points out, Scripture itself anticipates "the development of Christianity, both as a polity and as a doctrine."

In sum, Newman says: “No one doctrine can be named which starts complete at first, and gains nothing afterwards from the investigations of faith.” Development, one might say, is the rule, not the exception.

The Essay illustrates its central thesis meticulously by the examination of doctrine after doctrine. In sum, Newman says: "No one doctrine can be named which starts complete at first, and gains nothing afterwards from the investigations of faith." Development, one might say, is the rule, not the exception.

Cardinal Newman often is called the great precursor of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). The theology of development explains why. Here, over a century before the fact, he accounted for the developments which took place during the Council in the Church's thinking about many matters, from the role of the laity to religious liberty.

Pope Benedict XVI is a fan of Cardinal Newman, and it's easy to see why. In a notable speech to the Roman Curia at the end of 2005, the Pope contrasted two opposed approaches to understanding Vatican II, which he called the "hermeneutic of change" and the "hermeneutic of continuity."

The first sees the Council as a sharp, definitive break with the Christian past; the second sees it as a stage in a process of development, in vital communion with the tradition of the Church. Needless to say, Benedict held the second way to be the correct approach.

Doctrinal development supplies the underpinning of Pope Benedict's hermeneutic of continuity. It is that which makes Newman's thought of central importance to a correct understanding of Vatican II. The Church and its doctrine are not museum pieces but living organisms in which the Spirit continues at work, with development — "an internal element of life," as Newman called it — as His instrument.

And that is why such a broad range of Catholics will celebrate John Henry Newman's recognition as "Blessed" when the time for that finally comes.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Russell Shaw. "Newman and the Church." Catholic Exchange (May 16, 2008).

This article reprinted with permission of Catholic Exchange and the author, Russell Shaw.

THE AUTHOR

Russell Shaw is a writer and journalist in Washington and a contributing editor of Crisis magazine and Our Sunday Visitor national newspaper. His books include Personal Vocation: God Calls Everyone By Name, Catholic Laity in the Mission of the Church, Good News, Bad News: Evangelization, Conversion, and the Crisis of Faith. He is editor of Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine.

Copyright © 2008 Russell Shaw

Article: The significance of the order: ‘All hands on deck!’

PAUL JOHNSON

The importance of the hand is the real link between the workman, the artist and the intellectual.

Jascha Heifetz 1901-1987

A friend of mine recently sustained terrible injuries to his hand when his shotgun blew up. Such accidents fill me with horror, not least because they remind me how important our hands are to us, and how easily — in scores of different ways — they can be damaged. Hands are miraculous things, and one of the delights of observing children is to see how quickly they make use of them — pointing, turning knobs, pressing buttons, above all using a pencil. I have just received a delightful photo of my transatlantic granddaughter drawing. It is a Vermeer-like study in intense concentration. Though she is only 20 months old, she holds the pencil firmly and correctly. This is very important. However young a child is, it is essential, if the slightest sign of artistic talent emerges, to see that the hand grips the instrument (even chalk) in the most efficient manner, and there is only one: its base between thumb and forefingers, its tip guided jointly by forefinger and middle finger. Correct holding cannot be taught too early, for once a mishabit develops, it is extraordinarily difficult to eradicate later.

The same principle, ceteris paribus, applies to a child with musical talent. Yehudi Menuhin once told me, 'The first thing with fiddling is to hold the bow properly, and there is only one way.' The hand can become part of an instrument by 12 months of age, in rare cases, and certainly by two. I believe Clara Schumann was beginning to play the piano before she could even speak. She certainly learnt to read notes before letters. And why not? Nothing prodigious about it: merely a particular sense of priorities. She had remarkably strong hands, and needed them to master the exercises usual in those days, especially for women who aspired to be concert pianists. Her unfortunate husband, Robert, in an attempt to improve his hand muscles, using a patent gimcrack stretcher, did them permanent damage which effectively ended his concert career. She had to play for two. I once examined closely the hands of a celebrated woman performer and was impressed by their muscular development, suppleness and marvellous flexibility. One thinks of Madame Suggia, the great cellist immortalised by Augustus John, the beautiful and tragic Ginette Neveu, who Sibelius thought gave the best rendering of his mesmerising violin concerto, and the pianist Harriet Cohen, who cut a swath through left-wing hearts in her day.

Women artists, especially sculptresses, need and usually have strong hands too, like masseuses at health farms. When I was a young man in Paris I learnt massage, partly for its own sake, partly to develop my painting and writing muscles. When I was a boy, the belief in artistic circles was that a born artist had notable cushions, rising to a definite point, in the top part of each finger. Flat cushions meant no talent. Can there be any physiological basis for this? There were also theories about the lines in the palm of your painting hand, but those I am sure are baseless, as is — must be — the whole of palmistry. When I meet a painter, the first thing I do is look at his hands. Francis Bacon's were unimpressive; feeble almost. But then, so were his paintings, in my opinion, even if good for the odd frisson, like the tales of Edgar Allan Poe, another man with woeful hands. On the other hand, David Hockney, as one would expect, has hands which are exceptionally dextrous but powerful too. I love to watch him at work when he is doing a portrait in line: a fine, smooth, almost rhythmic display of digital skill, eye, hand and brain working together in perfect harmony.

When furiously at work on his giant canvases he must have been a sight you'd remember all your life; darting up and down ladders, running back to get a long view, running forward again to put in a minute dab or a fierce splash of paint, or to prepare for one of his bravura brushstrokes.

The man I would really like to have seen painting is Rubens. He had delicate but also formidable hands, to judge by his self-portraits, but I think he had notable muscles all over his body, coming from a handsome and well-endowed family. When furiously at work on his giant canvases he must have been a sight you'd remember all your life; darting up and down ladders, running back to get a long view, running forward again to put in a minute dab or a fierce splash of paint, or to prepare for one of his bravura brushstrokes. He could load a big brush with paint, then use it, with complete accuracy and even tone, in a stroke eight feet long. This would require massive and well-coordinated back, shoulder and arm muscles, and few painters could have managed it at any time. How the studio assistants must have goggled! There are certain moods in which I regard Rubens as the finest of all painters, by virtue of the enormous extent, variety and quality of his output, his excellence in landscape and figure-painting, the historical, the sacred, the profane, portraiture and battle, men, women, gods and animals. He was an exceptionally decent man, too, generous and funny, a magnanimous creature. But, not least, he had a body built for art on the most heroic scale.

