Catholic Metanarrative

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Wednesday Liturgy: Rosary During Eucharistic Adoration

ROME, OCT. 26, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: In a booklet entitled, "Prayers & Devotions for Eucharistic Holy Hour," Page 13 states: "It is not appropriate to pray the rosary or other devotional prayers to the saints. Benediction and adoration are for the purpose of giving our attention to the worship of Christ the Lord." The booklet was published by Liguori Publications (in 2000) and has both an imprimatur from the auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Most Rev. Michael J. Sheridan, as well as an imprimi potest from Richard Thibodeau, C.Ss.R., provincial, Denver Province of the Redemptorists. On the other hand, another publication entitled, "Thirty-One Questions on Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament: A Resource of the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy," published by the U.S. bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, states on Page 12, in answering question No. 27 (i.e., "May the Rosary be prayed during Eucharistic adoration?"), the following: "Yes. The Rosary, 'a prayer inspired by the Gospel and centered on the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption,' 'should be considered a prayer of deep Christological orientation,' and may rightly be counted among the prayers designed to 'direct the attention of the faithful to the worship of Christ the Lord.' ... [T]he recitation of the Rosary before the exposed Sacrament should help lead the faithful back 'to a knowledge and love of the Lord Jesus, to union with him, finding great encouragement and support in liturgical prayer before the Eucharist.'" Thus, which do you believe is the right and proper form of Eucharistic adoration: with or without the recitation of the rosary? -- F.P., Black Eagle, Montana

A: I can only suppose that, although the pamphlet was published in 2000, it might have simply reprinted earlier material without being updated.

This is because on Jan. 15, 1997, the Congregation for Divine Worship published an official response to a doubt (Prot no. 2287/96/L) in which it clarified that it is permitted to publicly pray the rosary before the Blessed Sacrament exposed. This declaration is the basis of the response of the U.S. bishops' Liturgy Committee favoring the practice.

Although the statement is dated 1997 the response, along with an explanatory note, was actually published much later in Notitiae, the official organ of the Congregation for Divine Worship, and in Spanish (Notitiae [1998] 507-511). Since this review is not widely disseminated it is understandable that the publishers of the pamphlet might have missed it.

Before the Holy See's intervention, the appropriateness of praying the rosary during exposition was a matter of debate among liturgists. Some, in good faith, saw it as an inordinate mixing of Marian and Eucharistic devotions. A small number criticized the practice because they approved neither the rosary nor adoration.

In January-February 1999 the newsletter of the U.S. bishops' Liturgy Committee published an unofficial translation of the Vatican congregation's notes explaining the reasoning behind its decision. To wit:

Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and the Praying of the Rosary

I. Origin

1. The conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, number 13, says: "Popular devotions of the Christian people are to be highly commended, provided they accord with the laws and norms of the Church, above all when they are ordered by the Apostolic See ... But these devotions should be so drawn up that they harmonize with the liturgical seasons in such a way as to be in accord with the sacred liturgy, that they be in some fashion derived from it, and lead the people to it, since, in fact, the liturgy by its very nature far surpasses any of them." The Catechism of the Catholic Church adds to this citation from Sacrosanctum Concilium: "These expressions are a prolongation of the liturgical life of the Church, but are not substitutes for it."

Eucharistic exposition is a celebration related to the liturgy as understood in the Instruction Eucharisticum Mysterium, number 62, from the Roman Ritual: Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass and from the Ceremonial of Bishops which dedicates chapter XXII to this same topic.

The Holy Rosary is, without doubt, one of the pious exercises most recommended by ecclesiastical authority.

(See also The Catechism of the Catholic Church numbers 971, 1674, 2678, 2708).

A Catholic sensitivity never separates Christ from his mother or vice versa.

2. The Apostolic Letter Vicesimus quintus annus, number 18, says: "Finally, to safeguard the reform and ensure the promotion of the Liturgy it is necessary to take account of popular Christian devotion and its relation to liturgical life. This popular devotion should not be ignored or treated with indifference or contempt, since it is rich in values, and in itself it gives expression to the religious attitude towards God. But it needs to be continually evangelized, so that the faith which it expresses may become an ever more mature and authentic act. Both the pious exercises of the Christian people and also other forms of devotion are welcomed and encouraged provided that they do not replace or intrude into liturgical celebrations. An authentic pastoral promotion of the Liturgy will build upon the riches of popular piety, purifying and directing them towards the Liturgy as the offering of the peoples."

II. Relationship Between Eucharistic Exposition and the Holy Rosary

One quote from each of the three most important documents follows:

1. "During the exposition everything should be so arranged that the faithful can devote themselves attentively in prayer to Christ Lord ..." (Instruction Eucharisticum Mysterium, number 62)

2. "To encourage a prayerful spirit there should be readings from Scripture with a homily or brief exhortations to develop a better understanding of the Eucharistic mystery." (Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass, number 95)

3. The Apostolic Exhortation Marialis Cultus indicates that the rosary "as a prayer inspired by the Gospel and centered on the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption should be considered a prayer of deep Christological orientation." (Number 46)

III. At this time it is important to note:

From the Second Vatican Council until the present, the following have been observed:

In the first two decades after the Council, more or less, there arose within the Catholic Church a tendency to suppress adoration before the exposed Blessed Sacrament within the Christian community.

In recent years, prayer before the exposed Blessed Sacrament has been increasingly appreciated once more. Two phenomena have been observed with adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, namely: adoration takes place according to the same style and mentality and with the same prayers as before the Council, or it is celebrated in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Church's documents.

Pastorally, this is an important time to encourage the prayer of adoration before the Blessed Sacrament according to the spirit of the Church documents. An opportunity to reorient this popular practice should not be wasted.

The restoration of the rosary should be promoted in its authentic form, that is, with its Christological character. At times, the traditional manner of reciting the rosary would seem to be limited to a recitation of the Our Father and the Hail Mary. Currently in some places the stating of the mysteries is accompanied by a reading of a brief biblical text to assist in meditation. This is very positive. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Cf. 2708) indicated that Christian prayer ought to go further. It should lead to a knowledge and love of the Lord Jesus, to union with him, finding great encouragement and support in liturgical prayer before the Eucharist.

One should not expose the Eucharist only to recite the rosary. However, among the prayers that are used during adoration, the recitation of the rosary may certainly be included, emphasizing the Christological aspects with biblical readings relating to the mysteries, and providing time for silent adoration and meditation on them.

"During the exposition, the prayers, songs, and readings should be arranged so as to direct the attention of the faithful to the worship of Christ the Lord. To encourage a prayerful spirit, there should be readings from the Scriptures with a homily or brief exhortations to develop a better understanding of the Eucharistic mystery." (Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass, number 95) In the area of popular piety there is still much to be done so that pious exercises will support liturgical life and vice versa. There is a need to educate the Christian community to deepen the understanding of this pious exercise in order to appreciate fully its true worth.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Anointing for Mental Disorders

ROME, OCT. 26, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Our discussion on anointing of the sick (see Oct. 12) generated much positive interest, and I wish to revisit the topic by sharing some of the insights offered by our readers.

A medical researcher from Australia offered two especially pertinent comments.

