Article: The Lord hears the cry of the poor

DOUGLAS MCMANAMAN

This month the Holy Father prays that international attention towards the poorer countries may give rise to more concrete help, in particular to relieve them of the crushing burden of foreign debt.

The poorest countries in the world spend billions of dollars each year merely servicing their debt, yet they have paid it many times over through the years of debt service. This is a grave injustice that continues because the hearts of certain people in key banking positions remain unconverted, and an intellectual conversion only occurs on condition that the heart grants it permission to change.

It is easy to despair in the face of such a huge injustice. This world is very large, and our efforts to bring about change are far more feeble than we tend to realize. But there is the virtue of hope, and the object of that hope is not our own efforts, but the promises of God.

I know of a school principal who one day made an announcement to all the drug dealers in the school that their days were numbered, that she was coming after them and that the school would soon be wiped clean of drug suppliers. She had no idea how she was going to accomplish this, but she stepped forward in fortitude and a faith that hopes in the Lord, and made that announcement. In order to succeed, however, she'd have to rely on the providence of God, and she knew it.

Almost immediately, the administration team found themselves at the right place at the right time, on a number of occasions. By the end of the semester, the main drug dealers had been discovered and expelled. The administration team knows that it was all providence, and it began when they chose not to despair, but to take the first little steps in a spirit of hope; for when that happened, the Lord joined their feeble efforts and of course His steps are much larger and His efforts accomplish so much more than we expect. However, He waits for us to make the first move.

But drug dealers in a school are a local problem; foreign debt is much larger. Nevertheless, there is something we can do. St. Therese of Lisieux, whom Pius the X called the greatest saint of modern times, actually taught that doing ordinary acts with extraordinary love of God has far reaching effects around the globe. She writes: "By our little acts of charity practiced in the shade we convert souls far away, we help missionaries, we win for them abundant alms; and by that means build actual dwellings spiritual and material for our Eucharistic Lord."

Benedictine abbot Francois-Louis Blosius said that a soul which abandons herself to God's action without reserve allowing Him to operate as He wishes in her, does more for His glory and for souls in an hour than others in years.

In other words, we have the power to change hearts. In the writings of many of the great saints and contemplatives, there is a clear understanding that we do more for the world through a passive giving up of ourselves to God's action than we can through our own actions. Blessed Dom Marmion wrote: "Your passive giving up of yourself to God's action is the most pleasing thing you can do for Him, and most useful for the Church. …The more one approaches God, the simpler his prayer becomes, till it ends in one long sigh after God, …While given up to God's action in prayer, you are doing more for God's glory and souls, than all human activity could do. God has no need of our activity. If He wants it, He will point it out to us."

Benedictine abbot Francois-Louis Blosius said that a soul which abandons herself to God's action without reserve allowing Him to operate as He wishes in her, does more for His glory and for souls in an hour than others in years.

We need to pray and reflect on this insight, because it expresses the entire law of Christ's redemption. God hears the cry of the poor, and if we believe this, we need only empty ourselves and pray that God increase charity within us so that we may carry out ordinary acts with great love of God, without the left hand knowing what the right hand is doing. Let us offer these little acts in union with the Holy Father's intention for this month.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Douglas McManaman. "The Lord hears the cry of the poor." Canadian Messenger of the Sacred Heart (June, 2009)

Reprinted with permission of Douglas McManaman.

THE AUTHOR

Doug McManaman is a Deacon and a Religion and Philosophy teacher at Father Michael McGivney Catholic Academy in Markham, Ontario, Canada. He is the past president of the Canadian Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. He maintains the following web site for his students: A Catholic Philosophy and Theology Resource Page, in support of his students. He studied Philosophy at St. Jerome's College in Waterloo, and Theology at the University of Montreal. Deacon McManaman is on the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Copyright © 2009 Douglas McManaman

Article: The Beatitudes: Generosity and Happiness

FATHER JOHN HARDON, S.J.

We might remind ourselves that there are two sides to the Gospel ethic.

On the one hand, there are many obstacles that we have to remove, temptations we must overcome. On the other hand, despite having constantly to war against our native impulses, the evil spirit and the machinations of the world, we are also bidden to give ourselves to God.

Both elements of our spiritual life are essential. We have native tendencies in us -- the passions -- that tend to tyrannize us. What we talk about as the Seven Capital Sins, I like to call our seven basic tendencies as fallen human beings. We also know that to ignore the fact that we must war against ourselves and against the seductions of evil all around us would be folly. On the other hand, we are also to practice virtue. Our focus here is on that aspect -- what we sometimes call the positive side of the Gospel ethic.

This second side of our Christian responsibility is synthesized in the Beatitudes, which our Savior gave us. There are certain classic passages in Christ's teaching that remain the cornerstones of our lives. Such, for example, is the Lord's Prayer; such is Christ's discourse in the sixth chapter of John when He promised the Eucharist; such is His long homily at the Last Supper before He died; such are the Beatitudes.

There are two versions of the Beatitudes in the Gospels; one of four and the other of eight. Over the centuries, Christian wisdom has speculated on how the four are really the eight, and how the eight can be synthesized into four. We shall concentrate on the eight Beatitudes by first looking briefly at their significance in themselves, and how what we call the Beatitudes are in many ways the Magna Carta of Christian perfection. So much so that the Second Vatican Council, which spoke more than all the other councils put together on the religious life, describes religious life as a "lifetime commitment to practicing the Beatitudes."

Why are they significant? Because they are uniquely Christian principles of human conduct. Winston Churchill, on one occasion (you know he was capable of summarizing a lot in a few words), observed sagely how the British Empire could not survive for one week if it were based on the Beatitudes. Right he was! Secular society is not expected to, nor does it, operate on the Beatitudes.

The norms set down in the Beatitudes go far beyond the dialogue in which Christ confirmed the Decalogue. The Beatitudes are its fulfillment. The Ten Commandments given on Mt. Sinai summarize pre-Christian morality. The Beatitudes assume the Decalogue and they go beyond it. One reason the Beatitudes are able, humanly speaking, to make such heavy demands on human nature is because God, when He became man, gave man the grace to go beyond the Decalogue.

The Beatitudes are a perfect synthesis of Christ's own life; they are, if you wish, a summary of Christ's own practice of virtue. When we say that perfection consists in following Christ and ask what that means, we can answer that it means practicing the Beatitudes, which Christ first practiced and then preached.

The Beatitudes exemplify the paradoxical character of Christianity. We speak of Christian mysteries, and so they are. They are not fully comprehensible to the human mind. We are told, "He that loses his life will find it" and "Those who are great, but become small, will inherit the kingdom." We are told that God has chosen the "little things," the "foolish things," to confound the strong and the wise. These are all paradoxes. But what is a paradox? It is an apparent contradiction. I like to identify mystery with paradox, and say that our faith is full of paradoxes.

In the Beatitudes, the paradox is happiness, which Christ promises if a person does certain things that naturally -- or humanly speaking -- are the very opposite of what we would expect to bring happiness. In short, He tells us to do things that we don't naturally enjoy and then tells us we are going to have joy. "Come, come," we say, "Lord, now what do you mean?" "What?" He tells us, "You have heard the word supernatural haven't you?" "Yes, of course, Lord." "Well, that is what I mean. The super part of supernatural is that which I give unexpectedly by your giving up certain things. You sacrifice pleasure and I will give you joy."