Probably the form of art requiring the most delicate and sensitive manipulation, and the surest hand, is classical Chinese calligraphy. We know little about it here, and it has many mysteries even for the learned Chinese, for it reached its climax in the 4th century ad, and the entire output of the three greatest calligraphers, who lived then, has totally vanished. There is an enormous literature in Chinese on the way you should pick up a brush, dip it in the ink, hold it and choose the angle of its application (especially centre-tip or oblique-tip), and the precise way in which the brush is employed to begin, continue and finish a character. The Chinese believe each letter has an essential character of its own and, unless the rules are strictly followed, the calligraphy is defective and is seen to be, immediately, by the experts. However, while following the rules, the writer also employs his mentality, philosophy and current emotions, as well as his personal moral character, all of which are reflected in the strokes. This is particularly significant when the calligrapher is also a poet, as is the desired norm, and is writing down his poetry. Its virtue depends only partly on its contents. The way in which it is set down on the paper is at least as important, and is clearly perceived by the practised student of art and literature. They speak of the 'heart prints' and the 'mind prints' of the calligrapher. Thus the hand is as important to the poet as to the artist or musician — no nonsense in China about a fellow like Auden with his dirty, bitten fingernails.

I wish there were a really learned and well-researched book about artists' and writers' hands, of the quality of Patrick Trevor-Roper's book The World Through Blunted Sight. What were Guercino's like? The fact that he had a squint, as his name makes clear, did not prevent him from being a draughtsman of superlative quality. There is a drawing of his in the Ashmolean, Oxford, called, I think, 'Two Women Seated', which has some claims to be considered the finest piece of draughtsmanship in existence. I would also like to know more about the hands of Jascha Heifetz, who to my mind was the most spectacular executant in all music, producing a continuous series of sounds of a special kind never heard before or since. Was there something equally special about his fingers? The importance of the hand is the real link between the workman, the artist and the intellectual. 'All hands on deck!' That says it all.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Paul Johnson. "The significance of the order: 'All hands on deck!'" The Spectator (December 16, 2006).

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 © 2006 Paul Johnson

Article: Freedom is Scary

MARK SHEA

You know the drill: The Church is a prison that shackles the hearts and minds of people who yearn for the freedom to think and act as they please.

It is a stifling cell in which the best and the brightest are not allowed to be free due to the brutal restraints of dogma.

The reality is that most anti-Catholics are terrified of the intellectual freedom of the faith and much prefer some small ideology, cramped superstition or cozy little circle of slogans and simplicities that can be easily memorized and repeated.

I was reminded of this recently when the headlines noted that ex-Catholic Tom Cruise was building a bunker to prepare himself against intergalactic alien attack.

Now, I don't know if Cruise is really building said bunker, but I do know that to leave the Catholic faith for Scientology is to exchange a vast estate full of woods and rivers ripe for exploration and quiet meditation for a cement cell decorated with cartoons.

I well recall a conversation with a friend who described an acquaintance of his, deep in the meshes of Scientology. The man had explained how the Scientology clinicians had hooked him up to a polygraph and asked him a bunch of incredibly personal questions, the answers to which were carefully recorded and filed away for later ' use. ' He saw nothing amiss with this.

When my friend asked him what benefits he had received from Scientology, he responded "Ah! I can't tell you. You have to reach the $5,000 level!"

This strange urge to be harder on ourselves than the faith permits us to be is a curious feature of our fallenness.

I remember a friend who stayed with an aging group of Welsh Non-Conformists back in the '80s. They were the la st survivors of a religious enthusiasm that swept through Wales in the early 20th century. Each year, their dwindling numbers got smaller, but they held the True Faith, and continued to meet and encourage each other in rigorism and joylessness.

Now, I don't know if Cruise is really building said bunker, but I do know that to leave the Catholic faith for Scientology is to exchange a vast estate full of woods and rivers ripe for exploration and quiet meditation for a cement cell decorated with cartoons.

At one particularly unforgettable gathering, one of the old duffers in the group stood up to give his testimony (one they had all heard many times). He said, "When I was a young man, I used to celebrate Christmas and enjoy a pint down at the pub. But when I found the Lord, I stopped doing all that."

And all the saints said, "Amen."

It isn't just spiritual smallness people can choose, by the way.

Matthew Parris is a British columnist who recently distinguished himself with his preference for intellectual smallness by responding to the amazing healing of a French nun by dogmatically declaring that nobody could "honestly entertain the possibility that from beyond the grave the late Pope John Paul II interceded with God to cause a woman to be cured of Parkinson's disease."

You may ask how -- given the fact that the nun was, in fact, healed -- Parris knows this. Here is his free-thinking and open-minded response:

"'But how can you be sure?' Oh boy, am I sure. Oh, great quivering mountains of pious mumbo-jumbo, am I sure. Oh fathomless oceans of sanctified babble, am I sure. Words cannot express my confidence in the answer to the question whether God cured a nun because she wrote a pope's name down. He didn't."

Meanwhile, the close-minded and fearful Church is continuing its investigation, just in case Mr. Parris might have missed something in his utter certitude.

To be Catholic is to be free -- frighteningly free, in fact.

Parris is manifestly terrified of a universe big enough to include a God who works miracles. Many people have what Evelyn Waugh called "little systems of order" that depend, like a house of cards, on the wind of the Holy Spirit not blowing them apart.

It is a scary thing to realize that there is no Catholic position on many of the shibboleths and tribal loyalties that define our lives on a day-to-day basis.

The faith has no particular ideology concerning economics, ghosts, diet regimens, psychic healing, politics, TV shows, music or smoking. But to the tribes that care about such things, your opinion or lack thereof marks you as Us or Them.

The faith is the only place in the world that insists you can remain part of Us while holding almost whatever view you like about democracy or evolution.

Most people don't want to be that free and prefer the cozy confines of an ideological cell.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Mark Shea. "Freedom is Scary." National Catholic Register (May 25-31, 2008).

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

THE AUTHOR

Mark Shea is Senior Content Editor for Catholic Exchange. You may visit his website here or go to his blog here. Mark Shea is the author of Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did, By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition, and This Is My Body: An Evangelical Discovers the Real Presence.

Copyright © 2008 National Catholic Register

Article: Prayer and the Grace of God

FATHER JOHN A. HARDON, S.J.

The popular understanding of prayer as asking for God's help is correct.

Most of the prayers in the Scriptures are petitions. Most of the prayers of the liturgy are the same. Even the acts of adoration or love are always implicit petitions. Why is this so? Why do we need to ask for God's help? The reason is the obvious one: because we need that help. However, since we are talking about God and God is not obvious, this cannot be all that obvious as it may seem.

We need God's help because we are creatures; because we have a fallen human nature and because we are constantly being besieged by the evil spirit.

The first reason then that we must pray for help is because we are creatures whom God has raised to an "above-creaturely" destiny. Sometimes I think we should more often use the expression "supercreaturely" or "supercreated" instead of the by now prosaic "supernatural." We have been destined for heaven but heaven is not natural to anyone — except God!

