Wednesday Liturgy: Children's Sunday Liturgy at Midweek

ROME, JULY 28, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: My children attend a Catholic elementary school. On Wednesdays the school celebrates the Mass, using the children's liturgy for the coming Sunday. The idea is that it allows the children to learn about the Sunday Mass so as to allow more full participation. Is it appropriate to celebrate the Sunday liturgy on the preceding Wednesday in this school setting? -- J.K., Naperville, Illinois

A: I think that the 1973 Directory for Masses with Children addresses this topic quite well.

In its chapter on "Reading and Explanation of the Word of God" it says:

"41. Since readings taken from holy Scripture 'form the main part of the liturgy of the word,' even in Masses celebrated with children biblical reading should never be omitted.

"42. With regard to the number of readings on Sundays and holy days, the decrees of the conferences of bishops are to be observed. If three or even two readings appointed on Sundays or weekdays can be understood by children only with difficulty, it is permissible to read two or only one of them, but the reading of the gospel should never be omitted.

"43. If all the readings assigned to the day seem to be unsuited to the capacity of the children, it is permissible to choose readings or a reading either from the Lectionary of the Roman Missal or directly from the Bible, but taking into account the liturgical seasons. It is recommended, moreover, that the individual conferences of bishops see to the composition of lectionaries for Masses with children.

"If, because of the limited capabilities of the children, it seems necessary to omit one or other verse of biblical reading, this should be done cautiously and in such a way 'that the meaning of the text or the intent and, as it were, style of the Scriptures are not distorted.'

"44. In the choice of readings the criterion to be followed is the quality rather than the quantity of the texts from the Scriptures. A shorter reading is not as such always more suited to children than a lengthy reading. Everything depends on the spiritual advantage that the reading can bring to the children.

"45. In the biblical texts 'God is speaking to his people ... and Christ is present to the faithful through his own word.' Paraphrases of Scripture should therefore be avoided. On the other hand, the use of translations that may already exist for the catechesis of children and that are accepted by the competent authority is recommended.

"46. Verses of psalms, carefully selected in accord with the understanding of children, or singing in the form of psalmody or the Alleluia with a simple verse should be sung between the readings. The children should always have a part in this singing, but sometimes a reflective silence may be substituted for the singing.

"If only a single reading is chosen, the singing may follow the homily.

"47. All the elements that will help to explain the readings should be given great consideration so that the children may make the biblical readings their own and may come more and more to appreciate the value of God's word.

"Among such elements are the introductory comments that may precede the readings and that by explaining the context or by introducing the text itself help the children to listen better and more fruitfully. The interpretation and explanation of the readings from the Scriptures in the Mass on a saint's day may include an account of the saint's life, not only in the homily but even before the readings in the form of an introduction.

"When the text of the readings lends itself to this, it may be helpful to have the children read it with parts distributed among them, as is provided for the reading of the Lord's passion during Holy Week."

With respect to the presidential prayers it says:

"50. The priest is permitted to choose from the Roman Missal texts of presidential prayers more suited to children, so that he may truly associate the children with himself. But he is to take into account the liturgical season.

"51. Since these prayers were composed for adult Christians, however, the principle simply of choosing from among them does not serve the purpose of having the children regard the prayers as an expression of their own life and religious experience. If this is the case, the text of prayers of the Roman Missal may be adapted to the needs of children, but this should be done in such a way that, preserving the purpose of the prayer and to some extent its substance as well, the priest avoids anything that is foreign to the literary genre of a presidential prayer, such as moral exhortations or a childish manner of speech."

I am presuming that the children involved are in the age range foreseen by these norms, that is, in or around the age for first Communion. The norms for children's Masses are not applicable to pre- and early teenagers who are subject to the same norms as adults.

As can be seen, the above texts allow for a great deal of flexibility with respect to the prayers and the Liturgy of the Word for Children. In this sense the school's choice of presenting the upcoming Sunday liturgy probably falls within the possibilities allowed.

Whether it is always the best choice is more debateable. The liturgy on some Sundays is quite difficult in itself and not all children will be up to it. Also, if the weekday Mass coincides with a feast of Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, or an especially interesting saint, the opportunity should be taken to explore this catechetical teaching moment.

