Catholic Metanarrative

Friday, February 26, 2010

Article: Can Beauty Save the World?

DONALD DEMARCO

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

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

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

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

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




The Splendor of Beauty

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

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

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

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




The Illusion of Glamour

Glamour is more glitter than light, more glitz than depth, more glisten than glory. True beauty has depth and flows out from the depth of that which is beautiful.

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

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

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




Elevating Image

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

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

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

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




Adjusting the Lens

If beauty will save the world, it is because beauty presupposes love and points in the direction of wisdom.

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

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

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


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Donald DeMarco. "Can Beauty Save the World?" Lay Witness (November/December, 2009): 16-17.

Reprinted with permission of Lay Witness.

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

THE AUTHOR

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

Copyright © 2009 Lay Witness

Article: Babe Ruth's last message: The kids can't take it If we don't give it!

BABE RUTH

As far as I'm concerned, and I think as far as most kids go, once religion sinks in, it stays there—deep down.

George Herman "Babe" Ruth, Jr.
1895-1948

Bad boy Ruth—that was me.

Don't get the idea that I'm proud of my harum-scarum youth. I'm not. I simply had a rotten start in life, and it took me a long time to get my bearings.

Looking back to my youth, I honestly don't think I knew the difference between right and wrong. I spent much of my early boyhood living over my father's saloon, in Baltimore—and when I wasn't living over it, I was in it, soaking up the atmosphere. I hardly knew my parents.

St. Mary's Industrial School in Baltimore, where I was finally taken, has been called an orphanage and a reform school. It was, in fact, a training school for orphans, incorrigibles, delinquents and runaways picked up on the streets of the city. I was listed as an incorrigible. I guess I was. Perhaps I would always have been but for Brother Matthias, the greatest man I have ever known, and for the religious training I received there which has since been so important to me.

I doubt if any appeal could have straightened me out except a Power over and above man—the appeal of God. Iron-rod discipline couldn't have done it. Nor all the punishment and reward systems that could have been devised. God had an eye out for me, just as He has for you, and He was pulling for me to make the grade.

As I look back now, I realize that knowledge of God was a big crossroads with me. I got one thing straight (and I wish all kids did)—that God was Boss. He was not only my Boss but Boss of all my bosses. Up till then, like all bad kids, I hated most of the people who had control over me and could punish me. I began to see that I had a higher Person to reckon with who never changed, whereas my earthly authorities changed from year to year. Those who bossed me had the same self-battles—they, like me, had to account to God. I also realized that God was not only just, but merciful. He knew we were weak and that we all found it easier to be stinkers than good sons of God, not only as kids but all through our lives.

That clear picture, I'm sure, would be important to any kid who hates a teacher, or resents a person in charge. This picture of my relationship to man and God was what helped relieve me of bitterness and rancor and a desire to get even.

I've seen a great number of "he-men" in my baseball career, but never one equal to Brother Matthias. He stood six feet six and weighed 250 pounds. It was all muscle. He could have been successful at anything he wanted to in life—and he chose the church.

It was he who introduced me to baseball. Very early he noticed that I had some natural talent for throwing and catching. He used to back me in a corner of the big yard at St. Mary's and bunt a ball to me by the hour, correcting the mistakes I made with my hands and feet. I never forget the first time I saw him hit a ball. The baseball in 1902 was a lump of mush, but Brother Matthias would stand at the end of the yard, throw the ball up with his left hand, and give it a terrific belt with the bat he held in his right hand. The ball would carry 350 feet, a tremendous knock in those days. I would watch him bug-eyed.

Thanks to Brother Matthias I was able to leave St. Mary's in 1914 and begin my professional career with the famous Baltimore Orioles. Out on my own... free from the rigid rules of a religious school . . . boy, did it go to my head. I began really to cut capers.

I strayed from the church, but don't think I forgot my religious training. I just overlooked it. I prayed often and hard, but like many irrepressible young fellows, the swift tempo of living shoved religion into the background.

I asked them to pin the Miraculous Medal to my pajama coat. I've worn the medal constantly ever since. I'll wear it to my grave.

So what good was all the hard work and ceaseless interest of the Brothers, people would argue? You can't make kids religious, they say, because it just won't take. Send kids to Sunday School and they too often end up hating it and the church.

Don't you believe it. As far as I'm concerned, and I think as far as most kids go, once religion sinks in, it stays there—deep down. The lads who get religious training, get it where it counts—in the roots. They may fail it, but it never fails them. When the score is against them, or they get a bum pitch, that unfailing Something inside will be there to draw on. I've seen it with kids. I know from the letters they write me. The more I think of it, the more important I feel it is to give kids "the works" as far as religion is concerned. They'll never want to be holy—they'll act like tough monkeys in contrast, but somewhere inside will be a solid little chapel. It may get dusty from neglect, but the time will come when the door will be opened with much relief. But the kids can't take it, if we don't give it to them.

I've been criticized as often as I've praised for my activities with kids on the grounds that what I did was for publicity. Well, criticism doesn't matter. I never forgot where I came from. Every dirty-faced kid I see is another useful citizen. No one knew better than I what it meant not to have your own home, a backyard, your own kitchen and icebox. That's why all through the years, even when the big money was rolling in, I'd never forget
St. Mary's, Brother Matthias and the boys I left behind. I kept going back.

As I look back those moments when I let the kids down—they were my worst. I guess I was so anxious to enjoy life to the fullest that I forgot the rules or ignored them. Once in a while you can get away with it, but not for long. When I broke training, the effects were felt by myself and by the ball team—and even by the fans.

While I drifted away from the church, I did have my own "altar," a big window of my New York apartment overlooking the city lights. Often I would kneel before that window and say my prayers. I would feel quite humble then. I'd ask God to help me not make such a big fool of myself and pray that I'd easure up to what He expected of me.

In December, 1946 I was in French Hospital, New York, facing a serious operation. Paul Carey, one of my oldest and closest friends, was by my bed one night.

"They're going to operate in the morning, Babe," Paul said. "Don't you think you ought to put your house in order?"

I didn't dodge the long, challenging look in his eyes. I knew what he meant. For the first time I realized that death might strike me out. I nodded, and Paul got up, called in a Chaplain, and I made a full confession.

"I'll return in the morning and give you Holy Communion," the chaplain said," But you don't have to fast."

"I'll fast," I said. I didn't have even a drop of water.

As I lay in bed that evening I thought to myself what a comforting feeling to be free from fear and worries. I now could simply turn them over to God. Later on, my wife brought in a letter from a little kid in Jersey City. "Dear Babe", he wrote, "Everybody in the seventh grade class is pulling and praying for you. I am enclosing a medal, which if you wear will make you better. Your pal—Mike Quinlan.

P.S. I know this will be your 61st homer. You'll hit it."

I asked them to pin the Miraculous Medal to my pajama coat. I've worn the medal constantly ever since. I'll wear it to my grave.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

George Herman "Babe" Ruth. "The Kids Can't Take It If We Don't Give It!" Guideposts (October, 1948).

This is Babe Ruth's last message. It was written with the help of friends not long before the Babe died. The Guideposts magazine office received it on the fatal day—August 16, 1948, Babe Ruth's last.

THE AUTHOR

George Herman Ruth, Jr. (February 6, 1895-August 16, 1948), best known as "Babe" Ruth and nicknamed "the Great Bambino", "the Sultan of Swat", "the King of Crash", and "the Colossus of Clouts", was an American Major League baseball player from 1914-1935. Ruth originally broke into the major leagues with the Boston Red Sox as a starting pitcher, but after he was sold to the New York Yankees in 1919, he converted to a full-time right fielder and subsequently became one of the league's most prolific hitters. Ruth was a mainstay in the Yankees' lineup that won seven pennants and four World Series titles during his tenure with the team. After a short stint with the Boston Braves in 1935, Ruth retired. In 1936, Ruth became one of the first five players elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Ruth has since become regarded as one of the greatest sports heroes in American culture. He has been named the greatest baseball player in history in various surveys and rankings, and his home run hitting prowess and charismatic personality made him a larger than life figure in the "Roaring Twenties". Off the field he was famous for his charity, but also was noted for his often reckless lifestyle. In 1998, The Sporting News ranked Ruth number one on the list of "Baseball's 100 Greatest Players."

Copyright © public domain

Article: Did I Get Married Too Young?

DAVID LAPP

Marriages of people in their early to mid-20s are not nearly as risky as you think.