Consequently, although having been destined for heaven — and what could be clearer — we are not there yet and cannot get there by merely human or created means. We need what we call grace which could be described as what we need but do not of ourselves possess in order to reach the heavenly beatitude for which we were made. What we have is nature; where we are going is heaven; what we need is grace.

The Means

Then comes the embarrassing question: Do we mean to say that although God destined us for heaven that He did not give us the means for getting there? The answer is yes and no. He will give us the means but we do not have those means unless we ask for them. Asking for the means to reach heaven is another word for prayer. We therefore affirm that in God's ordinary providence, we shall not receive what we need, namely grace, unless we beg for it. This is a hard saying but it is profoundly true. Of ourselves, not only as individuals but even working together with other human beings we cannot reach heaven. I and we need divine grace.

We need prayer therefore as individuals and as groups to remain in God's friendship. Without prayer we will lose the divine life we possess, and more obviously, we shall not grow in the life we already have.

We need divine light and divine strength beyond our natural light and strength to save ourselves as social beings and barring a miracle we cannot obtain this light or this strength without prayer.

I once spoke in the beautiful Saint John the Baptist Church in Manhattan, the Provincial and American headquarters of the Fathers of the Blessed Sacrament. After the conference in a crowded church, we had a procession. I carried the Blessed Sacrament. More than once I told Our Lord, "You are heavy." We walked and we walked — it must have been a mile — through all the aisles of the church. That procession was the social prayer of that congregation praying and singing as they walked. It was nevertheless a pity when the director of the people's Eucharistic League that sponsored the affair told me, "We are not allowed to process with the Blessed Sacrament outside."

Whatever we can do to restore processions in these not-so-Christian United States will be blessed by God because we need to invoke His grace not only as individuals but as societies. There are a thousand ways of doing so. Processions — the last thing I thought I would say — are one way of corporately asking for divine grace.

No Prayer No Salvation

We need prayer therefore as individuals and as groups to remain in God's friendship. Without prayer we will lose the divine life we possess, and more obviously, we shall not grow in the life we already have. In other words, no prayer, no salvation. This is the basic reason why we are seeing such tragedies among once apparently strong believers. But being a believer is no guarantee of remaining one. They did not pray, or pray enough, or pray with sufficient constancy or perseverance, so the inevitable happened. They lacked the humility to admit their impotency to keep God's commandments by themselves. In a word they lacked the grace they needed, and they lacked it because they failed to pray. And we dare not say that God owes us the grace; that is a contradiction in terms. Grace is precisely that which God does not owe us. That is why we correctly speak of begging.

Three Reasons

One who begs asks for that to which he has no right. That is grace! We are beggars by the definition of our supernatural destiny which brings us back to the first reason why we have to pray. We are creatures made to possess the infinite God but He will not be possessed except by those who, when they die, are in the grace of God. They will get that grace and retain it only if they pray.

The second reason why we need to pray is because we have a fallen human nature and the correct word is not "falling" but "fallen." Sure we have been justified and, please God, restored to God's friendship, but that does not change our nature from having been and being a fallen nature.

As a consequence of our fallen state, we have all sorts of unruly desires and fears that we call our passions. We need divine help to cope with these urges which differ with different people. You might almost say what distinguishes us as persons is that each one of us has his or her own special unique passions. What turns one person on turns another person off. But, although they differ so much in their variety, they are all fundamentally the same passions.

Except for Christ and His Blessed Mother — we are certain they were exempt from the stain of original sin and therefore had no concupiscences — the rest of us must either pray constantly for the grace to overcome our concupiscence or we shall give in to our irrational drives. Anger, pride, lust, covetousness, envy, sloth and gluttony are not only the names of the seven capital sins, they are the names of the seven capital drives. They are the seven deadly enemies of our soul synthesized by the Apostle in that one simple word, our “flesh.” And these drives, let it be said, are not only in the flesh, though they go by the generic name of the "flesh," because they are in our fallen human natures.

...the rest of us must either pray constantly for the grace to overcome our concupiscence or we shall give in to our irrational drives. Anger, pride, lust, covetousness, envy, sloth and gluttony are not only the names of the seven capital sins, they are the names of the seven capital drives.

These drives, irrational, maddening, unreasonable, persistent, are not only urges of the body; they are also urges of the spirit. It is not only that our bodies are fallen — our nature is fallen and that means body and spirit. And there is no conquering these enemies or even controlling their hostility except by the grace of God to be obtained through incessant prayer. Why incessant prayer? Because we have incessant drives! That is why we should not stop praying, pardon the expression, until a moment after we have died.

People are not naturally humble. Did you know that? People are naturally proud. Memorize that! Human nature is naturally proud. When you see humility say to yourself, "that is grace walking," and it is not a woman's name.

People are not naturally chaste. They are naturally lustful, or as the expression goes, they are natural. Amen! So they are! That is what natural means — being lustful. They acquire and maintain chastity only if they pray and pray as much as they need to resist the onslaughts of the flesh.

We are not naturally gentle. We are not naturally self-less. We are not naturally generous or industrious or abstemious or honest. We are not. My definition of a split second is the time it takes for an empty seat on the New York subways to be occupied. More than once I have stood in front of a person who was sitting and got up. But, supernaturally, I allow the person to get up. I was too late! That is nature — raw human nature.

Left to our own devices — we do not have to work at it — we just naturally become ill-tempered, greedy, envious, lazy and self-indulgent. Only the grace of God can make us otherwise, and this grace is only available if we pray.

As though that were not enough, there is one more malevolent reason why we must pray and that is the devil. Prayer is dreadfully necessary because the evil spirit is so active among the sons and daughters of men. No one who sees what is happening in the world today, including what is going on in the Catholic Church, should have any doubt that the devil is more than ever at work in our times and phenomenally successful in leading not just individuals but multitudes — it would seem whole nations — away from God. With divine assistance available through prayer we can resist the evil one, but alone and without prayer we shall be overcome.

Two Principles

There are two principles among others to remember in dealing with the devil: First, the devil is by his fallen nature (isn't that good to hear?) a consummate deceiver. In fact, another name furnished us by Revelation for the devil is "the liar." And the second principle is that the devil, for all his cunning and deceit, is never allowed to tempt us beyond our strength.

Let us look at each principle separately and see it in the context of prayer. The devil, therefore, being a liar by his fallen demonic nature, tries to deceive us by presenting what is really evil as though it were something good. He tries to hide his malicious designs behind a mask of piety; or if people are strong on justice, behind a mask of justice or some other specious claim. Hence it is the capital importance of supernatural shrewdness to identify what may seem to be a divine inspiration but is actually a demonic instigation.