I would suggest therefore that this option should be used with some flexibility, so as not to deprive the children of other important lessons taken from the liturgy of the day.

Article: The Heritage of Western Civilization

CARDINAL GEORGE PELL

Cardinal Pell reminds us that the heritage of Western Civilization comes from its uniquely Christian character.

Cardinal George Pell

It is a privilege to speak at the launch of the IPA's Foundations of Western Civilisation Program tonight, and I propose to begin my few words on "The Heritage of Western Civilization" by speaking about China. This is not because I believe that China must achieve economic supremacy (twenty years ago we were ascribing that honour to Japan) but because China is a radically different culture, nourished for two thousand years by the teachings of Buddha and Confucius before the destructive barbarism of Mao and the Red Guards; a nation which is now searching for the secrets of Western vitality and for a code or codes to provide decency and social cohesion that is compatible with economic development.

Let me give two examples, admittedly only two straws in an vast cyclone.

In 2002 a group of tourists from the United States visited the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing to hear a talk by a Chinese academic who prefers to remain anonymous. Speaking in the plural for unnamed fellow thinkers, he described their search for what accounted for the pre-eminence, the success of the West all over the world. Their studies ranged widely. Originally they thought the main reason was more powerful guns; then it was Western political systems, before considering the claims of the Western economic system.

Finally, and I quote "in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. . . . The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the transition to democratic politics. We don't have any doubt about this" [1].

My second straw in the gale comes from Zhao Xiao, an official Chinese economist, who wrote also in 2002 a fascinating article titled "Market Economies With Churches and Market Economies Without Churches". It made the obvious points that market economies promote efficiency, discourage laziness, force competition. They work and produce wealth. But, he pointed out, a market cannot discourage people from lying or causing harm and indeed may encourage people to be industrious in their efforts to harm others and pursue wealth by any means [2].

Zhao is critical of the corruption, swindles and exploitation in Chinese economic life. His diagnosis of China provides a fascinating comparison not only with Christian idealism and indifferent performance, but with the brave new world of the Western propagandists for radical secularism where the call for common moral standards is rarely heard. Zhao writes: "These days Chinese people do not believe in anything. They don't believe in God, they don't believe in the devil, they don't believe in providence, they don't believe in the last judgement, to say nothing about heaven. A person who believes in nothing can only believe in himself. And self-belief implies that anything is possible – what do lies, cheating, harm and swindling matter?"[3]

Often an outsider is needed to see what is painfully obvious, especially if the insight or truth is unpalatable and systematically avoided by many in the commentariat.

In the West even the atheists and secularists live on the remains of the Christian moral system, on a Christian overdraft. In China there is no such invisible hand, no powerful if unacknowledged traditions which inhibit the Darwinians among us from being social Darwinians. Even Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer claim to be philanthropists, believers in brotherly and sisterly love.

Often an outsider is needed to see what is painfully obvious, especially if the insight or truth is unpalatable and systematically avoided by many in the commentariat.

In order to recognise our strengths it is useful to examine differently constructed societies such as ancient Rome or modern China and the paths they have chosen.

China today is not a democracy, but a militarily supported dictatorship where hundreds of millions do not participate in the increasing prosperity, and where a ruthless one child policy has been imposed for decades. When this policy was implemented in a society which prefers sons to daughters, and where modern technology now enables the sex of babies to be discovered before birth, the end result was the current sex ratio of 130 boys born for every 100 girls (the natural range is 103-06 boys for every 100 girls). By 2020 China will have 30 to 40 million more males than females 19 years or younger [4].

On top of this, China will also follow Russia, Japan and most of Europe into a demographic implosion, with growing numbers of old people and fewer and fewer young people to support them. But China (and indeed India) will do this long before a decent standard of living extends to all or even most of their populations.

It is this social turmoil as well as the spectacular economic development which is impelling thinkers and government leaders in China to search for agents of social cohesion and impelling some of their thinkers to make these startling claims about Western superiority and the Christian contribution to this.

For me Western civilization derives from Athens, Rome and Jerusalem a wonderful mixture of reason, law and Judaeo-Christian monotheism.