When my very smart and relatively young girlfriend (she was then 20) first told her father she was thinking of marrying me, he refused to even hear of it. "How much college debt does he have?" he demanded. "What's the rush? Why not wait until your career and finances are established? How do you know he's the one?"

She sobbed, he came around, and in May 2009 Amber and I became husband and wife, when I was 22 and she was 21.

Granted, Amber's dad had an understandably healthy dose of "father-of-the-bride" syndrome. But he also had plenty of cultural ammunition to back up his initial barrage of questions and qualms. As college-educated, professionally aspiring young adults in New York, my wife and I were bucking the prevailing social script by marrying in our early 20s. Some Penn State sociologists summariz ed the zeitgeist this way: "In industrial countries, young people age 18 to 25 are expected to explore their identity, work and love by delaying marriage and parenthood. . . . Those individuals who fail to postpone these family transitions miss out on better career opportunities, make poor choices on partners, and may experience problems."

Social scientists frequently note that "early marriage" is the No. 1 predictor of divorce. Additionally, the average student graduating today has about $23,000 in debt, and money problems don't exactly help a marriage. It's not surprising, then, that many young couples hook up and shack up instead of tying the knot. The median age at marriage today is 28 for men and 26 for women.

So what's a young couple, in love and committed, to do? Was our decision to marry in our early 20s shortsighted and irresponsible?

First, let's take a closer look at that term "early marriage." While it's true that teenage marriages are a significant predictor of divorce, it turns out that marriages of people in their early to mid-20s are not nearly as much at risk. According to a 2002 report from the Centers for Disease Control, 48% of people who enter marriage when under age 18, and 40% of 18- and 19-year-olds, will eventually divorce. But only 29% of those who get married at age 20 to 24 will eventually divorce—very similar to the 24% of the 25-and-older cohort. In fact, Hispanics who marry between the ages of 20 and 24 actually have a greater likelihood of marital success (31% chance of divorce) than those who first marry at age 25 and older (36% chance of divorce).

Further, a recent study by family scholars at the University of Texas finds that people who wed between the ages of 22 and 25, and remained married to those spouses, went on to experience the happiest marriages. While the authors caution against suggesting that 22 to 25 is the optimal marrying age for everyone, their finding does suggest that "little or nothing is likely to be gained by deliberately delaying marriage beyond the mid twenties."

What about the money? Social scientists use the term "marriage premium" to describe how, over time, married couples save and build more wealth than otherwise-similar singles or cohabiting couples. Part of the reason is simply that married couples have two incomes to pool and draw from. But as a group of leading family scholars notes in "Why Marriage Matters," a report published by the Institute for American Values, marriage itself appears to encourage thrifty behavior. It makes sense: Knowing that my spending and savings habits affect not just me but also my wife and future family, I'm more likely to set a budget, pack a lunch, and put some money in savings instead of buying that new iPhone. The upshot is that my wife and I are able to pay off our college debt more quickly than we could by ourselves.

We may be startled to find that the greatest adventure lies not in knowing oneself as much as in knowing and committing to another person. Sure, freedom is great—but as John Paul II reminded us, "Freedom exists for the sake of love."

Of course, it's not just adults who are skeptical about early-to-mid-20s marriages. As psychologist Jeffrey Jensen Arnett notes in his influential book Emerging Adulthood, many young people today delay marriage because they are afraid it will deny them the leisure of "identity exploration" and "self-focused development." And as Mr. Arnett explains, "Many of the identity explorations of the emerging adult years are simply for fun, a kind of play, part of gaining a broad range of life experiences before 'settling down' and taking on the responsibilities of adult life." Young people sense that marriage marks the end of adventure and the beginning of monotony. Implicit is the dichotomy between individual fulfillment now and commitment later.

It's a false dichotomy. Instead of trekking to Africa or exploring Rome alone, why not marry the person of your dreams and take him or her along? What about discovering, as the characters Carl and Ellie in Disney Pixar's Up do, the good of marital friendship? While they never fulfill their dream of traveling together to South America (their jug of nickels and dimes labeled "Paradise Falls" is shattered with every flat tire and emergency-room visit), they do experience the joy of life together: renovating their home as newlyweds, picnicking and cloud-gazing on lazy summer afternoons, dancing in their candlelit living room after 50 years of marriage.

As focused as we young adults are on self-development, what if the path to that development is actually learning to live with and love another person? We may be startled to find that the greatest adventure lies not in knowing oneself as much as in knowing and committing to another person. Sure, freedom is great—but as John Paul II reminded us, "Freedom exists for the sake of love."

If couples in their early to mid-20s do get married, they'll need plenty of support—especially from their families and houses of worship. The leaders of National Marriage Week USA (Feb. 7 to 14)—an effort to focus national attention on marriage—are encouraging houses of worship to provide premarital counseling to every couple they marry. Parents play an important part as well: whether it's providing startup financial assistance or reminding their children—as a growing body of scholarship demonstrates—that people with a bedrock commitment to the institution of marriage are more likely to invest themselves in their marriages and to experience happier unions.

Did I get married too young? I may not have the freedom to globetrot at my own leisure or to carouse at a bar late into the night. But when I step into our 500-square-foot one-bedroom apartment, warmly lighted and smelling of fresh flowers and baked bread, I do have the freedom to kiss my beautiful wife and best friend—the woman I pledged to always love and cherish, and to raise a family with. I have no regrets.




ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

David Lapp. "Did I Get Married Too Young?" The Wall Street Journal (February 11, 2010).

Reprinted with permission of the author and The Wall Street Journal © 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.

THE AUTHOR

David Lapp is a research associate at the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan think tank. His research interests include courtship, marriage, and the family. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Education Week, and Public Discourse. Lapp graduated from The King's College in New York City with a bachelor's degree in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. A newlywed, he lives with his wife in Queens, New York.

Copyright © 2010 Wall Street Journal

Article: Our Lenten purpose

FATHER GEORGE WILLIAM RUTLER

One quotation, to which I have had frequent recourse, is commonly attributed to Harry Emerson Fosdick, although he seems to have taken it without attribution from John Ruskin.

the Curé d'Ars
St. John-Marie Vianney
1786-1859

It is always safe to say that Benjamin Franklin fathered an aphorism, including this one, though I do not think Ruskin read much Franklin. The most reliable source is that ubiquitous author known as "Anonymous," and so it should be, since every age has said it one way or another: "When a man is wrapped up in himself, he makes a pretty small package."

Lent is a time to relive this truth, as we put away the old man and put on the new. Certain "corporal mortifications," which strengthen us by self-discipline, such as confession and different forms of fasting, are part of this, but more important are increased acts of charity, such as almsgiving. The end of all this is to unwrap the self and to grow into the stature of Christ: "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." (1 Cor. 13: 3)

It was a special blessing for me last week to conduct a retreat in France at the shrine of St. John-Marie Vianney in Ars and in the nearby ancient cathedral of Lyons. Some thirty priests from New York attended along with our Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who offered Mass each day, and we received the Precious Blood from Vianney's own chalice. While the Curé d'Ars personally lived a life of total selflessness and acute mortifications, he bought the finest sacred vessels and vestments for God's glory. Our culture tends to make the self rich and God poor, and of course, that never works. The original church of Ars was a very humble structure, so tiny that it held only a handful of people, and when Vianney arrived there in 1817, he found it crumbling from the neglect of the French Revolution. But he was confident that God would do great things there, and it happened—all because Vianney was a prodigy of humility, willing to unwrap himself and cloak his people with charity. When one skeptic met him, all he could say was, "I have seen God in a man." He had encountered the sanctifying grace that Christ wills for all of us: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." (Gal. 2:20)

Lent is such a brief time that it seems to end almost as soon as it begins, but such also is life itself, and the purpose of Lent is to make precisely that point. The ashes yield quickly to Alleluias for those who outgrow themselves. The Curé d'Ars encouraged his flock: "Not all the saints started well, but they all ended well."



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father George William Rutler. "Our Lenten purpose." Weekly Column for February 21, 2010.

Reprinted with permission of Father George W. Rutler.