There are many translations of the Beatitudes. One begins with, "How happy . . ." Why? Because it implies how unexpectedly happy "are the poor in spirit." One difficulty in speaking on the foundations of our faith is that, in the nature of things, we have heard such things so often, we have read so much about them, we have prayed about these things so many times, we are tempted to think they are like relearning a multiplication table. No! Every time we direct our faith-inspired minds to these mysteries we learn more about them.

How happy are the poor in spirit, theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.

This Beatitude assumes that someone either already has certain possessions or gifts and is nevertheless poor in spirit, or that he does not have certain things but is detached from what he doesn't have. Do you know we can be attached to things we don't have? Talk about being strange creatures! Are we ever odd! In either case, poverty of spirit is "detachment of spirit."

I am not sure which class of people finds it harder to practice this Beatitude. I suppose, though, that it is those who have more, de facto, and are nevertheless bidden by Christ to be poor in spirit; they had better be, otherwise they won't be happy. They must be detached from what they have.

We are not to parade our gifts. Oh, is that ever hard! As my fourth grade teacher told me -- (God bless her) she is still living and tells me she is praying for me. I tell her, "Sister Georgine, keep praying!" She took me aside one day after class and she said, "John, don't be a showoff."

Like what? Like a good mind. Having taught some very intelligent men over the years, I tell them, especially those who have troubles with their cerebration, "Look, maybe you have never thought of it this way. Do you know the heaviest cross you have?" They are not sure. "It is your very good mind. You have such a sharp intellect, it is causing you all kinds of pain. You see problems where other people don't even notice any reason for a problem."

We must be detached even from such things as intelligence -- skills of any kind. These include social abilities like affability or ability in speech. Some, as I have discovered, have good minds but they just go into a tangle when they face an audience. They get tongue-tied. In my younger days, before my ordination, I taught speech. What a pathetic sight to see a first-class mind looking at its shoes in addressing an audience. But some can talk, write, pray. We all must pray, but some of us do it easier than others.

We are required, then, to be detached in spirit so that we use the gifts we have as God wants us to use them, and to enjoy them only insofar as the Lord wants us to enjoy them, but never to take complacency in any creature. And, of course, we tend to take complacency in the creature that we most enjoy.

We are, therefore, not to dwell on what we have. Not to think ourselves better than somebody else because we have more than someone else has. Why? Because whatever we have is a gift. We are not to parade our gifts. Oh, is that ever hard! As my fourth grade teacher told me -- (God bless her) she is still living and tells me she is praying for me. I tell her, "Sister Georgine, keep praying!" She took me aside one day after class and she said, "John, don't be a showoff."

First then, "poor in spirit" means not taking complacency (and this is not easy), so that we don't dwell on what we've got or what we have done; it is often the last citadel that virtue will conquer.

Happy are the gentle, they shall have the earth for their heritage.

As you read this, you are probably tempted to say, "Lord, thanks, but I am not particularly interested in the earth for my heritage." Before we address that, let us consider what "gentleness" means. The word is not easily defined because gentleness is not much respected in today's world. It is the aggressive personality who gets all he can out of life. He is the hero of our literature.

Gentleness is strength restrained by love.

Gentleness is strength restrained by love. Only strong people can be gentle. Others can seem to be, but they are not. I don't know much about art criticism, but I have read some volumes in the field. One world-famous art critic said that if you want to depict strength of power or energy, always picture it poised. And he compared two images. In on picture, a huge many-ton boulder lies at the bottom of a canyon. In the other picture, the boulder is just on the edge at the top of the canyon, and you are almost afraid it is going to fall even as you look at the picture. The second image is strength, power held back.

Gentleness, therefore, is not weakness; it is just the opposite. It means that someone has hurt me but I don't hurt back. How many times in public I have been told things when everything in me cries out to tear a person to shreds. Especially when you recognize a mediocre mind. But you don't, not because you can't, but because love keeps you from doing that which nature urges you to do.

Now to the promise of having the earth for our heritage, or whatever expressions other translators use. According to the Fathers of the Church, who comment very much on the Beatitudes, this means the ability, through God's grace, to prevail over others. Gentleness conquers, gentleness wins, gentleness overcomes, gentleness prevails over the hardest hearts, over the most humanly impossible situations (and, as you know, all the impossible situations are human situations). To prevail over human wills; there is no more difficult conquest on earth. The secret is restraint, gentleness.

Happy are those who mourn; they shall be comforted.

Now as you know, there is trouble with our English language. Did you know that English is not a Catholic language? And by now it is getting to be a very secularized language. Because, while the labels remain quite constant, the meaning of what's behind the label is determined by the persons who use the language. If the culture that uses the language is a believing culture, the words or the labels will have the corresponding meaning. As the culture becomes less and less believing, or believing in things that are not Christian, the labels may remain the same but the meaning changes. As you discover in conversation with intelligent secularists, although we use the same words, we are not saying the same things.

Of all the paradoxes, "Happy those who mourn, they shall be comforted" is, humanly speaking, the nearest to a contradiction that we can conceive. It is like saying, "Happy are those who are unhappy." Clearly, we have to distinguish, and even in distinguishing, we are stuck with the same lexicon. We have to keep using these same words. We must cut off, trim here and add there, and say we don't quite mean this but something a little different.

It may help to distinguish between sorrow and sadness. Christ does not mean "happy those who are sad." Sadness is mourning, but it is either mourning over things that don't deserve to be mourned over, or it is going beyond the extent to which they were supposed to be mourned. It is either mourning over the wrong object or excessive mourning.

As the culture becomes less and less believing, or believing in things that are not Christian, the labels may remain the same but the meaning changes. As you discover in conversation with intelligent secularists, although we use the same words, we are not saying the same things.

Sorrow, on the other hand, is grief over what deserves to be mourned (and mourned in the right way). The Gospels give us a fine description of what is to be mourned in the two episodes where we are told that Our Lord wept. He wept over Jerusalem and at Lazarus' tomb. Why did Christ weep over Jerusalem? Because Jerusalem was sinning! What, then, is a correct object for mourning? Sin. Christ Himself, the Son of God, not only mourned over Jerusalem, but what happened in Gethsemane? He was in positive agony. We say, with some justification, this was in anticipating His sufferings, but mainly it was due to sin -- our sin.

At Lazarus' tomb, Christ sorrowed over Lazarus' death. We, too, sorrow over the loss of people we love. God does some uncanny things. He puts lovable people into our lives. And, leave it up to God, you know what He always does? He takes them away.

What are we promised? Not comfort in some cheap sense. But comfort that brings strength or fortitude to bear patiently with the sorrows God puts into our lives. It is, therefore, not wrong to mourn. Is that news? I hope it isn't. There are times we should give in to our sorrow. But we should also know when to turn away from it.

Happy are those who hunger and thirst for what is right, for they shall be satisfied.

As you know, you can re-read the Gospels by just accenting the different words. You can practically write ten Gospels for each one of the four. I like this accent: they shall be satisfied.

