Article: Men and Women

DAVID WARREN

It was the present pope who wrote what remains I think the clearest analysis of the problems we face in restoring some balance to a society that has demeaned fatherhood and exalted in its place not motherhood but a scheme for the "empowerment" of women.

I took the year off from Father's Day yesterday. For several years I'd been making a point, in my secular newspaper column, of writing something quite opposite to "feel-good" on the subject for the Sunday corresponding to this secular occasion. But glancing through the last couple of them, I thought, "That's enough now: People are going to think you are bitter."

And verily, as I was reminded from another recent (unrelated) ideological encounter, "bitterness" is among the few traditional crimes that continue to be punished in our postmodern, multicultural, de-stereotyped, ungendered, ecological, and very warped society. It is among the worst charges you can hurl at someone. Lying behind it is the pained suspicion that the bitter creature is claiming a victimhood status that may be fully justified. Nothing wrong with posing as a victim – so long as one is merely earning a living from it. But to actually be a victim, and especially of something like feminist-rewritten family law! That's bitter.

On the political level, my own case doesn't interest me – except insofar as it prevents me from writing openly about a subject on which I have acquired firsthand experience. My own case is hardly the worst of which I'm aware. And I've seen many where the man (and, in one strange case, the woman) has been merely stripped of his possessions and livelihood, as well as all hope of material recovery or a gentle old age. He may still have his old steady job, but he is now living in a basement somewhere and eating from tins. Tough luck, but laboring conditions remain worse in some parts of China.

The hard cases I've seen all involve children, and the use of them as weapons in close-quarter fighting. And the worst victims have been, typically, the best men. They agreed, consciously, to take the crunch, rather than have their kids caught in the crossfire. They did not fight back, when they realized how ruthless an estranged mate was prepared to be. Flaws they had and have plentifully in themselves; often enough, their susceptibility to persecution began in those flaws. Yet by agreeing that, "If someone must take the crunch, it will be me," there is some trace of Christ-like behavior.

None of us is Christ, however, and no martyrdom can be perfect except that which was performed on the cross. It is an open question whether children can ultimately benefit in any way from the destruction of their father by their mother (aided by the agencies of the state). The fallout from real injustice is never limited to what can be foreseen.

But note that invocation of "justice." It is with real justice that some fathers have been removed from their children's lives, and I have no interest in trying to reverse the unspoken feminist axiom, that "women are incapable of evil, and men incapable of good." Sound family law – to which we were certainly closer before than after the feminist revolution – must acknowledge that both sexes are fully human and therefore fully capable of sin and error. And the law itself must be flavored with this knowledge; it should never itself become an obstacle to the realization of the truth.

It was the present pope, when he was serving as adjutant to the previous one, who wrote what remains I think the clearest analysis of the problems we face in restoring some balance to a society that, not only through law but through popular culture, has demeaned fatherhood and exalted in its place not motherhood but a scheme for the "empowerment" of women. The document in question carries the cumbersome English title, "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World," and is dated May 31, 2004.

A first tendency is to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism: women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men.

The text is the opposite of cumbersome, however. A thinking mind will be riveted, from the start, by the shockingly concise yet accurate analysis of the feminist position and what follows from it. I count only six sentences between:

A first tendency is to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism: women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men.

And:

This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.

In this brief interval, everything that has happened over the past 50 years would appear to be encompassed. And this is followed by a remarkably biblical tour, not of feminine wiles but of feminine virtues, and a very confident declaration of the indispensability of what has been abandoned: the very role, and true power, of women.

It offers, to my mind, the only possible way forward. We have gone as far as we can get in settling scores, so that there is no blood left to be shed in the battle of the sexes. The answer is not to settle more scores through the "Father's Rights" movement. It is instead, weirdly enough, to recall the original configuration, the necessary cosmic dance, of the masculine and feminine virtues.

And indeed, bitterness has no place in that meditation, as it can take no place in rebuilding the faith and trust upon which family life must be founded. Justice itself must look beyond settling scores, to the restoration of an order that is just, good, and even beautiful. It cannot stand on its own.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

David Warren. "Men and Women." Inside Catholic (June 26, 2010).

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

David Warren, once editor of the Idler Magazine, is widely travelled – especially in the Middle and Far East. He has been writing for the Ottawa Citizen since 1996. His commentaries on international affairs appear Wednesdays & Saturdays; on Sundays he writes a general essay on the editorial page. Read more from David Warren at David Warren Online.

Copyright © 2010 Inside Catholic

Article: Orphaned at conception

MICHAEL COOK

Is it high-tech child abuse to rob children of their biological heritage?

A 51-year-old Michigan man may have fathered as many as 400 children by donating sperm to an IVF clinic between 1980 and 1994. At the time Kirk Maxey saw this as a way to pay his way through medical school and to help infertile women. "You would get a personal phone call from a nurse saying, 'The situation is urgent! We have a woman ovulating this morning. Can you be here in a half hour?'," he told Newsweek last year.

Today Mr Maxey deeply regrets his experience, but little has changed since then. More and more babies are being born through sperm donation. In the US, it could be as many as 30,000 and 60,000 children each year. No one really knows. Neither the IVF clinics nor US government departments are required to report these vital statistics.

The United States alone has a fertility industry that brings in US$3.3 billion annually. "Fertility tourism" has taken off as a booming global trade. Some nations, like Cyprus, the Ukraine or India, bill themselves as destinations for couples who wish to circumvent stricter laws and greater expense in their own countries in order to become pregnant with reproductive technologies. The largest sperm bank in the world, Cryos, is in Denmark and ships three-quarters of its sperm overseas.

This disconnect between procreation and fatherhood is unprecedented in human history. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people have entered the world as genetic orphans. How do they feel about it?

Incredibly, there is almost no reliable evidence, anywhere, about this. Last year an academic study in the British journal Human Reproduction lamented that "Despite the prevalence of donor conception across the world, relatively little is known about the offspring who result from this method of assisted conception."

That's why My Daddy's Name is Donor, a report released this week by the Commission on Parenthood's Future should be welcomed. It is one of the first efforts to learn about the identity, kinship, well-being, and social justice experiences of young adults who were conceived through sperm donation. About 500 American adults between 18 and 45 years old who said their mother used a sperm donor to conceive them were interviewed for the project, along with a similar number of young adults who were adopted and who were raised by their biological parents. It's difficult to get information like this – partly because so many people are unaware of their origins. The British researchers only interviewed 165 donor-conceived people and did not compare them to other groups.

Reports in the media and even some academic research give the impression that children conceived through sperm donation are at ease with their origins. But according to My Daddy's Name is Donor, on average, young adults conceived through sperm donation are hurting more, are more confused, and feel more isolated from their families. They fare worse than their peers raised by biological parents on important outcomes such as depression, delinquency and substance abuse. Nearly two-thirds agree, "My sperm donor is half of who I am."

Nearly half are disturbed that money was involved in their conception. One donor-conceived woman wrote: "My existence owed almost nothing to the serendipitous nature of normal human reproduction, where babies are the natural progression of mutually fulfilling adult relationships, but rather represented a verbal contract, a financial transaction and a cold, clinical harnessing of medical technology."

They fare worse than their peers raised by biological parents on important outcomes such as depression, delinquency and substance abuse. Nearly two-thirds agree, "My sperm donor is half of who I am."

And another: "It is completely unnatural, my Father was likely to be a 20-ish year old Med Student, My Mother was a 36 year old Woman very unlikely to have met this type of person. It makes me feel like some kind of Hybrid or Cuckoo!"

Because it is a contract, donors can maximize their income by donating over and over. With the advent of big business sperm banking, one man can "donate" his sperm many times. Since a lot of women seem to have a certain type of donor father in mind (tall, blue-eyed, blonde; smart, sensitive, athletic), sperm banks typically have some high demand donors. His bodily fluids are poured into vials and sold to women all over the country. Mr Maxey is no exception. Reports of one donor fathering dozens or even over a hundred offspring are widespread in the US and abroad.

So donor offspring not only have to deal with the loss of a biological father. They also have to struggle with the astounding implications of what happens when reproduction is fully disconnected from sex, when social mores that seek, as much as possible, to restrict men to reproducing with one, or at least not more than a few, women are thrown out and anything goes.

When donor-conceived people discover their true origins, they also learn that they might well have a half-dozen, or a dozen, or scores, or hundreds, of half-siblings – all over the place. Their brothers and sisters might live on the other side of the country or the other side of the world. They might live in the same town. They might live next door. They have no idea. It can be a nightmare.

Donor conception is basically just high-tech adoption, say its defenders. The authors of the report disagree. Adoption is a vital, pro-child institution, a means by which the state rigorously screens and assigns legal parents to already-born (or at least, already conceived) children who urgently need loving, stable homes. In adoption, prospective parents go through a painstaking, systematic review.

In fact, the process is so intrusive that it may feel humiliating. There are home studies. Questions about your finances. Your sex life. Your contacts are interviewed. With every question the possibility hangs in the balance that you might very well not get a child. It is a tough process with one straightforward goal in mind: protecting the best interests of the child.

With donor conception in the US, the government requires none of that. Individual clinics and doctors decide what questions they want to ask clients. They don't conduct home studies. No contacts are interviewed. If you can pay your medical bills, they couldn't care less about your finances. Is the relationship in which you plan to raise the child stable? Just say it is, and they believe you. Or do you plan to raise the child alone? Most clinics now say that's fine, too. The end result is the same as adoption: a child relinquished by at least one biological parent. But compared to adoption, the process could not be more lax.

Secrecy is another major issue. The British researchers found that few parents have the gumption to tell children how they were conceived. In 1996 a study of 111 European families with sperm-donor children aged 4 to 8 found that none of them had been told. As the children grow up, some learn from their parents; others learn from gossiping relatives or friends.