THE AUTHOR

Father Rutler received priestly ordination in 1981. Born in 1945 and reared in the Episcopal tradition, Father Rutler was an Episcopal priest for nine years. He was received into the Catholic Church in 1979 and was sent to the North American College in Rome for seminary studies. Father Rutler graduated from Dartmouth, where he was a Rufus Choate Scholar, and took advanced degrees at the Johns Hopkins University and the General Theological Seminary. He holds several degrees from the Gregorian and Angelicum Universities in Rome, including the Pontifical Doctorate in Sacred Theology, and studied at the Institut Catholique in Paris. In England, in 1988, the University of Oxford awarded him the degree Master of Studies. From 1987 to 1989 he was regular preacher to the students, faculty, and townspeople of Oxford. Cardinal Egan appointed him Pastor of the Church of Our Saviour, effective September 17, 2001.

Since 1988 his weekly television program has been broadcast worldwide on EWTN. Father Rutler has published 16 books, including: Coincidentally: Unserious Reflections on Trivial Connections, A Crisis of Saints: Essays on People and Principles, Brightest and Best, Saint John Vianney: The Cure D'Ars Today, Crisis in Culture, and Adam Danced: The Cross and the Seven Deadly Sins.

Copyright © 2010 Father George W. Rutler

Article: Brief History of Lent

FATHER JOHN A. HARDON, S.J.

It seems certain that a Lenten season preceding Easter goes back to the time of the Apostles.

The length of time varied. But by the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.), which was the first general council of the Church, Lent is to be observed for forty days.

The number forty has a long biblical history: The forty days' fasts of Moses, Elijah and especially Our Lord in the desert.

During the early days of the Church, the observance of fast was very strict. One meal was allowed per day and, even in that meal, meat and fish were forbidden. By the fifteenth century, the one meal was taken at noon.

Gradually an extra collation was allowed in the evening.

The present legislation of Canon Law is as follows:

All Fridays through the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the universal Church (Canon 1250).
Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Canon 1251).

According to the apostolic constitution of Pope Paul VI (1966), "the law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat. The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening."

Although not strictly obligatory, the observance of fasting on all weekdays of Lent is strongly recommended by the Church. This recommendation applies to the Marian Catechists.

One statement that is new in the Code of Canon Law declares that "pastors and parents are to see to it that minors who are not bound by the law of fast (eighteenth year completed) and abstinence (fourteenth year completed) are educated in an authentic sense of penance" (Canon 1252). This provision certainly applies to Marian Catechists who are in a position to educate young people "in an authentic sense of penance."




Spirit of the Lenten Season

There are two guiding principles for the observance of Lent. During this season, the faithful are to grow in their love of Jesus Crucified, and they are to practice extra penance for their own and other people's sins. Both aspects of Lent deserve some explanation.

Love of Jesus Crucified. The spirit of Lent is the spirit of Christ Crucified. Therefore, whatever enables us to better understand Christ's Passion and Death, and deepens our responsive love for His great love toward us should be fostered during the Lenten season. Some recommendations:

  1. Meditation on the Gospel narratives of Christ's Passion.

  2. Spiritual reading of books like Goodier's Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Abbot Marmion's The Way of the Cross, Edward Leen's Why the Cross?, Fulton Sheen's Seven Words on the Cross.

  3. Recitation of prayers like Soul of Christ Sanctify Me.

  4. Besides making the daily Way of the Cross, encouraging others to make the Stations at least on Fridays during Lent.

  5. Having some symbol of Christ's Passion, like the crucifix or picture of the crucifix within easy eye vision to remind us of the Passion at odd moments of the day.

  6. Having some short aspiration which is recited (at least mentally) a few times during the day, like, "My Jesus Crucified," or "Heart of Jesus, obedient unto death, have mercy on us."

  7. Occasionally reciting the Litany of the Precious Blood.

  8. Spending some extra time before the Blessed Sacrament, asking Our Lord to grow in the understanding of His continued Passion now in the Church, which is His Mystical Body on earth!

  9. Making an occasional entry into one's spiritual journal about, "How much the Passion of Christ means to me."

On the first level, our penance should be the practice of a deeper and more generous love for God.

Reparation for Sin. In practicing penance, we should keep in mind that there are two levels of reparation we are to practice, for our own and other people's sins. We are to expiate the guilt incurred by failing in one's love for God. And we are to repair the harm done by disobeying the will of God.

On the first level, our penance should be the practice of a deeper and more generous love for God.

  • By making acts of divine love.

  • By doing our ordinary work with more selfless love for God.

  • By putting our heart more sincerely into whatever we are doing, and periodically telling our Lord we are doing it out of love for Him.

  • By deciding before Lent, what form(s) of charity I will practice towards those with whom I live or work. There is no more pleasing love of God, as expiation, than the selfless love of others whom God puts into my daily life.

  • By going through the spiritual and corporal works or mercy, and selecting one or more on which I wish to concentrate during Lent, as my form of penance-as-love, offered to the loving but offended God.

On the second level, our penance should strive to endure some pain in order to expiate the sinful pleasure that is always the substance of sin. This can take on a variety of forms, and no two people are the same in this matter. The following are merely examples.

  • More frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance during Lent.

  • More frequent attendance at Mass.

  • Less time spent in eating, or eating less food, or getting up earlier than usual.

  • Sacrifice of some hours per week that would otherwise have been spent in watching television, listening to the radio, reading secular newspapers, magazines, or fiction.

  • Walking, instead of driving, and walking upstairs instead of using an elevator.

  • Doing without some delicacy at table, or not eating between meals.

  • Getting up promptly in the morning, and retiring in good time at night.

  • Answering letters or writing to persons who would appreciate hearing from us.

  • Gauging one's time in telephone conversation or conversation in general.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father John A. Hardon. "Brief History of Lent ." Inter Mirifica (2003).

Reprinted with permission from Inter Mirifica.

THE AUTHOR

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

Copyright © 2010 Inter Mirifica

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Wednesday Liturgy: Eucharistic Prayers for Reconciliation

ROME, FEB. 23, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: I have a question about proper, or invariable, prefaces. During Lent, the Eucharistic Prayers for Reconciliation seem particularly appropriate. One popular liturgical planning guide even recommends using them. Sundays and weekdays of Lent, however, have proper prefaces. Are the two Eucharistic Prayers for Reconciliation therefore not allowed? -- D.H., Addison, Illinois

A: The rubric which precedes the Eucharistic Prayers for Reconciliation in the new Latin Missal states that while this preface is normally invariable, it may be substituted by another one, provided that it contains the theme of reconciliation and forgiveness. The rubric then suggests the Lenten prefaces as a suitable example for such substitutions.

Therefore, it is possible to adopt the Lenten prefaces when using these Eucharistic Prayers. Indeed, it is sometimes done by the Pope when he celebrates the traditional Ash Wednesday station Mass in the Basilica of St. Sabina on Rome's Aventine Hill.

The converse is also possible on most Lenten weekdays; that is, one may use the prayer of reconciliation with its proper preface during Lent. This option is not available on Sundays, which have specific prefaces, or during the fifth week of Lent and Holy Week where the prefaces of the Passion of the Lord are prescribed.

This possibility of substitution is not offered for the other Eucharistic Prayers with proper prefaces.

Eucharistic Prayer IV may never be separated from its preface, and so its use during Lent is limited to weekdays of the first four weeks. This Eucharistic Prayer may not be used whenever a "proper preface" is obligatory. Proper preface is usually interpreted as preface of the day and not of the season. Hence, the fourth anaphora can usually be used whenever the missal offers a choice of several seasonal prefaces, unless the rubric of the days logically excludes this possibility.

For example, the prayer may be used on Lenten weekdays 1-4 because any one of the Lenten seasonal prefaces may be used. On Sundays, however, either the preface is specific to the day or a Lenten preface is specifically mandated.

The Eucharistic Prayers for Masses for Various Needs are practically never used during Lent because their use is restricted to whenever one of these Masses is celebrated. Since such devotional Masses are excluded during the Lenten season, except for grave reasons and by mandate or consent of the bishop, the occasion to use them almost never arises.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Colors of Cassocks and Altar Cloths

ROME, FEB. 23, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Related to our Feb. 9 comments on the proper dress for servers, a Virginia reader had asked: "My parish has long placed its altar boys in black cassocks and surplices. Recently, our pastor announced that it was not appropriate for boys to be wearing black cassocks, since these are symbolic of the vow of celibacy, and our altar boys are not necessarily destined for the priesthood. He has begun replacing their dress with red cassocks and surplices. It would seem that a switch from black to red cassocks is certainly well within the authority of the pastor to direct, but I'm just a little surprised at his reasoning. Is there a meaning to the colors for altar boys' cassocks? What are the allowable colors? Is it correct that black is not appropriate for 12- to 18-year-old boys?"