First: "The physical basis of a state of illness, while relevant to treatment, can be a somewhat slippery science, especially in mental and psychiatric illness. As you dutifully point out, severity and pathology are better distinguished; the former is relevant to the sacrament while the latter probably much less so. The particular question of whether a certain kind of illness is primarily 'physical' can be somewhat academic -- and even more so if trying to dissect the contribution of 'physical' and 'non-physical' components behind the suffering of a particular individual."

I agree with our correspondent that severity is the principal consideration to make in deciding when to anoint. As our reader points out, diagnosis is very difficult in these cases. One of our correspondents commented that she had been misdiagnosed for 20 years as suffering from mental illness when the cause was a severe food allergy.

Although the possible physical origin of apparent mental illnesses is not a fundamental argument, I thought it germane to the theme as in former times there was much insistence on the sacrament of the sick being primarily orientated to physical illnesses.

Second: "You say, '[S]uch situations should be handled on a case-by-case basis and in consultation with the person's physician.' I agree that case-by-case is the only sensible option, and I hope I have not misunderstood your intention but it seems that you also advise uncertain priests to routinely approach the individual's treating physician. For better or for worse, in the majority of situations the treating physician will probably be unwilling to discuss particular patients, even with a priest. I can think of exceptions, for example, some hospital chaplaincy contexts, but these would be the exceptions to the rule. It may be that physicians may be flexible for priests in very Catholic countries (of which I claim no experience) but again, this would represent an exception to the usual practice. Also, in community-based (i.e., non-hospital) situations, access to the treating physician usually has to be via the patient and this also raises potential complications.

"I don't have access to the 'Pastoral Care of the Sick: Rites of Anointing and Viaticum' document; however, based on what you have quoted, the document (PCS, No. 8) says, 'If necessary a doctor may be consulted.' This does not appear to imply the person's actual treating physician, and I read this as recommending that an uncertain priest could approach an uninvolved doctor for generic advice.

"Accessing the patient's own treating physician won't usually be feasible, but any priest should be able to find a friendly and reliable doctor for generic advice quite easily and independently of the person in question. As well as helping the priest with the 'seriousness' assessment, a doctor can also provide advice on how best to interact with the person if their condition includes problematic features unfamiliar to the priest (e.g., psychosis, delusions, etc.)."

Again, I agree with this thoughtful comment. The judgment of a doctor is to help gauge the degree of severity in cases in which a priest might have little expertise. The indications of canon law regarding doubtful cases are also important in this regard:

"Can. 1005 This sacrament is to be administered in a case of doubt whether the sick person has attained the use of reason, is dangerously ill, or is dead.

"Can. 1006 This sacrament is to be conferred on the sick who at least implicitly requested it when they were in control of their faculties."

There might be some exceptions in which it is very useful to consult with the treating physician in order to best help the patient. I had personal experience of a now-deceased parishioner who suffered from a severe mental illness with a particularly religious bent. The unfortunate gentleman was constantly petitioning prayers of exorcism and blessing, believing himself possessed by his ancestors. Although such blessings brought some temporary relief, it also tended to keep him away from the doctor and might have hastened his mental and physical decline.

Another priest, who is also a trained mental health counselor, suggested: "To promote 'frequent recourse to the sacraments of reconciliation' continues to place mental illness, which is never in my professional experience chosen," in the realm of a condition of sin.

It was certainly never my intention to make any such association. I suggested the frequent use of reconciliation because it is one of the normal means of grace among other means, such as frequent Communion. I recognize that there are surely forms of mental illness where such a suggestion could be counterproductive, but there are surely others where the habitual life of grace contributes to the healing process.

On a related point a priest correspondent asked: "Are there guidelines for giving Communion to Alzheimer's patients? Is some degree of awareness of Our Lord necessary? Can it be presumed or assumed? Especially if the patient has been a lifelong practicing Catholic even though they show no consciousness of their surroundings now? Who is to make the judgment call in these cases, if it comes down to such a decision: spouse, family, caregiver, Eucharistic minister, or priest?"

While there are clear requirements of knowledge for first Communion, there are no corresponding restrictions for declining years. Since viaticum may be given to the dying even if not fully conscious, there seems to be no reason not to offer it to those for whom the dying process is drawn out over a long period.

We are also ignorant of their true level of awareness. Sometimes, deep-down religious habits are the last to go. Many priests have experience of parishioners who do not respond to questions but who make the sign of the cross or join in the Our Father or hymns learned as a child. The decision to give Communion usually falls upon the minister after having discussed the issue with the family. But I believe that in general the tendency should favor the administration of the sacrament.

I would be reluctant predominantly in those cases of people not fully in control of their reactions and who might inadvertently profane the sacrament.

Another priest, writing from Rome, asked: "Can a Catholic priest validly/licitly anoint a baptized non-Catholic who at his sick bed consciously requests the sacrament from him (the priest)? He has no intention of becoming a Catholic but desires this sacrament because he believes in its efficacy. What about if he is in evident danger of death?"

In such cases the following norms from the Ecumenical Directory are applied.

"130. In case of danger of death, Catholic ministers may administer these sacraments when the conditions given below (n. 131) are present. In other cases, it is strongly recommended that the diocesan Bishop, taking into account any norms which may have been established for this matter by the Episcopal Conference or by the Synods of Eastern Catholic Churches, establish general norms for judging situations of grave and pressing need and for verifying the conditions mentioned below (n. 131). In accord with Canon Law, these general norms are to be established only after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the other interested Church or ecclesial Community. Catholic ministers will judge individual cases and administer these sacraments only in accord with these established norms, where they exist. Otherwise they will judge according to the norms of this Directory.

"131. The conditions under which a Catholic minister may administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, of penance and of the anointing of the sick to a baptized person who may be found in the circumstances given above (n. 130) are that the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community, ask for the sacrament of his or her own initiative, manifest Catholic faith in this sacrament and be properly disposed."

Article: Anger and Virtue

EDWARD P. SRI

For some readers of the Gospels, Jesus might appear to be offering two contradictory messages about anger.

On the one hand, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus compares the punishment for anger with the judgment facing murderers: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment" (Mt. 5:21–22).

Yet in Jerusalem, He Himself seems quite angry at the Pharisees as He pronounces a series of woes on them, even calling them children of hell: "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves" (Mt. 23:15). What are we to make of these apparently conflicting passages about anger?


Crime and Punishment

As a passion, anger itself is neither good nor evil (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1767). It can be noble if it is directed toward maintaining justice and correcting vice (Catechism, no. 2302). One can think of anger as a passionate desire to set things right in the face of a perceived evil. In the sense of noble anger, it is not about "getting even" with a person who may have hurt us, but about protecting one's own good, the good of the community, and even the good of the person who inflicted the injury.

This seems to be the kind of anger Jesus has in His confrontation with the Pharisees in Jerusalem. It is His last showdown with His chief opponents, who have rejected Him as Messiah and are about to bring Him to His death. In order to show very clearly how dire their situation is, Jesus – out of great love for the Pharisees – sternly warns them of the deadly path they are pursuing. If they persist in their rejection of the Son of God, they will be closing themselves out of the very kingdom Jesus wants to offer to them, and they will lead many of their followers with them. If Jesus did not truly love the Pharisees, He would not warn them of the eternal punishment toward which they are heading. Jesus' anger is thus rooted in love – in desiring what is best for them – as He intends this clear warning to lead them to repentance.