We have all sorts of desires. "Hunger and thirst" is simply symbolic language for desires. You name the desires and we've got them. And it is just as well that most people don't know what we desire -- we would lose a lot of friends. Being honest with ourselves, we know that not all of our desires -- these hungers and thirsts -- are for what is right. Consequently, truth in the following of Christ consists in desiring and then choosing what is right. And what is the beauty of that? Ah, how sweet this is: we will get rid of all our frustrations. Honest! Do you know why? Because all of our desires will be satisfied. Isn't that wonderful?

We are torn. Whereas the only question that should ever be on our minds is not how appealing a thing is, or how sweet, or fragrant, or melodious, to use symbolic terms, but how right it is. Having right desires, we can relax; they will all be satisfied.

Frustration is unfulfilled desires. Frequently, the trouble is not with having desires -- that is what life this side of Heaven is -- desires, as Heaven is their fulfillment. The trouble is in what we desire. Heaven is the fulfillment of desires, provided we desire what is right. And that is not easy because there a lot of things that clamor for satisfaction, and so seductively present themselves as appealing. "Won't you choose me?" Then a smile, then a little tinkle of a bell, then a fragrance. We are torn. Whereas the only question that should ever be on our minds is not how appealing a thing is, or how sweet, or fragrant, or melodious, to use symbolic terms, but how right it is. Having right desires, we can relax; they will all be satisfied.

What is the "right" for which we are to hunger and thirst? The word has many possible translations; let me suggest a few. That is "right" which leads me to my destiny. That is "right" which leads me to where I am going directly. "Right," in the sense of direct, straight. It is "right" because it is correct.

The assurance we have, then, is of satisfaction (a sense of achievement). Oh, how we all need that. Here in this life, what is the secret? To desire what is right. And the promise, remember, this is all in this world yet. Do you hear it? It is not just that eschatological future, but here and now. Provided we choose the right things, then, when we desire we shall be satisfied.

Happy are the merciful; they shall have mercy shown to them.

Some words drop out of common usage when people cease to believe in what they stand for. Mercy is not a popular word outside of Christianity. What is it? Mercy is love that overcomes resistance. I love in spite of the fact that I am not loved. I love those things which cause me difficulty and trouble. I love even those who not only don't love me, but who may oppose me, who may hate me. This is what God's mercy is towards us. It is His love overcoming resistance. And you know who offers resistance to God's love -- we do. Yet in spite of us, God loves us. That is mercy.

How happy are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.

There are many meanings to the expression "pure of heart" or "purity of heart." But the one that we cannot omit is the internal chastity of mind, symbolized by the biblical word "heart." Whenever the Scriptures want to interiorize a virtue, they speak of having it in one's heart.

We usually think of chastity in the external order, because quite obviously it deals with the senses and the control of the venereal pleasures natural to us. "Purity of heart" is internal chastity of mind or what I like to call it, "chastity of the imagination." This is more than chastity of body, or chastity of the senses. It means that kind of custody over the internal movements of my spirit in which I sacrifice the very laudable, and beautiful and sacred satisfaction which God permits only to those who are married and only within the marital embrace. Furthermore, "purity of heart" is required of all Christ's followers. It is not only priests or religious, who vow to celibacy, who are called to practice chastity of heart; married people outside of their own marital relations are too. Not easy!

For millions of youth in our society, chastity before marriage is extremely difficult. This is clear from the lives in shambles of the by-now millions of young men and women who have tasted, as they thought, the "pleasures of sex," and found themselves betrayed by a tyrant.

Those of us who are vowed to chastity must cultivate the virtue of chastity, which is deeply interior, in order to give the kind of witness -- oh, how the world needs the witness -- of consecrated chastity today.

The promise is they shall see God. Chastity confers clarity of vision. It enables a person to see God in a way that those who do not practice chastity, or even those who have not vowed themselves to a life of chastity, are privileged to enjoy. And no one cheats here! That perspicacious capacity which partakes of mysticism -- to be able to see God even in this life, His beauty and His goodness, even in the most impossible situations of life -- is reserved for those who have learned the secret of purity of heart.

How happy are the peacemakers, they shall be called the children of God.

There is so much disorder in the world that God wants peacemakers. Peacemaking means reconciliation: first with God, the highest kind of peacemaking; with themselves, and within themselves. What is the promise? A special affection from God, even as a mother or father has for a child. In the apostolate, we are to labor to reconcile sinners with God: people we love, people we want only the best for, who are estranged from God, or who are estranged among themselves.

Finally as a kind of capstone, there is the most unexpected kind of happiness.

Happy are those who suffer persecution for justice sake, they shall possess the kingdom of God.

Christ knew He couldn't let this Beatitude stand alone. He had to explain it. "Happy," He tells us, "are you when men reproach you, persecute you, and speaking falsely, say all manner of evil against you for my sake." "Lord, do you mean it?" Yes, He does.

"Rejoice!" He already said "happy"! Now He says, "rejoice." And then He adds (He really wanted to get this one across) "and be very glad, your reward in Heaven is very great." They persecuted the prophets and, as He intimated, that is what they were doing to Him. "If you want to be like Me," He says, "rejoice!" I cannot tell you how much this Beatitude has meant to me. Sometimes it is the only thing that keeps me sane.

"Purity of heart" is internal chastity of mind or what I like to call it, "chastity of the imagination." This is more than chastity of body, or chastity of the senses. It means that kind of custody over the internal movements of my spirit . . .

What is persecution all about? It is about the things we used to read about. We used to shake our heads, saying how terrible those times used to be. How hard it was in those early centuries of persecution, as we call them. How difficult it must have been for the people, say, in the sixteenth-century at the time of the so-called Reformation.

Well, we used to read history. We never dreamt this would happen. It did. We in this generation are being called upon to make history. And the only ones who will make history -- meaning those whose names will be remembered -- not only in the Book of God, but the annals of men in the Church of the future, are those who in these day have learned to stand up for the Truth. But in doing so, you must expect to be opposed. If you are not persecuted, if you are not opposed, if you are not spoken falsely about, if people don't say all manner of evil against you for Christ's sake; suspect today your loyalty to the Master.

This is one of those not too frequent ages in history called an "age of persecution." Did you know that, statistically, there have been more martyrs who have died for the name of Christ since 1900 than in all the centuries of Christianity put together? That is right! My first prayer book was in Russian print. Most of my blood-relatives were behind the Iron Curtain. Some have died for their faith.

Let us pray and sacrifice so that God might strengthen our fellow Christians, fellow members of the same Mystical Body who are suffering for Jesus. Let us pray that God will send them the grace so that they might persevere, as He said, to the end.

And let us pray for ourselves that we too, individually and corporately -- the Church, our bishops, our priests, religious, and the laity -- might have the strength not only to be called faithful, but to be faithful. Because we are being persecuted, in our country, not with fire and sword, but with what is often even more successful: seduction, blandishment and the sad example of those who still call themselves Christians, but who have betrayed the Name of Christ.

Let's ask our Savior who gave us the Beatitudes to help us live them. They are the promise of joy on earth, as an anticipation of joy in Heaven, for those who have lived out what they have learned, what Christ told them they must do to be like Him.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father John A. Hardon. "The Beatitudes: Generosity and Happiness." Inter Mirifica (2001).