While the pastor may determine this point, I would respectfully disagree with his reasoning. As far as I can ascertain, there is no rule that would exclude black cassocks for altar servers. It is somewhat curious that to avoid them looking like priests we dress them up as cardinals.

The norms for the extraordinary rite already foresaw that the server could wear a cassock even if not a cleric. When the cassock was used, however, a surplice was required. There were no stipulations regarding color, although black was the most common. In some countries, serving in lay dress was also an accepted custom.

Nor is it strictly true that seminarians and priests always wear black cassocks. Although their use is now quite rare, seminarians from various national colleges in Rome could be distinguished by either the color or special cut of their cassocks. Some colleges had blue or red cassocks, while others wore black with red buttons, etc.

In Mexico, seminarians wear either black or white cassocks with a blue sash. In India and many other tropical countries, seminarians and priests wear white cassocks.

Therefore, while the clerical cassock is a sign of a priest's consecration and dedication, its use during the liturgy is not restricted to clerics.

In saying this, I would not wish to exclude the possibility that reserving the black cassock to priests and seminarians may not be a legitimate custom in some areas. It may also constitute an effective pastoral tool, especially in parishes where seminarians are frequently present together with lay altar servers.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

The Spirit of the Liturgy: The Priest in the Offertory of the Mass

ROME, FEB. 19, 2010 (Zenit.org).- This article by Juan José Silvestre Valór, professor of liturgy at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross and consultor to the Office of the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff, describes the priest's role in the Offertory of the Holy Mass.


The commentary only takes the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite into consideration, which, in comparison to the Extraordinary Form, has been simplified with regard both to the gestures and the prayers. The article shows the spiritual richness, which is still possible to identify, despite the simplification of the Ordinary Form.

* * *

"In the early Church there was a custom whereby the Bishop or the priest, after the homily, would cry out to the faithful: 'Conversi ad Dominum' -- turn now toward the Lord. This meant in the first place that they would turn toward the East, toward the rising sun, the sign of Christ returning, whom we go to meet when we celebrate the Eucharist. Where this was not possible, for some reason, they would at least turn towards the image of Christ in the apse, or towards the Cross, so as to orient themselves inwardly toward the Lord.

Fundamentally, this involved an interior event; "conversion," the turning of our soul toward Jesus Christ and thus toward the living God, toward the true light."[1] These words of the Holy Father Benedict XVI permit us to introduce the theme that we would like to focus on: the priest in the Offertory of the Holy Mass.

After the Liturgy of the Word we enter into the Eucharistic Liturgy. As we know, both parts of the Mass "are closely united and form a single act of worship."[2] This part of the Mass begins with the "oblatio donorum," or the presentation of the gifts, the first gesture that the priest, representing Christ the Lord, performs in the Eucharistic Liturgy.[3] This is not a mere interlude between the two parts of the Mass but is rather a moment in which they are unified, without being confused, and so form a single rite. In fact the Liturgy of the Word, which the Church reads and proclaims in the liturgy, leads to the Eucharist.

The Liturgy of the Word is a true discourse, which awaits and demands a response. It has the character of proclamation and dialogue: God who speaks to his people and the people who answer and make the divine Word their own through silence and through song. They adhere to it and profess their faith in the "profession fidei" and, filled with confidence, they present their requests to the Lord.[4] Consequently, the turning of the one who proclaims toward those who listen, and vice versa, implie that it is reasonable that they face each other.[5]

Nevertheless, when the priest leaves the ambo or his seat to ascend to the altar -- the center of the whole Eucharistic Liturgy[6] -- we prepare ourselves in a more immediate way for the common prayer of the priest and the faithful directed to the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit.[7] In this part of the celebration the priest speaks to the people only from the altar,[8] since the sacrificial action that takes place in the Eucharistic Liturgy is not principally directed to the community. In fact, the spiritual and interior orientation of everyone, of the priest -- as representative of the entire Church -- and of the faithful, is "versus Deum per Iesum Christum" (toward God through Jesus Christ). In this way we better understand the acclamation of the ancient Church: "Conversi ad Dominum" (turn toward the Lord). "Of course the priest and the people do not pray to each other, rather toward the one Lord. Therefore, during the prayer they face in the same direction, toward the image of Christ in the apse or toward a cross, or simply toward heave, as the Lord did in his priestly prayer on the eve of his Passion."[9]

The "oblatio donorum," that is, the Offertory or the presentation of the gifts, prepares the sacrifice. In the early Church it was a simple external preparation of the center and summit of the whole celebration, which is the Eucharistic Prayer. This is evident in the testimony of St. Justin,[10] or in the more elaborate development that the "Ordo Romanus I" presents already in the 7th century. At any rate, to limit oneself to considering the offering of the faithful in these first centuries only from the point of view of a simple external preparation would be to empty the action of its ideal and concrete meaning.[11]

Indeed, quite early this material gesture was understood in a much more profound way. This preparation came to be conceived not only as a necessary external action but as an essentially interior process. It was seen as related to the Jewish practice in which the head of the household lifted up the bread to God to receive it again from him, renewed. Eventually, understood in a deeper way, this gesture was associated with Israel's preparation for presenting herself before the Lord. In this way, the external gesture of the preparation of the gifts was more and more regarded as an interior preparation before the nearness of the Lord, who seeks the Christians in their offerings. In reality "it is made clear that we are the true gift of sacrifice conformed to the Word, or at least we must become this through participation in the act by which Jesus Christ offers himself to the Father."[12]

This deepening of the gesture of the presentation of the gifts stems from the logic of the external form that the Holy Mass itself presents.[13] Its primordial element, the radical "novum" that Jesus inserts into the Jewish sacrificial supper, is precisely the "Eucharist," that is, that it is a memorial prayer of thanksgiving. This prayer, the solemn Eucharistic Prayer, is something more than a series of words: it is a divine action that is realized through human discourse. Through it the elements of the earth are transubstantiated, wrested, so to speak, from their creaturely reality, taken into something more profound and transformed into the Body and Blood of the Lord. We ourselves, participating in this action, are transformed and converted into the true Body of Christ. Thus, we understand that "[the] remembrance of his perfect gift consists not in the mere repetition of the Last Supper, but in the Eucharist itself, that is, in the radical newness of Christian worship. In this way, Jesus left us the task of entering into his 'hour.' 'The Eucharist draws us into Jesus' act of self-oblation. More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving.' Jesus 'draws us into himself'."[14]

It is God himself who is at work in the Eucharistic Prayer and we feel ourselves drawn by this action of God.[15] In this journey, which begins with the presentation of the gifts, the priest plays a mediating role, as happens in the Canon or in the administering of Communion. Although in the current offertorial procession the task of the faithful is above all in evidence, the mediation of the priest always remains because the priest receives the gifts and places them on the altar.[16]

In this movement toward the "oratio," which carries the offering of self with it, the external gestures are secondary. With the "oratio" man's action takes a backseat. What is essential is God's action. Through the Eucharistic Prayer he wants to transform us and the world. Because of this, it is logical that we draw near to the Eucharistic Prayer in silence. And it remains necessary that corresponding to the external procession of the presentation of the gifts there is an interior procession. In "the preparation of ourselves we place ourselves on a journey, we present ourselves to the Lord: we ask him that he prepare us for the transformation. The community's silence is therefore the community's prayer, and ultimately its common action; it is the beginning of a journey toward the Lord in our daily life, making ourselves his contemporaries."[17]

Thus, the moment of the "oblatio donorum," while it is a "humble and simple gesture, [it] 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."[18] This is what we can call the cosmic and universal character of the eucharistic celebration. The offertory prepares the celebration and we place ourselves within "the 'mysterium fidei' which is accomplished in the Eucharist: the world which came forth from the hands of God the Creator now returns to him redeemed by Christ."[19]

This is what the elevation of the gifts and the prayers that accompany it are: "Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the bread we offer you: fruit of the earth and work of human hands, it will become for us the bread of life." The content of the prayers is connected with the prayers that the Jews recited at table. They are prayers that, in the form of benedictions, have as their reference point the Passover of Israel and are thought, declaimed and lived thinking of this event. This supposes that they were chosen as a silent anticipation of the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ. For this reason, the preparation and the definitive reality of the sacrifice of Christ interpenetrate in these words.

