Catholic Metanarrative

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Wednesday Liturgy: Missing or Faulty Forms of Absolution

ROME, OCT. 28, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: What would be the consequences of a priest who did not use the formula of absolution during a confession -- maybe no formula, much less the correct one? If this invalidates the sacrament, what should the penitent do? Would it be necessary to repeat the confession in the case of mortal sin? What about a "devotional" confession or one where only venial sin was confessed? -- B.H., Iron Mountain, Michigan

A: A slight lapse or omission in reciting the formula of absolution would not affect its validity, provided that the words "I absolve you from your sins" are said. While a priest should always recite the complete formula of absolution, in urgent cases, especially when there is imminent danger of death, the above essential words would be sufficient for validity.

Of course, here we are dealing with the Roman rite. Eastern Catholic Churches have other valid formulas, most of which do not contain the "I absolve you" expression.

It is a liturgical abuse to shorten the absolution formula because there are many penitents awaiting confession. It is legitimate in such cases, however, to encourage the faithful to use one of the brief acts of contrition found in the rite of penance.

As the formula of absolution is the form of the sacrament of reconciliation, the recitation of its essential part is required for validity and its complete omission would void the sacrament.

In this case God would certainly restore a sincere penitent to the state of grace in spite of the priest's omission. But this would not remove the obligation of confessing a mortal sin again and receiving absolution. It would not be necessary in the case of venial sin.

If a penitent realizes that a priest has not granted absolution or has omitted the essential words, then the proper thing to do is to tell the priest immediately and request absolution before leaving the confessional. It is probable that such an omission is the result of a momentary distraction or fatigue and not some perverse theological or spiritual reason. In these cases the priest will more than likely apologize and grant absolution immediately.

We must remember that the faithful have a right to receive the Church's sacraments from the sacred ministers, and the ministers have a corresponding duty to provide that sacrament to any member of the faithful not impeded by law or censure.

If, unfortunately, the absolution was skipped due to some personal difficulty of the priest (such as lack of faith in the sacrament) and he persists in his refusal after being remonstrated with by the penitent, then the penitent should inform the bishop so that he may take appropriate action in helping this minister to overcome this crisis and return to a truer vision of his sacred mission.

If, as has sadly happened at least once, a priest undergoing a spiritual crisis deliberately attempts to deceive the faithful by reciting a blessing or some other formula instead of absolution, then he commits the very grave crime of simulating a sacrament.

This particular case of simulation is extremely rare and so is not explicitly mentioned in canon law. However, if a priest doing so was sufficiently sane of mind to know what he was doing, then he could be punished with suspension and other just penalties.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Civilly Married Couples

ROME, OCT. 28, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Pursuant to our Oct. 14 article on the invalidity of civil marriages for Catholics, several readers made interesting comments.

One reader felt that in my effort to distinguish all the factors in play I had missed the point of the question.

He wrote: "I'm always pleased with your succinct and practical responses to the questions raised. This time, however, it seemed that the questions have not been answered to the point.

"If I may repeat them here, the questions were: 1) Are civilly married couples considered cohabiting if not married in Church? 2) If a civilly married couple, never married in church, divorce and one or both eventually want to get married in church with a different partner, will they be allowed to? You gave several situations, but you never mentioned the case when the couple has always been Catholic. If so, may I ask for the appropriate reply?"

Although it might appear that I lost the wood for the trees, I beg to differ from our reader and believe that I actually answered both questions.

In the very first line of the reply I said: "If at least one member of the couple is Catholic, then the Church would not recognize the civil marriage as valid and the couple's status would be practically the same as a cohabiting couple." I then proceeded to explain the reasoning behind the affirmation.

Later on I wrote: "Addressing the second question, we can say that if a Catholic had entered into an invalid civil wedding, and later divorced, in principle he or she could marry someone else in the Church." Of course, for a Catholic any civil wedding would be invalid.

Several other readers held that some points needed further explanation, especially regarding the entry of baptized Protestants into the Catholic Church. I am sure that our readers are aware that the constraints of a brief article for themes that would probably require a treatise occasionally lead to simplification of an issue. Otherwise the questions might never be dealt with at all.

That said, many of our readers' comments merit due attention. It is true that some Protestant groups take little interest in whether or not marriages are valid, and some defer entirely to civil society with respect to the formalities of the celebration.

The question that the Catholic Church asks does not regard the belief of a particular Protestant group. Rather, the Church asks if the original marriage between two baptized persons can be considered as valid. If this is the case, and that is the usual presumption, then it is ipso facto also a sacramental marriage.

The Church rarely casts doubt on the sacramental validity of Protestant marriages or of the natural validity of a well-established marriage of a non-baptized couple. In some cases, however, it recommends that converting couples renew their marriage commitment as a measure of prudence and certainty. This is usually and preferably done privately.

A reader mentioned the difficulties arising from the fact that some groups recognize the validity of divorce and remarriage while the first spouse is still living. This is certainly one of many possible difficulties, but as mentioned in the original article, before proceeding with any Catholic wedding canon law requires certainty with respect to the nullity or dissolution of all previous bonds.

It is especially important to clarify the situation when either member of a baptized couple had been involved in previous marriages before seeking admission to the Church. The fact that their former ecclesial communion accepted divorce would not by itself ensure the invalidity of the first marriage, and the situation would have to be duly clarified so that the couple enters the Church in a regular situation.

A special situation can arise if only one member of a couple enters the Church. As mentioned in our previous article, the marriage enjoys the presumption of validity. If the couple are not able to live together in peace when one of the two accepts baptism, then the marriage may be dissolved. This is a special privilege in favor of the faith, but it does not mean that the natural marriage was invalid.

Therefore, if a couple in this situation desire to remain as husband and wife, then there is usually no need for them to renew their promises. Any required dispensations from disparity of worship would be accorded by the person's admission to baptism. Something similar can be said if only one Protestant spouse desires to enter the Catholic Church.

If for some reason it is recommended that they renew their promises and the non-Catholic spouse is unwilling to go through with this ceremony (usually because he or she has qualms about casting doubt on the marriage), then the bishop has several canonical instruments that allow him to assure validity without repeating the promises.

Finally, a Catholic who went through civil divorce for grave financial reasons asked if he should have followed the recommendations of Social Security agents who advised him that, given his situation, he would have been better off if he had never married but had simply moved in with his partner.

Christian marriage is both religious and social insofar as it proclaims a mutual commitment to God and to society in general for the purpose of mutual help and the rearing of children. As a stable institution that is the bedrock of society, the law should favor marriage over other forms of union, and those who marry should not be penalized by that very fact. Unfortunately this is not always the case.

Because of the role of marriage in society, the Church is very wary of letting couples marry whose union cannot be recognized by civil society. However, in some grave situations, and especially in order to favor an established couples living in the state of grace, the bishop may occasionally permit that a religious wedding take place that will not be civilly recognized. This is usually a temporary situation, such as when the minimum age for civil marriage is older than the Church's. But the permission might well be granted in other extraordinary circumstances as well.

It is never a good thing to enter into a sinful state (such as cohabitation) no matter what the financial benefits obtained or the penalties avoided.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Charity of the Heart: Gospel Commentary for 30th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Father Raniero Cantalamessa is the Pontifical Household preacher. The readings for this Sunday are Exodus 22:20-26; 1 Thessalonians 1:5c-10; Matthew 22:34-40.

* * *

ROME, OCT. 24, 2008 (Zenit.org).- "Love your neighbor as yourself." Adding the words "as yourself," Jesus puts us in front of a mirror before which we cannot lie; he has given us an infallible measure for determining whether we love our neighbor.


We know well in every circumstance what it means to love ourselves and how we want others to treat us. Note well that Jesus does not say: "What the other person does to you, do to him." This would be the law of talion: "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." He says rather: as you would like others to treat you, treat them in same way (cf. Matthew 7:12).

Jesus considered love of neighbor "his commandment," that which summarizes the whole Law. "This is my commandment: That you love one another as I have loved you" (John 15:12). Many identify the whole of Christianity with the precept of love of neighbor, and they are not completely wrong. We must try, however, to go a little beyond the surface of things. When we speak of love of neighbor our minds turn immediately to "works" of charity, to the things that should be done for our neighbor: giving him to eat and drink, visiting him, in sum helping our neighbor. But this is an effect of love, it is not yet love. Before "beneficence" there is "benevolence," that is, before doing good there is willing good.