Two rudimentary qualifications or clarifications are immediately necessary.

The dark side of the Western tradition has to be acknowledged, ranging as it does from the revolutionary violence of the French Revolution through to the tyrannies of the twentieth century, Nazism and Communism. Pol Pot was trained by Parisian Stalinists and even Mao owed more to Stalin than to the example of any Oriental despot.

But neither Nazism nor Communism should be listed as belonging to Western civilization, because they both hated the Judaeo-Christian God and substituted the law of the jungle for natural law. George Steiner has even claimed that the insane Nazi hatred of the Jews derived from the unique Jewish role of introducing monotheism into world history; or, in secularist terms, from their invention of God [5].

My second and much happier qualification is to acknowledge gratefully the English speaking tradition of Western civilization to which I belong, the thought world of Shakespeare, Jane Austen and Charles Dickens; Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin; Adam Smith and John Henry Newman; Edmund Burke, William Wilberforce and the Westminster system of government; English common-law and the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. We all have many reasons for gratitude.

Let me explain the peculiarly Christian contribution to Western civilization by following Pierre Manent, a contemporary French philosopher. For Manent the West was the product of the creative tension, and sometimes fierce conflict, between the "party of nature" – the classical inheritance of Greece and Rome, stressing pride, magnanimity and natural virtues – and the Christian "party of grace", stressing humility, renunciation and the cultivation of the soul [6]. Manent's claim is that modern man emerged when the tension between these two ancient traditions became open warfare in the eighteenth century [7]. Modernity and its unhelpfully named sequel post-modernism regard humans as being above and beyond both nature and transcendence. The two traditional lodestars of God and human nature were rejected, with consequences we are still trying to deal with now. These are the major sources of Western discontent today.

Rejecting the idea that human beings share a constant and irreducible core which makes us human has not only produced massive confusion and incoherence in morals, but helped undermine the concept of human dignity; that each individual possesses an innate dignity, simply by virtue of being human, which must not be violated. In other words, attacks on marriage, family and life produce whirlwinds of discontent across the generations.

"a true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death – the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged"

This rejection of human nature is at the heart of radical versions of autonomy, individualism and secularism. The propaganda is all about freedom: freedom to choose our own values, and to make and remake ourselves as we please. The reality is a moral relativism that makes evil a question of one's particular perspective or feelings, and a world where human beings become means to others' ends. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932), with its dim-witted brutes bred for slaves, is still some way away. But our willingness to entertain breeding humans for spare parts (only up to a certain stage for the moment) shows how cheap life has become, and how we threaten to lose our bearings.

Melbourne was visited in recent days by a plague of atheists (I think that's the right collective noun) angrily rejecting an absence. While some have violently rejected him, for many more God has simply been forgotten. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn observed in his Templeton Lecture in 1983: "if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century . . . I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God" [8].

The consequences of forgetting God have been significant for morality, human dignity, and society in the West. Human beings are no longer made in God's image, but are simply the highest form of animal, whose DNA is 99 per cent identical with that of chimpanzees. With no eternal destiny there is no danger of judgement in the after-life for our wrong-doings. An enormous effort has gone into pursuing this particular "liberation". As Czeslaw Milosz has pointed out, "a true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death – the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged" [9].

Calls by some to reject all religions have been amplified in the wake of Islamist terrorism. But not all religions are the same. Different faiths produce very different societies, as the Chinese specialists with whom we began are now teaching us. The English historian Christopher Dawson argued that "it is impossible to separate culture from religion", or culture from cult. The biggest mistake that radical secularists and others have made over the last two centuries is to believe that religion is merely "a secondary phenomenon, which has arisen from the exploitation of human credulity" [10]. It is impossible to understand the history of the West, or why the West became what it is, without Christianity.

We need to introduce our children to Western civilisation through the teaching of philosophy, history and English literature, in solid rather than debased forms; and edge them towards considering the big questions: is there truth? what is goodness? can we believe in beauty? Knowledge is indispensible but it is never enough by itself. We need to re-present God and the insights about how we should live, which come from recognising our shared human nature. Christians need to challenge intellectually the many agnostics of good will to face up to the absence of alternatives. Teaching the foundations of Western civilisation is not an intellectual or aesthetic luxury. It is essential to building strong communities and to ensuring that places like Australia remain just and decent societies.