Left to our own devices — we do not have to work at it — we just naturally become ill-tempered, greedy, envious, lazy and self-indulgent. Only the grace of God can make us otherwise, and this grace is only available if we pray.

However, we do not naturally have the light we need to cope with the devil. We are not naturally smart enough to out-smart the evil one. What we need beyond what we have is the capacity for discriminating between the two spirits of good and evil. And for that we must pray.

We need light for many other reasons but there is none more fundamentally necessary than this one: light to recognize the devil because if we leave it to him, he will never appear for what he is. He will hide himself behind all kinds of disguises.

Proud persons are no match for the devil. The only remedy for pride is the practice of humble prayer, though I would add besides praying in general, individual prayer. While prayer itself is already an act of humility which God then graces by enlightening us to recognize the evil spirit, we should, in addition, pray for special light to distinguish the devil from the inspirations of grace.

Secondly, the devil is never allowed to tempt us beyond our strength. This means that we always have enough grace to overcome the devil but only if we have prayed.

It cannot be too highly emphasized that when God permits the devil to tempt us — this does not necessarily mean when the demonic temptation is on us — we already have enough light to recognize him or enough strength to resist him. This is no less true than with other trials in life and surely being tempted by the evil spirit is one of the trials of life. So here we cannot bank on grace already had. We absolutely must pray for additional light and more courage to identify and resist the devil when he assaults us, otherwise we are liable to give in. Only in this way can we be secure.

God sends us trials so that precisely at the moment of trial we might invoke the spirit of light and the spirit of fortitude in order to be able to cope with the evil spirit. Otherwise we run the risk of fighting the devil with inadequate arms, and fall victim, as are so many rash people today who are being overcome by this master of deceit.

Let me close with a prayer that I hope thousands of Catholics — let me change the figure — millions of Catholics will once again recite daily to St. Michael the Archangel. How we need God's grace through the intercession of St. Michael today!

St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle. Be our protection against the malice and snares of the devil. Restrain him, O God, we humbly beseech You and do You, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, drive into hell satan and the other evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father John A. Hardon. "Prayer and the Grace of God." Garabandal Vol. 25, #2 (April-June 1992): 7-9.

Reprinted with permission from Inter Mirifica.

THE AUTHOR

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. (1914-2000) was a tireless apostle of the Catholic faith. The author of over twenty-five books including Catholic Prayer Book, The Catholic Catechism, Modern Catholic Dictionary, Pocket Catholic Dictionary, Pocket Catholi Catechism, Q & A Catholic Catechism, Treasury of Catholic Wisdom, Catholic Lifetime Reading Plan and many other Catholic books and hundreds of articles, Father Hardon was a close associate and advisor of Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity. Order Father Hardon's home study courses here.

Copyright © 2008 Inter Mirifica

Wednesday Liturgy: Electric Sanctuary Candles

ROME, MAY 27, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: I was told by our pastor that "Vatican II requires a 'light' before the Blessed Sacrament, but this does not have to be a candle," so he replaced the sanctuary candle with an electric "fake candle" because there was "wax all over the carpet." This is driving some of my fellow choir members nuts. Yet, we still have real, seven-day vigil candles going in the stands. Were this a safety issue, this makes no sense. All churches have always had problems with wax -- nothing new. I cannot see a fake candle giving a believable witness to the Real Presence when this is not a safety issue as in a hospital with oxygen that could cause an explosion. -- K.S., Oklahoma

A: Actually the norms refer not so much to candles as to lamps that should burn before the tabernacle. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), No. 316, states:

"In accordance with traditional custom, near the tabernacle a special lamp, fueled by oil or wax, should be kept alight to indicate and honor the presence of Christ."

An almost identical norm is given in Canon 940 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, but here only a "special lamp" is spoken of. It would thus appear that the more recent GIRM, in specifically mentioning that it should be fueled by oil or wax, gives clear preference to this form over other recent innovations.

Thus, rather than a candle there should be a lamp, that is, a container made of glass or some other suitable material, which can hold the oil or wax.

This container is customarily a red hued cylinder, although this is not prescribed by law and other shapes and colors have also been used.

Unless the lamp is shattered or filled to excess, it usually presents no particular safety issue. Likewise, since nothing is spilled, the "wax on the floor" argument falls flat.

The oil may be of any kind, although the law has traditionally favored olive oil or some other vegetable oil.

The use of electric lamps is not forbidden but is generally seen as a last resort solution for particular circumstances.

Apart from the hospital situation mentioned by our reader, an electric sanctuary lamp could conceivably be used in very small oratory chapels where the constant lamp smoke would quickly stain the walls and ceiling or, for the same reason, if the lamp had to be placed next to a historic piece of art.

Other probable circumstances that would justify the use of an electric lamp would be isolated places in which obtaining suitable fuel is difficult or very expensive, or if a chapel has to be left unattended for a period longer than the habitual duration of the lamp. This can happen, for example, in communities where a priest celebrates Mass only about once a month and leaves sufficient hosts for an extraordinary minister of holy Communion to administer on the other Sundays.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Pope's Processional Cross

ROME, MAY 27, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Along the lines of our May 13 column on the Holy Father's processional cross, several readers have sent queries about some "new" aspects of papal celebrations that they have noted.

For example, a Rochester, Minnesota, reader asks: "It seems to me that the degree of solemnity at papal liturgy has increased. Certainly, there has been no wholesale restoration of old ceremonial, but music, ceremony and setting seem more dignified. I have also noticed a few other things:

"1. The camauro appeared before Christmas, although this Pope does not seem to use the broad Roman hat which matches his red cloak. This made a splash in the news.

"2. The Pope seems to use the state stole more than his predecessor.

"3. At the meeting with the diplomats for the New Year the Pope used the velvet-and-fur mozzetta (I think this was for winter and seems to have disappeared since Paul VI).

"4. Prelates of honor seem to be resuming the mantelletum and all sorts of clergy are using the biretta, rather openly at papal functions. During the last pontificate these were invisible, although I understand permitted. I do not know what to make of all of this. Is a signal being sent? Is there a move to what my mother called "a touch of class"? Indeed, what are the usual rules for customary "choir dress" for diocesan clergy?"

There are several questions involved. But first a distinction must be made between liturgical vesture and the non-liturgical vesture that popes traditionally wear and those that form part of papal protocol due to his role as a head of state.

Among traditional papal garments are the camauro (a red, fur-lined cap), the broad red-and- gold trimmed hat, and the several formal stoles and mozzettas used when receiving civil dignitaries.