It's tough for parents to live with a lie and tougher for children to discover the lie. In the poignant words of one woman, "They say 'As long as you love the child enough and want them badly enough, the truth really won't matter.' But, we're all here to tell you that the truth does matter. Living as a family with a terrible secret robs the family. It's a terrible, terrible thing to have happen. This rottenness just gets worse over the years."

There is a saying that there are two lasting bequests we can give our children: one is roots and the other is wings. I think donor-conception denies a child both of these. I feel like a tree that has half of its roots missing. And without them, I can hardly stand up.

In some countries, like the UK, this problem has been "solved" by requiring men to be willing to be contacted by offspring, usually after their turn 18. But, of course, parents are not required to tell children. And as the report asks, is secrecy the main problem or is it donor conception itself?

A British man, Tom Ellis, wrote a couple of years ago in The Independent:

I have done a Master's degree at Cambridge and am reasonably successful, but it doesn't make me feel any better about not knowing who I am. There is a saying that there are two lasting bequests we can give our children: one is roots and the other is wings. I think donor-conception denies a child both of these. I feel like a tree that has half of its roots missing. And without them, I can hardly stand up.

Sperm donation may seem like a practical solution for single women, infertile couples or lesbians who dream of cuddling their own baby. But almost no one seems to care that the baby may never fulfil its dream of having a biological father. Why do adults have a right to a child, while a child has no right to a father? We've all read heart-rending reports about children stolen by bureaucrats from aboriginal parents or single mothers or poor couples. Why can't we see the injustice of robbing children of fathers from the moment of conception?

The My Daddy's Name is Donor report can be downloaded at FamilyScholars.org.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Michael Cook. "Orphaned at conception." Mercatornet (June 1, 2010).

Reprinted with permission of MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons Licence. Find the original article here.

MercatorNet is an innovative internet magazine analysing current affairs and key international news and trends which touch its readers' daily lives. If you enjoyed this article, visit MercatorNet.com for more.

For regular updates on sperm donation, surrogacy, IVF, euthanasia and other controversial bioethical issues, consider subscribing to BioEdge, a news magazine edited by Michael Cook.

THE AUTHOR

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet. He also edits a newsletter on developments in bioethics, BioEdge, and writes on bioethical issues for Australian and American newspapers and magazines. He lives in Melbourne.

Copyright © 2010 Mercatornet

Wednesday Liturgy: Consecration of Both Species for Mass

ROME, JUNE 22, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: If, after the consecration of the bread, the priest dies or forgets the consecration of the wine, do we have a Mass? I know that the consecrated host is the Body of Christ. Is the consecration of the wine absolutely necessary for a valid Mass? -- G.D., Chicago

A: In part, we have responded to this question, albeit as a follow-up, on Jan. 29, 2008. The reply was partly based on a moral and pastoral theology manual published by Jesuit Father Henry Davis in 1935.

The nucleus of our answer regarding the interruption of Mass was:

"Should a priest have to interrupt the Mass due to illness or another grave reason after he has consecrated either or both species -- and is unlikely to be able to recover sufficiently within an hour -- there is a grave obligation to have the celebration continued by another priest.

"In grave emergencies even a priest who has been excommunicated, suspended or otherwise irregular may finish the Mass.

"If the first priest is able to communicate he should be given communion from the species consecrated during the Mass.

"If no priest is immediately available, the hosts and the chalice (even if not yet consecrated) should be placed in the tabernacle until a priest can come to finish the Mass.

"The interval elapsing between the two parts may be of any duration but should be as soon as possible.

"If not-yet-consecrated wine were to spoil, or be certain to spoil, before a priest can come to consecrate it, then it may be poured down the sacrarium and replaced with new matter (wine and water) when the priest arrives.

"Only in very rare and extreme situations may the consecrated species of an interrupted Mass be consumed. Such occasions would be, for example, an imminent danger of profanation of the sacred species or the objective impossibility of safely keeping them, such as during wartime conditions or a climate where the species of wine would certainly become corrupt before a priest can come to complete the Mass.

"If the interruption were to occur before the consecration, with no priest to continue the celebration and no other Masses reasonably available, then a deacon, instituted acolyte or authorized extraordinary minister could distribute Communion from the tabernacle using the rite for Communion outside of Mass.

"If the interruption occurs after the priest's communion, then the same ministers can administer the consecrated species to the faithful using the same rite."

From what has been said, it is clear that the consecration of wine is an absolute necessity for a valid Mass. And the priest's communion is necessary for its completeness as a sign of sacrifice. It is true that Christ is really present in the hosts immediately after the consecration of the bread, but the sacrifice of the Mass requires the consecration of both species.

If a priest forgets to consecrate the chalice and then administers the hosts to the faithful they would receive the Body of Christ but, strictly speaking, would not have participated at the sacrifice of the Mass. It would not even be the same as the distribution of Communion outside of Mass as hosts thus received are the fruit of a complete sacrifice.

Should this happen, the deacon, an acolyte or anybody at all should immediately inform the priest that he has not consecrated the wine. The priest should then interrupt the Eucharistic Prayer and proceed to consecrate the wine before continuing. He should preferably repeat the second part of the Eucharistic Prayer as these orations only make sense in the presence of the complete sacrifice. If he finds out later, say just before communion, he would only need to say the words of consecration.

If it happens that a priest is told that he omitted the consecration of the chalice after the Mass is over, he should privately complete the sacrifice by pouring wine and water into the chalice, consecrate and consume the Sanguis.

The same basic principles would apply in the less likely situation of a priest skipping directly to the consecration of the chalice omitting the consecration of the hosts. The change in order of the two consecrations would not invalidate the Mass.

Needless to say, such distractions ought never to occur, but frail humanity -- and priestly humanity is no exception -- is fraught with imperfections and limitations. Thus, such things do happen.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: On Banners, Overhead Projectors and PowerPoint Displays

ROME, JUNE 22, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Related to our comments regarding the use of videos and slide shows during Mass (see June 8), several readers questioned the very wisdom of using overhead projectors. A Sydney, Australia, correspondent wrote: "More and more churches over the world are using the projector during Mass to show the readings, prayers and lyrics of the songs. They believed that the contents, when clearly presented to the congregation, may help to understand the Mass better. Nevertheless, such projections would inevitably cause distractions which on the contrary make people to drift away from the essence of the Mass."

Personally I believe that a moderate use of these projections can be of use, above all in presenting the lyrics and music of hymns and sung parts of the Mass. In this sense they could almost be considered as the modern equivalent of the large choir books of medieval times. These outsized books which contained the musical notation for Mass and the Divine Office were usually placed at the center of the choir so as to be visible to all.

I am less enthusiastic about projecting prayers, readings and other proclaimed texts as these should be listened to rather than read. Even here, however, it could be argued that the projection is no more distracting than a hand missal or any number of other liturgical resources commonly found in parishes.

It is also cheaper as the parish does not have to invest in hundreds of weekly bulletins or expensive hymnals.

I would agree with our reader that an overuse of these projections could end up being a cause of distraction. For example, to project the text of the Eucharistic Prayer would almost inevitably turn attention away from the altar and toward the screen.

Great care should be taken regarding their location. It must be remembered that they are a complementary resource and not a necessity. If the church's structure does not allow for a discreet location it is better to renounce the use of the projector and seek other solutions. Insofar as possible, the screen should not be in the presbytery and never behind the altar.

In synthesis, I would say that these means may be used if they can help liturgical participation. They are only tools, however, and the proper celebration of the liturgy must never be influenced or limited by their presence.

The Spirit of the Liturgy: The Priest's Preparation and Thanksgiving for Mass

By Father Paul Gunter, OSB

ROME, JUNE 18, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The priest depends on his union with God for the fruitfulness of his life and ministry and the people of God rely on the priest to pray for them.

Jesus Christ entrusted to his closest followers a premise for any good they would do. "I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing."[1] The same Jesus, in the context of many miracles that he worked, established times to be by himself so as to spend time in prayer to his heavenly Father. For Jesus, the formal prayer of the Liturgy was supported by an inner life whose privacy bore the intimacy that nurtures personal prayer. Ecclesial and community dimensions are strengthened by that personal relationship with God which believers hope to deepen.

The search for God, which gives meaning to the lives of those who love him, serves as a daily reminder that it is, to and from Almighty God that all blessings flow. Sacred Scripture describes vividly the nourishment Jesus drew from his hidden life of prayer. "He would withdraw to deserted places and pray."[2] Similarly, there is the sense of the times of day when Jesus was particularly receptive to the stillness of prayer wherein he sought the Father's will. Such times encourage specific concentration and uninterrupted closeness. "Then Jesus got up early in the morning when it was still very dark and went out to a deserted place, and there he spent time in prayer."[3] "And after he sent the crowds away, he went up the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone."[4]

The priest, conscious of his sharing in the work of Christ, strives by following Christ's example, to lead God's holy people through Christ and in the Holy Spirit to God the Father. He knows, all too well, since his own shortcomings damage the credibility of his witness, that he needs no less urgently to ask God to instill in him virtues proper to his state. Part of the homily provided in the rite of the ordination of a priest instructs the one who is to be ordained accordingly: "In the same way, you will continue the sanctifying work of Christ. Through your ministry, the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is made perfect, because, united to the sacrifice of Christ it is offered through your hands in the name of the Church in an unbloody way on the altar, in the celebration of the sacred mysteries. Recognize what you are doing and imitate [him] whom you handle so that celebrating the mystery of the death and resurrection of the Lord, you may mortify all vices within yourself and prepare to walk in newness of life."[5]

It can be seen, then, that the motive for a particular preparation by the priest before Mass and a thanksgiving afterwards are of benefit to the whole Church because a priest who sanctifies the Christian people needs himself to have been filled with the Spirit of holiness. It always helps a priest if he has taken a moment to consider the texts he will pray during the Mass on that day whether or not the Mass has an assembly. Opportune reflections on the texts before him can stir his deeper desire for God. Textual preparation will constitute a coherent and liturgical preparation for Mass not least because it is based on Sacred Scripture. A priest who fosters personal silence in the time before and after Holy Mass will, by his disposition, encourage meditation.