Being angry about the right things and in the right way is virtuous. But avoiding anger at all times may be a sign of weakness. St. Thomas Aquinas notes how it is a vice not get angry over things one should. He calls it "unreasonable patience." A failure to correct the wicked encourages them to persist in their evil deeds, since there are no reprimands for their wrong actions. It also causes confusion in the community over what is truly right and wrong, and thus may lead even good people to do evil.

Take, for example, the problem of abortion. The killing of innocent babies in the womb is one of the gravest injustices of our times. Thousands of babies are killed each day by abortion in the United States alone. We should be angry about this! Righteous anger should drive us to seek to outlaw abortion in order to protect human life. Yet when Christian leaders fail to condemn abortion and the governmental polices that support it, the abortion industry is encouraged to further its evil practices, and even more women and children will suffer. Christians themselves might become softened and increasingly apathetic about the pro-life cause if they perceive that their leaders take a lukewarm stance toward this issue.


Disciplining Children

Unreasonable patience can take place right in one's own home. While sinful, immoderate anger is a difficulty in some families today, the failure to discipline one's children can also be problematic. Since anger seeks to set things right in the face of evil, it can be very good if it is grounded in love for the community and for the person who has done wrong – if it is seeking to maintain justice and to correct the vice of the wrongdoer (Catechism, no. 2302).

Third, our anger can be sinful if it is too fierce. This can happen in two ways.

This is why parents sometimes need to correct their children when they are misbehaving. No punishment, of course, should ever flow out of frustration, selfishness or rage; it should always be done moderately. Most of all, it should be rooted in love. If a father truly loves his children, he wants what is best for them, for to love "is to will the good of another" (Catechism, no. 1766). Since virtue and holiness are what is best for our children and what will equip them for a happy life, parents need to train them in the good habits of the virtuous life. This involves much education, encouragement, example, and prayer, to be sure. But it also entails discipline.

Failure to correct vice will have serious consequences for a child's future, for they will not be as equipped with the basic human skills – the virtues – they need to navigate through the challenges of life. They will be more prone to act according to their emotions and appetites, and their pleasures and fears, than according to what is truly best.


Dare to Discipline?

Why do some parents fail to discipline their children? Some have good intentions but feel uncertain about how to discipline since they did not have good parenting models from their own upbringing. Some might be afraid that, if they discipline, their children will not like them. Others might even have a faulty view of punishment as being unloving.

Still other parents might simply be lazy. After all, constantly staying on top of our children's moral development (which is a perpetual endeavor!) and doing so in a loving, relational way is quite demanding. When there is a cry of injustice between siblings in the basement or a certain tone of voice with a child in the kitchen or a discipline issue brewing in the living room, it is tempting to downplay it or ignore it altogether. Indeed, it is easier to continue to watch that game on TV or to talk to our friends who are visiting or to check one more email than it is to drop everything to deal with a misbehaving child.

But small acts of misbehavior typically do not go away on their own. When we do not seek to set things right when our children misbehave – when we fail to take time to calmly but firmly discipline children on smaller matters that pop up in the day – unruly conduct progressively gets worse. And when things get out of control, the inattentive parents often end up responding in frustration, as if the problem is primarily the child and not their own negligence in discipline.


Sinful Anger

Being angry over the right things is important. But we also want to steer clear of the many ways anger can be sinful.

According to Aquinas, anger is sinful, first, when we are angry over the wrong things – over things that are not unjust. Some examples: a lazy student who did not study but is angry at his teacher for giving him a poor grade, a family member who is angry that you are not coming home for Thanksgiving dinner even though you are very sick, a child who is angry because you asked him to pick up his toys. None of these people have a just cause for anger; their anger is sinful, for they are angry over the wrong things.

Another way we might fall into sinful anger is in our motives. When someone hurts or upsets us, we might be driven by a vindictive attitude, which wants to see that person suffer. Part of us might wish that person failure or harm. We might hope their wrongdoing will be exposed – not for their own good, but merely because we want to see their demise. Virtuous anger, however, seeks the well-being even of one's enemies. Thus, the virtuous man hopes that those who do evil will repent of their wickedness and return to what is good. But when we are sinfully angry, we do not care so much about the soul of the person who hurt us. We just want to see them "get what they deserve."

Third, our anger can be sinful if it is too fierce. This can happen in two ways. Without saying a word or inflicting any physical harm upon others, we can be too severe internally in our thoughts. This can happen, for example, when we hold a grudge, have too great a displeasure toward someone, or secretly wish that person harm. Immoderate anger also can manifest itself externally in the way we act toward a person who upset us – if, for example, we respond in a fury over a small matter, if we punish a child too severely, or if we purposefully neglect basic courtesy toward the person who hurt us.

Sinful anger in any of these forms is a capital vice in that it gives birth to many other vices. It tends toward sinful thoughts about a person, whereby we have strong displeasure or ill will toward him. It also leads to sinful speech, as we are more likely to speak injurious words either to his face or behind his back, mocking him, criticizing him, or trying to get others to turn against him. Finally, sinful anger can even lead to injurious actions against the person who injured us.

This seems to be the kind of anger Jesus was condemning in the Sermon on the Mount – not the virtuous anger that seeks the rehabilitation of evildoers (the anger He had toward the Pharisees), but the vicious anger that seeks the harm of those whom we abhor. Virtuous anger builds up the community by correcting vice. But sinful anger tears it down by merely seeking to wound those who hurt us."



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Edward P. Sri. "The Art of Living: Anger and Virtue." Lay Witness (July/August, 2010).

This article is reprinted with permission from Lay Witness magazine.

Lay Witness is a publication of Catholic United for the Faith, Inc., an international lay apostolate founded in 1968 to support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.

THE AUTHOR

Edward Sri is provost and a professor of theology and Scripture at the Augustine Institute in Denver, Colorado (www.augustineinstitute.org) and a frequent contributor to Lay Witness. He resides with his wife, Elizabeth, and their five children in Littleton, Colorado. Edward Sri is the author of Queen Mother, Mystery of the Kingdom, and The New Rosary in Scripture: Biblical Insights for Praying the 20 Mysteries. His books are available by calling Benedictus Books toll-free at (800) 398-5470.

Copyright © 2010 LayWitness

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Article: Temperance and the Art of Eating

EDWARD P. SRI

Self-discipline is crucial for both the athlete and the Christian, especially when it comes to food.

St. Paul once likened the Christian way to a race for which athletes discipline themselves in order to win a prize: "Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things" (1 Cor. 9:24–25).

Indeed, self-discipline is crucial for both the athlete and the Christian, especially when it comes to food. Just as athletes must watch their diet and practice self-control in eating, so human beings cannot eat whatever they want, whenever they want, and however much they want if they are going to live a successful life.

As discussed in our last reflection, temperance is the virtue that moderates our desire for pleasure – especially the pleasure attached to food, drink, and sex. Temperance also moderates the sorrow and frustration we might experience when we have to go without those pleasures and our appetites are left unsatisfied.