Their use often depends on papal taste. For example, Pope Blessed John XXIII revived the use of the camauro which his predecessors had largely abandoned. Pope John Paul II rarely used the more formal vestures, and since he was Pontiff for so long perhaps many came to believe that they had somehow been abolished.

This was not the case, however, and Pope Benedict XVI has simply opted to use some of the more formal attire that remains part of papal protocol.

Thus he has used both the broad-brimmed hat and the camauro on some occasions. Apart from his personal taste, it must also be remembered that the Holy Father began his ministry when he had already turned 78 and probably needs more protection from heat and cold than the athletic John Paul II did when called to be Peter's Successor at age 58.

Keeping warm was also a motivation for John XXIII's use of the camauro. He was also elected as an elderly man.

The increase in some aspects of solemnity in papal liturgies is perhaps even more noteworthy. The Holy Father and his personally appointed master of liturgical celebrations have clearly opted to restore some elements that had fallen into disuse, in order to give more splendor to the rites.

This can be seen in the style of albs, surplices and vestments used in the celebrations. In some cases this means using older vestments from the pontifical sacristy such as the magnificent golden miter used in the elevation of new cardinals. This miter, emblazoned with the figure of Our Lady of Guadalupe, had been a gift from Mexican Catholics to Blessed Pope Pius IX.

The violet cope used for this year's Palm Sunday procession was a new and faithful replica of one that had belonged to the renaissance Medici Pope Leo X. The custom has also been revived of having two cardinal deacons, in miter and dalmatic, accompany the Pope in these processions to hold the cope.

The practice of placing the crucifix at the center of the altar in front of the celebrant is certainly a personal initiative of Benedict XVI.

He had already made this suggestion as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in his book "The Spirit of the Liturgy." For him this practice is a means of creating a "liturgical east" that helps the celebrant to concentrate on the essential meaning of the sacrifice of the Mass even when celebrating facing the people.

Finally, the vesture of cardinals, bishops, canons and other honorary prelates is still determined by the norms emanated by Paul VI in the 1969 instruction of the Secretariat of State "Ut Sive Sollicite," substantially repeated in the Ceremonial of Bishops, Nos. 1199-1210.

These norms cover most cases although a few classes of honorary prelates continue to jealously guard some age-old privileges allowing them to wear miters, pectoral crosses and the like on special occasions.

The Two Bodies of Christ: Gospel Commentary for Corpus Christi

Father Raniero Cantalamessa is the Pontifical Household preacher. The readings for this Sunday are Deuteronomy 8:2-3,14b-16a; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17; John 6:51-58.


ROME, MAY 23, 2008 (Zenit.org).- In the second reading St. Paul presents the Eucharist as a mystery of communion: "Brothers and sisters: The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

Communion means exchange, sharing. Now, this is the fundamental rule of sharing: that which is mine is yours and what is yours is mine. Let's try to apply this rule to Eucharistic communion. In doing so we will see its greatness.

What do I have that is truly "mine"? Misery, sin: This alone belongs to me exclusively. What does Jesus have that is "his" if not holiness, the perfection of all the virtues? So, communion consists in the fact that I give Jesus my sin and my poverty, and he gives me holiness. In this the "admirabile commercium," or "wonderful exchange," as the liturgy defines it, is realized.

We know about different kinds of communion. One very intimate type of communion is that between us and the food we eat -- it becomes flesh of our flesh and bone of my bone. I have heard mothers say to their children as they hugged and kissed them: "I love you so much I could gobble you up!"

It is true that food is not a living and intelligent person with whom we can share thoughts and affection, but let's suppose for a moment that food is itself living and intelligent: Would we not have perfect communion in that case? But this is precisely what happens in the communion of the Eucharist. Jesus says in the Gospel: "I am the living bread come down from heaven. [...] My flesh is true food. [...] Whoever eats my flesh will have eternal life." Here food is not a simple thing, but a living person. This is the most intimate of communions, even if the most mysterious.

Look at what happens in the natural world in regard to nourishment. The stronger vital principle assimilates the weaker one. The vegetable assimilates the mineral; the animal assimilates the vegetable. Even in the relationship between Christ and man this law is at work. It is Christ who assimilates us to himself; we are transformed into him, he is not transformed into us. A famous atheist materialist said: "Man is what he eats." Without knowing it, he gave a perfect definition of the Eucharist. Thanks to the Eucharist, man truly becomes what he eats: the body of Christ!

Let us read the rest of the text from St. Paul: "Because there is one bread, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." It is clear that in this second case the word "body" no longer refers to the body of Christ born of Mary but refers to "all of us," it refers to that greater body of Christ that is the Church. This means that Eucharistic communion is always communion among us. Eating the one bread we become one body.

What follows from this? We cannot be in communion with Christ if we are divided among ourselves, if we hate each other, if we are not ready to be reconciled. If you have offended your brother, St. Augustine said, if you have committed an injustice against him, and go and receive communion as if nothing had happened, perhaps full of fervor before Christ, then you are like a person who sees a friend coming toward him whom he has not seen for some time. He runs to meet him, he throws his arms around his neck and goes to kiss him. But in doing this he does not see that he is kicking him with spikes.

Our brothers, especially the poor ones and the derelicts, are members of Christ, they are his feet that are still on earth. In offering us the host the priest says, "The Body of Christ." We answer, "Amen!"

We now know to whom we are saying "Amen," "Yes." It is not only to Jesus, the Son of God, but to our neighbor.

On the feast of Corpus Christi I cannot hide a certain sadness. There are certain forms of mental illness that prevent people from being able to recognize persons who are close to them. They continue to call out for hours: "Where is my son? Where is my wife? Why don't they come?" And maybe the son and wife are there holding their hand and saying: "I'm here. Don't you see me? I'm with you!"

This also happens with God. Our contemporaries look for God in the cosmos or in the atom; they debate over whether there is a God who created the world. They continue to ask: "Where is God?" They do not realize that he is with us and in fact that he became food and drink to be united to us even more intimately.

Sadly, John the Baptist had to repeat: "There is one among you whom you do not know." The feast of Corpus Christi was born precisely to help Christians be aware of this presence of Christ among us, to keep alive what John Paul II called "Eucharistic wonder."