The priest in a pastoral setting may struggle to establish the desired silence that the sacristy should exemplify especially at the times when he needs to greet and meet the faithful. For him, in particular, the texts of the preparation before Mass and of the thanksgiving afterwards offer wholesome thoughts to uplift the mind and heart of the priest and, in whole or in part, can be prayed at any time. They also recognize human constraints on time and afford spiritual assistance rather than the imposition of any obligation on the priest who is trying to celebrate Mass as reverently as he can. It is to be noted that the gentler rubric that supports the Praeparatio ad Missam and the Gratiarum Actio post Missam in the missal of 1962 appreciates the practical demands made on a priest.[6] No act of love is by definition perfunctory. Both before and after offering the supreme sacrifice of the love of Christ, it is to be desired that a priest will be moved to do what is possible to give time, even briefly, to enable spiritual preparation before Mass and an act of thanksgiving after the celebration has ended. He will feel strengthened for having done so.

The preparation of a priest for Mass will have been underpinned by the cycle of Liturgy of the Hours which enriches the life of any priest. The age-old wisdom of the Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae, still to be found in the early part of the Missal of 1962, presumes the intrinsic importance of the Divine Office for the inner life of the priest. It stated that Matins and Lauds had to have been completed beforehand. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the context of that instruction from centuries before had not envisaged evening Mass.[7]

Since Mass is now celebrated at any time of the liturgical day the need for such an instruction no longer applies but the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours carefully explains the connection between the celebration of the Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Hours: "Christ taught us: "You must pray at all times and not lose heart" (Lk 18:1). The Church has been faithful in obeying this instruction; it never ceases to offer prayer and makes this exhortation its own: "Through him (Jesus) let us offer to God an unceasing sacrifice of praise" (Heb 15:15). The Church fulfils this precept not only by celebrating the Eucharist but in other ways also, especially through the Liturgy of the Hours. By ancient Christian tradition what distinguishes the Liturgy of the Hours from other liturgical services is that it consecrates to God the whole cycle of the day and the night."[8]

Any comparison of the specific texts offered for the Praeparatio will note that the same prayers are included in both forms of the Roman rite though they have been reduced to four since the Missale Romanum of 1970. In the Missal of 1970 these prayers consist in a prayer 'Ad Mensam' of St Ambrose, the prayer 'Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, ecce accedo' by St Thomas Aquinas, a prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary 'O Mater Pietatis et misericordiae' and the Formula of Intention, 'Ego volo celebrare Missam'.[9] Reflecting a first reform of indulgences after the Second Vatican Council which was published in the 'Enchridion of Indulgences' of 1968, they do not mention the indulgences that had been granted to the recitation of these prayers by Pius XI but whose details had been published in the missal of 1962.

Ample texts adorn the missal of 1962. The antiphon, Ne reminiscaris, asks God to be merciful despite our own sins and those of all who went before us. This is followed by psalms 83, 84, 85, 115, and 129. Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison and the Pater noster, whose last two lines form the beginning of a series of versicles, are followed by a number of short collects. In some devotional manuals these seven collects have been attributed to St Ambrose and assigned to the different days of the week. However, as arranged in the missal, it is envisaged they be said in succession under one conclusion. All but the seventh collect concentrate on the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. The seventh is followed by the longer doxology that concludes a series of collects. The first collect prays that the Holy Spirit shine forth in our hearts so that we may celebrate the mysteries worthily. The second asks that we may love God perfectly and worthily praise him. The third begs to serve God in chastity and purity of heart. The fourth implores the Paraclete to illumine our minds. The fifth beseeches the strength of the Holy Spirit to drive away the forces of the enemy. The sixth asks for wisdom and consolation. The seventh calls upon God to purify us and make of us a place where he can dwell.

The lengthy Oratio Sacerdotis ante Missam is divided in the missal into seven segments, one for each day of the week, and forms a prayerful meditation about an imitation of the virtues of Christ the High Priest. Its import is no less comforting than exigent. The relevance of its varied themes is timely with a literary style that is insistent and intimate. On Sunday, the priest asks the Holy Spirit to teach him to treat the mysteries with reverence, honour, devotion and lowly fear. On Monday, he focuses on his need for perfect chastity. On Tuesday, the priest acknowledges inherent unworthiness to celebrate Mass and, while proclaiming his belief that God can supply him with all that he lacks, he asks for a perceptible awareness of the presence of God as he celebrates and, no less, to be surrounded by angels. On Wednesday, his list of the social needs of the people, for whom Christ shed his blood, comes to the fore. On Thursday, while begging the mercy of God, the priest is reminded of how providence overcomes human frailty. "You are merciful to all, O Lord, and you hate nothing that you have made."[10] On Friday, he prays especially for the dead. On Saturday, the priest reflects on the great gift of the Blessed Sacrament and asks that it will lead him to see God face to face.

The 'Ad Mensam' of St. Ambrose prays that the Body and Blood of Christ may forgive the priest his sins and protect him from his enemies. The 'Prayer of St Thomas Aquinas' asks that the healing power of the Blessed Sacrament may prepare the priest to see God eternally. In the 'Prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary', the priest prays not only for himself but for all his brother-priests who are celebrating Mass on that given day throughout the world. There follow prayers to St Joseph, to all the angels and saints and then a prayer to the saint in whose honour the Mass shall be celebrated.

The 'Formula of Intention' reminds a priest of the mind of the Church concerning the celebration of Mass and of his rightful place within it. The priest is not working alone. What he does has been handed down by Christ to his Church, upheld by the teaching Magisterium of the Church and supported by tradition. The priest makes present the Body and Blood of Christ. He follows the rite of the Holy Roman Church. His purpose is to give praise to God and to the Church in heaven while praying for the Church on earth, for all who in particular have commended themselves to his prayers as well as for the wellbeing of the Holy Roman Church. Then, praying for all the faithful, the priest asks that the Lord grant to him as well as to all the faithful, joy with peace, amendment of life, a space for true penitence, the grace and comfort of the Holy Spirit and perseverance in good works.

The corpus of texts that form the thanksgiving after Mass or the Gratiarum Actio post Missam, demonstrate love, humility and faith as they delight in the sublime gift of the Blessed Eucharist. The Missale Romanum of 2002 contains 'The Universal Prayer', attributed to Pope Clement XI, and the 'Hail Mary'. Otherwise, in common with the missal of 1962, it contains the 'Prayer of St Thomas Aquinas', 'The aspirations to the Most Holy Redeemer' or Anima Christi, 'The self-offering' or Suscipe, 'The Prayer before Our Lord Jesus Christ Crucified' or En Ego, and a 'Prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary'. Such texts in the missal of 1962 were granted indulgences by Popes Pius X, XI and XII while some texts in the Missale Romanum of 2002 have also been included in the current Enchridion of Indulgences.

In the missal of 1962, an antiphon precedes the Benedicite[11] and psalm 150. Observing the same structure as the Preparation for Mass, the Kyrie Eleison and versicles pave the way for a number of collects. The first prays that as the three youths were brought out of the flames unscathed, so may God's servants avoid the harm of vice. The second asks that the good works God has begun in his servants be brought to their fulfilment. The third, on a theme similar to the first, is a prayer about St Laurence, deacon and martyr, who proved victorious in his suffering. The devotions which the priest may recite pro opportunitate enjoy comparable expressions of gratitude and entreaties for protection in the journey to heaven. In succession to a 'Prayer of St Thomas' is another prayer or alia Oratio. The metrical hymn Adoro Te is followed by the much-loved Anima Christi. The Suscipe and the En Ego precede another prayer or alia oratio asking that the Passion of Christ be the priest's strength, defence and eternal glory. Before prayers to St Joseph and to the saint in whose honour Mass was celebrated, the 'Prayer of the Blessed Virgin Mary' offers Jesus received in the Blessed Eucharist to Our Lady so that she can offer him anew in a supreme act of latreia, or of perfect worship, to the Blessed Trinity.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal states: "It is [...]of the greatest importance that the celebration of the Mass -- that is, the Lord's Supper -- be so arranged that the sacred ministers and the faithful taking part in it, according to the proper state of each, may derive from it more abundantly those fruits for the sake of which Christ the Lord instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood and entrusted it to the Church, his beloved Bride, as the memorial of his Passion and Resurrection."[12] The preparation of the priest for Mass and his act of thanksgiving afterwards complement each other. They feed reverence in the hearts and minds of the faithful who are helped to participate in the liturgy with greater intensity by a priest who has benefited from the opportunity to recollect himself. What encourages preparation beforehand promotes thanksgiving after Mass. Both continually lead the Church to and from the Eucharistic Sacrifice that celebrates and makes present the fruits of the Paschal Mystery until Christ comes again at the end of time.

* * *

Notes

[1] John 15:5
[2] Luke 5:16
[3] Mark 1:35
[4] Matthew 14:23[5] Pontificale Romanum., «De Ordinatione Episcopi, Presbyterorum et Diaconorum» cap 2 n151, 87, in Civitate Vaticana 1990. "Munere item sanctificandi in Christo fungéris. Ministério enim tuo sacrifícium spirituále fidélium perficiétur, Christi sacrifício coniúnctum, quod una cum iis per manus tuas super altáre incruénter in celebratióne mysteriórum offerétur. Agnósce ergo quod agis, imitáre quod tracta, quátenus mortis et resurrectiónis Dómini mystérium célebrans, membra tua a vítiis ómnibus mortificáre et in novitáte vitæ ambuláre stúdeas."
[6] Praeparatio ad Missam printed in black is followed by pro opportunitate sacerdotis facienda printed in red thus acknowledging the texts as a resource for the priest depending on his circumstances.
[7] "Sacerdos celebraturus Missam [......] saltem Matutino cum Laudibus absoluto"
[8] Institutio Generalis De Liturgia Horarum, cap 1, n10, 29, Libreria Editrice Vaticana 2000.
[9] Missale Romanum, Editio typica tertia, in Civitate Vaticana 2002, 1289-1291.
[10] Wisdom 11:24-25.27 forms the introit for Ash Wednesday in both the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Roman rite.
[11] Daniel 3:56-58
[12] Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, in Civitate Vaticana 2002, n17

* * *

Benedictine Father Paul Gunter is a professor of the Pontifical Institute of Liturgy in Rome and a Consultor to the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff.