Without temperance, we tend to become grumpy, angry, or short with others because our desire for pleasure is not being fulfilled. Without temperance, we become slaves to our appetites and find ourselves easily distracted from the good we should be doing (it's hard to stay focused on a task when we can't stop thinking about that cake in the office lounge or that fresh bag of Doritos in the cabinet). A lack of temperance also makes us selfish, by putting our own desire for pleasure over the good of others (I'm not as attentive to others' needs when I can only think of filling my stomach or quenching my thirst).


Me . . . A Glutton?

Gregory the Great described gluttony as "an enemy within us" which must be tamed before other spiritual battles can be successfully fought. He said, "As long as the belly is unrestrained, all virtue comes to naught."

Gluttony is an inordinate desire for food and drink. Some people who are not overweight, however, might think they do not have to worry about this vice. Yet slender people who do not eat a lot of food might actually be more gluttonous than someone who is obese. There are many ways one can fall into gluttony other than overeating. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that to avoid the trappings of gluttony, one must be concerned not only about how much one eats, but also, what, how, and how often one eats.


How much I eat.

There are two questions we should ask ourselves along these lines: First, do I eat too greedily – more than my share – such that others at table or at the social event are not able to receive as much? As the Book of Sirach reminds us, "Do not reach out your hand for everything you see, and do not crowd your neighbor at the dish" (Sir. 31:14).

Second, do I eat more than I need? It is not wrong to satisfy one's hunger to a point and receive proper nourishment. But am I easily able to leave the table not completely stuffed? Frequently filling my stomach to maximum capacity is a sign of my overattachment to food and is another form of gluttony.


What I eat.

Do I tend to eat only costly, elegant kinds of foods? Am I a picky eater? Do I only eat certain kinds of foods or brands or do I always want my meals prepared a certain way? When I am served food that is not my preference ("It's not organic!", "It's a strange foreign food I've never tasted before!", "Oh no . . . lots of vegetables!"), do I try to eat it cheerfully and express gratitude to the people who prepared it? Or do I complain about the food at the cafeteria or on the table at home? Even if I do not say anything aloud, do I find myself whining interiorly that this is not the kind of food I like?

Without temperance, we tend to become grumpy, angry, or short with others because our desire for pleasure is not being fulfilled.

If I answered "yes" to any of these questions, it is probably a sign that I am too attached to certain kinds of food and that the vice of gluttony has a hold on my soul.

Of course, some people have special dietary needs. Someone with a heart condition, for example, should avoid high-cholesterol foods. And the person with an anaphylactic peanut allergy sometimes needs to let his hosts know about his life-threatening condition. But when it comes to my own personal tastes, am I willing to die to myself on certain occasions for the sake of giving others preference or for the sake of honoring those serving me?

Think about how other people feel when they perceive our picky attitudes. When our spouse, our parents, or a host is preparing a meal for us, if they sense our "high maintenance" tastes, it may make them feel awkward or uncomfortable. They may feel stress as they try to accommodate our fastidiousness. Our pickiness may even make them feel bad that they do not have the same "high standards" about food as we do.


How I Eat.

Do I eat too quickly? From a Catholic perspective, a meal is more than an opportunity to satisfy our hunger and nourish our bodies. A meal is a time to share life with others and to have conversation. When people eat too hastily, however, they are so focused on filling their stomachs that they are not easily attentive to other people. On a basic level, they do not think about the needs of others at the table. Instead of kindly anticipating other people's desires for more water, wine, or bread, the gluttonous man is more concerned about getting what he wants on his own plate. Even more, when someone is so focused on stuffing his mouth, it is difficult for him to have conversation with the people at table. Dinner for such a person becomes more a time for gratifying his own appetite than a setting for communion with others. Instead of truly sharing a meal and sharing a life together at table as human beings are meant to do, some people eat like animals who merely happen to be occupying the same feeding trough, staring down at their food, filling their mouths, and never making eye contact with each other.

Furthermore, when a person eats too quickly, he does not even enjoy the food itself as much. God put pleasure in good food; we should eat our meals slowly so that we can actually enjoy them! The person who always rushes his meals is not able truly to take delight in the pleasure of good food.


When I Eat.

Do I always have to eat whenever I sense hunger? In our family, our toddlers each went through a difficult period while they were learning to express properly their desire for something to eat or drink. In these transitional months, as soon as they experienced the slightest bit of hunger or thirst, they used to shout out with a painful voice as if it were a major crisis: "I'm so hungry!" or "Juuuuice! Juuuuice!" And, of course, they expected to have their hunger and thirst satisfied immediately.

Similarly, when we leave our appetites unbridled, they become like a little child inside us screaming, "I want chocolate!" or "I need my Starbucks latte!" or "I must have McDonald's French fries, right now!" And like an undisciplined toddler, we let our appetites control us. We may snack throughout the day because a little bit of hunger would be too painful. Or we may eat before others get to the table. Or we may suddenly find ourselves taking a spontaneous 10-minute break from work, or getting off the highway to hit the drive-through, or paying money for things we did not plan – all in order to satiate that incessant, demanding voice of our appetite.


Fasting

Fasting is the virtue we need to free our will from slavery to our appetites. Aquinas says fasting bridles the lusts of the flesh. By abstaining from food and drink on some regular basis, we give our wills practice at saying "no" to our hunger and thirst. As a result, our wills become strengthened and we are less likely to be controlled by our appetites or become frustrated when they are not immediately satiated.

When we refuse to give in to our appetites for little things such as chocolate during Lent or meat on Friday, we gain greater self-control. This is one reason why the Church designates certain times like Lent and Fridays as special days of penance: so that we have regular opportunities to practice self-control and thus grow in temperance.


Drunkenness and Sobriety

Drinking alcohol itself is not immoral, but drunkenness is. In fact, drunkenness – drinking to the point that hinders the use of reason and causes loss of control – is a mortal sin, according to Aquinas.

Finally, a note about drunkenness and sobriety: Sobriety is the virtue that moderates our consumption of alcohol. Drinking alcohol itself is not immoral, but drunkenness is. In fact, drunkenness – drinking to the point that hinders the use of reason and causes loss of control – is a mortal sin, according to Aquinas. St. Paul lists drunkenness as one of the sins that keeps one out of the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:10; Gal. 5:21).

Aquinas explains that when a man is aware that his drinking is immoderate and intoxicating but wants to be inebriated rather than stop drinking, his drunkenness is a mortal sin because he "willingly and knowingly deprives himself of the use of reason whereby he performs virtuous deeds and avoids sin, and thus he sins mortally by running the risk of falling into sin."[1]

As a former student once said in class, "It's hard enough trying to be a good Christian when we're sober!" Indeed, pursuing virtue is difficult when we have full use of our reason. To willingly put ourselves in a condition that hinders our use of reason – as happens when we become drunk – compromises our ability to do the good and resist sin even more.


Endnote

[1] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 150, Art. 2.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Edward P. Sri. " Temperance and the Art of Eating." Lay Witness (May/June, 2010).

This article is reprinted with permission from Lay Witness magazine.

Lay Witness is a publication of Catholic United for the Faith, Inc., an international lay apostolate founded in 1968 to support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.

THE AUTHOR

Edward Sri is provost and a professor of theology and Scripture at the Augustine Institute in Denver, Colorado (www.augustineinstitute.org) and a frequent contributor to Lay Witness. He resides with his wife, Elizabeth, and their five children in Littleton, Colorado. Edward Sri is the author of Queen Mother, Mystery of the Kingdom, and The New Rosary in Scripture: Biblical Insights for Praying the 20 Mysteries. His books are available by calling Benedictus Books toll-free at (800) 398-5470.