[Translation by Joseph G. Trabbic]

Wednesday Liturgy: Praying for the Departed

ROME, MAY 20, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: The text of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) for vespers of Wednesday of Week 3 (that is, the English translation used in the United States) has the following intercession: "Be merciful to the faithful departed / -- keep them from the power of the Evil One." Someone asked: What power does the Evil One have over the faithful departed? I didn't have a satisfying answer. I thought that it was a matter of a poor translation, but I looked up the text in Officium Divinum, Liturgia Horarum, Iuxta Ritum Romanum, and found the following text: "Misericordiam tuam fratribus nostris concede defunctis / -- neque in potestatem maligni spiritus tradas eos." In view of the Church teaching on the particular judgment -- and that the prayer seems to be talking about the departed, not the dying -- I was at a loss to explain the meaning of this intercession. -- D.S., Lincoln, Nebraska

A: These intercessions were composed quite quickly during the 1960s. Even though they are found in the liturgical books, their nature as intercessions means that they are a rather weak source from the doctrinal point of view. It is therefore quite possible that some infelicitious expressions might have slipped through the textual revisions.

Also, since the liturgical norms allow bishops' conferences wide leeway in composing new intercessions for the Liturgy of the Hours, not all translations will present the difficulty highlighted by our correspondent. Indeed, the version of the breviary used in most English-speaking countries contains a completely different text for the day in question.

That said, while the controversial text can lead to misinterpretations, I believe it is subject to a perfectly orthodox interpretation.

If we take the second part of the intercession as a distinct statement, we run up against a problem for, as our reader points out, the departed receive an immediate particular judgment, after which the Evil One has no power over those who enter either heaven or purgatory.

However, the two parts of the intercession must be seen as an integral whole. And, indeed, one of the forms of proclaiming this intercession is for the priest to say the entire prayer with the people giving a common response as in done in the prayers of the faithful at Mass.

In this case, the expression "Keep them from the power of the Evil One" is intimately tied to the petition "Be merciful" addressed to God.

Thus we ask that God's mercy be expressed in not allowing those who have died to fall into the power of the Evil One. As such, the prayer most likely refers to the moment of judgment itself as the venue where this mercy and this prevention of Satan's dominion is exercised.

In this way the petition is not essentially different from many other of the Church's prayers for the departed in which God's mercy is invoked for the souls of the deceased. That the particular judgment is immediately after death has never impeded the Church recommending prayer for the dead.

God is not limited to our categories of time and space, and even when we pray for those who have passed away long after they have gone, or even pray generically for the dead, we know that God will use the prayer to greatest advantage.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: May Crownings of Mary

ROME, MAY 20, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Related to our comments on May crownings (see May 6), a reader from the state of Washington asked:

"Regarding the crowning of Mary during the month of May, is this something that is normally included during holy Mass? I ask this because the time-honored tradition here in our cathedral is that the Blessed Mother is crowned inside the church either during or after holy Mass and on a special day other than Mother's Day. Last year the new priest moved it all outside on Mother's Day, a secular holiday.

"Normally this would not seem so important, yet all of the Church's holidays or seasons are being changed to celebrate the seasons, which I am told is a pagan tradition. Advent is now become 'Harvest Festival.' Lent is now become 'the Miracle of Spring.' Easter is now 'Happy Resurrection Day,' and so on. And it appears that now our Blessed Mother is gradually being moved out of the Church."

As mentioned in our previous column, there is no official rite for a May crowning.

Unlike the solemn crowning of an image by the bishop, it would not be liturgically correct to perform the popular devotion of May crowning within Mass. It may be done, however, immediately before or after.

There is nothing that would impede the May crowning of a statue of Our Lady that is within a church if this is the custom. It is sometimes more practical, however, to crown an outside statue.

From what our reader commented, I surmise that the new priest has acted in good faith out of practical and pastoral concerns. After all, he has transferred, not abolished, the practice of a May crowning.

It is quite possible that the new setting allows for a more spontaneous and festive tribute to Our Lady than within the church.

While we all lament the secularization of Christian feasts, I think that the choice of Mother's Day is not incongruent. After all, Mary is our Blessed Mother and this action is a way of filially honoring her as both our mother and our queen.

Perhaps the priest has been influenced by the practice in some Latin American countries which celebrate Mother's Day on May 10. It is not infrequent in these countries to have special devotions to Mary on this day.

Certainly a new pastor should always move with prudence and consultation before changing legitimate and long-established parish customs. In the end, however, he must decide on what he believes is in the best interest for the good of the souls entrusted to him.

Article: Do Embryos Have Souls?

FATHER TADEUSZ PACHOLCZYK, PH.D.

People are sometimes surprised to hear that the wrongness of destroying a human embryo does not ultimately depend on when that embryo might become a person, or when he or she might receive a soul from God.

They often suppose that the Catholic Church teaches that destroying human embryos is unacceptable because such embryos are persons (or are "ensouled"). While it is true that the Church teaches that the intentional and direct destruction of human embryos is always immoral, it would be incorrect to conclude that the Church teaches that zygotes (a single-cell embryo) or other early-stage embryos are persons, or that they already have immortal, rational souls. The magisterium of the Church has never definitively stated when the ensoulment of the human embryo takes place. It remains an open question. The Declaration on Procured Abortion from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1974 phrases the matter with considerable precision:

This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.

That being said, the moral teaching of the Church is that the human embryo must be treated as if it were already ensouled, even if it might not yet be so. It must be treated as if it were a person from the moment of conception, even if there exists the theoretical possibility that it might not yet be so. Why this rather subtle, nuanced position, instead of simply declaring outright that zygotes are ensouled, and therefore are persons? First, because there has never been a unanimous tradition on this point; and second, because the precise timing of ensoulment/personhood of the human embryo is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we may ever destroy such embryos for research or other purposes.

Interestingly, ensoulment has been discussed for centuries, and so-called delayed ensoulment was probably the norm for most of Christian history, with immediate ensoulment gaining some serious momentum of its own beginning in the 1600s (and representing the position most widely held today). Augustine seemed to shift his opinion back and forth during his lifetime between immediate and delayed ensoulment. In the 1200s, Thomas Aquinas held that human ensoulment occurred not right at the first instant, but at a time-point removed from the beginning. This, he argued, would enable the matter of the embryo to undergo development and become "apt" for the reception of an immortal soul from God (by passing through simpler initial stages involving “vegetative” and “animative” souls). Even today in various quarters, the discussions continue, with new embryological details like twinning and chimerization impinging upon the debate, and new conceptual questions arising from the intricate biology surrounding totipotency and pluripotency.

Any destructive action against them as they move along the continuum of their development disrupts the entire future time line of that person. In other words, the embryo exists as a whole, living member of the human species, and when destroyed, that particular individual has perished. Every human embryo, thus, is unique and sacrosanct, and should not be cannibalized for stem cell extraction.