Charity must be "without pretense," in other words, it must be sincere (literally, "without hypocrisy") (Romans 12:9); you must love "from a true heart" (1 Peter 1:22). Indeed, you can do "charitable" acts and give alms for motives that do not have anything to do with love: to impress, to look like a do-gooder, to earn heaven, to ease your conscience. A great deal of the charity that we offer to Third World countries is not directed by love but by a desire to ease our conscience. We realize the scandalous difference between them and us and we feel somewhat responsible for their misery. You can lack charity even in "doing charity"!

It is clear that it would be a fatal error to oppose the heart's love and active charity, or to take refuge in good intentions toward others in such a way that we use them as an excuse for a lack of active and concrete charity on our part. If you meet a poor person, hungry and numb with cold, St. James says, what good does it do to say "You poor thing, go, keep warm and eat something!" when you give him nothing of what he needs? "Children," St. John adds, "let us not love in word or speech but in deed and truth" (1 John 3:18). It is not a matter of devaluing external works of charity, but of making sure that they have their basis in a genuine sentiment of love and benevolence.

This interior charity, or charity of the heart, is charity that can be exercised by all and always, it is universal. It is not a charity that only a few -- the rich and the healthy -- bestow, and others -- the poor and the sick -- receive. All can give and receive. Furthermore, it is very concrete. It is a matter of beginning to look with a new eye upon the situations and people with which we live. What is this new eye? It's simple: it is the eye with which we would like God to look upon us! The eye of mercy, of benevolence, of understanding, of mercy.

When this happens all our relationships change. As if by a miracle, all the prejudice and hostility that kept us from loving a certain person falls away and we begin to open up to what he is in reality: a poor human being who suffers from his weaknesses and limits, like you, like everyone. It is as if the mask that people and things placed over his face has begun to slip and the person appears to us as he truly is.

[Translation by Joseph G. Trabbic]

Article: Reading the Bible Like a Grown-Up

MARK SHEA

As we saw last week, antique atheists like Bill Maher still imagine that people who take the Bible seriously must read it literalistically, as he does.

However, there is a difference between literalistic interpretation -- which is the habit of all fundamentalists, whether atheist or Christian -- and the literal sense of Scripture. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the literal sense this way:

The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal" (CCC 116).

As we also saw last week, getting at the literal sense of Scripture involves not mindlessly chanting, "God said it; I believe it; that settles it" in the same way a Muslim shouts, "Allahu akbar!" but reading like an adult and distinguishing between the various literary forms by which Scripture reveals to us the one revelation who is Jesus Christ. It involves, in short, learning to discern what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion.

So when an Old Testament writer tells me that the land of Canaan was "flowing with milk and honey," it does not mean that he believes a chemical analysis of the river Jordan would reveal a mixture of bovine glandular secretions and bee vomit. Rather, it means (obviously) that he knows the land of Canaan to be what it was: an agriculturally rich area where Israel could settle down and be very happy raising farms, flocks, and kidlets.

Fair enough. But, of course, Scripture says quite a lot of other things that involve real claims of the supernatural (or appear to). What do we make of them?

Members of the Maher school of biblical criticism imagine they are being hard-headed thinkers when they reflexively reject the possibility of the miraculous. Their favorite slogan is, "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect." The problem is that it's not true.

The first thing we have to do is wipe any sneers off our faces. Members of the Maher school of biblical criticism imagine they are being hard-headed thinkers when they reflexively reject the possibility of the miraculous. Their favorite slogan is, "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect." The problem is that it's not true. Skepticism is, in fact, the sterility of the intellect, just as credulity is. Take either skepticism or credulity too far and you wind up thinking nonsense (as when Maher extends his skepticism to reject not just the unseen reality of God, but the unseen reality of disease-causing germs or a faith-healing devotee who chalks up every head cold to a demon). Or worse, you wind up not thinking at all, as when H. G. Wells's skepticism in his essay "Doubts of the Instrument" leads him to doubt whether he can know anything, or when the hyper-credulous person believes it when somebody says a 900-foot-tall Jesus appeared to Oral Roberts, demanding cash.

Reflexive skepticism and reflexive credulity are both enemies of the Catholic intellectual tradition, which counsels instead both reason and faith. The devil sends dogmatic skepticism and brainless credulity into the world as a pair so that, fearing one, we might flee to the other and be ensnared. Maher-esque skeptics, living in the delusional fear that millions of Christians credulously believe the Virgin appears regularly on grilled cheese sandwiches, run to the opposite extreme of refusing to acknowledge the miraculous even if it walks up and hits them in the face. Oh sure, they may talk a good game about their desire for "scientific proof," as Emile Zola did when he said he just wanted to see a cut finger dipped in Lourdes water and healed. But when confronted with a miracle (as Zola was by the miraculous healing of a tubercular woman whose half-destroyed face was healed after a bath at Lourdes), the dogmatic skeptic simply declares, as Zola did, "Were I to see all the sick at Lourdes cured, I would not believe in a miracle." This is not reason. This is unreason: a dogmatic faith that miracles cannot happen that precedes and excludes any possible testimony to the miraculous, including the testimony of one's own two eyes.

The sane approach to the question of the supernatural is therefore to embrace a reasonable openness to the possibility of the supernatural combined with a sensible willingness to use the sense God gave a goose. In short, it's the same approach we use for determining all other matters of historical fact: Are the witnesses really trying to tell us a miracle occurred in actual human history, and are they reliable? Not all biblical documents are entirely clear about these questions, but as a general rule, it's not all that hard to tell them apart.

The devil sends dogmatic skepticism and brainless credulity into the world as a pair so that, fearing one, we might flee to the other and be ensnared.

So, for instance, Jerome -- the greatest biblical scholar of antiquity -- tells us that the Creation story is written "after the manner of a popular poet" -- or, as we say today, in mythic language. This is a shock to the Mahers of the world, who just knew from listening to other like-minded Mahers of the world that ancient Christians took every syllable of Genesis literalistically.

On the other hand, Jerome does not poeticize when the biblical author obviously intends to be offering reportage of eyewitness accounts that are extremely close to the event. So when John tells us that Mary Magdalene saw the Risen Christ, and Thomas stood with his finger poised over the wound in the hands, feet, and side of His Glorified Body, Jerome knows perfectly well John means to say, "The man I saw crucified on Good Friday is the same man I saw alive and well three days later. He is God in glorified human flesh!" Jerome knows that John is not saying, "Jesus was eaten by wild dogs and his carcass is now scattered across the Judean wilderness, but I am sublimating my guilt by concocting a messianic tale compounded of Israelite myth, rumors of Osiris, and the delusional gestalt of my and my half-crazed friends."

Jerome, like Paul, knows that if Christ is not raised as the apostles say, then the whole thing is a load of skubala and the apostles are a bunch of lying dirtbags (1 Cor 15:12-19). In short, Jerome knows the difference between mythic language and an eyewitness account. He can make the distinction and give each text the sort of assent it asks of him because, before he picked up the Bible, he had worked out a sensible philosophical approach to the question, "Do miracles happen?" The answer to that question, for anybody who is open to reason and not dogmatically committed to the unreasonable rejection of the supernatural, is "Yes."

Now the only question is, "How do you tell the difference between accounts of the miraculous and mere fictional tales?"

We'll answer that next week.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Mark P. Shea. "Reading the Bible Like a Grown-Up." Inside Catholic (October 15, 2008).

Reprinted with permission of InsideCatholic.com. The mission of InsideCatholic.com is to be a voice for authentic Catholicism in the public square.

THE AUTHOR

Mark P. Shea is a senior editor at www.CatholicExchange.com and a columnist for InsideCatholic.com. Visit his blog at www.markshea.blogspot.com. Mark 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 Inside Catholic

Article: Why We're Here

CHARLES J. CHAPUT, O.F.M. CAP.

Man's Search for Meaning is one of the most widely read books of the last century. But nobody should be surprised.

Asked about his book's enormous success, Viktor Frankl answered that he didn't see it as a personal achievement. Instead, he felt it was testimony to the misery of our age. If millions of people seek out a book, he said, whose very title promises to deal with the question of life's meaning, then it must be a question "that burns under their fingernails."'