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 Spiritual Life in the Modern World, 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 © 2009 Inter Mirifica

Wednesday Liturgy: Laypeople's Use of Oil

ROME, JULY 28, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: There are chaplains who minister at a local Catholic hospital and one of them likes to use "oil" when she prays with the patients (Catholics and non-Catholics). I feel that this causes confusion. One of the chaplains attended a recent convention of chaplains and was told by a presenter that this practice is allowed as long as they tell the patients that they are not receiving the sacrament of the sick. I seem to recall that years ago the Vatican came out with a document on the use of oil by laypersons. Could you please comment? -- A.S., Bridgeport, New York

A: The document you refer to is probably the 1997 instruction "On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest." This is an unusual document insofar as it was formally issued by the Congregation for Clergy but was co-signed by no fewer than eight Vatican congregations and councils, including that of the Doctrine of the Faith. This gives the document a certain weight with respect to its authority.

The document first presents the theological principles behind its decisions before giving a series of practical considerations on aspects of lay ministry in the Church. Then, having laid the groundwork, it enunciates in 13 articles practical provisions and norms that outline the possibilities and limits of the collaboration of the lay faithful in priestly ministry.

The first article, on the "Need for an Appropriate Terminology," attempts to clarify the multiple uses of the expression "ministry." This responds to an intuition of Pope John Paul II who, "In his address to participants at the Symposium on 'Collaboration of the Lay Faithful with the Priestly Ministry' , emphasized the need to clarify and distinguish the various meanings which have accrued to the term 'ministry' in theological and canonical language."

The document accepts that the term "ministry" is applicable to the laity in some cases:

"§3. The non-ordained faithful may be generically designated 'extraordinary ministers' when deputed by competent authority to discharge, solely by way of supply, those offices mentioned in Canon 230, §3 and in Canons 943 and 1112. Naturally, the concrete term may be applied to those to whom functions are canonically entrusted e.g. catechists, acolytes, lectors etc.

"Temporary deputation for liturgical purposes -- mentioned in Canon 230, §2 -- does not confer any special or permanent title on the non-ordained faithful."

However: "It is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as 'pastor,' 'chaplain,' 'coordinator,' 'moderator' or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest."

Another article, No. 9, is on "The Apostolate to the Sick." Regarding our reader's question on the use of oil in a non-sacramental way, the article is very clear:

"§1. [] The non-ordained faithful particularly assist the sick by being with them in difficult moments, encouraging them to receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, by helping them to have the disposition to make a good individual confession as well as to prepare them to receive the Anointing of the Sick. In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments whose administration is proper and exclusive to the Bishop and to the priest. Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or any other oil.

"§2. With regard to the administration of this sacrament, ecclesiastical legislation reiterates the theologically certain doctrine and the age old usage of the Church which regards the priest as its only valid minister. This norm is completely coherent with the theological mystery signified and realized by means of priestly service.

"It must also be affirmed that the reservation of the ministry of Anointing to the priest is related to the connection of this sacrament to the forgiveness of sin and the worthy reception of the Holy Eucharist. No other person may act as ordinary or extraordinary minister of the sacrament since such constitutes simulation of the sacrament."

To many it might appear that this document is excessively restrictive in its dispositions. Yet by providing clear guidelines and demarcations of proper competences based on solid theological reasons, it actually facilitates fruitful collaboration between priests and laity in a true spirit of charity and service to Christ, the Church and to souls.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Substituting the Psalm

ROME, JULY 28, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


In relation to our July 14 answer on the responsorial psalm, a New Zealand reader asked: "Are the first or second readings in the liturgy optional? I have attended Mass in New Zealand where either the first or second reading is omitted and the Gospel acclamation is completely ignored."

The principles involved here are found in the Introduction to the lectionary.

Regarding Masses on Sundays and solemnities, No. 79 of the Introduction says: "In Masses to which three readings are assigned, all three are to be used. If, however, for pastoral reasons the Conference of Bishops has given permission for two readings only to be used, the choice between the two first readings is to be made in such a way as to safeguard the Church's intent to instruct the faithful more completely in the mystery of salvation. Thus, unless the contrary is indicated in the text of the Lectionary, the reading to be chosen as the first reading is the one that is more closely in harmony with the Gospel, or, in accord with the intent just mentioned, the one that is more helpful toward a coherent catechesis over an extended period, or that preserves the semicontinuous reading of some biblical book."

With respect to the weekday readings, No. 82 says:

"The arrangement of weekday readings provides texts for every day of the week throughout the year. In most cases, therefore, these readings are to be used on their assigned days, unless a solemnity, a feast, or else a memorial with proper readings occurs.

"In using the Order of Readings for weekdays attention must be paid to whether one reading or another from the same biblical book will have to be omitted because of some celebration occurring during the week. With the arrangement of readings for the entire week in mind, the priest in that case arranges to omit the less significant passages or combines them in the most appropriate manner with other readings, if they contribute to an integral view of a particular theme."

Therefore, unless the New Zealand bishops' conference has allowed the use of only two readings on Sunday, then three readings must be used. I have been unable to verify whether this is the case.

Although the lectionary offers ample possibilities for choosing various readings on weekdays, there is no provision for omitting one of the readings altogether. Hence, two readings and a psalm are always required.

On the other hand, the rubrics foresee the possibility of omitting the acclamation before the Gospel if it is not sung.

Article: Mission: Impossible?

SEAN MURPHY

The Gospel of Jesus Christ compels us to bring our faith to bear on public affairs.

The call to holiness

The real Good News -- the Gospel -- is that all of us are called to become holy -- to live in the presence of God, to put God at the centre of our lives. Some people think this means that we should behave and live like priests, monks and nuns. They're wrong.

Other people think that being an active Christian means being on parish council, or being a lector or extraordinary eucharistic minister, or singing in the choir -- doing 'churchy' things. They're wrong.

It's not that there is anything wrong with these things; they are good things. From them we derive grace and strength. And we need that grace and strength for our mission. But we are laymen, and our primary mission is not in the sanctuary or the choir loft, but in the world outside.

The laity -- that's us -- live in the world, not in the monastery or convent. Priests and religious have their own special responsibilities, their own mission. But our primary mission is in secular duties and activities. Our mission is in the hockey rink, on the soccer road trip, in the hospital, in school and on the job. We are supposed to have Christ at our side in all of these places, and make Him present in these places by acting as He would have us act.

The idea is that we are supposed to blend in like yeast in the dough. Yeast blends into the dough, but it remains yeast, and it changes the dough from inside. We are supposed to become part of the team, the class, the business or the town, but we are to remain Christian, and encourage our class mates, co-workers and friends to live according to the will of God.

Why live according to the will of God?

Well, we can't kick God out of creation. We can't tell God that He has no business in the logging camp or the classroom. We can't hide from God in a courtroom, a bedroom -- not even a closet.

We can't say, "God, you keep out of this. This is between me and the boss."

We can't say, "Get lost, God. This is between me and my wife, between me and my girlfriend."

We can't say, "God, it's Friday night. I want to get a little drunk. Butt out. Come back on Sunday."

We have one conscience, and one conscience only, not one for religious duties and a different one for the party -- whether it's a political party, or the weekend party. We have one conscience, a Christian conscience, and that is to guide us in everything that we do. Everything. There is no such thing as "I'm personally opposed, but . . .". Pontius Pilate was personally opposed to crucifying Our Lord, but he didn't want to impose his morality on the mob.