We must recognize that it is God's business as to precisely when He ensouls embryos. We do not need an answer to this fascinating and speculative theological question, like counting angels on the head of a pin, in order to grasp the fundamental truth that human embryos are inviolable and deserving of unconditional respect at every stage of their existence. Rather, this moral affirmation follows directly on the heels of the scientific data regarding early human development, which affirms that every person on the face of the planet is, so to speak, an “overgrown embryo”. Hence, it is not necessary to know exactly when God ensouls the embryo, because, as I sometimes point out in half-jest, even if it were true that an embryo did not receive her soul until she graduated from law school, that would not make it OK to kill her by forcibly extracting tissues or organs prior to graduation.

Human embryos are already beings that are human (not zebra or plant), and are, in fact, the newest and most recent additions to the human family. They are integral beings structured for maturation along their proper time line. Any destructive action against them as they move along the continuum of their development disrupts the entire future time line of that person. In other words, the embryo exists a whole, living member of the human species, and when destroyed, that particular individual has perished. Every human embryo, thus, is unique and sacrosanct, and should not be cannibalized for stem cell extraction.

What a human embryo actually is, even at its earliest and most undeveloped stage, already makes it the only kind of entity capable of receiving the gift of an immortal soul from the hand of God. No other animal or plant embryo can receive this gift; indeed, no other entity in the universe can receive this gift. Hence, the early human embryo is never merely biological tissue, like a group of liver cells in a petri dish; at a minimum, such an embryo, with all its internal structure and directionality, represents the privileged sanctuary of one meant to develop as a human person.

Some scientists and philosophers will attempt to argue that if an early embryo might not yet have received its immortal soul from God, it must be OK to destroy that embryo for research since he or she would not yet be a person. But it would actually be the reverse; that is to say, it would be more immoral to destroy an embryo that had not yet received an immortal soul than to destroy an ensouled embryo. Why? Because the immortal soul is the principle by which that person could come to an eternal destiny with God in heaven, so the one who destroyed the embryo, in this scenario, would preclude that young human from ever receiving an immortal soul (or becoming a person) and making his or her way to God. This would be the gravest of evils, as the stem cell researcher would forcibly derail the entire eternal design of God over that unique and unrepeatable person, via an action that would be, in some sense, worse than murder. The human person, then, even in his or her most incipient form as an embryonic human being, must always be safeguarded in an absolute and unconditional way, and speculation about the timing of personhood cannot alter this fundamental truth.

The physical development of a person

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk. "Do Embryos Have Souls?" Making Sense Out of Bioethics (March, 2008).

Father Tad Pacholczyk writes a monthly column, Making Sense out of Bioethics, which appears in various diocesan newspapers across the country. This article is reprinted with permission of the author, Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.

THE AUTHOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2008 Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.

Article: Can Beauty Save the World?

DONALD DEMARCO

St. Thomas Aquinas did not bequeath to the world extensive treatises on the topic of beauty.

However, he did provide posterity with a simple definition of beauty consisting of four words that, according to the great Thomistic scholar Jacques Maritain, "says all that is necessary." For Aquinas, beauty is id quod visum placet, "that which pleases upon being seen."

In order to be faithful to the meaning of Aquinas’ words, we must understand the specific meanings of the words visum and placet. The former connotes more than meets the eye. Its meaning is closer to our understanding of the word "vision" (as opposed to "eyesight") and refers to an intuitive knowledge that includes the senses. The two senses that are involved in the apprehension of beauty are what St. Thomas calls "the senses of knowledge," that is, sight and hearing.

The word placet means more than a mere sensual pleasure. It is better rendered as "a delight for the soul." This delight is conferred when a person beholds a beautiful object by means of an intuitive knowledge that incorporates either sight or hearing.

Intelligence, therefore, which is our capacity to know, plays an indispensable role in the apprehension of beauty. This is a most important factor because it means that beauty is not merely subjective (or "in the eyes of the beholder," as many claim), but is objective inasmuch as it is an object of knowledge. Beauty has it roots in reality.

The Splendor of Beauty

St. Thomas offers us another important insight into the nature of beauty when he informs us of the three elements that constitute it. Beauty, for the Angelic Doctor, includes unity, proportion, and clarity. The traditional notion that beauty is "diversity within unity" is an integration of the first two of these three elements. The third, however, claritas, is the most elusive of the triad.

The American Thomistic philosopher Mortimer Adler renders the word claritas as "effulgence," a flowing out from the beautiful object to the perceiver. It is a kind of "radiance" or "splendor" that cannot be reduced to anything that is scientifically analyzable.

The American Thomistic philosopher Mortimer Adler renders the word claritas as "effulgence," a flowing out from the beautiful object to the perceiver. It is a kind of "radiance" or "splendor" that cannot be reduced to anything that is scientifically analyzable. Beauty confers delight through its shining clarity, this je ne sais quoi, "I know not what," that separates the beautiful from the mundane.

John Paul II entitled one of his encyclicals Veritatis Splendor, "The Splendor of Truth." It is said that truth has a certain splendor because it is a fitting and natural object for human intelligence. Its splendor is recognized in the natural way in which it greets the human intellect. Similarly, beauty has a certain splendor that flows out to the person with such a naturalness that it confers delight. Thus, Maritain can say that "the beautiful that is connatural to man is the beautiful that delights the intellect through the senses and through their intuition."

Plato once remarked that if wisdom were visible, the whole world would fall madly in love with it. Although wisdom is not visible, beauty is. And this is why, for Plato and many other philosophers, in loving beauty, people are moving in the direction of wisdom. The important implication here is that we human beings simply cannot do without beauty. The Russian existentialist philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev once said, "Beauty will save the world."

The Illusion of Glamour

An undeniable indication of beauty’s immense popularity and desirability is our national obsession with the "beautiful" people of Hollywood. Yet, what often passes for beauty in Tinsel Town is nothing more than glamour. We may define glamour as a substitute for beauty that moves in a direction away from wisdom. It is a contrived, synthetic kind of beauty that does not go beneath the surface. It does not flow out from a center. Glamour is more glitter than light, more glitz than depth, more glisten than glory.

True beauty has depth and flows out from the depth of that which is beautiful. A person may adorn himself with expensive jewelry or take a stylistically attractive photograph. But this is glamour and not beauty.

Beauty is a divine name. God is beauty in a preeminent way. As St. Thomas points out, ex divina pulchritudine esse omnia derivatur — "the divine beauty is that from which all being is derived." Therefore, God seals each being He creates with its own secret mark of beauty. Love helps us to discern the beauty — and the dignity — that God has placed in each soul.

Elevating Image

The noted American historian Daniel J. Boorstin produced a landmark study in 1961 called The Image in which he documented America’s growing fascination with media images. Boorstin was utterly intrigued by his compatriots’ curious inversion of the metaphysical order of things: "The American citizen thus lives," he observed, "in a world where fantasy is more real than reality, where the image has more dignity than the original."