Much of Frankl's book is autobiographical. It deals with his experiences as a Jewish prisoner in Nazi death camps during World War II. Over the course of his ordeal, he watched some physically strong men give up and die while other, much weaker men survived. The difference, he discovered, is this: When a man believes that he has a future, when he believes in a reason to go on living, he is much more likely to survive. When he doesn't, he dies.

For Frankl, a moment came, marching in the snow with other prisoners, cursed and kicked by guards, when he remembered the image of his wife with a clarity "more luminous than the sun that was beginning to rise." A thought occurred to him for the first time in his life: "that love is the ultimate and highest goal to which man can aspire." And in that instant, "I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of man is through love and in love."

Frankl's words seem to have a special weight for Catholics. Christianity, more than any other religion, orders itself around love. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI lived through the same Nazi era that Frankl did. Rather than lose their faith, both men found it more deeply. Like Frankl, both men chose to anchor their lives in love rather than in hate. As a result, John Paul II -- the child of a nation crushed by two totalitarian regimes in a row -- could still preach that love is the "fundamental and innate vocation" of every human being. This vocation (or "calling," from the Latin verb vocare) is the heart of the Christian faith. Catholics believe that each human life has a unique but interrelated meaning. We are created by the God who is the source of love itself; a God who loved the world so fiercely that he sent his only Son to redeem it.

In other words, we were made by Love, to receive love ourselves, and to show love to others. That's why we're here. That's our purpose. And it has very practical consequences -- including the political kind.

The Christian mission in the world comes from the nature of God himself. Catholics believe in one God. But he is a God in three Persons sharing one nature. This belief is not just an exercise in theology. It's central to Catholic life. It gives a framework to all Christian thought and action. For Catholics, God is a living community of love -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- and in creating us, God intends us to take part in that community of mutual giving. All of Christian life comes down to sharing in the exchange of love within the heart of the Trinity and then offering that love to others in our relationships.

For Christians, reality is grounded in both unity and plurality. Personhood, whether we mean the Persons of the Trinity or our human person, is always bound up with relationship. God is eternal and unchanging, but he is not static. Within the life of the Trinity, there are the Trinitarian missions of the Father loving the Son, the Son loving the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the love between Father and Son -- and all human beings have a mission in the world that reflects that divine love and takes part in that exchange.

Of course, these are nice ideas. Anyone can give them a pious nod. Even many Catholics mouth the word love without a clue to what it really implies. This is why so much of modern Christian life seems like a bad version of a mediocre Beatles song rather than the morning of Pentecost. For a Christian, love is not simply an emotion. Feelings pass. They're fickle, and they often lie. Real love is an act of the will; a sustained choice that proves itself not just by what we say but by what we do.

In other words, we were made by Love, to receive love ourselves, and to show love to others. That's why we're here. That's our purpose. And it has very practical consequences -- including the political kind.

A man may claim he loves his wife. His wife will want to see the evidence. In like manner, we can talk about God all we please, but God will not be fooled. Jesus told the story of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) for a reason. Saying we're Catholic does not mean we are, except in the thinnest sense. Relationships have consequences in actions. Otherwise, they're just empty words. Our relationship with God is no exception. When Jesus asks Peter, "Do you love me?" and Peter answers yes, it's no surprise that Jesus immediately follows up with: "Then feed my sheep" ( John 21:17). God loves us always. We can choose to ignore that. All of the damned do. But if we claim to love him, it's an "if/then" kind of deal, with obligations of conduct and personal honesty just like any good marriage or friendship.

The twist in loving God is that it's not a standard "I, Thou" affair. It turns out to be an "I, Thou -- and everybody else" kind of arrangement. Christian faith is not just vertical. It's also horizontal. Since God created all human persons and guarantees their dignity by his Fatherhood, we have family duties to one another. That applies especially within the ekklesia -- the community of believers we call the church -- but it extends to the whole world. This means our faith has social as well as personal implications. And those social implications include the civil dimension of our shared life; in other words, the content of our politics.

For Christians, love is a small word that relentlessly unpacks into a lot of other words: truth, repentance, forgiveness, mercy, charity, courage, justice. These are action words, all of them, including truth, because in accepting Jesus Christ, the Gospel says that we will know the truth, and the truth will make us free ( John 8:32) -- not comfortable; not respected; but free in the real sense of the word: able to see and do what's right. This freedom is meant to be used in the service of others. Working for justice is an obligation of Christian freedom. Saint Augustine wrote that the state not governed by justice is no more than a gang of thieves. Thus, it's here, in the search for justice, that the Catholic citizen engages the political world because, as Benedict XVI says, "justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics." In fact, the just ordering of society and the state "is the central responsibility of politics."

Christians in general and Catholics in particular do not, and should not, seek to "force" their religious beliefs on society. But working to form the public conscience is not coercion any more than teaching the difference between poison and a steak is a form of bullying. Actively witnessing to and advancing what we believe to be true about key moral issues in public life is not "coercion." It's honesty. And it's also a duty -- not only of faith but of citizenship.

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once famously claimed that God is dead, and we have killed him. He despised Christianity as a slave morality. But he had an oddly divided view of Christ himself: admiring Jesus for his genius and strength; but at the same time reviling him for choosing to be the receptacle of other people's sins.

Nietzsche was wrong about the real nature of Christian faith, but we do need to consider what he said. Jesus accepted every measure of suffering on the cross. He did it freely. He chose it. The Father made this sacrifice for us through his Son because he loves us. There is nothing weak or cowardly or life-denying about that kind of radical love -- and any parent who has suffered along with a dying child instinctively knows it. The question we need to ask ourselves, if we call ourselves Christians today, is this: Do we really want to follow Jesus Christ and love as he did, or is it just too inconvenient? We can choose differently. We can choose the kind of routine, self-absorbed, halfhearted, anesthetic Christianity for which Nietzsche had such contempt. It's certainly easier. It also costs less.

A friend of mine tells a story from the 1950s. His parents were driving from New York to Texas with his younger sister and himself to visit family. They stopped on a Sunday morning in a small town in Alabama to get gas. His father asked the station attendant where they could find a local Catholic church. "No Catholic church here," shrugged the attendant. "No Catholics in the county." His father paid for the gas, they pulled out of the gas station, turned the corner, and there, half a block down the street, was the local Catholic parish.

But a lot of the new bigotry simply involves a steady stress on Catholic sins while turning a blind eye to Catholic vitality. It also includes a great many pious lectures about not imposing Catholic beliefs on society. In reality, the new anti-Catholicism often masks a resentment of any faithful Christian social engagement.

Many Catholics have grown up in recent decades with no memory of the often vulgar and sometimes violent anti-Catholicism that pervades American history. Anti- Catholic bigotry in the United States traces itself back to the country's original Protestant roots. Fortunately, much of the old, religiously based anti-Catholicism has softened since the 1950s, and some of this change surely flows from Catholic ecumenical and reform efforts since Vatican II. Over the past forty years, Catholics and other committed Christians have found that they have much more in common, and much more to feel commonly uneasy about in the wider culture, than in the past. This is a good thing.

Anti-Catholicism has not gone away, though. It has only shifted its shape. The new anti-Catholicism is a kind of background radiation to daily life created by America's secularized leadership classes: the media, the academy, and political action groups. Some of the bigotry is very direct. It worries publicly about the Catholic faith of U.S. Supreme Court justices. Or it lobbies the Internal Revenue Service to attack the tax status of Catholic organizations that teach an inconvenient public message.

But a lot of the new bigotry simply involves a steady stress on Catholic sins while turning a blind eye to Catholic vitality. It also includes a great many pious lectures about not imposing Catholic beliefs on society. In reality, the new anti-Catholicism often masks a resentment of any faithful Christian social engagement. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church in the United States makes an ideal target for critics of religion in the public square because we're larger and better organized than most other Christian communities. And thanks to habits of mind created by the "old" anti-Catholicism, Catholics are easier to caricature.

In a democracy, people disagree. It's a natural part of the process, but disagreement can easily create resentment. And when people act together in community, resentment of their ideas can fester into hatred of who they are. The reason is simple. It's usually easy to ignore individuals, but communities are another matter. When organized and focused communities -- like the Catholic Church -- are pressing for what they believe, they are much stronger and much harder to ignore than are individuals.