So, here we are, ready to live and act as Christians should. What response can we expect? Let's consider what happened to some people who tried to do just that.

Cases

Imagine yourself in the following real-life situations.

• You are a university student. You get into some heated debates in class when you defend your religious beliefs against what you perceive to be inaccurate or even hostile claims by your professor and classmates. Your professor reduces the mark on a paper, criticizing it as part of an "agenda of resistance."
  
  
• You are a student nurse. You refuse to dispense a drug that could cause abortion. Your supervisor has strongly indicated that this may result in a failing grade.

Dr. James Robert Brown, a professor of science and religion of the University of Toronto, has a simple answer for health care workers, like the student nurse, who don't want to be involved with things like abortion or contraception. These "scum" -- that's his word -- these "scum" should "resign from medicine and find another job." His reasoning is very simple.

Religious beliefs are highly emotional -- as is any belief that is affecting your behaviour in society. You have no right letting your private beliefs affect your public behaviour.

Mission: Impossible?

Now you know why I titled this talk "Mission: Impossible?" Christians must take part in worldly affairs, live a vigorous Christian life, and change the world so that all things are ordered to the glory of God. But Christians who actually try to do this may be disciplined, fired, or threatened with other penalties. People like Dr. Brown call us 'scum' and say that we have no right letting our personal or private beliefs affect our behaviour in society.

How do we answer them?

The Response

There are a number of possible responses. Today I will give you four.

1. Personal and private doesn't mean insignificant.
   
   
2. All beliefs influence public behaviour.
   
   
3. Everyone is a believer -- even atheists.
   
   
4. Proposing is not imposing.

First: personal and private doesn't mean insignificant.

Professor Brown and others like to stress that religious beliefs are 'personal' and 'private'. This is intended to belittle us. It's meant to make us feel like we're alone, isolated, even eccentric.

Well, our beliefs are personal, in the sense that we personally accept them. They are private, in that what we believe is primarily our business, not someone else's.

But our beliefs are also shared with hundreds of millions of people, living and dead -- not just a few hundred thousand who happen to be alive and who, like Dr. Brown, occupy positions of power and influence.

We are not alone in our personal convictions. We are not few in number. There are literally billions of religious believers. Don't let people bully you by making you feel like strangers in your own world.

We share our beliefs with some of the greatest minds and imaginations in history. Some I need to introduce: Albertus Magnus -- St. Albert the Great, Great because of his extraordinary learning. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says he deserves "a pre-eminent place in the history of science."

Dante was the "greatest poet of Italy, if not of mediaeval and modern times."

The inventor of the barometer was Blaise Pascal, a genius among modern thinkers, and deeply interested in religion. We measure pressure in pascals, the unit of measure named for him.

And we share our beliefs with J.R.R. Tolkien, author of Lord of the Rings.

Not only great intellects, some of the most courageous souls through the ages have been religious believers: St. Joan of Arc, who led the armies of France; St. Thomas More, beheaded because he was "the King's good servant -- but God's first;" and St. Maximilian Kolbe, who volunteered to die in the place of another prisoner in a Nazi death camp.

Most important, we share our beliefs with some of the holiest people who have walked the face of the earth: St. Francis of Assisi, first to bear the wounds of Christ; Blessed Damien of Molokai, who died among the lepers he served near Hawaii; and Mother Teresa, who needs no introduction.

These were Catholics, but non-Catholics and non-Christians can make similar claims, including in their lists names like Sir Isaac Newton, the great scientist, the Muslim physician, Avicenna, Mahatma Gandhi, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor hanged by the Nazis.

The first point, then: personal and private doesn't mean insignificant. We are not alone in our personal convictions. We are not few in number. There are literally billions of religious believers. Don't let people bully you by making you feel like strangers in your own world.

Second: all beliefs influence public behaviour.

Professor Brown says that we must not let our so-called 'private' beliefs affect our public behaviour.

Really?

What about the ancient Indian emperor Asoka? After ten years of bloody wars, he became a Buddhist, and decided that he should rule his people like a father, with "morality and social compassion." Among other things, he provided them with free hospitals and veterinary clinics, and built new roads and rest houses for travellers. In other words, Asoka let his private beliefs affect his public behaviour. If we believe Professor Brown, this must have been bad news for his people.

Well, some might say, that was in ancient times. Let's bring it closer to us in time.

Well, we have every reason to demand the same freedom that Professor Brown claims for himself. All public behaviour -- how we treat other people, how we treat animals, how we treat the environment -- is determined by what we believe. All beliefs influence public behaviour.

How many of you have seen Saving Private Ryan? If you were shaken up by the D-Day landing scene in Saving Private Ryan, Dieppe was far worse. Fewer than half the Canadians who landed at Dieppe in 1942 made it back. The Royal Hamilton Light Infantry landed with 582 men; 365 were killed or taken prisoner. John Foote, a Presbyterian minister, was chaplain to the regiment. For an hour, during the retreat, Foote carried wounded men on his back to the boats. He deliberately returned to the beach to be taken prisoner with the men left behind. He was awarded the Victoria Cross. But Professor Brown says that people shouldn't let private beliefs affect their public behaviour. Maybe he thinks that Foote didn't deserve it.

Let's bring it even closer in time, and closer to home. Toronto, a few years ago.

During World Youth Day celebrations, a quarter million young people filled the streets of Toronto. What they did in public -- on the streets, in buses and subways, in the parks -- was influenced by their religious convictions. And you know what? People loved it. They thought it was great. They wished that people behaved like that all the time.

I don't know where Professor Brown was during World Youth Day. Maybe he fled in terror at the thought of all those young people acting as if their faith really meant something.

But let's take an even closer look at what Professor Brown had to say. What was he doing when he gave that interview to the reporter? What was he doing when he proclaimed that no one should be allowed to act in public according to private beliefs?

Professor Brown was -- - acting on his beliefs. It was his personal belief, his private conviction, that we should not be allowed to act upon our beliefs and convictions. Well, we have every reason to demand the same freedom that Professor Brown claims for himself. All public behaviour -- how we treat other people, how we treat animals, how we treat the environment -- is determined by what we believe. All beliefs influence public behaviour.

And this brings me to the third point.

Everyone is a believer, even atheists.

An atheist believes that God does not exist. He believes it, just as a Christian believes that God does exist. The Christian has a belief about God; the atheist has a belief about God. One is a religious belief; the other a non-religious belief, but both are beliefs. The atheist is as much a believer as a Christian when it comes to the existence of God.

Moreover, belief is absolutely essential to society. Human society can exist without science, without technology. It exists wherever people live together, whether or not they are scientifically or technologically advanced.

But society cannot exist without belief. Everyone here will believe that tomorrow is 31 May -- because that is what you have been told. It won't be because you've done the astronomical observations to prove it. If people believe in human dignity, equality and justice, it will not be because these things are facts proved by scientific experiment. Some of the most important decisions we make in life are based on belief, not certainty. Will I move to Alberta? Will I be a carpenter or a teacher? What woman will I marry? Will this man be a good husband? How many children shall we have? Belief, not certainty, decides these things.