So there is plenty of work to be done, and I have no doubt that John Roskam and the Institute for Public Affairs, together with the distinguished team they have assembled to lead the Foundations of Western Civilisation Program, are well and truly up to the task. It is an important project, and a very timely one, and I am delighted to lend it my wholehearted support.

Endnotes:

1. David Aikman, Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity is Transforming China and Changing the Global Balance of Power (Washington DC: Regnery, 2003), 5.
2. An English translation of the full text of Zhao's article, which was originally published online in Chinese at the end of 2002, is available here.
3. Zhao Xiao, "Market Economies With Churches and Market Economies Without Churches".
4. "The Worldwide War on Baby Girls", Economist, 4 March 2010.
5. George Steiner, In Bluebeard's Castle: Some Notes towards the Redefinition of Culture (London: Faber and Faber, 1971), 41.
6. Pierre Manent, The City of Man (1994), trans. Marc A. LePain (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), 24-25
7. Ibid. 27.
8. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "Godlessness: the First Step to the Gulag". Templeton Prize Lecture, 10 May 1983 (London).
9. Czeslaw Milosz, "The Discrete Charm of Nihilism", New York Review of Books, 45:18 (19 November 1998).
10. Christopher Dawson, The Judgement of the Nations (Sheed & Ward: London, 1943), 64.
    

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Cardinal George Pell, "The Heritage of Western Civilization." Institute of Public Affairs (April 1, 2010).

Remarks at the launch of the Institute of Public Affairs’ Foundations of Western Civilisation Program Stonington Mansion, Melbourne

Reprinted with permission of Cardinal George Pell.

THE AUTHOR

Cardinal George Pell is archbishop of Sydney, Australia. He holds a Licentiate in Theology from Urban University, Rome (1967), a Masters Degree in Education from Monash University, Melbourne (1982), a Doctorate of Philosophy in Church History from the University of Oxford (1971) and is a Fellow of the Australian College of Education. He was Visiting Scholar at Campion Hall, Oxford University, in 1979 and at St Edmund's College, Cambridge University, in 1983.

He is the author of God and Caesar: Selected Essays on Religion, Politics, and Society and Issues of Faith and Morals, written by Cardinal Pell for senior secondary classes and parish groups. Since 2001, he has been a weekly columnist for Sydney's Sunday Telegraph.

Copyright © 2010 Cardinal George Pell

Article: Why a priest should wear his Roman Collar

MSGR. CHARLES M. MANGAN & FATHER GERALD E. MURRAY

It is our contention that the rather widespread practice of priests neglecting to wear their collar when they should is both a sign and a cause of malaise in the Church.

The Directory for the Ministry and Life of Priests, prepared by the Congregation for the Clergy and approved by Pope John Paul II on January 31, 1994, says:

"In a secularized and tendentiously materialistic society, where even the external signs of sacred and supernatural realities tend to be disappearing, the necessity is particularly felt that the priest – man of God, dispenser of His mysteries – should be recognizable in the sight of the community, even through the clothing he wears, as an unmistakable sign of his dedication and of his identity as a recipient of a public ministry. The priest should be recognizable above all through his behavior, but also through his dressing in a way that renders immediately perceptible to all the faithful, even to all men, his identity and his belonging to God and to the Church.

"For this reason, the cleric should wear "suitable clerical clothing, according to the norms issued by the Episcopal Conference and according to legitimate local customs." (Canon 284) This means that such clothing, when it is not the cassock, should be distinct from the manner in which laymen dress, and in conformity with the dignity and sacredness of the ministry.

"Apart from entirely exceptional circumstances, the non-use of clerical clothing on the part of the cleric can manifest a weak sense of his own identity as a pastor completely dedicated to the service of the Church (# 66)."

Given this timely reminder from the Holy See about the importance of clerical attire for the priest, we thought it might be useful to examine some of the underlying reasons for this discipline. We also want to examine some of the common arguments used to justify the non-wearing of the Roman collar.