Q&A: Just Cause and Natural Family Planning

WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 16, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.


Q: Are there any conditions to follow Natural Family Planning (NFP) by a married couple, or is there blanket approval by Catholic Church? Wouldn't NFP be against life if the intention of the couple involved in sexual act is just pleasure and not life, provided they don't have any valid reason to postpone pregnancy? In this case, can NFP be also considered similar to using condoms? Thanks and Regards -- D.R.P, Bangalore, India

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response.

A: This is an excellent question, and one that I have been asked many times over the years by devout Catholic spouses. The answer is "no," NFP is not unqualifiedly good and can be used wrongly. The reason for this is subtle and needs to be stated carefully, because there is a popular, although erroneous, belief among some Catholic couples that NFP is "second best," and that if a couple is seriously Catholic, they will not self-consciously plan the children they conceive, but simply "let God send them." I do not mean to offend anyone's practices, but this "come what may" attitude is found nowhere in Catholic teaching on procreation in the last 150 years. There is no decision more serious to a Catholic couple than whether or not to participate with God in bringing a new human person into existence. The more serious a decision, the more it is due prayer, discussion and discernment. I teach my seminarians in Denver that God has a plan for every married couple; that the plan includes how many children they should have; and therefore if a couple is concerned about doing Jesus' will, they should try to discover whether Jesus wishes them to have more children. They should have all the children that Jesus wants them to have, no less, and no more. Therefore, whenever they are conscious that they might become pregnant, they should discuss and pray over the question: "Does Jesus want us to have another child?" The idea that this question is intrinsically tainted with selfish motives is rigoristic and should be rejected. Every potentially fertile couple, as well as infertile couples capable of adopting, has the responsibility to ask it.

At the same time, NFP can be chosen wrongly. Pope John Paul II summarized the Church's teaching in this regard during an audience at Castel Gondolfo in 1994; (note the seriousness with which he says couples should take the decision to have a child); he writes: "In deciding whether or not to have a child, [spouses] must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child. Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be 'violated' by artificial interference."[1]

Principle of "iusta causa"

John Paul II says the choice whether or not to have more children "must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness;" and then states: "When there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary." What kind of "reason" renders permissible the choice not to procreate and hence to use NFP to avoid pregnancy? Pope Paul VI helps us answer this question. In "Humanae Vitae" (No. 16) he teaches: "If therefore there are 'iusta causae' for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile."

The Latin term "iustae causae" is sometimes translated "well grounded reasons," sometimes "serious motives", and sometimes "grave reasons." But the term is simply the plural of "iusta causa," which literally translates "just cause." According to the encyclical, a couple may space births, and do so through a deliberate recourse to the woman's natural fertility cycle [i.e., they may choose a form of NFP], if there are "just causes." This implies that if there are not just causes, then spacing births, and spacing them in this way, is not legitimate; in other words, that a couple ought not to space births, even through recourse to natural fertility cycles.

The Catholic Church first taught on intentional recourse to a woman's cycle in 1853. The Roman Sacred Penitentiary was replying to a request for an official clarification (a "dubium") submitted by the Bishop of Amiens in France, which asked: "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?" Rome replied: "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation." The quote implies that choosing intercourse to avoid procreation can be different morally from choices to "impede procreation"; the latter are never legitimate; the former are (at least sometimes) legitimate. One hundred years later Pope Pius XII spoke at length on periodic abstinence for purposes of spacing births in his well-known "Address to Midwives" (1951). He uses several terms as synonyms for Paul VI's "iustae causae": "serious reasons," "serious motives" and "grave reasons." The Pope says that such reasons "can exempt for a long time, perhaps even the whole duration of the marriage, from the positive and obligatory carrying out" of the marital duty to procreate.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the teaching when it says: "For just reasons (de iustis causis), spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality" (No. 2368). That objective criterion excludes as legitimate the alternative to impede procreation through choosing to contracept. What constitutes a just cause?

Neither the Sacred Penitentiary, Pius XII, Paul VI, nor John Paul II specify concretely what constitutes a "iusta causa." "Humanae Vitae" gets nearest. It teaches that "with regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time" (No. 10; see also No. 16).

The text itemizes four areas of life from which such reasons might arise: physical and mental health, and economic and social conditions. This is still very general, but together with the prior statements, it provides us with enough information to formulate the following moral norm (note: this is my formulation): "If a couple has serious reasons, arising from the physical or mental condition of themselves, their children, or another for whom they have responsibility, or from the family's economic or wider social situation, they may defer having children temporarily, or, if the situation is serious enough, indefinitely, providing they use morally legitimate means. Recourse to natural fertility cycles to space births (NFP) under such circumstances is an example of a morally legitimate means. Contraception is not."

If there is any further interest, I would be happy in a future piece to discuss concrete situations that might rightly be judged to be "serious reasons."

One final important point to note. If NFP is chosen wrongly, the wrongness lies in the fact that it is chosen without "good reason" and therefore usually selfishly. The sin here (presuming a person knows what he is doing and freely does it) is the sin of selfishness. (For a Catholic, it can also be the sin of disobedience to authoritative Church teaching.) But choosing NFP selfishly is not the same as contracepting. Strictly speaking, persons can only contracept if they also choose intercourse: a contraceptive act renders sterile an act of intercourse (recall the famous definition from "Humanae Vitae," No. 14: "Any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation -- whether as an end or as a means."); a contraceptive act always relates to some act of sexual intercourse; it is an act contrary to conception (literally contra-conception).

If there is no act of intercourse between a potentially fertile heterosexual couple, there is no potential conception to act contrary toward. Those who choose not to have intercourse, that is, choose abstinence (as NFP practitioners do when they want to avoid pregnancy), cannot act contrary to any conceptive-type of act, since they are specifically avoiding such acts. Therefore, those who choose NFP wrongly, although they do wrong, they do not do the same thing as those who contracept. Strictly speaking, they do not, indeed cannot, have a "contraceptive intention," although their frame of mind might be characterized by what John Paul II called a "contraceptive mentality" (by which I take him to mean, a mentality that sees the coming to be of new life as a threat, something rightly to take measures against). [Note: some moral theologians would disagree with me here; they believe that NFP can be chosen with a 'contraceptive intention' and therefore constitute for some couples a form of contraception.]

Note

[1] available at: http://ccli.org/oldnfp/b2010morality/churchteaching.php

* * *

E. Christian Brugger is a Senior Fellow of Ethics at the Culture of Life Foundation and is an associate professor of moral theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado. He received his Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford in 2000.

Wednesday Liturgy: When a Concelebrant Takes Photos During Mass

ROME, JUNE 15, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: At an ordination I saw a priest, vested and concelebrating, step away from the altar. He took out a camera and took photos (not once, but several times). The bishop seemed oblivious to this, but it puzzled me. Is this a matter of liturgical law or regulation; a breech of etiquette; or something else? To me it seemed quite out of place and inappropriate. But if it's OK, I could overlook it. -- J.P., Illinois

A: Among the few documents that address the theme of photographs at Mass is the 1967 instruction "Eucharisticum Mysterium," issued by the Congregation of Rites. No. 23 briefly touches on this subject:

"Great care should be taken to ensure that liturgical celebrations, especially the Mass, are not disturbed or interrupted by the taking of photographs. Where there is a good reason for taking them, the greatest discretion should be used, and the norms laid down by the local Ordinary should be observed."

Since the task of formulating precise norms and guidelines falls upon the local ordinary, many dioceses have issued directives, above all, related to weddings, baptisms and similar situations where photographers and camera technicians can easily get out of hand.

Not surprisingly, nobody mentions concelebrating priests taking photos for the simple reason that the possibility never crossed anybody's mind.

A concelebrating priest taking pictures obviously violates the norm of disrupting and interrupting the Mass -- in this case the Mass he himself is celebrating. The fact that he is a concelebrant takes nothing away from the fact that the Mass requires his complete and undivided attention.

The same could be said of other situations in which priests engage in activities which distract them during Mass. I once saw a priest choir director slip on a stole for the Eucharistic Prayer and attempt to concelebrate from the choir loft, a practice of very dubious validity.

Large concelebrations do sometimes have a detrimental effect on many of us priests, leading to a certain forgetfulness of who we are and what we are doing. Added to that, the ubiquitous digital camera has made multiple image-taking almost a reflex reaction.

A good rule of thumb for a priest is to not do anything that he would not do while celebrating alone with a congregation.

No priest (I hope) would whip out his camera or cell phone in the middle of his parish's Sunday Mass and start snapping pictures. If that appears absurd, then it is no less so while concelebrating.

With the current ease for distributing digital photos, it should be easy to designate photographers for special occasions such as ordinations and make the pictures freely available to all.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Eucharistic Adoration

ROME, JUNE 15, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


The June 1 column, which focused on the practice of including babies in the offertory procession, also dealt with the topic of Eucharistic adoration. A reader from Virginia noticed that my reply said, "It is true that participating at Mass is the greatest possible act of adoration and that no amount of adoration could ever substitute a single Mass." The reader asked, "Can you please identify where this is actually written? I do not ask this for the sake of having you prove yourself, but for the sake of knowing its source, that it may increase one's knowledge and faith and spiritual development."

This doctrine is solid in virtue of the infinite value of the Mass, insofar as it is the very sacrifice of Christ himself. At the same time, the doctrine it is not always expressed so directly in Church documents as I stated in my column.

The Catechism says:

"1378. Worship of the Eucharist

In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."

"1379. The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent, outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament."

From this it can be seen that the foremost means of adoration is during Mass. Other forms of adoration developed later and derive from that of the Mass.