On the other hand, "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."[20] In reality, "the celebrant, as minister of this sacrifice, is the authentic priest, performing-in virtue of the specific power of-sacred ordination-a true sacrificial act that brings creation back to God. Although all those who participate in the Eucharist do not confect the sacrifice as He does, they offer with Him, by virtue of the common priesthood, their own spiritual sacrifices represented by the bread and wine from the moment of their presentation at the altar."[21]

The bread and wine become, in a certain sense, the symbol of all that that the eucharistic assembly as such brings in offering to God and that it offers in spirit. This is the force and the spiritual meaning of the presentation of the gifts.[22] In this light we understand the incensing of the gifts on the altar, of the cross and the altar itself, which signifies the offering of the Church and her prayer, which ascend like incense into the presence of God.[23]

"We now better understand why the Eucharistic Liturgy, as a presentation and offering of creation and [the faithful themselves] to God began, in the early Church with the acclamation: 'Conversi ad Dominum' -- we must always distance ourselves from the dangerous pathways on which we often travel with our thoughts and deeds. We must instead always direct ourselves toward him. We must always be converted, with our whole life directed toward God."[24]

This path of conversion, which must be more intense and immediate in the moment leading up to the Eucharistic Prayer, must always be guided in the first place by the cross. In this connection Benedict XVI makes the following proposal: "Do not go on with new transformations but simply place the cross at the center of the altar. The priest and the faithful look together toward the cross to let themselves be guided in this way by the Lord, to whom all pray together."[25]

On the other hand, the gesture of the presentation of the gifts and the attitude with which it is done stimulate the desire of conversion and the gift of self. The gestures and the words that are directed toward this end are different. Let us briefly look at two of them:

a) The prayer "In spiritu humilitatis"[26]: This formula entered into the liturgical books of France in the 9th century. It appears for the first time in the sacramentary of Amiens, in the offertorial part.[27] In the Roman liturgy we already find it in the "Ordo" of the Curia and from there it passed into the Missal of Pius V.

As Lodi points out, before the text of the great Eucharistic Prayer begins (the Roman Canon), which must be faithfully recited and in which it is the most difficult to express personal intentions, we find this prayer that permits the celebrant to express his sentiments. At the same time, though the biblical Word that inspires this whole prayer, the ultimate meaning of external offering is expressed: the gift of the heart accompanied by the intimate disposition of personal sacrifice.[28]

We observe that the plural articulation ("sacrificium nostrum") seems to indicate, once more, that the celebrating priest pronounces it in the name of the people. The fact that it is said silently by the priest does not seem to us a sufficient reason to regard it as a private prayer. Indeed, the prayers of the presentation of gifts themselves can be said aloud or quietly and in no way are they considered private.

The silence that is produced in this moment of apologetic prayer, and the position -- a profound bow -- of the priest, which is clearly penitential, helps those present at the celebration to enter into the invisible realm and emphasizes the idea of the necessity of penitence and humility in our encounter with God. Humility and reverence before holy mysteries. These are attitudes that reveal the substance itself of any liturgy.[29]

b) The lavabo[30]: The priest's washing of his hands does not represent a universal tradition (in Italy and Spain it is not met with until almost the end of the 15th century, while is France it was introduced in the "Ordines" that came from Rome toward the end of the 9th centiry).[31] In Rome it had an entirely practical function, even though later it also acquired a symbolic value.[32]

Currently, the lavabo is an entirely symbolic gesture, as can be deduced from the formula that goes along with it, and as can also be seen from the fact that, in general, all that get washed are the tips of the priest's fingers and thumb, those that touch the sacred Host. We can say that the rite expresses the desire for interior purification.[33] Some have proposed and continue to propose the suppression of this rite. We do not share this idea, because we believe that it has a clear catechetical value and, moreover, renewed penitential act of the priest, who in that moment is disposing himself to the eucharistic act and is preparing himself for it. At the same time, as Lodi notes,[34] the formula that accompanies the washing of the hands is already present in Christian antiquity as a solemn practice used before the priest recollects himself in prayer, as is testified to by Tertullian [35] and the "Apostolic Tradition".[36]

The priest concludes the presentation of the gifts turning to the faithful and asking them to pray that "my sacrifice and yours will be acceptable to God the Father almighty." "These words are binding, since they express the character of the entire Eucharistic Liturgy and the fullness of its divine and ecclesial content." [37] The same can be said for the response of the faithful: "May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his Holy Church." It is therefore logical that the "[a]wareness of the act of presenting the offerings should be maintained throughout the Mass,"[38] because the faithful must learn to offer themselves in the act of offering the immaculate Host, not only through the hands of the priest, but also together with him. [39]

[Translation by Joseph G. Trabbic]

* * *

Notes

[1] Benedict XVI, Easter Vigil Homily, March 22, 2008.

[2] "Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani" (General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM)), No. 28; cf. Vatican II, "Sacrosanctum Concilium," No. 56.

[3] Cf. GIRM, Nos. 72-73.

[4] Cf. GIRM, No. 55.

[5] Cf. J. Ratzinger, "El espíritu de la liturgia. Una introducción," p. 102.

[6] Cf. GIRM, No. 73.

[7] Cf. GIRM, No. 78.

[8] Cf. "Pregare 'ad Orientem versus'," "Notitiae." 322, vol. 29 (1993),
p. 249.

[9] J. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, "Gesammelte Schriften," Preface to vol. XI: "Theologie der Liturgie."

[10] Cf. St. Justin Martyr, "Apology," I, 65 ff.

[11] Cf. V. Raffa, "Oblazione dei fedeli," in "Liturgia eucaristica. Mistagogia della Messa: dalla storia e dalla teologia alla pastorale pratica," CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Rome, 2003, p. 405.

[12] J. Ratzinger, "El espíritu de la liturgia. Una introducción," p. 237.

[13] Cf. J. Ratzinger, "Forma y contenido de la celebración eucarística," in "La fiesta de la fe," pp. 43-66.

[14] Benedict XVI, "Sacramentum Caritatis," No. 11.

[15] "The greatness of Christ's work consists precisely in the fact that he does not remain isolated and separated from us, that he does not relegate us to a merely passive role; not only does he support us, but he carries us, he identifies with us, whose sins belong to him, whose being belongs to us: he truly accepts us in such a way that we become active with him and from him; we act with him and so participate in his sacrifice, we share in his mystery. Thus also our life and our suffering, our hope and our love become fruitful in the new hear he has given us" (J. Ratzinger, "Il Dio vicino," pp. 47-48).

[16] Cf. GIRM, No. 73.

[17] J. Ratzinger, "El espíritu de la liturgia. Una introducción," p. 236.

[18] Benedict XVI, "Sacramentum Caritatis," No. 47.

[19] John Paul II, "Ecclesia de Eucharistia," No. 8. "However it is explained, objectively speaking, it does not seem possible to deny the effective involvement, already actual in the action and movement (which we say is sacrificial by nature -- 'offerimus'), of the earth, of man and his creative activity, obviously not as an absolute object closed in on himself and definitively complete in the fleeting moment, but dynamic, open to what is to come and aimed at a goal that is future in itself but already present in the mind and heart. Certainly in the ritual the sacrifice will only be represented in the eucharistic prayer. Nevertheless, it will not be as an event that emerges out of nowhere. It will be rather be the culmination of a discipline that is lived interiorly and wholly directed toward it" (V. Raffa, "Liturgia eucaristica: Mistagogia della Messa: dalla storia e dalla teologia alla pastorale pratica," p. 415).

[20] Benedict XVI, "Sacramentum Caritatis," No. 47.

[21] John Paul II, "Dominicae Cenae," No. 9.

[22] Cf. GIRM, No. 73.

[23] Cf. GIRM, No. 75.

[24] Benedict XVI, Easter Vigil Homily, March 22, 2008. [sic]

[25] J. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, "Gesammelte Schriften," Preface to vol. XI: "Theologie der Liturgie."

[26] Cf. J. Jungmann, "El sacrificio eucarístico," II, nos. 52, 58, 60, 105. M. Righetti, "Historia de la Liturgia," II, p. 292.

[27] Cf. P. Tirot, "Histoire des prières d'offertoire dans la liturgie romaine du VIIe au XVIe siècle," "Ephemerides Liturgicae" 98 (1984), p. 169.