Copyright © 2010 LayWitness

Article: The First Freedom: Religious Liberty as the Foundation of Human Liberty

THE MOST REVEREND CHARLES J. CHAPUT, O.F.M. CAP.

The freedom of the Church must be claimed and reclaimed by Christians in each new generation.

Some of you here tonight will know the name of John Courtney Murray. He's worth remembering. Father Murray was the American Jesuit who helped craft the Second Vatican Council's landmark Declaration on Religious Liberty.

A year after World War II ended, with millions dead and Europe and Japan in ruins, Murray wrote that "those who deny the sovereignty of God over human society are the most dangerous enemies of human liberty."[1]

He wasn't speaking about National Socialism or Communism. He was talking about European Liberalism. That's Liberalism with a capital "L," the system of ideas; the kind of secularism that preached individual freedom while pushing religion out of the public square.

Murray saw that religious freedom is humanity's first and most basic freedom. Religious faith speaks to the purpose of life, the meaning of death and the nature of the human person. It's a God-given right, inherent to human nature. It precedes the state. It is not dependent in any way on any human authority for its legitimacy. And any attempt to suppress the right of people to worship, preach, teach, practice, organize and peacefully engage society because of their belief in God is an attack on the cornerstone of human dignity.

My talk tonight has a simple purpose. I want you to leave here thinking about religious freedom. In Canada and the United States we take this freedom for granted. It's basic to our identity as free peoples in free societies. It's also guaranteed – at least in theory – by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the U.N. General Assembly.

Article 19 of the Declaration says that "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief; and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

In 1998, President Bill Clinton signed into American law the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The commission exists because, in the experience of the American people, religious freedom is a basic human right. It's vital to sustaining a democratic society. And so the commission has the task of supporting religious freedom around the globe.

I served three years as a commissioner. The work took me to China and Turkey on fact-finding missions. It also immersed me in the experience of many other countries. I learned three things. First, most countries claim to respect religious liberty. Second, many of those countries don't speak the truth. And third, wherever religious freedom is denied, other freedoms also suffer.

The commission's 2010 annual report runs nearly 400 pages. It details very serious violations of religious freedom in 13 countries. It warns of growing abuses in a dozen more. And it lists another three countries that need closer monitoring for their interference with religious liberty.

Canadian and American Christians often have trouble understanding the brutality of anti-religious repression or serious religious discrimination. It's not part of our national heritage. But many millions of Christians are now being persecuted or harassed for their faith around the world. We need to pray for them. And we also need to pray for ourselves. Because we're not as securely free as we might like to think.

In an open society, religion can be smothered simply by creating a climate in which religious believers are portrayed as buffoons and hypocrites, or as dangerous eccentrics.

For decades now, we've been witnessing in our two countries – and throughout the democratic nations of the West – a campaign against Christian beliefs. The process clothes itself in the language of progress and secularization. But it has little to do with humanity's moral development. It has a lot to do with kicking Christianity out of the public square.

In an open society, religion can be smothered simply by creating a climate in which religious believers are portrayed as buffoons and hypocrites, or as dangerous eccentrics. Or by setting ground rules of public debate that privilege a supposedly "scientific" outlook, and treat religious beliefs as irrelevant.

Inside the media cocoon of a modern society, popular opinion can be shaped in countless little ways until people come to think of their faith as something they should keep to themselves; and that it's bad manners to interject their beliefs into the political process. They might also come to think that certain basic Christian teachings are in fact hateful, intolerant and repressive of other people's freedoms.

And then one morning they find that their faith has compromised itself into apostasy – and they're living in a society where people act as though God no longer exists.

I believe we're getting closer to that morning in our own societies. So we need to get our thinking straight about religious freedom and what it demands of us. To help with that thinking, I want to suggest a few simple points.


The first one is this:

1. For a Catholic, freedom of religion must always include freedom for the Church's mission.

For Catholics, religious liberty begins with the individual. But it can never be an issue purely of private conscience. It's vital for us to have the freedom to enter into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. And it's vital that we have the freedom to practice and preach our Catholic beliefs about God and man, the Eucharist, the priesthood, marriage and the nature of human sexuality. Our relationship with Jesus Christ imposes duties that go well beyond any private choices we make about doctrine or worship.

By our baptism we're joined to a visible and public faith community – the apostolic Church created by Jesus himself to carry on his mission in history.

Modern societies often treat religion like a lifestyle accessory. But that profoundly trivializes religion. It domesticates God and turns him into a creature of our own needs. And that's not real religious faith. It's self-deception and idolatry.

The Church is more than a voluntary association of like-minded believers. She is the Bride of Christ, the Mother of Christians, the womb of the family of God. Our relationship with the Church is filial, not contractual. Each of us who is baptized becomes a son or daughter of God. And, as St. Augustine always said: "He who has not the Church for his mother cannot have God for his Father."[2]

This relationship shapes how we understand our religious freedom. As children of God and men and women of the Church, each of us shares in her mission.

Last month in London, Pope Benedict XVI beatified the great Cardinal John Henry Newman. Among his many other gifts, Newman had a great sense of our Christian vocation. He wrote:

God knows me and calls me by my name. God has created me to do him some definite service. He has committed some work to me which he has not committed to another. I have my mission. … I have my part in this great work.[3]

The "great work" Newman talked about is the mission that Jesus gave to his Church and to every Christian: to bear witness to his kingdom, to make disciples of all nations, and to teach all people – by word and example – to observe everything that Christ commanded.

When we talk about religious freedom, we're talking about the freedom of the Church – and the freedom of her children, including every Catholic – to preach, teach and practice the lordship of Jesus Christ.


My second point is this:

2. The source of religious freedom for Catholics is not the laws of men, but the law of God.

The Second Vatican Council, in its Declaration on Religious Liberty, said: "The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle governing relations between the Church and [state] authorities and the whole social order."

The Church's freedom, the council said, is a "sacred liberty," with which the Church has been "endowed" by Jesus Christ for the sake of man's salvation.[4]

The council was pointing us back to Christ's own words – "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's."[5] This Scripture passage teaches us two things:

First it tells us that politics is not all there is. There are two powers – the temporal and the spiritual, the secular and the sacred, Caesar and God. Ultimately the sacred has priority over the secular, because this world ends, and God is forever. But in humanity's daily affairs, each of these two powers has a legitimate separate dignity, function and autonomy that must be respected. And they should never be confused.

The second thing Scripture tells us is that Caesar is not God. Earthly rulers answer to a higher authority. In fact, some of the ancient martyrs went to their deaths with exactly this testimony on their lips: "God is greater than the emperor."[6]

Of course, we have a duty to obey just laws and respect civil authorities. As the prophet Jeremiah said, we should always seek the welfare of the land where the Lord has placed us.[7] But we should also remember that everything important about human life finally belongs not to Caesar, but to God.

Modern societies often treat religion like a lifestyle accessory. But that profoundly trivializes religion. It domesticates God and turns him into a creature of our own needs. And that's not real religious faith. It's self-deception and idolatry.