The site www.therealpresence.org contains a wealth of documents on Eucharistic doctrine that readers might find useful.

Article: What Difference Does Heaven Make?

PETER KREEFT

If a thing makes no difference, it is a waste of time to think about it. We should begin, then, with the question, What difference does Heaven make to earth, to now, to our lives?

Only the difference between hope and despair in the end, between two totally different visions of life; between "chance or the dance". At death we find out which vision is true: does it all go down the drain in the end, or are all the loose threads finally tied together into a gloriously perfect tapestry? Do the tangled paths through the forest of life lead to the golden castle or over the cliff and into the abyss? Is death a door or a hole?

To medieval Christendom, it was the world beyond the world that made all the difference in the world to this world. The Heaven beyond the sun made the earth "under the sun" something more than "vanity of vanities". Earth was Heaven's womb, Heaven's nursery, Heaven's dress rehearsal. Heaven was the meaning of the earth. Nietzsche had not yet popularized the serpent's tempting alternative: "You are the meaning of the earth." Kant had not yet disseminated "the poison of subjectivism" by his "Copernican revolution in philosophy", in which the human mind does not discover truth but makes it, like the divine mind. Descartes had not yet replaced the divine I AM with the human "I think, therefore I am" as the "Archimedean point", had not yet replaced theocentrism with anthropocentrism. Medieval man was still his Father's child, however prodigal, and his world was meaningful because it was "my Father's world" and he believed his Father's promise to take him home after death.

This confidence towards death gave him a confidence towards life, for life's road led somewhere. The Heavenly mansion at the end of the earthly pilgrimage made a tremendous difference to the road itself. Signs and images of Heavenly glory were strewn all over his earthly path. The "signs" were (1) nature and (2) Scripture, God's two books, (3) general providence, and (4) special miracles. (The word translated "miracle" in the New Testament [sëmeion] literally means "sign".) The images surrounded him like the hills surrounding the Holy City. They, too, pointed to Heaven. For instance, the images of saints in medieval statuary were seen not merely as material images of the human but as human images of the divine, windows onto God. They were not merely stone shaped into men and women but men and women shaped into gods and goddesses. Lesser images too were designed to reflect Heavenly glory: kings and queens, heraldry and courtesy and ceremony, authority and obedience – these were not just practical socio-economic inventions but steps in the Cosmic Dance, links in the Great Chain of Being, rungs on Jacob's ladder, earthly reflections of Heaven. Distinctively premodern words like glory, majesty, splendor, triumph, awe, honor – these were more than words; they were lived experiences. More, they were experienced realities.

The glory has departed. We moderns have lost much of medieval Christendom's faith in Heaven because we have lost its hope of Heaven, and we have lost its hope of Heaven because we have lost its love of Heaven. And we have lost its love of Heaven because we have lost its sense of Heavenly glory.

Medieval imagery (which is almost totally biblical imagery) of light, jewels, stars, candles, trumpets, and angels no longer fits our ranch-style, supermarket world. Pathetic modern substitutes of fluffy clouds, sexless cherubs, harps and metal halos (not halos of light) presided over by a stuffy divine Chairman of the Bored are a joke, not a glory. Even more modern, more up-to-date substitutes – Heaven as a comfortable feeling of peace and kindness, sweetness and light, and God as a vague grandfatherly benevolence, a senile philanthropist – are even more insipid.

Our pictures of Heaven simply do not move us; they are not moving pictures. It is this aesthetic failure rather than intellectual or moral failures in our pictures of Heaven and of God that threatens faith most potently today. Our pictures of Heaven are dull, platitudinous and syrupy; therefore, so is our faith, our hope, and our love of Heaven.

Dullness, not doubt, is the strongest enemy of faith, just as indifference, not hate, is the strongest enemy of love.

It is surely a Satanic triumph of the first order to have taken the fascination out of a doctrine that must be either a fascinating lie or a fascinating fact. Even if people think of Heaven as a fascinating lie, they are at least fascinated with it, and that can spur further thinking, which can lead to belief. But if it's dull, it doesn't matter whether it's a dull lie or a dull truth. Dullness, not doubt, is the strongest enemy of faith, just as indifference, not hate, is the strongest enemy of love.

It is Heaven and Hell that put bite into the Christian vision of life on earth, just as playing for high stakes puts bite into a game or a war or a courtship. Hell is part of the vision too: the height of the mountain is appreciated from the depth of the valley, and for winning to be high drama, losing must be possible. For salvation to be "good news", there must be "bad news" to be saved from. If all of life's roads lead to the same place, it makes no ultimate difference which road we choose. But if they lead to opposite places, to infinite bliss or infinite misery, unimaginable glory or unimaginable tragedy, if the spirit has roads as really and objectively different as the body's roads and the mind's roads, and if these roads lead to destinations as really and objectively different as two different cities or two different mathematical conclusions – why, then life is a life-or-death affair, a razor's edge, and our choice of roads is infinitely important.

We no longer live habitually in this medieval mental landscape. If we are typically modern, we live in ennui; we are bored, jaded, cynical, flat, and burnt out. When the skies roll back like a scroll and the angelic trump sounds, many will simply yawn and say, "Pretty good special effects, but the plot's too traditional." If we were not so bored and empty, we would not have to stimulate ourselves with increasing dosages of sex and violence – or just constant busyness. Here we are in the most fantastic fun and games factory ever invented – modern technological society – and we are bored, like a spoiled rich kid in a mansion surrounded by a thousand expensive toys. Medieval people by comparison were like peasants in toyless hovels – and they were fascinated. Occasions for awe and wonder seemed to abound: birth and death and love and light and darkness and wind and sea and fire and sunrise and star and tree and bird and human mind – and God and Heaven. But all these things have not changed, we have. The universe has not become empty and we, full; it has remained full and we have become empty, insensitive to its fullness, cold hearted.

Yet even in this cold heart a strange fire kindles at times – something from another dimension, another kind of excitement – when we dare to open the issue of Heaven, the issue of meeting God, with the mind and heart together. Like Ezekiel in the valley of dry bones, we experience the shock of the dead coming to life.

"You have had a shock like that before, in connection with smaller matters – when the line pulls at your hand, when something breathes beside you in the darkness. So here; the shock comes at the precise moment when the thrill of life is communicated to us along the clue we have been following. It is always shocking to meet life where we thought we were alone. "Look out!" we cry, "It's alive!" And therefore this is the very point at which so many draw back – I would have done so myself if I could – and proceed no further with Christianity. An "impersonal God" – well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness inside our own heads – better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power that we can tap-best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband – that is quite another matter. There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion ("Man's search for God"!) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that!" (C.S. Lewis, Miracles pp. 113-114.)

When it does come to that, we feel a strange burning in the heart, like the disciples on the road to Emmaeus. Ancient, sleeping hopes and fears rise like giants from their graves. The horizons of our comfortable little four-dimensional universe crack, and over them arises an enormous bliss and its equally enormous absence. Heaven and Hell – suppose, just suppose it were really, really true! What difference would that make?

I think we know.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Peter Kreeft. "What difference does heaven make?" from Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven But Never Dreamed of Asking (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1990): 17-22.

Reprinted by permission of Peter Kreeft.

THE AUTHOR

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

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

Copyright © 2010 Peter Kreeft

Wednesday Liturgy: On Banners, Overhead Projectors and PowerPoint Displays

ROME, JUNE 8, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: It is a regular feature at Masses in Australia and New Zealand that children or artists make banners for decorating churches, especially for the different seasons and for special occasions, such as confirmations. Many parishes are now replacing overhead projectors with the words of the hymns, with computerized PowerPoint displays that allow for all kinds of graphics and backgrounds to be added. I have seen everything from small discreet icons to actual video clips of the entry into Jerusalem from Mel Gibson's Passion during the Sanctus and worse. Are there any norms for visual displays in church, and in particular, the use of projected images during Mass? -- J.B., Melbourne, Australia

A: There are few specific laws or even orientation regarding this aspect. But perhaps some of the principles formulated by the U.S. bishops' document on Church art and architecture, "Built of Living Stones," might be of help.

With respect to the use of banners, the document says: "127. Fabric art in the form of processional banners and hangings can be an effective way to convey the spirit of liturgical seasons, especially through the use of color, shape, texture, and symbolic form. The use of images rather than words is more in keeping with this medium."

This would at least indicate that tasteful and well-designed banners may have a place within the liturgy, even if the handiwork of children. Indeed, in one form or another, banners such as the symbols of confraternities and other Catholic organizations have long been used on solemn occasions such as Eucharistic processions.

Since the use of videos or overhead projections is such a novelty and is still a rarity, I have found almost nothing official on this theme. Some of the general principles on liturgical artwork in "Built of Living Stones" might help clarify the issue:

"The Role of Religious Art

"143. Art chosen for the place of worship is not simply something pretty or well made, an addition to make the ordinary more pleasant. Nor is the place of worship a museum to house artistic masterpieces or artistic models. Rather, artworks truly belong in the church when they are worthy of the place of worship and when they enhance the liturgical, devotional, and contemplative prayer they are inspired to serve.

"Components of True and Worthy Art

"146. Authentic art is integral to the Church at prayer because these objects and actions are 'signs and symbols of the supernatural world' and expressions of the divine presence. While personal tastes will differ, parish committees should utilize the criteria of quality and appropriateness in evaluating art for worship.

"148. Appropriateness for liturgical action is the other criterion for choosing a work of art for church. The quality of appropriateness is demonstrated by the work's ability to bear the weight of mystery, awe, reverence and wonder that the liturgical action expresses and by the way it serves and does not interrupt the ritual actions which have their own structure, rhythm and movement.

"Materials of the Artist

"162. Artists choose materials with integrity because they will endure from generation to generation, because they are noble enough for holy actions, and because they express what is most respected and beautiful in the lives and cultures of the community. Materials, colors, shapes, and designs that are of short-lived popularity are unworthy .