[28] Cf. E. Lodi, «Les prières privées du prêtre dans le déroulement de la messe romain», in "L'Eucharistie: célebrations, rites, piétés," BEL Subsidia 79, CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Rome 1995, p. 246.

[29] Cf. John Paul II, Message to the Plenary Assembly of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Sept. 21, 2001.

[30] Cf. J. Jungmann, "El sacrificio eucarístico," nos. 83-84. M. Righetti, "Historia de la Liturgia," II, pp. 282-284.

[31] Cf. P. Tirot, "Histoire des prières d'offertoire dans la liturgie romaine du VIIe au XVIe siècle," pp. 174-177.

[32] It should not be forgotten that the symbolic ablution is found very early on in the Eastern liturgy. It is attested to by Cyril of Jerusalem, who died in 387. (cf. "Catechesi mistagogiche," V, 2: ed. A. Piédagnel, SCh 126, 146-148) and in the 5th and 6th centuries in Pseudo-Dionysius (cf. "Ecclesiastica Hierarchia," III, 3, 10: PG 3, 437D-440AB).

[33] GIRM, No. 76: "The priest then washes his hands at the side of the altar, a rite that is an expression of his desire for interior purification."

[34] Cf. E. Lodi, "Les prières privées du prêtre dans le déroulement de la messe romain," p. 246.

[35] Cf. Tertullian, "De oratione," III: CSEL 20, 188.

[36] Cf. "Tradition Apostolique," 41, SCh 22 bis, 125.

[37] John Paul II, "Dominicae Cenae," No. 9.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Cf. Vatican II, "Sacrosanctum Concilium," No. 48.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Article: The perils of dishonest science

MARGARET SOMERVILLE

We all—physicians and patients—must face up to our unavoidable ignorance on medical issues, and still try to make wise decisions.

Last week, I received several calls from the media asking about the ethics issues raised by two stories that were in the news. One was that a prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, had retracted a 1998 study linking childhood vaccinations with autism. The other was that there had been an outbreak of pertussis—"whooping cough"—in the Kootenay Boundary area of British Columbia which has the lowest rate of immunization of children in the area covered by BC's Interior Health Authority.

There is a connection between these stories because some Canadian parents have been reluctant to have their children immunized because of fears about autism.

The editor of The Lancet described the publication of the seriously flawed study that linked the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination with the onset of symptoms of autism as a "collective failure."

As well as the journal's editors and reviewers, he included in "the collective" who failed, the government, institutions and scientists. And "the failures" extended to dishonest and misleading statements in the retracted article, major conflicts of interest (the researcher was being paid by lawyers acting for the parents of the autistic children, who were suing the vaccine manufacturers for damages), and scientifically invalid research methodologies (for instance, an inadequate number of research subjects to give statistically valid results), all of which also constitute serious breaches of ethics.

In addition, subsequent research had not been able to replicate the findings reported in the article. Some journals now require that certain research be repeated by independent investigators to verify results, before they are willing to publish the findings.

As a result of this article, there was a decline in the number of children being vaccinated, for example, in Britain, and an increase in the childhood diseases they would have protected against. In short, both physicians and members of the general public rely on such articles to make treatment decisions.




On-going damage

Despite the retraction, the damage caused by the article may not have been stemmed. It's been reported that Canadians in the anti-vaccination movement are not convinced by the evidence that there is no proof that vaccines are associated with autism, as the article had wrongly claimed there was. Rather, they want proof that vaccines are not associated with autism and they say there is no such evidence.

Turning to the second story, whatever their reasons, parents in the Kootenay Boundary area are not responding to health authorities' pleas to have their children immunized and, as a result, there has been an outbreak of whooping cough. Nineteen cases have been diagnosed in the last eight weeks.

Here are some of the ethics issues I was asked to address in relation to these two stories. Keep in mind that when undertaking an ethical or legal analysis, there is no such entity as a neutral question. The questions we choose both to ask and not to ask, structure the outcomes of our enquiries.




The ethics of publication

Why did "The Lancet" wait over a decade to retract this article? Was this delay unethical or even illegal (negligence)?

"Halsted should serve as a reminder that orthodoxy and authority are powerful forces that tend to obliterate awareness of uncertainty; they do not easily bow to contrary claims of science: that in the search for truth professionals must constantly scrutinize their certainties against their uncertainties of existing medical knowledge."

That depends on all the facts. Even if publishing the article in the first place was not negligent, certainly, having published it, The Lancet had assumed a duty, both ethically and legally, to take reasonable care to warn people of the risks of relying on it, once they became aware of its inaccuracies. Refusing vaccination is not a risk-free decision and, in rare cases, children can even die from the infectious diseases the vaccinations would protect against.

Is unethical science and the publication of misleading results rare?

Not as rare as we thought 10 years ago. In recent times, there has been an increasing number of retractions from some of the world's most prestigious scientific and medical journals, to the extent that the editors of these journals have agreed on an ethics code to guide them to try to avoid similar mistakes in the future. One only has to search "publication ethics" on Google to see the explosion of reports and articles on this topic and the concern that serious breaches of ethics have caused.

Science and medicine are now major news stories on a daily basis. Everyone personally relates to and identifies with health stories—"this could be me or someone I love." Over 50 per cent of hits on the internet are related to health. The temptations for researchers, their institutions, prestigious journals and even governments to be the "first cab off the rank" with news of breakthrough medical science are great, to say nothing of the prestige and money involved. We need safeguards to counter these realities.

But we also need to keep in mind that there can be wrongful blocking of the publication of research, not just wrongful publication. A famous example involves the prestigious surgeon, William Halsted, who believed that radical mastectomy (a very mutilating operation which he had pioneered in the late 19th and early 20th century) was the only acceptable treatment for breast cancer. For decades, researchers who challenged that belief were shunned and had great difficulty publishing research that showed segmental mastectomy (lumpectomy that is much less damaging) was also effective. (By the way, the "non-recurrence of the cancer" results that Dr. Halsted claimed for his operation were never able to be duplicated by other surgeons.)

Eminent American psychiatrist-ethicist, the late Jay Katz, provides wise advice in this regard: "Halsted should serve as a reminder that orthodoxy and authority are powerful forces that tend to obliterate awareness of uncertainty; they do not easily bow to contrary claims of science: that in the search for truth professionals must constantly scrutinize their certainties against their uncertainties of existing medical knowledge." We all, physicians and patients, must face up to our unavoidable ignorance and the unavoidable uncertainties that entails, and despite those uncertainties try to make wise decisions. False certainty is, indeed, especially dangerous in medicine.




Modern trust

What influences our decisions about matters such as vaccination?

In making risk-taking decisions—and both deciding for or against vaccination are risk-taking decisions—we should keep in mind that psychologists tell us that we tend to choose to do the opposite of our last bad decision. So engineers who decide that a dam is safe and doesn't need repair, but the dam breaks and hundreds of people in the town below are drowned, looking at the next dam will be likely to decide that it is unsafe. Parents' stories that vaccination caused their child to become autistic could operate as surrogate bad decisions for other parents.

As often happens in ethics, in deciding about the "rules" that should govern childhood vaccinations, we have to walk a fine line in balancing respect for individual rights and protection of the community.

The nature of trust has also changed. Earned trust has replaced blind trust.

Blind trust ("Trust me because I know what is best for you") is a paternalistic concept that depends on authority, status and power. In the past, medicine was governed by blind trust. If, even in the 1960s, a physician said to a mother, "Now we are going to vaccinate little Johnny," most women would not have questioned the physician's decision.

Now medicine is governed by earned trust ("Trust me because I will act in your 'best interests' and show that you can trust me"). That means that if trust is not earned it is not present. And earning it requires honesty about risks, harms, benefits and uncertainty regarding these, which, in turn, requires sharing of information and shared decision making. So now there is an opportunity for parents to say, "No thanks," to vaccination, however unwise that decision might be.

Should parents be forced to have their children vaccinated, both for the child's protection and for the benefit of other children?

The basic presumption is that parents have a right to decide what medical interventions may and may not be undertaken on their child. However, if their refusal of treatment amounts to child abuse or neglect, a court can step in and take decision making authority away from the parents. Refusal of vaccination would only constitute such a situation where there was a high incidence of a serious, highly contagious disease—for instance, something in the nature of the Ebola virus, which is fatal, and there was a protective vaccine available.