For Christians, love is a small word that relentlessly unpacks into a lot of other words: truth, repentance, forgiveness, mercy, charity, courage, justice.

What many critics dislike most about the Catholic Church is not her message, which they can always choose to dismiss, but her institutional coherence in pursuing her message, which is much harder to push aside. And yet the church is neither a religious version of General Motors nor a "political" organism; the political consequences of her message are a by-product of her moral teachings.

The church -- both as a community and as an "institution" -- is vital to Catholic life. Catholics believe that the church is the Body of Christ, the community of believers formed by the Holy Spirit to continue Jesus' work until he returns. The church is a family of different but equal people, gathered in a hierarchy of authority with Christ as the head and a mission to sanctify the world. The church is also, in a sense, a person -- our mother and teacher; the spouse of Christ. This is why Catholics so often refer to the church as a "she." The community of faith is essentially feminine -- not passive or weak, but fertile with new life. Mary cooperated with God in making his Word incarnate. In the same way the church, in following Christ, creates new life in the world through the faith and works of her children.

The church engages the world in two ways: through the life of each individual believer and through the common action of believers working together. Every Christian life, and every choice in every Christian life, matters. There's no special headquarters staff that handles the action side of the Gospel. That task belongs to all of us. Baptism, for Catholics, does not simply wash away sin. It also incorporates the baptized person into a new life; and part of that new life is a mandate to act; to be God's agent in the world. Laypeople, clergy, and religious all have different tasks within the community of faith. Everybody, however, shares the basic mission: bringing Jesus Christ to the world, and the world to Jesus Christ.

Laypeople have the special task of evangelizing the secular world. And this makes sense. Most Catholics -- the vast majority -- are laypeople. They have jobs, friends, and families. They can witness Jesus Christ on a daily basis, silently or out loud, directly or indirectly, by their words and actions. If we look for opportunities to share our faith with others, God always provides them. This is why self-described Catholics who live so anonymously that no one knows about their faith, Catholics who fail to prove by their actions what they claim to believe with their tongue, aren't really living as "Catholics" at all.

It's also why asking Catholics to keep their faith out of public affairs amounts to telling them to be barren; to behave as if they were neutered. Nothing could be more alien to the meaning of baptism. The Christian idea of witness, which comes from the Greek word martyr, isn't limited to a bloody death in the arena for the faith. All Christians have the command to be a martyr in the public arena -- to live a life of conscious witness wherever God places them, no matter how insignificant it seems and whether or not they ever see the results.

Years ago I read a story about an Englishwoman named Mabel. She had two sons. It's not clear what first drew her to the Gospel, but she became a Christian shortly after her husband died in the 1890s. She was devoted to her new faith. Every Sunday she would make the long walk with her sons to an Anglican church. Then one Sunday they tried a different place of worship: a Catholic church in a poor area of Birmingham. Mabel already had an interest in things Catholic. She asked for instruction. She then entered the Catholic Church.

Mabel's Catholic conversion angered her family. Her father was outraged. Her brother-in-law ended the little financial help he had been giving her since she became a widow. Her dead husband's family rejected her. She and her sons slipped into poverty. Mabel's health collapsed. Despite this, she remained zealously committed to her Catholic faith and taught it to both her sons. Several years later, she fell into a diabetes-induced coma and died. She entrusted her boys to the guardianship of a friend, a local Catholic priest, who deepened their faith throughout their upbringing.

No one can avoid suffering. It's the truest democratic experience. Everybody gets a piece of it. But Bloy understood, just as Viktor Frankl discovered in the death camps, that we can always choose what we do with the suffering that comes our way. We have that freedom. This is why suffering breaks some people, while it breaks open others into something more than their old selves, stretching the soul to greatness.

Very few people remember Mabel and her story. But a great many people remember at least one of her sons: J. R. R. Tolkien. In a letter to a Jesuit friend many years later, Tolkien wrote: "All my own small perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded" on Mary, the mother of Jesus, and that "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work." He added, "[My Catholic faith has) nourished me and taught me all the little that I know; and that I owe to my mother, who clung to her conversion and died young, largely through the hardships of poverty resulting from it."

That's not a bad epitaph for any Christian life. It also reminds us that real discipleship always has a cost. We can't follow Jesus Christ without sharing in his cross. That requires humility and courage because it can hurt. Quite a few people in the modern world dismiss Christ: some quietly; some with loud derision; and if they hate him, they will also hate his church and his followers -- at least the ones who seek to follow him in their actions as well as their words.

The word disciple, after all, comes from the Latin word meaning learner, student, or pupil. A good student learns from and emulates his or her teacher. Discipleship demands more than reading about the Catholic faith or admiring the life of Jesus. Christ didn't ask for our approval or agreement. He doesn't need either. He asked us to follow him -- radically, with all we have, and without caveats or reservations.

Following Christ means paying the same price out of love for others that Jesus paid to redeem us. Following Christ means working for justice in civil society in the light of Christian truth; it means treating the persons we meet every day with charity. Christ's call to follow him applies to each of us as individual believers. It also applies to the whole community we call the church.

As the Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote from prison in 1944, "I've come to know more and more the profound this-worldliness of Christianity . . . I don't mean the shallow and banal this-worldliness of the enlightened, the busy, the comfortable or the lascivious, but the profound this-worldliness characterized by discipline and the constant knowledge of death and resurrection."' We remember Bonhoeffer for his books like Life Together and The Cost of Discipleship. But we remember him even more for another reason. He paid the cost of his discipleship personally. He was hanged by the Third Reich in 1945 for his part in resistance activities.

We Christians are in the world but not of the world. We belong to God, and our home is heaven. But we're here for a reason: to change the world, for the sake of the world, in the name of Jesus Christ. The work belongs to us. Nobody will do it for us. And the idea that we can accomplish it without engaging in a hands-on way the laws, the structures, the public policies, the habits of mind, and the root causes that sustain injustice in our country is a delusion.

Someone once asked me how any sensible person could choose to become a Christian because Christians have such an unhealthy desire for suffering. The best answer comes from Leon Bloy, a writer who himself chose to become a Catholic. "Man has places in his heart which do not yet exist," wrote Bloy, "and into them enters suffering, that they might have existence." In a sense, all Christian belief is cocooned in those words. Christians have no desire to suffer. But we do understand and appreciate the power of suffering. No one can avoid suffering. It's the truest democratic experience. Everybody gets a piece of it. But Bloy understood, just as Viktor Frankl discovered in the death camps, that we can always choose what we do with the suffering that comes our way. We have that freedom. This is why suffering breaks some people, while it breaks open others into something more than their old selves, stretching the soul to greatness.

Christians don't like suffering any more than anyone else. They certainly don't go looking for it. But people who believe in Jesus Christ do try to accept and use suffering as Christ did: that is, as a creative, redemptive act. Suffering lived properly is the heart's great tutor in humility, gratitude, and understanding of others, because they too suffer. This is why Pope John Paul II once described the Bible as the "great book about suffering." He meant that Scripture is the story of God's willingness to suffer for humanity; the story of God's call to each of us to join our suffering to his own in healing the evil and pain in the world. Scripture urges us to follow the Good Samaritan who saw even a suffering stranger as his neighbor and acted to ease his wounds. Thus God's "great book about suffering" is not only about God's love for us -- but also about our solidarity with others. The cornerstone for Christian action in the world is the Word of God itself.

It's also why asking Catholics to keep their faith out of public affairs amounts to telling them to be barren; to behave as if they were neutered. Nothing could be more alien to the meaning of baptism.

Catholics believe that Scripture is the infallible Word of God. They also remember that the church teaches with the authority of Jesus by Christ's own command, and that the church preceded the Gospels -- not the other way around. The Christian community is shaped by both Scripture and Tradition. The New Testament was written in context and by members of the ekklesia, the early Christian church. As the true Word of God, the Scriptures always stand in judgment of the present Christian community. Being faithful to God depends on whether we live our individual lives and our life in the church in accord with Scripture.

But again, the Scriptures come to us from God through the church. So an intrinsic relationship flows between Word and believing community from the very start of the Christian experience. This is the meaning of Tradition. For Catholics, Tradition is the wisdom learned from the lived experience of the church applying God's Word to the circumstances of the day. The Word of God is foundational to Christian life. It judges Christian life. But other dimensions of Christian life also exist side by side with Scripture, notably our life together in Jesus Christ as a believing community, passed on through the centuries.