"163. Similarly, artworks consisting of technological and interactive media, such as video and other electronically fabricated images, may also be appropriate for sacred purposes. Subject to the same criteria of suitability as other sacred art, technologically produced works of art can point toward sacred realities even though they do not possess the more enduring form, color, texture, weight, and density found in more traditional sacred art." Thus, while No. 163 apparently leaves open the possibility of the use of technological aids, it does not elaborate upon the contexts in which these means may be used.

Personally I do not consider that the use of slide shows and videos during Mass is a legitimate option. It is said that a picture paints a thousand words, but even a picture must be interpreted using words, albeit mentally. Thus, these visual elements, instead of enhancing the rite, draw attention away from the liturgical action of participating in the rite itself.

For this reason I believe that No. 148 cited above, by stressing that liturgical art serve and not interrupt "the ritual actions which have their own structure, rhythm and movement," is especially applicable in this case.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: The "Adoro Te Devote"

ROME, JUNE 8, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Related to our comments on the Adoro Te Devote (see May 25), an Indiana reader had inquired about the use of Latin in vernacular Masses. He asked: "It was stated that Latin may be used for the common prayers of the Mass including the Kyrie. The Kyrie is Greek. Does this mean that the equivalent Latin may be substituted? Also, I have heard Latin being used for introduction to the readings when the readings, including the Gospel, were in English. Also, at the conclusion of the Eucharistic Prayer (in English), I have heard Latin. Is this permitted?"

It is a common faux pas to forget that Kyrie Eleison ("Lord, have mercy") is a Greek text within the Latin Mass, although it could also be legitimately considered -- like blasé, chic, rendezvous and café in English -- as a foreign import which has gained full citizenship. In this sense the liturgical Latin equivalent for Kyrie Eleison would be Kyrie Eleison. The Vatican occasionally uses different Latin invocations in some litanies and the prayer of the faithful but never in the Kyrie.

In general we can say that it is permitted to use Latin for the introduction to the readings. This is especially useful for international groups and allows everybody to sing the proper responses. The same could be said for other moments, such as the memorial acclamation, provided of course that most of the assembly is familiar with the Latin text.

The use of Latin for the doxology in vernacular recitation could be permitted to allow it to be easily sung, although the same melody usually works just as well for most vernacular translations.

As a general rule, however, multiple languages should not be used for the Eucharistic Prayer. If, for example, priests from several countries concelebrate for a congregation of one predominant language, then it would be preferable that Latin be used for the entire Eucharistic Prayer and the Our Father, with the rest of the Mass in the vernacular.

Article: When should kids date?

DR. RAY GUARENDI

As a family psychologist, I am often asked by parents when their children should begin dating.

They usually hasten to inform me, "All his (her) friends are dating." My quick answer is: When they're married, and only with their spouse.

Seriously, dating age depends upon all kinds of factors, and varies from child to child, even within the same family. But here are some general guidelines from my experience:

1. Most kids are dating way too early.
   
   
2. Never consider your neighborhood's "average age" when making your decision.
   
   
3. Start slow and supervised.
   
   
4. When in doubt, hold off.
   
   
5. Nothing at all is to be gained from premature, opposite-sex involvement through dating, or for that matter, through the phone, dances, parties, or games kids love.

This said, it is a simple truth of life that if you act differently from the way the majority does, you will be misunderstood by most.

Let's suppose that you've decided to begin dating discussions when your daughter turns 16. Now back in the old days – the early 1980s – you met resistance for such a decision mainly from the children. Parents used to expect instinctively to be challenged by their kids, especially in judgments of how fast one should grow up.

What is quite different these days is that you are almost as likely to be questioned by your peers, the parents of your children's friends, They will say:

"These are different times. This is not when you and I were growing up. These kids grow up so much faster nowadays. You can't protect them forever. You can't wrap a moral bubble around them; they have to deal with life. If you make kids too different, they'll feel like weirdos who don't fit in. Then they'll get resentful and rebellious."

Let me share with you a rule. A recent survey suggested that if a child has a first date between the ages of 11 and 13, he or she has a 90% probability of being sexually active during senior year in high school.

First date at age 14 leads to a 50% chance; first date at age 16, 20% chance.

What chance would you prefer? What chance is much of society taking?

Key factors to consider in granting any type of dating freedom are your child's:

This said, it is a simple truth of life that if you act differently from the way the majority does, you will be misunderstood by most.

• moral maturity

• independence of thought

• history of conduct in other social
settings

• strength of will

• social judgment

• choice of friends

• responsibility toward schoolwork

• respect for authority.

I figure if I make the list long enough, my kids won't be eligible to date until they move out.

Once you are confident your son or daughter has met these standards, sit them down, let them know how much you admire who they are and who they're becoming. Then tell them, "Just three more years, and you can date."

Just kidding – sort of.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Ray Guarendi. "When should kids date?" Fathers for Good (May, 2010).

Reprinted with permission of Dr. Ray Guarendi.

Fathers for Good is an initiative for men sponsored by the Knights of Columbus.

THE AUTHOR

Raymond N. Guarendi, aka Dr. Ray, is a practicing clinical psychologist and authority on parenting and behavioral issues active in the Catholic niche media. Guarendi is an advocate of common sense approaches to child rearing and discipline issues. Guarendi received his B.A. and M.A. at Case Western Reserve University in 1974, and his Ph.D. at Kent State University in 1978. He is the author of You're a better parent than you think!: a guide to common-sense parenting, Good Discipline, Great Teens, Adoption: Choosing It, Living It, Loving It; Straight Answers to Hearfelt Questions, Discipline that lasts a lifetime: the best gift you can give your kids, and Back to the Family.

Copyright © 2010 Ray Guarendi

Wednesday Liturgy: Babies in the Offertory Procession

ROME, JUNE 1, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: I want to know if it is appropriate to include newborn babies in the offertory procession and after which the priest would take the baby around the altar three times. I ask this because I know that you cannot add or subtract anything from the Mass. Also, is it usually permitted to go for adoration on Sunday after attending Mass, which is the greatest act of Catholic worship? I know that during the consecration when the host and chalice is raised we have the privilege to adore Christ. -- D.A., Accra, Ghana

A: Regarding the offertory, in 2004 the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments published the instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum." This document gives precise indications regarding the presentation of the gifts:

"[70.] The offerings that Christ's faithful are accustomed to present for the Liturgy of the Eucharist in Holy Mass are not necessarily limited to bread and wine for the eucharistic celebration, but may also include gifts given by the faithful in the form of money or other things for the sake of charity toward the poor. Moreover, external gifts must always be a visible expression of that true gift that God expects from us: a contrite heart, the love of God and neighbor by which we are conformed to the sacrifice of Christ, who offered himself for us. For in the Eucharist, there shines forth most brilliantly that mystery of charity that Jesus brought forth at the Last Supper by washing the feet of the disciples. In order to preserve the dignity of the Sacred Liturgy, in any event, the external offerings should be brought forward in an appropriate manner. Money, therefore, just as other contributions for the poor, should be placed in an appropriate place which should be away from the eucharistic table. Except for money and occasionally a minimal symbolic portion of other gifts, it is preferable that such offerings be made outside the celebration of Mass."

After the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist Benedict XVI continued this reflection in his apostolic exhortation "Sacramentum Caritatis":

"47. The Synod Fathers also drew attention to the presentation of the gifts. This is not to be viewed simply as a kind of 'interval' between the liturgy of the word and the liturgy of the Eucharist. To do so would tend to weaken, at the least, the sense of a single rite made up of two interrelated parts. This humble and simple gesture is actually very significant: in the bread and wine that we bring to the altar, all creation is taken up by Christ the Redeemer to be transformed and presented to the Father. In this way we also bring to the altar all the pain and suffering of the world, in the certainty that everything has value in God's eyes. The authentic meaning of this gesture can be clearly expressed without the need for undue emphasis or complexity. It enables us to appreciate how God invites man to participate in bringing to fulfillment his handiwork, and in so doing, gives human labor its authentic meaning, since, through the celebration of the Eucharist, it is united to the redemptive sacrifice of Christ."

Both of these documents tend to discourage the excess use of symbolic offerings that are unconnected to the Mass or to charity toward the poor. While newborn babies are certainly a gift to be extolled, the offertory is not the appropriate moment since our attention should be drawn toward the greatest gift of all, the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Some countries have a long-standing custom of placing newly baptized infants at the foot of an image or upon a side altar dedicated to Our Lady or, occasionally, to Our Lord, in a symbolic gesture of offering. It is good to maintain this custom even for baptisms within Mass. I recently saw this done with great pastoral effectiveness at a Marian shrine in Bohemia, in the Czech Republic.

With respect to adoration after Mass: It is true that participating at Mass is the greatest possible act of adoration and that no amount of adoration could ever substitute a single Mass. Eucharistic adoration, however, is one of the most suitable means of prolonging the thanksgiving offered at Mass as well as preparing for the next Mass. Hence, there is no contradiction in promoting Eucharistic adoration outside of Mass.

The need for both elements is admirably expressed in the Second Vatican Council's constitution on the liturgy, "Sacrosanctum Concilium":

"10. Nevertheless the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows. For the aim and object of apostolic works is that all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to eat the Lord's supper.

"The liturgy in its turn moves the faithful, filled with 'the paschal sacraments,' to be 'one in holiness'; it prays that 'they may hold fast in their lives to what they have grasped by their faith'; the renewal in the eucharist of the covenant between the Lord and man draws the faithful into the compelling love of Christ and sets them on fire. From the liturgy, therefore, and especially from the eucharist, as from a font, grace is poured forth upon us; and the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God, to which all other activities of the Church are directed as toward their end, is achieved in the most efficacious possible way.