We're called by God to love him with all our heart and soul, with all our strength and mind; and to love our neighbors as ourselves. This is what faith means to a Catholic.


My third point is this:

3. The freedom to fulfill our duties to God is damaged by the widespread erosion of religion's place in our societies.

Michael Sandel has argued that freedom of religion in modern, developed countries no longer means "respect for religion, but respect for the self whose religion it is."[8] That may sound like a distinction without a difference, but it marks a deep change in how our societies understand religion and its value for public life.

Our two nations were founded, at least in theory, on a recognition that the power of government is subordinate to the authority of God. In other words, God outranks Caesar.

As late as 1982, the framers of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms could still assert in its preamble that Canada is "founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

America's Declaration of Independence makes the same point: Human rights come from God, not from governments. Civil power is justified only so far as it secures those natural rights, promotes them and defends them.

In reducing religious faith to a personal idiosyncrasy, in denying any authority to religion beyond the private conscience of the individual, our societies undercut the rights we cherish.

What God endows, no human being – no judge, no court, no legislator and no executive – can take away. And when governments assume the power to define rights, repression always follows. In this regard, the increasing contempt we see aimed at the Catholic community in our mass media, academic, cultural and political leadership classes should be deeply sobering.


This brings me to my fourth and final point:

4. In the face of growing secular hostility, we need to preach and practice a Christianity of resistance.

In the early Church, Christians said: "The Church belongs to God; therefore, she ought not to be assigned to Caesar."[9] If those words are true – and they are – then we need to actively resist efforts by government to meddle in Church teaching and internal affairs, and to interfere with the life of her faithful. Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Liberty claims the autonomy of the Church in uncompromising language:

As the spiritual authority appointed by Christ the Lord with the duty, imposed by divine command, of going into the whole world and preaching the Gospel to every creature, the Church claims freedom for herself in human society and before every public authority. The Church also claims freedom for herself as a society of men with the right to live in civil society in accordance with the demands of the Christian faith.

The Church's freedom is never leased or bartered from Caesar. She takes part in the freedom of Jesus Christ himself. The council says that the relationship between the Church and Jesus is so intimate, that to restrict the Church's freedom of action is "to oppose the will of God."[10]

The freedom of the Church must be claimed and reclaimed by Christians in each new generation.

John Courtney Murray often stressed that "the freedom of the Church" is one of the seminal ideas in Western history.[11]

Large portions of human life exist outside the government's competence, and government has no authority to intrude on them. By insisting on her divine liberty, Murray said, the Church laid the foundations for Western notions of limited government and freedom of conscience, and made possible the emergence of a "civil society" – a sphere of public life that mediates between the individual and the state.

The freedom of the Church is never a threat to good government. It is rather a hedge against the vanity of earthly rulers and their tendency to crowd out rival authorities.

Some of you will remember from history that in 1075 Pope Gregory VII was forced to excommunicate the German King and Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV. Henry had seized for himself the power to appoint or "invest" bishops.

The drama of a chastened Henry traveling to Canossa where the Pope was staying, and then waiting in the snow for three days for forgiveness, is one of the key scenes in Western history.

Today Gregory's words about the freedom of the Church sound prophetic:

We make it our business, under the inspiration of God, to provide weapons of humility for emperors, kings and other princes, so that they may be able to restrain the floods of their pride. … For we are aware that worldly glory and secular anxiety usually do draw into pride … those who rule; as a result, neglecting humility and pursuing their own glory, they perpetually yearn to dominate the brethren.[12]


Let me close with a few simple observations.

First, don't be afraid. God never abandons the people who love him. God created each of you for a purpose. Only you can accomplish it for him. He'll never forget you, or stop loving you, or ignore the prayer of an honest heart. So claim the freedom that is already yours by right. Have the courage to preach Jesus Christ, and to teach the Catholic faith by the example of your lives.

Second, love the Church. No one can love an institution. No one can love a bureaucracy. The structures of Church life can't be "loved" – and yet they're unavoidable in doing ministry in the modern world. But the Church is vastly more than her structures. The soul of the Church is the soul of a mother; the heart of the Church is the heart of a mother – our mother, our teacher, our source of solace and strength.

Finally, remember that the Church is missionary by her nature. She cannot remain silent. She exists for just one purpose: to convert, renew and make holy the world; to carry out the mission that Jesus Christ gave her, one soul at a time. Catholics are a missionary people – engaged with the world, witnessing to the world, and struggling for the soul of the world without apologies – or our baptism means nothing at all.

The freedom of the Church must be claimed and reclaimed by Christians in each new generation. Our turn is right here, right now, tonight. So may God grant us the courage, intelligence, and energy to preach Jesus Christ and to claim our sacred liberties. And with God's help, may we turn our nations away from creating the kind of world where those liberties are denied.

Endnotes:

  1. John Courtney Murray, S.J, "How Liberal is Liberalism?," America 75, 6-7, 1946; collected at http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/library/Murray/1946a.htm
  2. Quoted in Henri De Lubac, The Splendor of the Church (Sheed & Ward, 1956), 197.
  3. John Henry Newman, "Meditations on Christian Doctrine," in Meditations and Devotions (Roman Catholic Books, n.d.), 6.
  4. Dignitatis Humanae, 13.
  5. Mark 12:17.
  6. Quoted in Hugo Rahner, Church and State in Early Christianity (Ignatius, 1992 [1961]), xii.
  7. Jer 29:5–7.
  8. Sandel, "Freedom of Conscience," 86.
  9. Quoted in Rahner, Church and State, 113.
  10. Dignitatis Humanae, 13.
  11. Murray, We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition (Image, 1964), 196–199.
  12. Quoted in Anne Fremantle, The Papal Encyclicals in the Historical Context (Mentor, 1956), 65.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. "The First Freedom: Religious Liberty as the Foundation of Human Liberty." Diocese of Victoria, B.C. (October 15, 2010).

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput delivered these remarks on October 15, 2010 at a catechetical conference sponsored by the Diocese of Victoria, British Columbia.

Reprinted by permission of The Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

THE AUTHOR

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

Copyright © 2010 Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

Wednesday Liturgy: October Prayer Intentions

ROME, OCT. 19, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: Please help me to understand the monthly prayer intentions of the Church. I am puzzled by the way we select the prayer intention of the Church. For example, October is the month for the rosary and yet it is also the month for the missions. How does this work, and which intention takes precedence? -- P.B., Harare, Zimbabwe

A: The possibility of prayer intentions is unlimited, and there is no contradiction in having more than one commemoration in the same month. Nor is there any real need to establish a priority in this case.

The association of the month of October with the holy rosary is earlier than with the missions.

The feast of Our Lady of the Rosary on Oct. 7 originated as Our Lady of Victory and commemorated the decisive Christian victory over the Turks at the naval battle of Lepanto in 1571. Pope St. Pius V, a member of the Dominican Order, had organized special processions in Rome on that same day and had requested that Catholics pray the rosary for the Christian fleet. Since then, the feast is a continual reminder of the importance of the rosary and an occasion for promoting its use.

The advent of World Missionary Sunday is relatively recent. St. Thérèse of Lisieux was canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1925 and proclaimed patron of the missions along with St. Francis Xavier. Although Thérèse never left her convent she had a deep love for the missions, prayed continually for missionaries, and corresponded by letter with some missionary priests. She herself had requested to become a missionary and had been assigned to a Carmelite convent in Hanoi, in French Indochina, but her failing health prevented her departure.