God seals each being He creates with its own secret mark of beauty. Love helps us to discern the beauty — and the dignity — that God has placed in each soul.

Boorstin presents the essential message of his book in a simple exchange between a mother and an admiring friend. "My, that’s a beautiful baby you have there!" said the friend. "Oh, that’s nothing," the mother retorted. "You should see his photograph!" The baby is merely real — the technologically improved photograph is the preferred "version" of her own child.

While Jack Ruby was serving out his life sentence in a federal penitentiary for killing Lee Harvey Oswald, he begged his portrait artist to give him a little more hair. Ruby did not want to be remembered as being as bald as he was, his notorious murder of John F. Kennedy’s assassin notwithstanding.

Dennis Helfer is a farmer who lives 75 miles southeast of Edmonton, Alberta. His daughter Tricia was named the Ford Agency’s Supermodel of the World in 1992. But in the true spirit of a father, he sees all of his four daughters through the eyes of love: "I don’t see Tricia as any more beautiful than my other daughters," he says. "It’s just that after she has her picture taken, it turns out nice." What a wise father! We might say, if the reader will forgive the pun, that this father’s love is "kin deep."

Adjusting the Lens

"Beauty is that which pleases upon being seen." Yet we must not forget the role that the eyes of love play in helping us see the true beauty that exists beneath the skin of every human being.

In his book Love is Stronger than Death, Peter Kreeft describes a deeply personal experience that illustrates how the lens of love can allow a parent to see the beauty of his child that the lens of the camera cannot begin to suggest. His 5-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, had just undergone surgery for the removal of a brain tumor. When he and his wife received the good news that she was alive, that the tumor was benign and had been completely removed, they "just grinned for eight straight hours": We stared smilingly at her beautiful living form.

It was perfect, absolutely perfect. It looked like a turkey, with puffy eyes, shaved hair, and all sorts of tubes stuffed into her; yet never has anyone ever looked so beautiful to me. Nothing more was needed, nothing could be added; she was perfect.

"Beauty is that which pleases upon being seen." Yet we must not forget the role that the eyes of love play in helping us see the true beauty that exists beneath the skin of every human being. If beauty will save the world, it is because beauty presupposes love and points in the direction of wisdom.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Donald DeMarco. "Can Beauty Save the World?" Lay Witness (November/December, 2007).

Reprinted with permission of Lay Witness magazine.

Lay Witness is the flagship publication of Catholics United for the Faith. Featuring articles written by leaders in the Catholic Church, each issue of Lay Witness keeps you informed on current events in the Church, the Holy Father's intentions for the month, and provides formation through biblical and catechetical articles with real-life applications for everyday Catholics.

THE AUTHOR

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

Copyright © 2007 LayWitness

Article: Particular Examen on the Theological Virtues

FATHER JOHN A. HARDON, S.J.

Before applying the particular examen to my own spiritual life, it is well to first ask myself, "What are the virtues that I know from experience I most need to develop?"

The reason why this question should first be answered is that no two of us are equally prone to commit the same kind of sins. Nor are we personally always tempted in the same direction. There is wisdom in first knowing enough about myself to be able to get to the root of my own moral weakness. Other wise, I may be ignoring what really needs attention in my spiritual life, and concentrating on what is not so necessary for me, at this time, in my service of God.

Moreover, it would be a mistake to suppose that by attending to my moral failings, I am being "negative" in my pursuit of holiness. On the contrary, in God's providence, He allows us to fail in those areas in which He especially wants us to grow in virtue. We can fail in the practice of these virtues either by commission or omission, or by tepidity in not acting as generously as we might in responding to the grace we have received from God.

Faith

Do I make an honest effort to grow in the virtue of faith by daily mental prayer on the mysteries of the faith, as revealed in the life of Jesus Christ?

Do I make at least a short act of faith every day?

Do I pray daily for an increase in faith? Do I ever tempt God by relying on my own strength to cope with the trials in my life?

Do I unnecessarily read or listen to those who oppose or belittle what I know are truths of my Catholic Faith?

What have I done today to externally profess my faith? Have I allowed human respect to keep me from giving expression to my faith? Do I ever defend my faith, prudently and charitably, when someone says something contrary to what I know is to be believed?

Have I helped someone overcome a difficulty against the faith?

Hope

Do I immediately say a short prayer when I find myself getting discouraged?

Do I daily say a short act of hope?

Do I dwell on my worries instead of dismissing them from my mind?

Do I fail in the virtue of hope by my attachment to the things of this world?

Do I try to see God's providence in everything that "happens" in my life?

Do I try to see everything from the viewpoint of eternity?

Am I confident that, with God's grace, I will be saved?

Do I allow myself to worry about my past life, and thus weaken my hope in God's mercy?

Do I try to combine every fully deliberate action with at least a momentary prayer for divine help?

How often today have I complained, even internally?

Charity

Have I told God today that I love Him?

Do I tell Jesus that I love Him with my whole heart?

Do I take the occasion to tell God that I love Him whenever I experience something I naturally dislike?

Have I capitalized on the difficulties today to tell God that I love Him just because He sent me the trial or misunderstanding?

Do I see God's love for me in allowing me to prove my love for Him in the crosses He sent me today?

Have I seen God's grace to prove my love for Him in every person whom I met today?

Have I failed in charity by speaking unkindly about others?

Have I dwelt on what I considered someone's unkindness toward me today?

Is there someone that I consciously avoid because I dislike the person?

Did I try to carry on a conversation today with someone who is difficult to talk to?

Have I been stubborn in asserting my own will?

How thoughtful have I been today in doing some small favor for someone?

Have I allowed my mood to prevent me from being thoughtful of others today?

Am I given to dwelling on other people's weaknesses or faults?

Have I been cheerful today in my dealings with others?

Do I control my uncharitable thoughts as soon as they arise in my mind?

Did I pray for others today?

Have I written any letters today?

Have I controlled my emotions when someone irritated me?

Have I performed any sacrifice today for someone?

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father John A. Hardon. "Particular Examen on the Theological Virtues." Catholic Prayer Book: with meditations (Bardstown, Kentucky: Inter Mirifica, 1999): 101-105.

Reprinted with permission from Inter Mirifica.

THE AUTHOR

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. (1914-2000) was a tireless apostle of the Catholic faith. The author of over twenty-five books including Catholic Prayer Book, The Catholic Catechism, Modern Catholic Dictionary, Pocket Catholic Dictionary, Pocket Catholi Catechism, Q & A Catholic Catechism, Treasury of Catholic Wisdom, Catholic Lifetime Reading Plan and many other Catholic books and hundreds of articles, Father Hardon was a close associate and advisor of Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity. Order Father Hardon's home study courses here.

Copyright © 2004 Inter Mirifica