Under public health protection acts even adults can be forcibly treated when an infectious disease they have threatens the public's health. But this is a strictly limited exception to respect for people's rights to autonomy and self-determination, and to their rights to "security of the person" and liberty. Although parents' rights to refuse medical treatment for their children are not as extensive as with regard to their own treatment, they are still the basic presumption.

But isn't it unfair that unvaccinated children benefit from the reduction of risk that results from vaccinated children?

This reduction in risk is called "herd immunity"—vaccinating a child protects not only that child, but also helps to protect other children. And yes, it is unfair, but that doesn't mean we are ethically justified in forcing vaccination on children whose parents refuse it.

There are, however, ways that can be used to encourage vaccination. For instance, a school's requiring that, in order to be admitted as pupils, children must have proof that they have been vaccinated against certain diseases.

As often happens in ethics, in deciding about the "rules" that should govern childhood vaccinations, we have to walk a fine line in balancing respect for individual rights and protection of the community.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Margaret Somerville. "The dangers of false certainty." Ottawa Citizen (Canada) February 9, 2010.

Reprinted with permission of the author, Margaret Somerville.

THE AUTHOR

Margaret Somerville, AM, FRSC is an Australian/Canadian ethicist and academic. She is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, and the Founding Director of the Faculty of Law's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University. She is the author of The Ethical Imagination: CBC Massey Lectures, Death Talk: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide, The Ethical Canary: Science, Society, and the Human Spirit, and Do We Care?.

Copyright © 2010 Margaret Somerville

Article: Poets and philosophers are alike in being big with wonder

FATHER GEORGE WILLIAM RUTLER

St. Thomas Aquinas was, like all saints, practical about important things.

St. Thomas Aquinas
1225-1274

He said that it is "better to illuminate than merely shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate." In 1273, he went back to his native region of Naples and preached to the ordinary people in their local dialect. His subjects were the Creed, the Commandments, and the Our Father. Students, shopkeepers, housewives and children wept at his loving account of the Passion. Then, on December 6 after an ecstasy at Mass, he said "Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears of little value."

It would be like Mozart, another prolific genius in another milieu, saying that, compared with eternity, all his music was just raw sound. Mozart took the score of his Requiem Mass to bed with him on the day he died. I once did a documentary film at the Cistercian Abbey of Fossanova where Aquinas died, remembering how his last words were said to be lines from the "Song of Songs."

In the finest minds, hilarity and humility intertwine. All we know is worthwhile only because God has made it so. There was a real sense of that in the Thomist scholar, Ralph McInerney, who died January 29, after fifty-five years as a professor of philosophy and the Michael P. Grace Professor of Mediaeval Studies at the University of Notre Dame. He was a friend of our parish and attended Mass here when he came to New York, as he was a daily communicant wherever he went and a regular at confession. One of his academic laurels was an invitation to deliver the Gifford Lectures in Scotland. This is to philosophers what the Heisman trophy is to football players, although Professor McInerney, with his Aristotelian sense of right proportion, would have put it the other way around. He did much of his writing after he had put his six children to bed. He helped start the magazine Crisis, contributed to many journals, and wrote over one hundred books. In addition to more than two dozen scholarly books, he wrote eighty novels, many of them detective stories, and some of them became the internationally popular television series, the "Father Dowling Mysteries."

As the great minds have taught as they learned, the start of Lent sets us on the road to Easter.

As the great minds have taught as they learned, the start of Lent sets us on the road to Easter. There is a faint hint of Alleluia even as the ashes are being given. Aquinas said, "Poets and philosophers are alike in being big with wonder." It is a good phrase, "big with wonder," and the forty days of prayer and penance should increase the joyful anticipation of "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love Him" (1 Cor. 2:9).



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father George William Rutler. Weekly Column for February 14, 2010.

Reprinted with permission of Father George W. Rutler.

THE AUTHOR

Father Rutler received priestly ordination in 1981. Born in 1945 and reared in the Episcopal tradition, Father Rutler was an Episcopal priest for nine years. He was received into the Catholic Church in 1979 and was sent to the North American College in Rome for seminary studies. Father Rutler graduated from Dartmouth, where he was a Rufus Choate Scholar, and took advanced degrees at the Johns Hopkins University and the General Theological Seminary. He holds several degrees from the Gregorian and Angelicum Universities in Rome, including the Pontifical Doctorate in Sacred Theology, and studied at the Institut Catholique in Paris. In England, in 1988, the University of Oxford awarded him the degree Master of Studies. From 1987 to 1989 he was regular preacher to the students, faculty, and townspeople of Oxford. Cardinal Egan appointed him Pastor of the Church of Our Saviour, effective September 17, 2001.

Since 1988 his weekly television program has been broadcast worldwide on EWTN. Father Rutler has published 16 books, including: Coincidentally: Unserious Reflections on Trivial Connections, A Crisis of Saints: Essays on People and Principles, Brightest and Best, Saint John Vianney: The Cure D'Ars Today, Crisis in Culture, and Adam Danced: The Cross and the Seven Deadly Sins.

Copyright © 2010 Father George W. Rutler

Article: Domestic Disturbances

PATRICK FAGAN

The culture of the traditional family is now in intense competition with a very different culture. The defining difference between the two is the sexual ideal each embraces.

The traditional family of Western civilization is based on lifelong monogamy. The competing culture is "polyamorous," normally a serial polygamy, but also increasingly polymorphous in its different sexual expressions.

I hope there is elegance in the simple distinction between the ideals that distinguish the two cultures: monogamy and polymorphous serial polygamy, or "polyamory" for short.

Between these two cultures lie the welfare state and its operational bureaucracy. By and large, the culture of polyamory embraces the behavioral bureaucracy, while the culture of monogamy has increasing disagreements with it. This is understandable and unavoidable when the differences between the two cultures are examined.




Opposing Cultures

The culture of monogamy and the culture of polyamory differ profoundly in their assumptions on the way society functions. Here are some of the differences:

  • First and foremost, religion has a very different place in each culture. The culture of
    monogamy is infused from top to bottom with the sacred, in personal, family,
    community, and national life. Worship of God is frequent and assumed. The culture of
    polyamory tends much more to hide religion, even to suppress it in all things public. It
    worships God less and demands that religion be private.

  • The culture of monogamy views freedom as the freedom to be good; the culture of
    polyamory views freedom as freedom from any constraints upon sexual behavior.

  • In the culture of monogamy, insight and intellect, through which comes the knowledge of
    the good that is to be pursued, are paramount; in the culture of polyamory, the will
    to do what one likes is paramount.

  • The culture of monogamy tends towards belief in objective truth—that reality exists and can
    be known, while the culture of polyamory tends towards a relativist and
    ideological understanding of truth—that reality results from an imposition of the will.

  • The culture of monogamy tends towards universal moral norms, while the culture of
    polyamory favors moral relativism.

  • The language of virtue sits well with the culture of monogamy but uncomfortably with the
    culture of polyamory.

  • The laws of the culture of monogamy protect by forbidding—outlawing—certain actions. The
    culture of polyamory protects by prescribing programs and ensuring outcomes.

  • Above the floor of the forbidden, the culture of monogamy leaves all goals and actions
    freely available to everyone. The culture of polyamory, having less of a floor, constantly
    increases prescriptive and regulatory detail, telling people more and more how they
    must act.

  • The laws of the culture of monogamy are designed to protect one's capacity to pursue
    legitimate goods of one's choice (and they are myriad), but those of the culture
    of polyamory are designed to guarantee particular outcomes for everyone.


  • In the culture of monogamy, men not only are anchored, they are required to be so. In the culture of polyamory, women are the anchors, while men can drift (or be cast adrift) as desired, and they do so in very large numbers.

    The constitutional state was the product of a monogamous
    culture. It could never have emerged from a culture of
    polyamory because it assumes responsible citizens.
    The expanding social welfare state is the product of
    the culture of polyamory, and it is increasingly hostile
    to the culture of monogamy. It creates less responsible
    citizens.

  • Regulations are minimal in the culture of monogamy
    because laws, stated clearly in the negative ("Thou shalt
    not"), require minimal regulatory interpretation.
    The culture of polyamory, through programs and
    policies aimed at outcomes and safety nets, enumerates
    what must be done, not only that which is not permitted.

  • The culture of monogamy, built on appetite restraint, has little need for a behavioral
    bureaucracy. The culture of polyamory, designed as a safety net not only for the
    unlucky but also for the unrestrained, increasingly relies on social welfare programs to
    rescue its adherents from the effects of its form of sexuality. Without this net, the
    culture of polyamory would fall to pieces of its own weight and disorder.