Here's the point. We can't reject the church and her teachings, and then simultaneously claim to be following Jesus Christ or the Scriptures. For Catholics, the believing community is the church, and without the church as the guardian of Christian life and protector of God's Word, Christianity could never have survived. As the historian Christopher Dawson wrote, "Christianity was not merely a doctrine and a life, it was above all a society." Without the framework of the church, "Christianity would have changed its nature in [history's] changing social environment and would have become . . . a different religion."

Why is any of this important in talking about Catholics, politics, and the public square? It should be obvious. The believing community -- the church -- is how the individual believer brings the Word of God and the body of Christian wisdom most forcefully to bear on the practical affairs of the world. And that can thoroughly irritate the world and also Caesar, whether the year is AD 112, 1012, or 2012.

Catholic public engagement comes from the same religiously informed roots that gave life to the ideas and words of America's founders more than two hundred years ago. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote from the distance of Nazi Germany, "American democracy is founded not upon the emancipated man but, quite the contrary, upon the kingdom of God and upon the limitation of all earthly powers by the sovereignty of God." Christianity requires faith in things unseen. It points the individual person toward eternal life with God. But our salvation is worked out here and now, together as a family, in this world, through our actions toward other people. For a Christian, this world is worth struggling to make better -- precisely because God created it and loves his children who inhabit it.

Thus, it's no surprise that in the Decalogue, the first three commandments frame humanity's relationship with God. The next seven frame our relationship with each other. The desire for extending God's justice among his people, marked by the Old Testament tradition of Jubilee in Leviticus 25 or the warnings in the Book of Amos, weaves itself throughout the New Testament. When asked to name the greatest commandment in the law, Jesus answered: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and all the prophets" (Matthew 22:37-40). What that love means in practice can be found in the words Jesus used to describe his true disciples: leaven in the world, salt of the earth, light to the nations. These are words of mission; a language not of good intentions but of conscious behavior.

The Epistle of James describes the meaning of discipleship best when it warns Christians to "be doers of the Word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves" (1:22) and that "faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (2:17). That message incarnates itself down through the centuries in the lives of saints, religious orders, social encyclicals, and a vast tradition of Catholic hospitals, schools, and services to the hungry, disabled, poor, homeless, and elderly. When emperor Julian the Apostate sought to restore Roman paganism in the fourth century AD, he didn't copy Christian thought. He had contempt for what Christians believed. Instead he copied Christian hospices, orphanages, and other charitable works because of their power to witness by action. But if faith without works is dead, so too in the long run are works dead without a dynamic faith to grow and sustain them. Christians had that faith. Pagan Roman culture didn't. The rest is history.

As Catholics, how can we uncouple what we do, from what we claim to believe, without killing what we believe and lying in what we do? The answer is simple. We can't. How we act works backward on our convictions, making them stronger or smothering them under a snowfall of alibis.

To German Catholics of the politically desperate 1930s, Pope Pius XI wrote, "It is not enough to be a member of the Church of Christ; one needs to be a living member in spirit and in truth, i.e., living in the state of grace and in the presence of God, either in innocence or sincere repentance." He warned that "what is morally indefensible can never contribute to the good of the people," and that "thousands of voices ring in your ears a [false] gospel which has not been revealed by the Father of heaven." Too few Catholics listened. In fact, far too many German Christians -- including too many church leaders -- accommodated themselves to a Caesar who took their souls along with their approval.

But Christ never absolved us from resisting and healing the evil in the world, or from solidarity with the people who suffer it. Our fidelity is finally to God, but it implies a faithfulness to the needs of his creation. Like it or not, we are involved -- and there is, after all, a war on (Ephesians 6:12).

Parallels between Europe seventy years ago and the American landscape today may seem glib and melodramatic, or even flatly wrong. It's a fair criticism. Times change. History never really repeats itself. Each generation has its own unique set of challenges. But patterns of human thought and behavior do repeat themselves. The past, as a record of the results, is a great teacher. When John Paul II called Catholics to a purification of memory and repentance for sins of the past during the Jubilee Year 2000, he did it for an important reason. We can't preach what we don't live. The struggle with our own sinfulness never ends in this lifetime, but we must at least admit our sins, repent of them, seek the forgiveness of those we wound -- and then constantly begin again.

As Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, "No Christian Church has a right to preach to this so-called secular age without a contrite recognition of the shortcomings of historic Christianity which tempted the modern age to disavow its Christian faith." The unbelief of the modern heart is not simply a product of human pride. It can also be what Niebuhr called a "reaction to [the] profanity" of faith lived hypocritically.

What that means for the church and individual American Catholics is this: We can choose to treat our faith as a collection of comforting pieties. We can choose to file Jesus away as a good teacher with some great, if unrealistic, ideas. Or we can choose to be real disciples, despite all our sins and admitting all our sins. In other words, we can accept Jesus for who he says he is: our redeemer, the Messiah of Israel, and the only Son of God. This is what the church has always believed. What we can't honestly choose is continuing to select our Catholic faith from a cafeteria menu while failing at the task Christ himself gave us: a root-level transformation of ourselves and the world around us. The time for easy Christianity is over. In fact, it never really existed. We're blessed to be rid of the illusion. We need to be more zealous in our faith, not more discreet; clearer in our convictions, not muddier; and more Catholic, not less.

The Catholic faith should take root in our hearts like the mustard seed of Jesus' parables (Matthew 13:31; 17:20). No matter how small it begins, the mustard seed grows so strong and so large that it breaks us open and frees us to be new and different persons far better than our old selves; a source of shelter and support for others. The one thing we can't do with a living faith is remain the same. We must either kill it or become new people because of it. Anything less is fraud. And in like manner, the church should be a mustard seed in society, transforming -- not by coercion but by active witness -- every fiber of a nation's political, economic, and social life.

History reminds us that believers and their leaders are as prone to the temptations of power as anyone else. Jesus himself turned away from earthly power when Satan offered it to him on the mountain (Matthew 4:8-10). God's kingdom is not of this world. Nothing we can do will change that. Even a good Caesar is still only Caesar.

But Christ never absolved us from resisting and healing the evil in the world, or from solidarity with the people who suffer it. Our fidelity is finally to God, but it implies a faithfulness to the needs of his creation. Like it or not, we are involved -- and there is, after all, a war on (Ephesians 6:12). It's the same conflict Tolkien meant when he wrote that "[human] wars are always lost, and The War always goes on." It's the same conflict C. S. Lewis meant when he wrote that "there is no neutral ground in the universe; every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counter-claimed by Satan." And this war goes on without rest in every age, in every nation, in every human life, in every choice, in every decision, in every action, in every public issue.

We can choose our side. We can't choose not to choose. Not choosing is a choice.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. "Why We're Here." chapter three of Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life (New York: Doubleday, 2008): 34-54.

Excerpted by permission of Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.

| Catholic Church - United States - Political Activity | Doubleday | Hardcover | August 2008 | $21.95 | 978-0-385-52228-1 (0-385-52228-2) |

THE AUTHOR

The Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., has been the archbishop of Denver, Colorado since February 18, 1997. As member of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe, Archbishop Chaput is the second Native American to be ordained bishop in the United States, and the first Native American archbishop. He is the author most recently of Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life, and Living the Catholic Faith: Rediscovering the Basics.

Copyright © 2008 Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Wednesday Liturgy: Saturday Mass for Sunday

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


Q: We know that the Sunday Mass is very important. We know too that the Saturday evening Mass is the Sunday Mass. But what are the criteria to know exactly that it is the Mass of Sunday? It is the hour? It is the readings? Many Catholics who go to a marriage on a Saturday afternoon don't go to the Mass on Sunday. They think they have already gone to Mass. What does the Church say exactly about the Saturday evening Mass? -- J.G., Arras, France

A: The norms permitting the celebration of Sunday Mass on a Saturday evening are not overly detailed and thus different practices and notions have arisen around the world.

Even though this practice is relatively recent with respect to the Sunday Mass, the Church had long maintained the custom of beginning the celebration of important feasts the evening before, with first vespers. This was inspired by the concept of a day in the ancient world which divided our 24 hours into four nocturnal vigils and four daylight hours, the day commencing at first vigil.