The fact that her feast falls on October first probably led the Superior Council of the Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith to propose the second to last Sunday in October as "A day of prayer and propaganda for the missions to be celebrated on the same day by all the parishes and institutes of the Catholic world."

The reasons for the initiative were clearly explained in the request: "It would foster better understanding of the vastness of the missionary task and greater missionary zeal among the clergy and the people; it would be an opportunity to make the Society for the Propagation of the Faith more widely known, encourage membership and offerings for the missions; but above all, like a holy crusade, it would exert sweet violence on the most Sacred Heart of Jesus to hasten universal recognition of His divine sovereignty."

The mention of Christ's divine sovereignty indicates another reason for proposing the penultimate Sunday of October. At that time the feast of Christ the King was celebrated on the last Sunday of October. This feast had also been instituted by Pius XI in 1925 and was very dear to his heart at a time when the Church was threatened by a rising tide of militant atheism.

Pius XI approved the request for the day of prayer for the missions in April 1926.

Over the last eight decades it became customary for the prefect of the congregation to issue a message on the occasion of Mission Sunday. In October 1965 Pope Paul VI issued a message "to add once again Our fervid contribution to the clarification of the essential missionary character of the Holy Church of Christ, presented with supreme effectiveness in these days by the Ecumenical Council [Vatican II]."

Since then, his successors have continued this tradition. This year Pope Benedict XVI's message for World Mission Day on Sunday, Oct. 24, has as its theme "Building Ecclesial Communion is the Key to Mission."

The Little Flower's combination of contemplation and missionary zeal holds the key as to why there is no contradiction between promoting the rosary and fostering the missions.

As a form of prayer the rosary contemplates the principal mysteries of salvation history so as to penetrate their meaning and apply them to our lives. Together with contemplation the rosary, like other forms of prayer, can also have specific intentions which we entrust to God through the mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

This dual aspect of the rosary as contemplation and intercession means it is perfectly compatible to pray the rosary for the intention of the missions, and, indeed, for vocations, for those in need, and for any other intentions we choose.

Another aspect is the Holy Father's monthly intentions. This is a specific activity of the Apostleship of Prayer. Since its foundation in France in 1844, this apostolate has transformed many lives and reaped copious fruits of grace for the Church. Further information on the apostolate can be found at www.apostleshipofprayer.org.

An editor's note on this site explains the monthly intention: "Apostleship of Prayer receives monthly prayer intentions from Pope Benedict XVI and urges Christians throughout the world to unite in prayer for those intentions." As Catholics we firmly believe in the power of prayer and so the Holy Father commends specific intentions every month so that the faithful around the world can join with him in praying for these intentions. This can be done either by specifically praying for this intention or, as explained above, by adding them to our intentions while assisting at Mass, praying the Liturgy of the Hours, the rosary, or other prayers and devotions.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Breaking of the Host

ROME, OCT. 19, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Regarding our Oct. 5 column on why the priest should not break the host at the moment of the consecration, a reader commented: "After the Breaking of the Bread, why do some priests put the pieces back together right before they take Communion? It seems to me the breaking ritual is a sign of sharing, and they should share some of the pieces with the congregation or with others at the altar. In fact, when they use the very large (5-inch) bread, they never try to put it together again. Is there reason for the 'reconstruction' of the smaller sacred Host?"

A very good question! The rite is described in the General Introduction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), Nos. 83 and 84:

"83. The priest breaks the Eucharistic Bread, assisted, if the case calls for it, by the deacon or a concelebrant. Christ's gesture of breaking bread at the Last Supper, which gave the entire Eucharistic Action its name in apostolic times, signifies that the many faithful are made one body (1 Cor 10:17) by receiving Communion from the one Bread of Life which is Christ, who died and rose for the salvation of the world. The fraction or breaking of bread is begun after the sign of peace and is carried out with proper reverence, though it should not be unnecessarily prolonged, nor should it be accorded undue importance. This rite is reserved to the priest and the deacon.

"The priest breaks the Bread and puts a piece of the host into the chalice to signify the unity of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the work of salvation, namely, of the living and glorious Body of Jesus Christ. The supplication Agnus Dei, is, as a rule, sung by the choir or cantor with the congregation responding; or it is, at least, recited aloud. This invocation accompanies the fraction and, for this reason, may be repeated as many times as necessary until the rite has reached its conclusion, the last time ending with the words dona nobis pacem (grant us peace).

Communion

"84. The priest prepares himself by a prayer, said quietly, that he may fruitfully receive Christ's Body and Blood. The faithful do the same, praying silently.

"The priest next shows the faithful the Eucharistic Bread, holding it above the paten or above the chalice, and invites them to the banquet of Christ. Along with the faithful, he then makes an act of humility using the prescribed words taken from the Gospels."

These norms only mention showing the Eucharistic Bread and give no indications as to the mode of doing so. The fact that the liturgy foresees the possibility of breaking the host into several pieces precludes any need to recompose the circular form of the host. Even when using the common-size host that is broken into three pieces, most priests show one or both of the larger fragments as semi-circles.

There seems to be no good answer as to why some priests recompose the circular form other than their personal preference.

It might be that some are inspired by countless devotional pictures which show the host elevated above the chalice. These pictures capture the moment of the final doxology in the extraordinary form of the Roman rite in which the priest makes five signs of the cross with the host above the chalice before elevating host and chalice together while saying or singing in Latin "is all honor and glory forever and ever."

The ordinary form is much simpler; it calls for elevating paten and chalice together and only offers the option of presenting host and chalice together after the fraction rite. It is understandable that some priests attempt to capture some of the significance associated with the extraordinary form's elevation even though this practice risks detracting from the current meaning of showing the Bread that has been broken, the Lamb of God himself, in order to heal us and be our spiritual food.

In conclusion, although recomposing the circular form of the host cannot be said to explicitly contravene liturgical norms, it is perhaps less significant than showing the host in a clearly fragmented manner.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Wednesday Liturgy: Anointing for Mental Disorders

ROME, OCT. 12, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: Could someone who has mental problems/disorders receive the anointing of the sick? For example, people who battle an illness such as anxiety/panic disorder, bipolar, depression, schizophrenia, etc. I would think that these types of illness are not in and of themselves necessarily life-threatening, but they could be and could lead to life-threatening situations. I have a friend in Nova Scotia who visited a shrine in Quebec last summer. The shrine held a special anointing of the sick, but the priest announced that it was only for those truly ill and/or with a life-threatening illness. My friend was truly upset and didn't know whether to receive the anointing. She has had cancer and now suffers an anxiety/panic disorder, always living in fear of the cancer returning. -- T.O., Vermont

A: In general the sacrament of the sick is reserved for serious (but not necessarily life- threatening) physical illness which significantly affects one's health and well-being. It can also be administered before a serious operation or one that requires complete sedation, even if the underlying condition is not in itself life-threatening. It may also be administered to those over 65 if notably weakened, even if they do not suffer from any particular illness.

Historically the Church has not administered this sacrament for less serious illnesses, even if chronic. Until relatively recently, mental illnesses were not usually considered as subjects for anointing.