  • The culture of monogamy, by being child-oriented, is future-oriented and full of hope: The
    child is protected, and the next generation, the future of the country, is the main
    focus of the society's work. For the culture of polyamory, the present welfare of adults
    is the main focus.

  • In the culture of monogamy, all human lives are sacred and protected, including those of
    the unborn, the handicapped, and the elderly. In the culture of polyamory, about
    one-third of unborn babies are aborted, and the handicapped and elderly are unwelcome
    and increasingly vulnerable to early "termination."

  • The culture of monogamy is built around the traditional, natural family. In the culture of
    polyamory, the traditional, natural family is just one option among many and is often
    considered a nuisance because of its claims to special difference and superior
    effectiveness.

  • In the culture of monogamy, men are anchored in their families and tied to their children
    and wives, through the free and deliberate focus of their sexuality
    . In the culture of
    polyamory, which treasures sexual freedom or license, such sexual constraint by men
    (or women) is not expected, nor, in fact, is any attempt to foster such constraint
    acceptable
    , for that would be the antithesis of the main project of the culture of
    polyamory: polymorphous sexuality whenever desired.

  • The culture of polyamory, contrary to the claims of radical feminists, aggressively fosters
    the kind of male they most decry: the sexually and physically harassing,
    the abusing and abandoning male. Being the natural cost of its defining project,
    these and related dysfunctions justify and necessitate more safety nets.

  • In the culture of monogamy, men not only are anchored, they are required to be so. In the
    culture of polyamory, women are the anchors, while men can drift (or be cast adrift)
    as desired, and they do so in very large numbers.

  • In the culture of monogamy, gender roles are more differentiated, with women more likely
    to devote their time to the tasks of motherhood and the men more likely to be the
    sole or main source of family income. The culture of polyamory is much more androgynous,
    its main focus being equality of outcomes for both men and women in the workplace and
    in the home
    .

  • In their respective populations, the culture of monogamy is fertile and expanding, while the
    culture of polyamory is sterile and contracting.

  • The culture of monogamy is inexpensive for society to maintain, while the culture of
    polyamory is very expensive.




    The "Janissary" Tactic

    Despite the last two, seeming "killer" conclusions—and contributing significantly to the tension between the two cultures, whether by happenstance or deliberate design—the culture of polyamory has figured out its way to survive and even thrive: by controlling three critical areas of public policy, which yield big gains in "converts" from the culture of monogamy to theirs. These three areas are childhood education, sex education, and the control of adolescent health programs.

    Controlling these three areas enables the polyamory culture to reach into the traditional monogamy culture and gradually dismantle it. No little aid is provided by the entertainment industry, which today especially is a very powerful institution aligned with the culture of polyamory and biased against the monogamy culture.

    Through its domination of the education of children, sex education, and adolescent health, the culture of polyamory diminishes the influence and dismantles the authority of parents and so impedes parents' efforts to form their children as members of their own culture. In a polemical vein, one could say the polyamorists "snatch" children away from their parents and from the culture of monogamy just as the Ottoman Turks of the fourteenth century raided boys from Christian nations to train them as their own elite warriors, the Janissaries.

    Every time the polyamorists succeed in drawing a teenager into sexual activity through one of their anti-monogamy education programs, they have captured another "Janissary" and won a number of victories simultaneously: (1) They have initiated the adolescent into the polyamory culture (albeit without his knowing what is at stake); (2) with the out-of-wedlock births or abortions likely to follow, they have broken a family before it has started, solidifying the polyamorous status of the adolescent or young adult; and (3) they have pulled the young person away from participating in the sacred, since formerly religious teenagers who begin to engage regularly in sex outside of marriage tend to stop worshiping God.




    Polyamory Advances

    All this the polyamorists achieve without any overt, direct attack. Their programs are conducted "under the radar" and are all the more effective for it. They know this, and are fierce in protecting their control of the Big Three programs (childhood education, adolescent health, and sex education), with a fierceness nothing in the culture of monogamy rivals in intensity or success.

    For instance, in the United States, the rise of abstinence education—i.e., monogamy education—over the last decade immediately galvanized the polyamorists into a massive political counter-attack, culminating in their recent success in getting the federal government to eliminate funding for the abstinence programs. This came to pass despite all the good results that abstinence education produced among teenagers, including reductions in abortions, out-of-wedlock births, and sexually transmitted diseases, and increases in educational attainment.

    In Europe, where the culture of polyamory has greater sway, the clearest illustration of its continuing advance is seen in its attack on the monogamy culture's last bastion of effectiveness—homeschooling and home rearing, at least through early childhood (up to age six) and sometimes beyond. In homeschooling, the Big Three programs are, of course, under the control of parents, and, as we know from US data of some depth, they yield outcomes far superior to what state-controlled programs can yield.




    State Support


    State-controlled programs in developed countries today are almost universally polyamory-friendly and monogamy-hostile. This situation is unjust insofar as it impinges upon the universal, inalienable right of parents to raise their children as they see fit, including raising them in their own (monogamous) culture.

    State-controlled programs in developed countries today are almost universally polyamory-friendly and monogamy-hostile. This situation is unjust insofar as it impinges upon the universal, inalienable right of parents to raise their children as they see fit, including raising them in their own (monogamous) culture.

    The social welfare state further impinges upon the monogamy culture by using the universal safety-net insurance scheme (i.e., taxes) to ensure that the monogamous pay disproportionately more to support those who choose the polyamory culture. This, too, is unjust, not only because the state does not sponsor equivalent culture-friendly programs for the monogamous, but more egregiously, because the state helps make their children the target of the culture of polyamory's "Janissary" scheme.

    This situation requires a huge political response on the part of the monogamy culture, such as getting the flow of Big Three tax money diverted from special interest groups (organized doctors, teachers, and schools) to parents, in the form of vouchers, so they can then choose the individual doctors, teachers, and schools they want for their children. The professionals will still receive the same amount of money, but instead of serving a bureaucracy, they will be cooperating with the parents. But such a change is a big one in the political order, and the culture of monogamy must harness itself to the task.




    Time to Act

    By its very make-up, the culture of monogamy organizes itself from the bottom up, not top down, in social (and thus political) matters. It solves its social problems by forming its own private "platoons." A significant aspect of the family is that men have the special role of being the primary protectors. Thus, it is husbands and fathers especially who need to engage the increasingly hostile state and the polygamy culture whenever they attempt to "raid" the territory of the family's domain.

    Every man in the monogamy culture needs to find his way to be actively engaged in the protection of his children, and, given what is at stake, other men and women of the culture of monogamy will increasingly expect this of every man, and will do what they can to help him.

    Every monogamous man will be expected to fight to obtain his and his family's just due, to have a say in what his taxes fund, and to exercise control over the three big programs of childhood education, sex education, and adolescent health programs, so that they can be carried out in a way that supports the norms of his family's culture of monogamy.

    In all of human history, the culture of monogamy has never encountered the type of competition it faces now. We must engage. We can wait no longer; we need men of courage and energy. We are looking for the first few.




    See the full address, "Family Diversity and political freedom: How can people with different
    approaches to family life live together in free societies?" by Patrick Fagan here.




    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    Patrick F. Fagan. "Domestic Disturbances." Touchstone (January/February, 2010).

    This article was adapted and abridged from a talk given to the World Congress of Families in Amsterdam on August 12, 2009. The World Congress of Families is the world’s largest conference of pro-family leaders and grass-roots activists.

    This article reprinted with permission from Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity.

    Touchstone is a Christian journal, conservative in doctrine and eclectic in content, with editors and readers from each of the three great divisions of Christendom — Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. The mission of the journal and its publisher, the Fellowship of St. James, is to provide a place where Christians of various backgrounds can speak with one another on the basis of shared belief and the fundamental doctrines of the faith as revealed in Holy Scripture and summarized in the ancient creeds of the Church.

    THE AUTHOR

    Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D. is Senior Fellow at the Family Research Council and Director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI), where he examines the relationships among family, marriage, religion, community, and America's social problems as illustrated in the social sciences research data. A native of Ireland, Fagan earned his Bachelor of Social Science degree with a double major in sociology and social administration, and a professional graduate degree in psychology (dip. psych.) as well as a Ph.D. in social policy from University College Dublin.

    Copyright © 2010 Touchstone


  •