It is our contention that the rather widespread practice of priests neglecting to wear their collar when they should is both a sign and a cause of malaise in the Church. Such casualness about being publicly identified as a priest of the Catholic Church may signify a desire to distance himself from his priestly vocation. The collar becomes "work clothes," which are put away when one is not "on duty." The functionalistic notion of the priesthood revealed by this attitude is in contradiction to the ontological configuration to Christ the High Priest conferred by priestly ordination.

Lay people depend on their priests for spiritual support and strength. They feel that something is not right when their priests try to blend into the crowd and, as it were, disappear.

The purpose of this article is to encourage our fellow priests to wear their collars (and, by analogy, religious to wear their habits). It goes without saying that there are reasonable and legitimate exceptions to this rule, such as during sports and recreation, during one's vacation (in general), while at home with family or in one's private quarters in the rectory. And, of course, the obligation to wear clerical clothing ceases during times of violent persecution. During such a crisis, the guidance of the bishops should be followed.

It is incorrect to say that a priest who refuses to wear his collar is a bad priest. We are afraid that some of our brother priests have simply slipped into a bad habit. They may have convinced themselves that they are serving the greater good of the Church by putting aside clerical clothing. We would like to call such priests to reconsider their decision to dress as laymen, and to re-examine their motives.

Part 1: Reasons for wearing the Roman collar

1. The Roman collar is a sign of priestly consecration to the Lord. As a wedding ring distinguishes husband and wife and symbolizes the union they enjoy, so the Roman collar identifies bishops and priests (and often deacons and seminarians) and manifests their proximity to the Divine Master by virtue of their free consent to the ordained ministry to which they have been (or may be) called.
   

2. A cheerful but diligent and serious priest can compel others to take stock of the manner in which they conduct themselves. The Roman collar serves as a necessary challenge to an age drowning in impurity, exhibited by suggestive dress, blasphemous speech and scandalous actions.

   By wearing clerical clothing and not possessing excess clothes, the priest demonstrates adherence to the Lord's example of material poverty. The priest does not choose his clothes – the Church has, thanks to her accumulated wisdom over the past two millennia. Humble acceptance of the Church's desire that the priest wear the Roman collar illustrates a healthy submission to authority and conformity to the will of Christ as expressed through his Church.
   
   
3. Church Law requires clerics to wear clerical clothing. We have cited above number 66 of the Directory for priests, which itself quotes canon 284.
   
   
4. The wearing of the Roman collar is the repeated, ardent desire of Pope John Paul 11. The Holy Father's wish in this regard cannot be summarily dismissed; he speaks with a special charism. He frequently reminds priests of the value of wearing the Roman collar.
   
   In a September 8, 1982 letter to Ugo Cardinal Poletti, his Vicar for the Diocese of Rome, instructing him to promulgate norms concerning the use of the Roman collar and religious habit, the Pontiff observed that clerical dress is valuable "not only because it contributes to the propriety of the priest in his external behavior or in the exercise of his ministry, but above all because it gives evidence within the ecclesiastical community of the public witness that each priest is held to give of his own identity and special belonging to God."
   
   In a homily on November 8, 1982 the Pope addressed a group of transitional deacons whom he was about to ordain to the priesthood. He said that if they tried to be just like everyone else in their "style of life" and "manner of dress," then their mission as priests of Jesus Christ would not be fully realized.
   
   
5. The Roman collar prevents "mixed messages"; other people will recognize the priest's intentions when he finds himself in what might appear to be compromising circumstances. Let's suppose that a priest is required to make pastoral visits to different apartment houses in an area where drug dealing or prostitution is prevalent. The Roman collar sends a clear message to everyone that the priest has come to minister to the sick and needy in Christ's name. Idle speculation might be triggered by a priest known to neighborhood residents visiting various apartment houses dressed as a layman.
   
   
6. The Roman collar inspires others to avoid immodesty in dress, words and actions and reminds them of the need for public decorum. A cheerful but diligent and serious priest can compel others to take stock of the manner in which they conduct themselves. The Roman collar serves as a necessary challenge to an age drowning in impurity, exhibited by suggestive dress, blasphemous speech and scandalous actions.
   