"12. The spiritual life, however, is not limited solely to participation in the liturgy. The Christian is indeed called to pray with his brethren, but he must also enter into his chamber to pray to the Father, in secret; yet more, according to the teaching of the Apostle, he should pray without ceasing. We learn from the same Apostle that we must always bear about in our body the dying of Jesus, so that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our bodily frame. This is why we ask the Lord in the sacrifice of the Mass that, 'receiving the offering of the spiritual victim,' he may fashion us for himself 'as an eternal gift.'"

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Kneeling Through the Doxology

ROME, JUNE 1, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Related to the reply on the doxology (see May 18), a reader from Singapore had asked: "In the Order of the Mass, the response to the doxology, 'Through him, with him, in him ...' is 'Amen.' However, a popular musical setting commonly sung by choirs in many parishes has the response, 'Amen, Alleluia, forever and ever, Amen.' Is it proper for the response to be modified in this way? After all, it is mentioned in canon law No. 846 that 'The liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments. Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books.'"

I believe that, as well as the aforementioned canon, the principles involved in responding to this query are elucidated in the following documents.

The Holy See's 2001 instruction on liturgical translation, "Liturgiam Authenticam," says the following regarding setting liturgical texts to music:

"60. A great part of the liturgical texts are composed with the intention of their being sung by the priest celebrant, the deacon, the cantor, the people, or the choir. For this reason, the texts should be translated in a manner that is suitable for being set to music. Still, in preparing the musical accompaniment, full account must be taken of the authority of the text itself. Whether it be a question of the texts of Sacred Scripture or of those taken from the Liturgy and already duly confirmed, paraphrases are not to be substituted with the intention of making them more easily set to music, nor may hymns considered generically equivalent be employed in their place."

More than two decades earlier, in 1973 the U.S. bishops' liturgy committee had replied to a similar query regarding a changed version of the Our Father:

"In determining the suitability of sung settings of liturgical texts, a threefold judgement must be made: musical, liturgical and pastoral (see Music in Catholic Worship, number 25). While the musical and pastoral appropriateness of this particular piece of music is debatable, strictly liturgical considerations are very clear. "Regulation of the liturgy and approval of liturgical texts is clearly described by the Constitution on the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council (see Sacrosanctum Concilium, paragraph 22). All liturgical texts used in the dioceses of the United States of America must be approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and subsequently confirmed by the Holy See. "In keeping with these norms, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops approved the current text for the Order of Mass in 1973, a decision which was confirmed by the Holy See the following year. These texts, including the text of the Lord's Prayer, may not be changed by anyone except the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and then only with confirmation by the Holy See ...."

In the same spirit, the 2007 guidelines issued by the U.S. bishops' "Sing to the Lord" address this question in No. 109: "Composers who set liturgical texts to musical settings must respect the integrity of the approved text. Only with the approval of the USCCB Secretariat for Divine Worship may minor adaptations be made to approved liturgical texts."

Although our reader writes from Singapore, the text referred to was originally published in the United States and before the present norms came into force.

Although I am unaware if this modification has received any form of official approval, I do not believe that it is just a minor adaptation that can be approved by the U.S. bishops' Secretariat for Divine Worship but rather a change that would require eventual approval from the Holy See. A minor change could be the triple repetition of this Amen, which is quite common even at the Vatican, or a small variation in the order of words that does not impinge on meaning. Adding words not in the original text would not usually be considered minor.

In the case of the doxology, I would say that the previously mentioned addition probably weakens the simple and direct force of the faithful's concluding "Amen" ("so be it") to the whole Eucharistic prayer.

Article: Catholic Doctrine on the Holy Trinity

Editor's note: I was searching online for an equivalent text by Venerable John A. Hardon (1914-2000) on the Holy Trinity in "The Catholic Catechism" (1975). I was able to find one, though it wasn't exactly concise.

Although a bit late, I hope that people would still have Trinity Sunday in our own subconsciousness and at least try to contemplate on this.

*~*~*

The mystery of the Holy Trinity is the most fundamental of our faith. On it everything else depends and from it everything else derives. Hence the Church’s constant concern to safeguard the revealed truth that God is One in nature and Three in Persons.

In order to do some justice to this sublime subject, we shall look only briefly at the heretical positions that at various periods of the Church’s history challenged the revealed Trinitarian faith. Our principal intention is to see in sequence the development of the doctrine, with emphasis on how the Church’s authority has contributed to the progress in understanding the plurality of persons in the one true God.

There is also great value in seeing some of the implications of the doctrine for our personal and social lives, since the mystery was most extensively revealed by Christ during the same discourse at the Last Supper when He taught us the “New Commandment” by which we are to love one another as He has been loving us.

Trinitarian Heresies

There is a certain logic in the adversative positions assumed by those who called into question one or another aspect of the Trinity. Not surprisingly the human mind has wrestled with what God revealed about Himself in His inner Trinitarian existence. And depending on the willingness to recognize its limitations, the intellect has been enlightened by what God says about His mysterious being.

Thus we have, on the one hand, such extensive treatises as St. Augustine’s De Trinitate that show how perfectly compatible is the mystery of the Triune God with the deepest reaches of human intelligence. Indeed, the better the Trinity is understood, the more the human mind expands its horizons and the better it understands the world that the Trinity has created.

At the same time, we have the spectacle of another phenomenon. Minds that are not fully docile to the faith have, in greater or less measure, resisted the unquestioning acceptance of the Trinity. From apostolic times to the present, they have struggled with themselves and in their misguided effort to “explain” the mystery have only rationalized their own ideas of what the mystery should be.

For the sake of convenience, we can capsulize the leading anti-Trinitarian teachings of Christian history. Although given here somewhat chronologically, they are all very current because one or another, or a combination of several, may be found in contemporary writings in nominally Christian sources. There is no such thing as an antiquated doctrinal error, as correspondingly there is no such thing as an entirely new heresy. Error has its own remarkable consistency.

Monarchianism

By the end of the first century, certain Judaizing Christians lapsed into a pre-Christian notion of God. According to them God is simply unipersonal. Such were the Corinthians and the Ebionites.

Within the next hundred years these theories were systemized into what has since become known as Monarchianism, i.e., monos = one + archein = to rule, which postulates only one person in God. In practice, however, Monarchianism affected certain positions regarding the nature and person of Christ; and these were the ones that finally had to be countered by the Church’s Magisterium.

If there is only one person in God, then the Son of God did not become man except as the embodiment of an adopted son of God. According to the Adoptionists, Christ was a mere man, though miraculously conceived of the Virgin Mary. At Christ’s baptism, He was endowed by the Father with extraordinary power and was then specially adopted by God as son. Among others, the best known Adoptionist was Paul of Samosata.

Another group of Monarchians took the view that Christ was divine. But then it was the Father who became incarnate, who suffered and died for the salvation of the world. Those favoring this idea were called Patripassionists, which literally means “Father-sufferers,” meaning that Christ was only symbolically the son of God, since it was the Father Himself who became man. On this hypothesis, of course, the Father, too, is only symbolically Father, since He does not have a natural Son.

The best known Patripassionist was Sabellius, who gave his name to a still popular Christological heresy, Sabellianism. According to Sabellius, there is in God only one hypostasis (person) but three prosopa, literally “masks” or “roles” that the unipersonal God assumes. These three roles correspond to the three modes or ways that God manifests Himself to the world. Hence another name for this theory is Modalism.

In the Modalist system, God manifests Himself, in the sense of reveals Himself, as the Father in creation, as the Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in sanctification. There are not really three distinct persons in God but only three ways of considering God from the effects He has produced in the world.

Subordinationism

Unlike the foregoing, Subordinationism admits there are three persons in God but denies that the second and third persons are consubstantial with the Father. Therefore it denies their true divinity. There have been different forms of Subordinationism, and they are still very much alive, though not all easily recognizable as Trinitarian errors in which the mind tries to comprehend how one single infinitely perfect divine nature can be three distinct persons, each equally and completely God.

The Arians, named after the Alexandrian priest Arius, held that the Logos or Word of God does not exist from eternity. Consequently there could not have been a generation of the Son from the Father but only by the Father. The Son is a creature of the Father and to that extent a “son of God.” He came into existence from nothing, having been willed by the Father, although as “the first born of all creation,” the Son came into the world before anything else was created.

The Semi-Arians tried to avoid the extreme of saying that Christ was totally different from the Father by conceding that He was similar to or like the Father, hence the name Homoi-ousians, i.e., homoios = like = ousia = nature, by which they are technically called.

There was lastly the group of Macedonians, named after Bishop Macedonius (deposed in 360 AD), who extended the notion of subordination to the Holy Spirit, who was claimed not to be divine but a creature. They were willing to admit that the Holy Spirit was a ministering angel of God.

Tritheism

At the other extreme to saying there was only one person in God was the heresy that held (and holds) there are really three gods. Certain names stand out.

According to John Philoponus (565 AD), nature and person are to be identified, or, in his language ousia = hypostasis. There are then three persons in God who are three individuals of the Godhead, just as we would speak of three human beings and say there are three individuals of the species man. Thus instead of admitting a numerical unity of the divine nature among the three persons in God, this theory postulates only a specific unity, i.e., one species but not one numerical existence.

In the theory of Roscelin (1120 AD), a Nominalist, only the individual is real. So the three persons in God are actually three separate realities. St. Anselm wrote extensively against this error.

Gilbert of Poitiers (1154 AD) said there is a real difference between God and the Divinity. As a result there would be a quaternity, i.e., three persons and the Godhead.

Abbot Joachim of Fiore (1202 AD) claimed that there is only a collective unity of the three persons in God, to form the kind of community we have among human beings, i.e., a gathering of like-minded persons joined together by their freedom to work together on a common enterprise. Joachim of Fiore is also known in doctrinal history as the one who projected the idea of three stages in Christian history. Stage One was the Age of the Father, through Old Testament times; Stage Two was the Age of the Second Person, the Son, which lasted from the time of the Incarnation to the Middle Ages; Stage Three began about the time of Abbot Joachim and will continue to the end of the world, as the Age of the Holy Spirit.