For this reason the Gospels mention the haste required to bury Our Lord on Good Friday before the Sabbath began on what, for us, would still be Friday evening.

While this concept offers a certain justification for the norm permitting the celebration of Sunday Mass on Saturday, the modern Church in fact mixes both ancient and modern chronometry and has not simply adopted tout court the ancient measure of the day.

For this reason, although it is permissible to anticipate Sunday Mass, contrary to what some might think, there is no obligation to do so; it is still possible to celebrate the Mass of the day or a ritual Mass on Saturday evening.

For example, if a religious community habitually celebrates its daily Mass at 7 p.m., there is no reason why it would have to celebrate Sunday Mass twice.

Likewise it is theoretically possible for a couple to be wed on a Saturday evening using the nuptial Mass, provided that they did not coincide with regular Mass timetables.

I say "theoretically" because pastorally it is usually advisable to celebrate the nuptial Mass at this hour according to the norms for a wedding celebrated on a Sunday. As our reader points out, even regular Mass goers are likely to presume that a Saturday evening Mass is sufficient to fulfill their Sunday precept and the distinctions between different Mass formulas are likely to be lost on them.

Therefore, except in those cases when the majority of guests are well-formed and committed Catholics, it is better to assure as far as possible that they attend a celebration valid for Sunday, even though this can mean that on some occasions certain aspects of the regular nuptial Mass may not be celebrated.

The general law does not specify the precise time after which Sunday Mass is possible. However, 5 p.m. is the common rule in the Diocese of Rome and in many other places. Any time much earlier is hard to conceive as being Saturday evening in any meaningful sense of the term.

Because of this, a Saturday afternoon wedding would be a different case. Most practicing Catholics would not presume that a noon or 1 p.m. wedding would be valid for Sunday Mass. Since 3 or 4 p.m. are rather awkward hours for organizing a wedding and its attendant festive aftermath, celebrations at this hour are less common, at least in Europe.

A 4 p.m. wedding, however, is probably sufficiently on the borderline as to be celebrated as a Sunday Mass.

It there is real danger of anyone mistaking an earlier Mass as valid for Sunday, then care should be taken so that guests know in advance that the Mass will not cover their Sunday obligation.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Solemnities, Feasts, Memorials

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


Our Oct. 8 column on solemnities, memorials and feasts brings to mind a question from a priest based in Oregon. He asked: "[Jan. 3] is listed in the Ordo as an 'optional memorial' of the Holy Name of Jesus and it says that this feast was recently introduced into the Sacramentary. I should like to have offered that Mass, but have no approved texts for it. Is there some source where I could have found such a text (e.g., a Website)? There are similar celebrations throughout the year, some of them even mandatory memorials for which no texts are readily available."

The difficulty of some new celebrations with no corresponding proper texts is a temporary one that should be resolved within a few years.

The cause of this difficulty is that Pope John Paul II, on the occasion of the publication of the new Latin missal, took the initiative to add some new celebrations or restore some older ones that had been dropped from the old calendar. Among these restored celebrations were the Holy Name of Jesus and St. Catherine of Alexandria. Even after the publication of the missal, he added one or two more saints to the universal calendar such as St. Pio of Pietrelcina.

The problem arises because, although they already form part of the calendar, the proper texts of some of them have yet to receive an officially approved rendering into English. There is a certain degree of logic to this situation. Since the translation of the entire missal is currently under review, it makes sense to do everything as part of a single project even though it means that these feasts will not have proper texts for another couple of years.

Some bishops' conferences have taken a different approach. For example, the Italian bishops have produced an elegant but economic supplement containing a translation of all the new texts with the same typeset as the altar missal. It is thus possible to celebrate these memorials in Italian even though the definitive Italian translation of the missal is still in the pipeline. I don't know if any English-speaking conference has done something similar.

An Italian-language Website called maranatha.it contains most of these texts online. This site also has large portions of other sacramental rites and blessings and little by little is including the Latin texts of the missals of John XXIII and Paul VI. I am unaware of an English-speaking site that has the translations of these new liturgical texts, and it is likely that their publication would infringe on legitimate copyright.

Therefore, what to do? For some feasts such as the Holy Name of Jesus there appears to be little to do but wait for the definitive translation of the missal.

The new saints can be celebrated using texts from the common of the saints: Martyrs, Pastors, Virgins, etc., as best fits the saint in question.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Article: How Your Kid's Soccer Ball Is Made

MARK EARLY

The next time you are watching your kids play soccer, I would like you to think about some other kids, halfway around the world, and their soccer balls. Because unlike your children, for whom the ball is a symbol of childhood, for children in India the ball is often a symbol of stolen childhood.

Gurmeet Kumar is a 10-year-old boy living in one of India's poorest areas. Earlier this year his baby brother got sick and needed medicine -- medicine his poor mother couldn't afford. So she borrowed the equivalent of less than $100 from a local soccer ball maker, using Gurmeet's freedom as a kind of collateral.

Gurmeet, whose story was told on HBO's Real Sports, works 10 to 15 hours a day stitching together soccer balls to pay off the debt, which he probably never will. The soccer ball makers charge "exorbitant" interest rates that double the size of the debt every few months. Barring the unforeseen, Gurmeet's children and perhaps even their children will have to work off that debt.

By the way, Gurmeet's baby brother died.

What some people call "debt bondage" -- and what decent people call "slavery" -- is an important part of how many of the world's soccer balls are made. Many of the rest are made using child labor. Indian children, instead of going to school and playing, are paid five cents an hour to sow together the balls' panels, including the one that tells buyers that the ball is "child labor free."

The panel is there because this isn't the first time that soccer balls were found to be made using child labor. In the 1990s, the child laborers were Pakistanis. The controversy caused sporting goods companies to adopt a code that banned the use of child labor and certified the moral bona fides of their products.

Indian children, instead of going to school and playing, are paid five cents an hour to sow together the balls' panels, including the one that tells buyers that the ball is "child labor free."

Oops! Industry representatives told HBO's Bernard Goldberg that they didn't know what was happening in India. Goldberg took their word for it, but pointed out that he and his crew, working without any help from Indian authorities, had no trouble finding many instances of child labor and "debt bondage." It makes you wonder just how hard the companies really were looking.

Soccer balls are only one of many consumer goods being made by child labor. As the business magazine Forbes put it, "That garden stone, handmade carpet or embroidered T-shirt you just bought was probably made by child labor."

Nonetheless, the only way sporting goods companies will live up to their promise is if we hit the where it hurts: their bottom line. Every soccer mom and dad should refuse to buy balls made by companies with a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude toward child labor and "debt bondage."

So please visit our website, BreakPoint.org, for more information on soccer balls and child labor.

In the meantime, we Christians should be setting the example -- indeed, lead the way. The abolition of slavery and laws against child labor were largely the product of Christian efforts, and we should sustain those efforts.

William Wilberforce asked his fellow Britons to think of the slave as a "man and brother" -- so I'm asking you to imagine your children robbed of their childhood, making balls they can only dream of playing with.




For Further Reading and Information

Megha Bahree, "Child Labor," Forbes, 25 February 2008.

"Nike's Dilemma: Is Doing the Right Thing Wrong?" Christian Science Monitor, 22 December 2006.

"Soccer Balls and Teenagers: Doing Right -- US Schoolchildren Fight Child Labor Abuses Abroad," National Catholic Reporter, 21 March 1997.

"Attention: Soccer Moms and Dads," Dallas Morning News, 15 September 2008.

Learn more about the soccer ball industry in Pakistan and elsewhere from the U.S. Department of Labor.

Zoe Sandvig, "A Crime So Monstrous: Q & A with Author Ben Skinner about Modern-Day Slavery," BreakPoint WorldView, September 2008.

Angelise Anderson, "Modern-Day Slavery: A Task Bigger than Wilberforce's," BreakPoint WorldView, September 2008.

Kristin Wright, "The Wilberforce Legacy: Confronting Slavery in Today's World," BreakPoint Online, 23 February 2007.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Mark Earley. "How Your Kid's Soccer Ball Is Made." BreakPoint Commentary (October 13, 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

Mark Earley is president of Prison Fellowship. Additionally, Earley serves as Chairman of Operation Starting Line, a multi-ministry, interdenominational outreach to prisoners in America that is helping the local and in-prison church provide in-prison evangelistic events, ongoing inmate mentoring, and post-prison assistance for ex-prisoners and their families. Earley served in the Virginia State Senate for ten years from 1988 to 1998 and then served as the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia from 1998-2001. He is a graduate of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, where he received a B.A. in Religion. He earned a juris doctor degree from Marshall-Wythe School of Law. He resides in Lansdowne, Virginia, with his wife, the former Cynthia Breithaupt, and their six children (Rachel, Justin, Mark Jr., Mary Catherine, Franklin, and Anne Harris).