Medical science, however, has discovered that some hitherto mental illnesses are in fact symptoms of physical imbalances. For example, the dementia associated with Alzheimer's is apparently mental, but it is also a fatal, and still incurable, disease.

Even if the serious mental illness is not caused by known physical phenomena, No. 53 of the introduction to Pastoral Care of the Sick: Rites of Anointing and Viaticum (PCS) opens up the possibility of the use the sacrament in such cases. To wit: "Some types of mental sickness are now classified as serious. Those who are judged to have a serious mental illness and who would be strengthened by the sacrament may be anointed. The anointing may be repeated in accordance with the conditions for other kinds of severe illness."

The minister should proceed with some caution with respect to anointing for mental illness. There is no clear cut standard to determine "seriousness." For this reason, such situations should be handled on a case-by-case basis and in consultation with the person's physician. As stated in PCS, No. 8: "A prudent or reasonably sure judgment, without scruple, is sufficient for deciding on the serious of an illness. If necessary a doctor may be consulted."

Also PCS, No. 52: "Those who receive this sacrament in the faith of the Church will find it a true sign of comfort and support in time of trial. It will work to overcome the sickness if this is God's will."

Finally, while it is possible that anxiety and similar mental strains could reach a stage of seriousness that would warrant anointing, it is also important to recall that the Church's habitual sources of grace such as frequent recourse to the sacraments of reconciliation and Eucharist, closeness to the Blessed Mother, as well as prayer and seeking spiritual guidance are of great benefit in helping us to overcome these burdens or at least bear patiently the trials permitted by God.

Article: Cathedra Sempiterna

BLESSED JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN

When did ever any power go to war with Peter, material or moral, civilized or savage, and got the better? When did the whole world ever band together against him solitary, and not find him too many for it?

Deeply do I feel, ever will I protest, for I can appeal to the ample testimony of history to bear me out, that, in questions of right and wrong, there is nothing really strong in the whole world, nothing decisive and operative, but the voice of him, to whom have been committed the keys of the kingdom and the oversight of Christ's flock. The voice of Peter is now, as it ever has been, a real authority, infallible when it teaches, prosperous when it commands, ever taking the lead wisely and distinctly in its own province, adding certainty to what is probable, and persuasion to what is certain. Before it speaks, the most saintly may mistake; and after it has spoken, the most gifted must obey.

Peter is no recluse, no abstracted student, no dreamer about the past, no doter upon the dead and gone, no projector of the visionary. Peter for eighteen hundred years has lived in the world; he has seen all fortunes, he has encountered all adversaries, he has shaped himself for all emergencies. If there ever was a power on earth who had an eye for the times, who has confined himself to the practicable, and has been happy in his anticipations, whose words have been deeds, and whose commands prophecies, such is he in the history of ages, who sits from generation to generation in the Chair of the Apostles, as the Vicar of Christ and Doctor of His Church.

It was said by an old philosopher, who declined to reply to an emperor's arguments, "It is not safe controverting with the master of twenty legions." What Augustus had in the temporal order, that, and much more, has Peter in the spiritual. When was he ever unequal to the occasion? When has he not risen with the crisis? What dangers have ever daunted him? What sophistry foiled him? What uncertainties misled him? When did ever any power go to war with Peter, material or moral, civilized or savage, and got the better? When did the whole world ever band together against him solitary, and not find him too many for it?

All who take part with Peter are on the winning side. The Apostle of Christ says not in order to unsay; for he has inherited that word which is with power. From the first he has looked through the wide world, of which he has the burden; and according to the need of the day and the inspirations of his Lord, he has set himself, now to one thing, now to another, but to all in season and to nothing in vain. He came first upon an age of refinement and luxury like our own; and in spite of the persecutor, fertile in the resources of his cruelty, he soon gathered, out of all classes of society, the slave, the soldier, the high-born lady, and the sophist, to form a people for his Master's honour. The savage hordes came down in torrents from the north, hideous even to look upon; and Peter went out with holy water and with benison, and by his very eye he sobered them and backed them in full career. They turned aside and flooded the whole earth, but only to be more surely civilized by him, and to be made ten times more his children even than the older populations they had overwhelmed. Lawless kings arose, sagacious as the Roman, passionate as the Hun, yet in him they found their match, and were shattered, and he lived on. The gates of the earth were opened to the east and west, and men poured out to take possession; and he and his went with them, swept along by zeal and charity, as far as they by enterprise, covetousness, or ambition. Has he failed in his enterprises up to this hour? Did he, in our fathers' day, fail in his struggle with Joseph of Germany and his confederates – with Napoleon, a greater name, and his dependent kings – that, though in another kind of fight, he should fail in ours? What grey hairs are on the head of Judah, whose youth is renewed as the eagle's, whose feet are like the feet of harts, and underneath the Everlasting Arms?

"Thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and formed thee, O Israel. Fear not, for I have redeemed thee, and called thee by thy name! Thou art Mine.

"When thou shalt pass through the waters, I will be with thee, and the rivers shall not cover thee.

"When thou shalt walk in the fire, thou shalt not be burned, and the flame shall not kindle against thee.

"For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour.

"Fear not, for I am with thee, I am the first, and I am the last, and besides Me there is no God."

- Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman.


It is not altogether irrelevant to mention here that in January, 1856, Dr. Newman, having occasion to go to Rome on business of very great anxiety, he at once, on alighting from the diligence, went with Father St. John to make a visit of devotion to the shrine of St. Peter, going there the whole way barefoot. The time was the middle of the day, when, as was the case in those years, the streets were very empty, and thus, and screened by his large Roman cloak, he was able to do so unrecognized and unnoticed – nor was it ever known except to Father St. John and another.

His friend Dr. Clifford (the Hon. William J. H. Clifford, late Bishop of Clifton), who with his father Lord Clifford, had travelled with him from Siena, and with whom he dined that day in Rome, knew nothing of this until it was mentioned to him on occasion of his preaching the Cardinal's funeral sermon in 1890.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman. "Cathedra Sempiterna." from Discourses on the scope and nature of university education (Cambridge, U.K. & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1852): 22, 25-28.

This article reprinted with permission from Bob Elder, editor of the Newman Reader, an online resource of the writings of Cardinal Newman. The purpose of Newman Reader (NR) is to make the written works of Cardinal Newman available in as complete and accessible a manner as resources allow. Bob Elder may be contacted here. All rights reserved.

THE AUTHOR

Blessed John Henry Newman was born in London, 21 February 1801, and died Birmingham, 11 August 1890. As Vicar of St. Mary's Oxford he exerted a profound spiritual influence on the Church of England. Joining the Catholic Church in 1845 he founded Oratories of St. Philip Neri in Birmingham and London, was the first rector of the Catholic University in Dublin, and was made Cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879. Through his published writings and private correspondence he created a greater understanding of the Catholic Church and its teachings, helping many persons with their religious difficulties. At his death he was praised for his unworldliness, humility, and prayerful contact with the invisible world. He was declared Venerable on 22 January 1991. John Henry Cardinal Newman is the author of many books including, Parochial and Plain Sermons, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, The Church of the Fathers, The Idea of a University, Fifteen Sermons Preached Before the University of Oxford Between A.D. 1826 and 1843, and Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

Copyright © 2000-2010 Bob Elder