But here's the central point for us today. People who don't believe in God may defend and promote what they believe is good for man and society, and they may do so in public. People who aren't members of a religion may ask their neighbours and the government to respect what they believe is good for people. Atheists may ask for policies and laws to protect what that they believe is good for man and society -- like health care, for example. These are all believers. They don't believe in God, they don't believe in a particular religion, but they are all believers, and they are free to act on their beliefs in public and to promote them.

Well, so are we. We are believers too, and we have the same freedom to act on our beliefs in public and to promote them as non-religious believers. Professor Brown is free to propose his ideas about how people ought to behave in public, even if his ideas come from his personal beliefs. So are we.

Here we come to our final point.

Proposing is not imposing.

"It isn't right to impose your beliefs on other people."

All citizens are free to propose ideas about how people should live and work together. All citizens are free to plead, to argue, to lobby, to convince other people to accept their ideas about what is good for people and good for our country. That is not imposing beliefs. That is good citizenship in a democratic society, and we need more of that, not less.

You've heard that, and you know it's not entirely true. Society often impose beliefs by law. We believe that it is wrong to murder, to break into houses, to assault people, to defraud them. If somebody doesn't believe that, and starts breaking into houses or killing people, we will impose our beliefs by throwing him into jail.

So to say, "It isn't right to impose your beliefs on other people" isn't entirely true. But that means it isn't entirely false. We may throw people into jail for murder, but not for refusing to accept Christianity. We may fine people for speeding, but we don't fine them for not going to church on Sunday.

I am not going to talk about how to decide when beliefs should be imposed, for two reasons.

First: you don't want to stay here for the rest of the week.

Second: we are not talking now about imposing beliefs, but about proposing them. All citizens are free to make proposals about laws or social policies. All citizens are free to propose ideas about how people should live and work together. All citizens are free to plead, to argue, to lobby, to convince other people to accept their ideas about what is good for people and good for our country.

That is not imposing beliefs. That is good citizenship in a democratic society, and we need more of that, not less.

Summary

So when we are told that we can't let our personal religious beliefs determine how we behave in public, that we can't impose our religious convictions or ideas on others, what do we say?

• First: personal and private doesn't mean insignificant. We share our beliefs with hundreds of millions, if not billions of others.
  
  
• Second: all beliefs influence public behaviour. The person who tells us we can't let our beliefs influence how we behave is a hypocrite, trying to get us to act according to his belief.
  
  
• Third: everyone is a believer -- even atheists. Belief is essential. Most of the time we have to act on belief because there isn't time for anything else.
  
  
• Fourth: proposing is not imposing. It's good citizenship.

Conclusion

I hope these four points will give you more confidence to use your freedom as the Lord would have it used. But don't get the idea that things will be easy.

Henry Morgentaler has demanded that no religious organization -- especially the Catholic Church -- be allowed to operate hospitals, because they won't provide abortions. Others are suggesting that the Church should be deprived of its schools precisely because it is faithful to the Gospel rather than "the public policy of Canada" that is said to support homosexual lifestyles. And the Chief Justice of Canada said that the law claims ultimate and total authority over us. All of these statements are demands that we accept the state as our supreme authority. We shall have no king but Caesar.

"We have no king but Caesar!"

Where have we heard that before? When you hear that, you know what path lies before us. But, after all, St. Thomas More said that the Lord we follow didn't go to heaven in a feather bed, and we should not expect better for ourselves.

Mission: Impossible?

Humanly speaking, yes. But, humanly speaking, so was the Resurrection. With God, all things are possible.

Thank you.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Sean Murphy. "Mission: Impossible?" the second part of a talk given at the B.C. Catholic Women's League Convention (May 29, 2009).

Reprinted with permission of the author, Sean Murphy. The full address -- with endnotes -- is available at the Catholic Civil Rights League web site here.

THE AUTHOR

Sean Murphy is the administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project and a director for Western Canada of the Catholic Civil Rights League. Sean Murphy is on the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Copyright © 2009 Sean Murphy

Article: Heaven

PETER KREEFT

Quo vadis? Where are you going? That's the most important question for a traveler. And we the living are all travelers.

Death calls us all and moves us on. Stability is illusion. So those who cannot abide illusion must raise the question: Quo vadis?

If heaven is not the answer to the question, our whole faith is false, and Jesus was a fool. If it is, then there's nothing that is more important in the whole world. Indeed, the whole world is only heaven's womb.

Why do we hear so little about this today, even from the pulpit? Why are we told by our "leading theologians" that we must take our eyes off the clouds and keep them on the ground? Why is it so outrageously irresponsible to think more about heaven than politics? Because these leading theologians are really following theologians, with their noses to the tail of the modern world. They are in fact upside down: not only are their eyes stuck in the mud, but their feet are kicking up in rebellion at the sky. They want to turn Christianity -- which in the clear teaching of its founder was an otherworldly religion of faith, hope, and charity -- into a this-worldly religion of prosperity and success (the Right with its electronic Church) or of political revolution (the left with its liberation theology).

But these shams don't satisfy for long. Prosperity is boring. The suicide rate in Sweden is something like a thousand times that of Haiti. And even revolution is finally boring. No revolution can survive its own success. Every revolution turns into a new tyranny, and Ecclesiastes' cycles return like the clouds after a rain.

The big, blazing, terrible truth about man is that he has a heaven-sized hole in his heart, and nothing else can fill it. We pass our lives trying to fill the Grand Canyon with marbles. As Augustine said: "Thou hast made us for thyself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in thee." That's the greatest sentence ever written outside Scripture because it tells us the secret of our destiny, our happiness -- and our unhappiness, It is, however, not only unfashionable but terribly threatening. It tears the band-aid off our wound. It shows up our false gods for the tiny things they are compared with our own hearts. People do not take kindly to idol smashing. Look what they did to the prophets.

But we should be encouraged. Even the sceptic who does not believe in heaven has a heaven-shaped heart. The deck is stacked and the dice are loaded, loaded with the love of heaven. Amor meus, pondus meum, said Augustine: "My love is my weight." The gravity of his own heart pulls the sceptic in heaven's direction, even while the antigravity of sin pulls him away.

But the head must often be outwitted, for it is entangled in verbal prejudices. Talk about heaven and you'll get sneers. But talk about a mysterious dissatisfaction with life even when things go well -- especially when things go well -- and you'll get a hearing from man's heart, even if his lips will not agree.

No one longs for fluffy clouds and sexless cherubs, but everyone longs for heaven. No one longs for any of the heavens that we have ever imagined, but everyone longs for "something no eye has seen, no ear has heard, something that has not entered into the imagination of man, something God has prepared for those who love him."

We are still children, however hard we try to cover that up. There are no "grown-ups". When we get old, we only exchange our toys: business for bats, sex for sleds, power for popguns. At death our Father calls: "Come, little one. Time to put away your toys and come home."

But the head must often be outwitted, for it is entangled in verbal prejudices. Talk about heaven and you'll get sneers. But talk about a mysterious dissatisfaction with life even when things go well -- especially when things go well -- and you'll get a hearing from man's heart, even if his lips will not agree.

Home -- that's what heaven is. It won't appear strange and faraway and "supernatural", but utterly natural. Heaven is what we were designed for. All our epics seek it: It is the "home" of Odysseus, of Aeneas, of Frodo, of E.T. Heaven is not escapist. Worldliness is escapist. Heaven is home.