Copyright © 2008 Breakpoint

Article: Benedict at the Table and Jesus on the Road

FATHER THOMAS ROSICA, CSB

The big news today was Pope Benedict's lesson at this morning's session of the synod of bishops.

After listening to the first round of 11 cardinals and bishops deliver their five-minute talks, we heard the solemn pronouncement Fiat intervallum. (Let there be a break!), which we have heard many times over the past 10 days.

While many of us are used to hearing Fiat lux from the Genesis account of creation, or responding with Fiat mihi senundum verbum tuum (Be it done to me according to your word) during the Angelus, the words Fiat intervallum signal those long desired and merited espresso or caffé latte breaks from the hours of sitting and listening in the Aula del Sinodo. (When I return to Toronto at the end of the synod, I will begin using "Fiat intervallum" at Salt and Light Television, rather than the crude "breaktime.")

Benedict at the table in the aula

Immediately following the intervallum, we returned to the synod hall and were informed by Archbishop Eterovic that the "president" of the synod would now like to address us. And the president is the Holy Father! Pope Benedict sat down in his usual spot, put on the professorial glasses, opened his notebook and began speaking to the synodal assembly.

Every single person in the room came to life and paid close attention, including the synod staff, secretaries, "runners" and of course the five language press attaches. We were not given any "script" for this lesson and realized that the Pope was simply reading his own handwriting out of a notebook. Here before a sampling of the world Church was Joseph Ratzinger the professor, sitting among his students, disciples and colleagues, sharing his reflections on what he has seen and heard during the first week of the synod of bishops.

In his simple, crystal clear address, Pope Benedict touched upon one of the important themes that has emerged in spades during this synod: bridging the gap that exists between those who have distorted the study and interpretation of the word of God and separated their Scripture studies and biblical analyses from theology and the living community of the Church.

Referring to Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the Pope spoke of the importance of the historical-critical method that finds its roots in John 1:14, the Word becoming flesh. The Pope spoke to us as a father and teacher, reminding the assembly of the importance of Scripture studies that reflect the unity of all Scriptures; studies that are done with and flow from the living tradition of the Church. Our exegesis and analysis of the word of God must always have a theological dimension for we are not simply dealing with a history book of the past but with a Word that is alive in the community of the Church: a Word that is Jesus. When biblical exegesis is divorced from the living, breathing community of faith that is in the Church, exegesis is reduced to historiography and nothing more. The hermeneutic of faith disappears. We reduce everything to human sources and can simply explain everything away. Ultimately, we deny the One about whom the Scriptures speak, the one whose living presence lies underneath the words. When exegesis is divorced from theology, then Scripture will not be the soul of theology. The Pope stressed the intrinsic link between Scripture studies and the theological tradition of the Church. He also stressed the importance of theology that is rooted in the Bible.

In his simple, crystal clear address, Pope Benedict touched upon one of the important themes that has emerged in spades during this synod: bridging the gap that exists between those who have distorted the study and interpretation of the word of God and separated their Scripture studies and biblical analyses from theology and the living community of the Church. The Pope also made a strong suggestion that certain matters touched upon in his "lesson" be included among the propositions that will be given to him by the synodal assembly next week.

One of Pope Benedict's great qualities is his ability to teach very complex things with simplicity, clarity and beauty. This morning, Benedict was a teacher who unfolded for us the scroll of the living Word of God and showed us how to humbly approach that Word, learn from it and live by it. We received a simple, clear lesson about the unity of Scripture and theology from a man who is often called the "Mozart of theologians."

A young Italian layman working in the Vatican told me this week in passing: "Papa Ratzinger makes you want to love Jesus and the Church even if you have been far away from the Lord and the Church for a long time. He is a kind man."

Jesus on the road to Emmaus

At our daily press briefings, one of the frequently asked questions by the journalists covering the synod is: "What is the most frequently quoted Scripture passage(s) appearing in the talks of the synodal fathers?" I would answer without a doubt the Gospel story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13:35). It has been cited by cardinals, bishops, experts and special guests in many of the talks coming from every corner of the earth. The story is a great model or paradigm for catechesis, teaching, Bible study and above all for Christian living. I am delighted to hear the story referred to so often, especially since it was the topic of my first thesis at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome back in 1990.

More than a matter of theory and intellect, the Emmaus story tells us that the Resurrection must first and foremost be experienced in the heart. Through the Emmaus story, Luke has transformed a traditional recognition story into a blueprint for the Christian mission.

The Emmaus story is one of the focal points in the construction of Luke's Gospel, revealing the tension between the events at the empty tomb and the disciples in reaction to them. These facts are clear from reading the story: Cleopas and his companion are going away from the locality where the decisive events have happened toward a little village of no significance. They did not believe the message of the Resurrection, due to the scandal of the cross. Puzzled and discouraged, they are unable to see any liberation in the death, the empty tomb, or the message about the appearances of Jesus to the others. In their eyes, either the mission of Jesus had entirely failed, or else they, themselves, had been badly deceived in their expectations about Jesus.

As the two downtrodden disciples journeyed with Jesus on that Emmaus road, their hearts began to burn as they came to understand with their minds the truth about the suffering Messiah. At the meal in Emmaus, they experienced the power of the Resurrection in their hearts. The solution to the problem of these two disciples was not a perfectly logical answer.

Through the powerful message of this Resurrection appearance story, Luke explains to his readers and to his community that the Resurrection is indeed a logical event to the one who understands the message of the Scriptures. However, Cleopas and his companion are "foolish and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have said!" (verse 25) Understanding the Resurrection implies a two-fold process of knowing the message of the Scriptures and experiencing the one about whom they all speak: Jesus the Lord, through the breaking and sharing of bread with the community of believers. More than a matter of theory and intellect, the Emmaus story tells us that the Resurrection must first and foremost be experienced in the heart. Through the Emmaus story, Luke has transformed a traditional recognition story into a blueprint for the Christian mission.


Emmaus and the synod: a journey from the head to the heart

The journey motif of the Emmaus story (and one can say of this synod on the Word of God) is not only a matter of the distance between Jerusalem and Emmaus, but also of the painful and gradual journey of words that must descend from the head to the heart; of a coming to faith, of a return to a proper relationship with the stranger who is none other than Jesus the Lord.

For Cleopas and his companion on that first Easter, their journey was a gradual, painstaking process requiring a careful remembering and rearticulation of the events of salvation history found in the Scriptures, along with an experience of the Risen Lord. It is no less the same for Christians of the 21st century who continue to interpret the Scriptures in this day and age, and move from faith-filled insights to a proclamation and lived experience of the One who is truly risen from the dead. Is it any wonder that such a Gospel story has been quoted so often during this synod on the Word of God in the life and mission of the Church?


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Fr. Thomas Rosica, CSB "Benedict at the Table and Jesus on the Road." Zenit (October 14, 2008).

ZENIT is an International News Agency based in Rome whose mission is to provide objective and professional coverage of events, documents and issues emanating from or concerning the Catholic Church for a worldwide audience, especially the media.

Reprinted with permission from Zenit - News from Rome. All rights reserved.

PHOTO: AFP/Getty

THE AUTHOR

Fr. Thomas Rosica, CSB, is the CEO of the Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation and Television Network. He is also a member of the General Council of the Congregation of St. Basil. Father Rosica holds advanced degrees in Theology and Sacred Scripture from Regis College in the Toronto School of Theology [1985], the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome [1991] and the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem [1993]. From 1994-2000 Fr. Rosica served as Executive Director and Pastor of the Newman Centre Catholic Mission at the University of Toronto. He began lecturing in Sacred Scripture at the Faculty of Theology of the University of St. Michael's College in 1990 and has continued until the present. From 1999-2003, he served as the National Director and Chief Executive Officer of World Youth Day 2002 and the Papal Visit to Canada. Father Roscia is on the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center. He can be reached at: rosica@saltandlighttv.org

Copyright © 2008 Zenit

Article: Why Not Your Best?