Anton Guenther (1873) was deeply infected with Hegelian pantheism and proclaimed a new Trinity. Guenther said that the Absolute freely determined Itself three successive times in an evolutionary process of development as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. So the divine substance is trebled.

Post-Reformation Protestantism

The original Reformers affirmed the Trinity without qualification. Thus Luther and Calvin, and the sixteenth century confessions of Protestant faith uniformly attested to the Trinity of Persons in God. But the subjectivism of the Protestant principles paved the way to a gradual attrition of the faith, so that rationalism has made deep inroads into the denominations. The most common form of this rationalism takes the three persons in God as only three personifications of the divine attributes, e.g., divine power is personified by the Father, divine wisdom by the Son, and divine goodness by the Holy Spirit.

In this context, we may define rationalism as that system of thought that claims that the human mind cannot hold with certainty what it cannot understand. Since the Trinity cannot be fully understood, it cannot therefore be held to be certain.

Teaching of the Church

The history of the Church’s doctrine on the Trinity reaches back to the earliest days of Christianity. Our purpose here is to see in review some of the leading statements of the Magisterium, while pointing out some features of each document.

Pope St. Dionysius in 259 AD wrote a public letter to Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria in which he condemned the errors of Sabellius and the tritheist Marcion. The significance of this document lies in the fact that it paved the way for the Church’s later teaching, notably in the famous councils that dealt with the person of Christ. The popes led the way in defending the revealed mystery of the Trinity and in explaining its meaning, long before ecumenical councils entered the controversy. Even a few sentences from the pope’s letter will show the intransigence of the Church and her sureness of mind about the Trinity:

Sabellius’ blasphemy is that the Son is the Father, and the Father the Son. These men somehow teach there are three gods since they divine the sacred unity into three different hypostases completely separate from one another.

The teaching of the foolish Marcion who divides and separates the one God into three principles is a teaching from the devil, not the teaching of those who truly follow Christ and who are content with the teachings of the Savior.

At the Council of Nicea (325 AD), the Second Person was declared to be consubstantial with the Father, where the term homo-ousios became the consecrated word for expressing perfect numerical identity of nature between the Father and His Son who became incarnate.

But Nicea did not settle the controversy. Speculators, especially in the Near East, insisted on probing and rationalizing the Trinity so that in 382 AD Pope St. Damasus called a council at Rome in which he summarized the main errors up to his time. Called the Tome of Damasus, this collection of anathemas is a series of definitions on the Trinity that to this day are models of clarity. Twenty-four in number, a sample from the collection again reflects the Church’s perennial faith:

If anyone denies that the Father is eternal, that the Son is eternal, and that the Holy Spirit is eternal: he is a heretic.

If anyone says that the Son made flesh was not in heaven with the Father while He was on earth: he is a heretic.

If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit has all power and knows all things, and is everywhere, just as the Father and the Son: he is a heretic.

The most extensive declaration of the Church’s teaching on the Trinity was made at the Eleventh Synod of Toledo in Spain (675 AD). It is a mosaic of texts drawn from all the preceding doctrines of the Church. Its purpose was to assemble as complete a list of doctrinal statements as possible, in view of the still prevalent errors in nominally Christian circles, and (providentially) in view of the rise of Islam which struck with particular vehemence against the Iberian peninsula. Since the main target of Moslem opposition to Christianity was the Koranic claim that Christians were idolaters because they adored Christ as God, it is instructive to see how the faithful were prepared to resist the Moslem Unitarianism by a clear declaration of their own belief in the Triune God. The full text of doctrine at Toledo runs to over two thousand words. Only a few lines will be given to illustrate the tone:

We confess and we believe that the holy and indescribable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one only God in His nature, a single substance, a single nature, a single majesty and power.

We acknowledge Trinity in the distinction of persons; we profess Unity because of the nature or substance. The three are one, as a nature, that is, not as person. Nevertheless, these three persons are not to be considered separable, since we believe that no one of them existed or at any time effected anything before the other, after the other, or without the other.

Two general councils of the Church formulated the faith in the Trinity in specific creeds, namely the Fourth Lateran and the Council of Florence.

The focus of Fourth Lateran was twofold, to reaffirm the faith in the face of the Albigensian heresy and to defend it against the vagaries of Abbot Joachim.

Since the Albigenses were Manichaens, for whom there were two ultimate sources of the universe, one a good principle and the other an evil one, Lateran declared the absolute oneness of God, who is at the same time Triune:

We firmly believe and profess without qualification that there is only one true God, eternal, immense, unchangeable, incomprehensible, omnipotent, and indescribable, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; three persons but one essence and a substance or nature that is wholly simple.

The Father is from no one; the Son is from the Father only; and the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally. God has no beginning; He always is, and always will be. The Father is the progenitor, the Son is the begotten, the Holy Spirit is proceeding. They are all one substance, equally great, equally all-powerful, equally eternal. They are the one and only principle of all things—Creator of all things visible and invisible, spiritual and corporeal, who, by His almighty power, from the very beginning of time has created both orders of creatures in the same way out of nothing, the spiritual or angelic worlds and the corporeal or visible universe.

Abbot Joachim had a plurality of gods. In his effort to explain how the persons in the Trinity are distinct, he made them so separate that he ended up making them separate deities. Joachim’s problem was transferring what happens in human generation, when something of the parent goes over to the offspring, and is thereby distinct. He pressed the analogy too far and fell into error.

In response to this, the Fourth Lateran Council used the most technical language to insist that there is no division in God just because there is a distinction of persons:

The Father in eternally begetting the Son gave Him His own substance as the Son Himself testifies, “What my Father has given me is greater than all.” But it cannot be said that He gave Him part of His substance, and retained part for Himself, because the substance of the Father is indivisible, since it is altogether simple. Neither can one say that the Father transferred His own substance in generation to the Son, as though He gave it to the Son in such a way that He did not retain it for Himself; otherwise He would cease to be a substance.

The situation at the Council of Florence (1442 AD) was different. Here the need was to state the constant teaching of the Church with a view to reuniting the Eastern and Western Churches, separated by the Eastern Schism.

One feature of Florence, however, that needed to be clarified was brought about by the addition to the Nicene Creed of the expression Filioque, i.e. “and from the Son,” which Rome had approved. The Roman Creed now read, “the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” The Easterners were uncomfortable with the addition, saying that Rome had tampered with a general council. The issue at stake was the true divinity of the Holy Spirit and the true divinity of the Second Person. Consequently, the Council of Florence, in the long Trinitarian Creed that it issued, stated as follows:

The Father is entirely in the Son and entirely in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entirely in the Father and entirely in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is entirely in the Father and entirely in the Son. None of the persons precedes any of the others in eternity, nor does any have greater immensity or greater power. From eternity, without beginning, the Son is from the Father; and from eternity and without beginning, the Holy Spirit has proceeded from the Father and the Son.

Human language could not be clearer, and there the faith of the Church stands to day and will until the end of time. Since the Council of Florence, popes and councils have simply drawn on the elaborate and absolutely unambiguous teaching of Sacred Tradition to offer the faithful for acceptance what is at once the glory of Catholic Christianity and its greatest revealed mystery.

Principal Implications

As we are learning today, faith in the Trinity is the basic test of our Catholic faith as Christians. This is not merely to say that objectively this doctrine is the most fundamental. It is. But subjectively, from our side, it is also the most crucial because it represents the hardest demand on our creedal assent.

All natural knowledge leads us to see only specific unity among human beings. We have one human nature, indeed, but we are only specifically one as distinct persons. We are really distinct as persons but we are also separate realities. Not so with the Trinity. Each of the divine Persons is the infinite God, and no one Person has only a “share” in the divine nature, a part of it so to speak. Yet they are not three infinities, but only one infinite God.

Relative to generation, all natural knowledge tells us that the parenthood and offspring imply a before and after generation, they imply a producer and a produced, a cause and effect. Not so in the eternal generation of the Son of God by the Father.

All natural knowledge tells us that while love is “outgoing” it does not literally give rise to a third person who is at once distinct from the two who love and numerically one with them in nature. Yet this is the case with God, where the Holy Spirit is declared by the Church as “the Love or the Sanctity of both the Father and the Son.” He proceeds from them without being another god.

But the Trinity is more than a test of our faith. It is also the perfect model of our selfless love. As revelation tells us, within the Godhead is a plurality of Persons, so that God is defined as Love because He has within His own being, to use our language, the object of love which is an Other with whom each of the Persons can share the totality of their being.

We therefore see from reflection on this Triune Love that love by its essence is not self-centered, that love unites, that love gives, and that love shares perfectly within the Godhead. Love is therefore as perfect in us as it approximates the perfect sharing that constitutes the Trinity.

At the same time, we recall that, while perfectly selfless in their mutual sharing of the divine nature, the Persons in the Trinity do not thereby cease to be themselves. Again, this is a lesson for us. We are to give of ourselves generously and without stinting. Nevertheless we are also to give in such a way that we remain ourselves and not become, as it were, something else in the process of sharing. There is such a thing as calculating charity, when a person gives of himself but “not too much” because he fears that his love may be too costly. This is not the teaching of Christ, who told us to love others not only as much as we love ourselves but as much as He loves us.

Saying this, however, is not to say that charity should not be wise. It would be unwise if it deprived us of that which God wants us to be and made us less than we are expected to be. Charity must, therefore, be enlightened; it must be guided by the standard of the Trinity, where each of the divine Persons gives and shares perfectly, yet without ceasing to be what each Person is to be. The Father does not become less the Father in begetting the Son and thus totally sharing the divine nature; nor do Father and Son cease to be themselves although they completely share their divinity with the Holy Spirit.

We thus have a confluence of two mysteries, of the Trinity in heaven and of liberty on earth. The Trinity is the pattern for our liberty. If we use our freedom to love others as we should, modeled on the Triune God, we shall reach that God in eternity. This is our hope, based on our faith, and conditioned by our love.

Father John Hardon, S.J., is founder of The Catholic Faith magazine.

Copyright © 2003 by Inter Mirifica