People think heaven is escapist because they fear that thinking about heaven will distract us from living well here and now. It is exactly the opposite, and the lives of the saints and our Lord himself prove it. Those who truly love heaven will do the most for earth. It's easy to see why. Those who love the homeland best work the hardest in the colonies to make them resemble the homeland. "Thy kingdom come. .. on earth as it is in heaven."

The pregnant woman who plans a live birth cares for her unborn baby; the woman who plans for an abortion does not. Highways that lead somewhere are well maintained; dead ends are not. So if we see life as a road to heaven, some of heaven's own glory will reflect back onto that road, if only by anticipation: the world is charged with the grandeur of God and every event smells of eternity. But if it all goes down the drain in death, then this life is just swirls of dirty water, and however comfortable we make our wallowing in it, it remains a vanity of vanities.

The existence of heaven, the desire for heaven, the nature of heaven, and the relevance of heaven are all important questions. But there is only one question that's absolutely essential, one question compared with which how we might save the world from a nuclear holocaust is trivial: "What must I do to be saved?" When I'm honest enough to look through the door of death, infinite joy or infinite joylessness loom up as my only two possible destinies. What decides for joy? What is heaven's entrance ticket? What is the Way, the Truth and the Life?

I am horrified to report that I've asked this question of hundreds of Catholic college students, and far fewer than half have known the answer. This means that the Church's religious education has been not a failure but an inexcusable disaster. Most reply either "God is good to everybody" or "I'm basically a good person."

If anyone out there is unsure of the correct answer, then for the love of God get out your Bible and study for your finals! To save you time -- since you may die while reaching for your Bible -- I will quote God's scandalously simple answer to the most important question in the world, how to get to heaven: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31).

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Peter Kreeft. "Heaven." excerpted from Fundamentals of the Faith.

This article is reprinted with permission from Peter Kreeft.

THE AUTHOR

Peter Kreeft has written extensively over 47 books in the areas of Christian apologetics. Link to all of Peter Kreeft's books here.

Peter Kreeft teaches at Boston College in Boston Massachusetts. He is on the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Copyright © 2005 Peter Kreeft

Wednesday Liturgy: Eastern Rites and Orthodox

ROME, JULY 21, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q1: Is there a real division/separation between Catholics of the Latin rite and Catholics of Eastern rites? Is a Catholic of the Latin rite debarred in anyway from participating in the liturgy of an Eastern-rite Catholic church? Does a Latin-rite Catholic have to follow a procedure before he can participate in the liturgy of an Eastern-rite Catholic church? -- H.W., Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago

Q2: May a Catholic attend Mass in an Orthodox church? Is not the Orthodox Church schismatic? -- E.T., Mairé-L'Evescault, France

A: Since these two questions are related I will take them together.

First, there is no division or separation between the Latin rite and the more than 20 Catholic Eastern Churches. There are, however, many differences and distinctions.

These multiple distinctions give each Church its characteristic identity within the one fold which is the Catholic Church.

The most obvious distinctions are external. Each Church uses a distinct ritual for Mass, the sacraments and sacramentals.

For those Churches where there is a corresponding Orthodox Church (for example, the several Byzantine or Melkite Churches, the Coptic, and the Syro-Malankara), an outsider would be hard-put to distinguish between the two celebrations. One key difference with the Orthodox: The Eastern-rite Catholics mention the Pope in the anaphora, or Eucharistic Prayer.

Compared to the Latin-rite Church, the Eastern-rite Churches differ in their internal organization. This is evident, for example, in the guiding role of the patriarch or major archbishop, the means of selecting bishops, and in some cases the presence of married priests.

None of these differences, however, constitute a separation of faith or of communion with the See of Peter.

Because of this, any Catholic may attend, receive Communion, and fulfill the holy day precept at any Catholic rite.

There is no formal procedure required before attending, but the ancient principle of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" should be diligently applied. Thus a Latin Catholic who wishes to attend one of these rites should acquaint himself with the basic practices and demands of the rite and adapt himself accordingly. For example, most Eastern rites remain standing for most of the celebration and do not kneel for the consecration; a Latin should respect this tradition. Some rites have stricter fasting rules before receiving Communion, and as far as possible a Latin should follow suit.

Frequency in attending an Eastern celebration does not inscribe a Catholic to that rite, just as an Eastern Catholic who habitually attends the Latin rite does not automatically become Latin. To formally switch rites in a permanent manner requires a formal procedure.

The question is somewhat diverse for the case of Orthodox Churches, which are not in full communion with Rome but which enjoy the apostolic succession and all seven sacraments. While full communion is lacking, the Catholic Church no longer considers these Churches as being in a formal schism or as being excommunicated.

From the Catholic standpoint, a member of the faithful who is unable to attend Mass because there is no Catholic celebration available, may, if he so wishes, attend and receive Communion at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

Likewise, an Orthodox Christian in a similar situation is allowed to receive Communion and some other sacraments in any Catholic rite. Such an attendance is always optional and is never obligatory, not even in order to fulfill a festive precept.

However, not all Orthodox Churches accept this, and some take a dim view of any form of intercommunion. Once more it is incumbent upon Catholics not to impinge on others' sensibilities and limit themselves to what is acceptable to each particular Church.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Healing Masses

ROME, JULY 21, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Related to our July 7 piece on healing Masses, a priest reader from Australia asked: "When a rather large number of people are to be anointed -- say, 100 or more -- during Mass, must the priest(s) lay hands individually on each sick person, or is it sufficient to hold out hands extended over the crowd before saying the prayer of thanksgiving over the oil, and then anointing each person individually?"

Both the ritual for Anointing within Mass and the Ceremonial of Bishops (No. 653) state that the proper order for this ritual is: litany; laying on of hands; blessing of oil or prayer of thanksgiving over the oil; anointing; concluding prayer. It is also permitted to have the litany after the anointing.

Regarding the laying on of hands, the Ceremonial of Bishops says: "The bishop and the presbyters who are to take part in the anointing lay hands in silence on some of the sick."

Therefore it would appear that the procedure for a large number of faithful would be for the priest(s) to lay hands on a representation of those who are to receive the sacrament. It is not required that they lay hands on all of them.

Wednesday Liturgy: Substituting the Psalm

ROME, JULY 14, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: Can the psalm after the first reading (usually from the Old Testament) be replaced by a hymn related to the second reading (usually from the New Testament) or the Gospel? Music groups rarely have a repertoire that includes all the psalms, but can usually find something related to the second reading or Gospel. -- J.S., London

A: The short answer to this question is no. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM, American translation) is quite explicit in No. 61, which deals with the psalm:

"After the first reading comes the responsorial Psalm, which is an integral part of the Liturgy of the Word and holds great liturgical and pastoral importance, because it fosters meditation on the word of God.

"The responsorial Psalm should correspond to each reading and should, as a rule, be taken from the Lectionary.

"It is preferable that the responsorial Psalm be sung, at least as far as the people's response is concerned. Hence, the psalmist, or the cantor of the Psalm, sings the verses of the Psalm from the ambo or another suitable place. The entire congregation remains seated and listens but, as a rule, takes part by singing the response, except when the Psalm is sung straight through without a response. In order, however, that the people may be able to sing the Psalm response more readily, texts of some responses and Psalms have been chosen for the various seasons of the year or for the various categories of Saints. These may be used in place of the text corresponding to the reading whenever the Psalm is sung. If the Psalm cannot be sung, then it should be recited in such a way that it is particularly suited to fostering meditation on the word of God.