HAL URBAN

When I was a high school history and psychology teacher, one of the life lessons I wanted to pass on to all of my students had to do with effort, determination, diligence, and good old-fashioned hard work.

When I was growing up, the message I received about being successful in life was pretty straightforward: If you wanted to be good at anything, you'd have to work hard.

Unfortunately, that's not the message our young people are getting today. In fact, they're often bombarded with messages that claim the opposite, such as:

  • The good things in life come quickly and easily.

  • You deserve a good life.

  • You can have it all, and you can have it all now.

  • You don't have to make any sacrifices to get what you want.

As I usually did when teaching life lessons in my classes, I started with a question. I asked my students, "Why would you ever want to give less than your very best?"

They responded by asking, "Where?", "When?" My answer: "Everywhere and all the time."

Most of them thought it was impossible to always give your best, so we would get into a provocative discussion. Here are some of the specific questions my students asked, followed by my answers:

"How do you give your best when you're just socializing with your friends?" Give them the best you have. Have fun withthem, laugh with them, play with them,let them know how much you enjoy beingwith them.

"How do you give your best when you don't feel well?" You give the best you canunder those circumstances.

"Do you think there's anyone who gives his or her best all the time?" Yes, I thinkmillions of people do.

"How often do you give your best?" Al of the time -- when teaching, meeting homeresponsibilities, being with my family, writing,reading, working out, playing sports, spendingtime with friends.


Can You Always Give Your Best?

The concept of always giving your best was obviously new to my students. They found it hard to believe that there were millions of people, including me, who always gave their best. Most of them equated giving your best with struggle, superhuman effort, stress, exhaustion, and being too serious all the time.

I explained that life is far more rewarding when we do the best we can, no matter where we are, whom we're with, or what we're doing -- even if we're resting or having fun. It's a matter of being in the moment and making the most out of it. An example I always used was teaching. It requires very hard work, but it can be fun at the same time. In fact, the harder I worked at it, the more fun I had and the more rewarding it was.

I asked them if they wanted me to give my best every time they came to my class. The answer was always yes, along with this lit le addition: "You're supposed to give your best because you're getting paid."

That always brought a smile to my face. I responded that I was paid to teach, not to give my best. There's a big difference. I chose to give my best because it made my teaching so much more enjoyable and fulfilling. They were starting to get it.

My students decided that there were primarily two reasons that people often chose to not give their best: laziness and self-centeredness. I agreed. I pointed out that we reap what we sow: We get out of life what we put into it.

Then I asked them the same question I started the lesson with. "Why would you ever want to give less than your very best?" I put up a sign, WHY NOT YOUR BEST?, in a prominent spot to serve as a visible reminder.

I was always confident that I planted some important seeds during this lesson. Hundreds of times students told me, "I can't get that question out of my mind." It was music to my ears.


Integrating "Doing Our Best" Into a Mission Statement

Until the early 1980s, I paid scant attention to mission statements. That changed dramatically when a number of my friends and I attended a men's retreat in the Santa Cruz mountains.

The leader of the retreat posed this question: "How many of you have a written personal mission statement that you look at and think about every day?" He said, "All good organizations with a purpose have a well-crafted mission statement. It gives the people within them both focus and clarity, and it inspires them to fulfill that purpose."

I explained that life is far more rewarding when we do the best we can, no matter what we're doing.

I went away from the retreat with a concise personal mission statement that I look at and dwell upon every morning. But it wasn't specifically tied to my responsibilities as an educator, so I decided to write a separate mission statement, one that applied solely to my role as a teacher. After about six or seven hours, I finally had my mission statement as a teacher (see box, next page).

When I was finished, I hand-printed my mission statement (there were no computers in those days) with a black felt tip pen. (While my personal mission statement has changed a few times over the years, this teacher mission statement never did.) The next morning I taped it on my desk at school. I shared with my students that I had both a "philosophy of education" (a long quotation by Haim Ginot ) and a "teacher mission statement" taped to my desk. I read them out loud to each class and invited them to look at them any time they wanted. I also told them to bring it to my attention if they ever thought I was acting in a way that was inconsistent with my philosophy or my mission. (Yes, it did happen a few times. Posting your mission statement for students to see keeps you focused, diligent, and accountable.)

Then it dawned on me that I was the leader of five "organizations with a purpose" -- my five classes. This realization led to some questions:

  • Did my students know what a mission statement was? If they didn't, could I teach them?

  • Could I help my students see and clarify their purpose?

  • Should my class write a mission statement together?


The Students' Mission Statement

I began by asking the students in all of my classes if they knew what a mission statement was. Out of more than 160 students, about four or five did.

Writing a teacher mission statement and reading it the first thing each morning had always affirmed my purpose. It worked the same for my students.

I explained that another term for "mission statement" was a "statement of purpose," and that businesses, service organizations, charitable foundations, places of worship, schools, universities, and even individuals used them to stay focused on their goals. I showed them the mission statements of our school, the University of San Francisco, the Girl Scouts, the Rotary, a local church, Apple Computer, and UPS.

I asked the class if they thought I should write their mission statement for them, or if they should write their own.

I knew what their answer would be. One girl said: "It wouldn't really be our mission statement if you wrote it, would it?" I answered "No. I think you'll honor it more if you own it."

I divided them into six groups of 5-6 students and gave them these instructions:

  • The class mission statement could not be longer than two sentences.

  • Their mission statement could be about one of two topics -- either the environment we were going to create in the class, or the process of learning itself.

My students took this activity seriously and enjoyed the process. Over the years they came up with some wonderful mission statements. Here are a few:

  • This is a golden rule classroom.

  • We practice what we preach.

  • This is a no put-down zone. We look for the good instead.

  • Learning is not an obligation: it's an opportunity.

It's important to post the mission statement in the front of the room where every student sees it every day. Any time my students looked at the front of the room, there it was, staring them in the face and reminding them of their mission.

This was a remarkably simple activity that took only about 40 minutes, and it paid dividends for the rest of the year. Writing a teacher mission statement and reading it the first thing each morning had always affirmed my purpose. It worked the same for my students.


"What Do You Expect of Me?"

At the beginning of each school year, I put my expectations of my students (regarding class participation, homework, tests, punctuality, courtesy, etc.) in writing and discussed them with the class. Then, I asked them if they had expectations of me. They assured me that they did. I asked them each to write them down. These are the "Top Ten" expectations they came up with over the years:

  1. Make the class interesting, not boring.
  2. Have control of the class.
  3. Be nice, not mean. Don't yell at us.
  4. Be fair in the way you treat people (no favorites) and in grading.
  5. Be reasonable on homework.
  6. Return tests/papers within a week.
  7. Explain things clearly; don't assume we already know everything.
  8. Have a sense of humor; make class fun.
  9. Be understanding; try to remember what it's like to be a kid.
  10. Give us help if we need it.

I was always impressed with their lists. I told them they could expect two other things from me that weren't even on their list. I promised them that I would come to class every day with a good attitude and fully prepared. I said, "I will give you the best I have every day."

And I challenged them to give me their best -- every day, in every way.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Hal Urban. "Why Not Your Best?" excellence & ethics (Fall, 2008): 4-5.

Reprinted with permission. excellence & ethics is the Education Letter of the Smart & Good Schools Initiative, a joint project of the Center for the 4th and 5th Rs and the Institute for Excellence & Ethics (IEE). excellence & ethics features essays, research, and K-12 best practices that help school leaders, teachers, students, parents, and community members do their best work (performance character) and do the right thing (moral character).

excellence & ethics is published three times a year and may be subscribed to, without cost, here.

THE AUTHOR

Hal Urban is an award-winning educator and author of the best-selling Life'sGreatest Lessons. He taught high school for 35 years and now speaks internationally on character education to teachers, parents, and students. His other books include: Positive Words, Powerful Results: Simple Ways to Honor, Affirm, and Celebrate Life, Life's Greatest Lessons: 20 Things That Matter, Choices That Change Lives: 15 Ways to Find More Purpose, Meaning, and Joy, and The 10 Commandments of Common Sense. This article is adapted from his latest book, Lessons From the Classroom: 20 Things Good Teachers Do. Visit his web site here.

Copyright © 2008 excellence & ethics