"In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting; or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm."

Thus, although there is a lot of flexibility in order to promote singing the psalm, including the substitution of the psalm of the day and possible use of an approved metrical version, there is no occasion in which a non-biblical hymn may substitute the psalm.

This is because no human work, no matter now musically or poetically accomplished, can substitute God's inspired word. This norm is already found in the GIRM, No. 57:

"In the readings, the table of God's word is prepared for the faithful, and the riches of the Bible are opened to them. Hence, it is preferable to maintain the arrangement of the biblical readings, by which light is shed on the unity of both Testaments and of salvation history. Moreover, it is unlawful to substitute other, non-biblical texts for the readings and responsorial Psalm, which contain the word of God."

Only God's Word enjoys that special presence of Christ which is found during the liturgical proclamation of the Word. As St. Augustine wrote in his lectures on the Gospel of John (30,1):

"The passage of the holy Gospel of which we have before discoursed to you, beloved, is followed by that of today, which has just now been read. Both the disciples and the Jews heard the Lord speaking; both men of truth and liars heard the Truth speaking; both friends and enemies heard Charity speaking; both good men and bad men heard the Good speaking. They heard, but He discerned; He saw and foresaw whom His discourse profited and would profit. Among those who were then, He saw; among us who were to be, He foresaw. Let us therefore hear the Gospel, just as if we were listening to the Lord Himself present: nor let us say, O happy they who were able to see Him! because there were many of them who saw, and also killed Him; and there are many among us who have not seen Him, and yet have believed. For the precious truth that sounded forth from the mouth of the Lord was both written for our sakes, and preserved for our sakes, and recited for our sakes, and will be recited also for the sake of our prosperity, even until the end of the world. The Lord is above; but the Lord, the Truth, is also here. For the body of the Lord, in which He rose again from the dead, can be only in one place; but His truth is everywhere diffused. Let us then hear the Lord, and let us also speak that which He shall have granted to us concerning His own words."

God speaks to us through all the readings and not just the Gospels. We also respond to him using his inspired words which encapsulate all possible human reactions to the encounter with God.

Article: Subsidiarity: A Primer

BRAD MINER

Subsidiarity: A term (the Latin subsidium for aid, help) from Roman Catholic social philosophy which expresses the view that, whenever practicable, decisions ought to be made by those most affected by the decisions.

President Obama sincerely believes he and a legion of functionaries can efficiently direct America from the White House, which over several presidencies has come ever more to resemble Mount Olympus. He's not Zeus, but Mr. Obama is POTUS, a godlike acronym if ever there was one, and with Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid, he has given national-government bureaucrats management of aspects of American life previously deemed constitutionally off limits: car companies, banks, medical care, even the very air we breathe -- it's a long and lengthening list. One can't deny Barack Obama's boldness or his proficiency, even if you question the prudence and propriety of his interventionism.

No doubt there will be legal challenges to the current direction of at least some of these new policies and programs. I'm not a lawyer, and, in any event, hypothetical cases don't interest me. But moral challenges should be made as well, and those do matter to me. Subsidiarity matters to me, and it's useful to recall this core principle of Catholic social teaching (and of American federalism), especially this week, as Benedict XVI releases his third encyclical, Caritas in Veritate ("Charity in Truth"), which is expected to address the subsidiarity principle in the context of the global financial crisis.

Here's what I wrote about it a decade ago in my book, The Concise Conservative Encyclopedia, sandwiched between entries on Strauss, Leo (1899-1973) and Sumner, William Graham (1840-1910):

subsidiarity: A term (the Latin subsidium for aid, help) from Roman Catholic social philosophy which expresses the view that, whenever practicable, decisions ought to be made by those most affected by the decisions. Put another way: the national government ought only to do what the states cannot; the states only what communities cannot; communities only what families cannot; families only what individuals cannot. This is not to suggest that Catholic social theory (especially as read in papal encyclicals) is always in favor of the minimalist state. John XXIII in Pacem in Terris (1963), while affirming the doctrine of subsidiarity, called for publicly funded health and unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, and government support for the arts. Still, it is clear that "a planned economy . . . violates the principle of subsidiarity . . ." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965). Read: R.J. Neuhaus, Doing Well and Doing Good (1992). "Just as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to the community at large what private enterprise and endeavor can accomplish, so it is likewise unjust and a gravely harmful disturbance of right order to turn over to a greater society of higher rank functions and services which can be performed by lesser bodies on a lower plane." --Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno (1931)

And subsidiarity, by virtue of its emphasis on devolving power away from concentration among the few (whether bureaucrats or businessmen), encourages the sort of competition and diversity that may well be both the greatest help to the poor and the best guarantor of economic stability.

I might have mentioned that, although not derived from Catholic sources (the first formulation in an encyclical came in 1891 in Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, "Of New Things,"), subsidiarity forms the basis of our Tenth Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"). It's even mentioned specifically in the more recent Maastricht Treaty (1992), which formed the European Union: "In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity . . ." The jury is out on whether or not EU bureaucrats will conclude that nothing, really, is beyond their competence.

Subsidiarity is an essential assumption behind the economic philosophy of G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, distributism, a version of the free market in which ownership of the means of production is spread as widely as possible throughout society -- often termed a "middle way" between communism (state ownership) and capitalism (free but concentrated ownership). As GKC famously quipped: "Big Business and State Socialism are very much alike, especially Big Business."

That said, subsidiarity has always been more at home in free-market, capitalist societies than under the aegis of any form of socialism. John Paul II wrote in Centesimus Annus (1991) that a welfare state "leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending."

And subsidiarity, by virtue of its emphasis on devolving power away from concentration among the few (whether bureaucrats or businessmen), encourages the sort of competition and diversity that may well be both the greatest help to the poor and the best guarantor of economic stability, and it promotes the kinds of checks and balances that provide efficient, sensible regulation.

The Catechism states: "The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order."

Timely truths.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Brad Miner. "Subsidiarity: A Primer." The Catholic Thing (July 6, 2009).

Reprinted with permission from The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@thecatholicthing.org.

The Catholic thing -- the concrete historical reality of Catholicism -- is the richest cultural tradition in the world. That is the deep background to The Catholic Thing which bring you an original column every day that provides fresh and penetrating insight into the current situation along with other commentary, news, analysis, and -- yes -- even humor. Our writers include some of the most seasoned and insightful Catholic minds in America: Michael Novak, Ralph McInerny, Hadley Arkes, Michael Uhlmann, Mary Eberstadt, Austin Ruse, George Marlin, William Saunders, and many others.

THE AUTHOR

The founding editor of the American Compass Book Club, Brad Miner is a former literary editor of National Review and the author of The Concise Conservative Encyclopedia: 200 of the Most Important Ideas, Individuals, Incitements, and Institutions that Have Shaped the Movement, The Compleat Gentleman: The Modern Man's Guide to Chivalry, and Smear Tactics. He lives in Westchester County, New York.

Copyright © 2009 The Catholic Thing