   
7. The Roman collar is a protection for one's vocation when dealing with young, attractive women. A priest out of his collar (and, naturally, not wearing a wedding ring) can appear to be an attractive target for the affections of an unmarried woman looking for a husband, or for a married woman tempted to infidelity.
   
   
8. The Roman collar offers a kind of "safeguard "for oneself. The Roman collar provides a reminder to the priest himself of his mission and identity: to witness to Jesus Christ, the Great High Priest, as one of his brother-priests.
   
   
9. A priest in a Roman collar is an inspiration to others who think: "Here is a modern disciple of Jesus." The Roman collar speaks of the possibility of making a sincere, lasting commitment to God. Believers of diverse ages, nationalities and temperaments will note the virtuous, other-centered life of the man who gladly and proudly wears the garb of a Catholic priest, and perhaps will realize that they too can consecrate themselves anew, or for the first time, to the loving Good Shepherd.
   
   
10. The Roman collar is a source of beneficial intrigue to non-Catholics. Most non- Catholics do not have experience with ministers who wear clerical garb. Therefore, Catholic priests by virtue of their dress can cause them to reflect – even if only a cursory fashion – on the Church and what she entails.
    
    
11. A priest dressed as the Church wants is a reminder of God and of the sacred. The prevailing secular morass is not kind to images which connote the Almighty, the Church, etc. When one wears the Roman collar, the hearts and minds of others are refreshingly raised to the "Higher Being" who is usually relegated to a tiny footnote in the agenda of contemporary culture.
    
    
12. The Roman collar is also a reminder to the priest that he is "never not a priest." With so much confusion prevalent today, the Roman collar can help the priest avoid internal doubt as to who he is. Two wardrobes can easily lead – and often does – to two lifestyles, or even two personalities.
    
    
13. A priest in a Roman collar is a walking vocation message. The sight of a cheerful, happy priest confidently walking down the street can be a magnet drawing young men to consider the possibility that God is calling them to the priesthood. God does the calling; the priest is simply a visible sign God will use to draw men unto himself.
    
    
14. The Roman collar makes the priest available for the Sacraments, especially Confession and the Anointing of the Sick, and for crisis situations. Because the Roman collar gives instant recognition, priests who wear it make themselves more apt to be approached, particularly when seriously needed. The authors can testify to being asked for the Sacraments and summoned for assistance in airports, crowded cities and isolated villages because they were immediately recognized as Catholic priests.
    
    
15. The Roman collar is a sign that the priest is striving to become holy by living out his vocation always. It is a sacrifice to make oneself constantly available to souls by being publicly identifiable as a priest, but a sacrifice pleasing to Our Divine Lord. We are reminded of how the people came to him, and how he never turned them away. There are so many people who will benefit by our sacrifice of striving to be holy priests without interruption.
    
    
16. The Roman collar serves as a reminder to "alienated" Catholics not to forget their irregular situation and their responsibilities to the Lord. The priest is a witness – for good or ill – to Christ and his Holy Church. When a "fallen-away" sees a priest, he is encouraged to recall that the Church continues to exist. A cheerful priest provides a salutary reminder of the Church.
    
    
17. The wearing of clerical clothing is a sacrifice at times, especially in hot weather. The best mortifications are the ones we do not look for. Putting up with the discomforts of heat and humidity can be a wonderful reparation for our own sins, and a means of obtaining graces for our parishioners.
    
    

18. The Roman collar is a sign that the priest is striving to become holy by living out his vocation always. It is a sacrifice to make oneself constantly available to souls by being publicly identifiable as a priest. . .

    The Roman collar serves as a "sign of contradiction" to a world lost in sin and rebellion against the Creator. The Roman collar makes a powerful statement: the priest as an alter Christus has accepted the Redeemer's mandate to take the Gospel into the public square, regardless of personal cost.
    
    
19. The Roman collar helps priests to avoid the on duty/off duty mentality of priestly service. The numbers 24 and 7 should be our special numbers: we are priests 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We are priests, not men who engage in the "priest profession." On or off duty, we should be available to whomever God may send our way. The "lost sheep" do not make appointments.
    
    
20. The "officers" in Christ's army should be identifiable as such. Traditionally, we have remarked that those who receive the Sacrament of Confirmation become "soldiers" of Christ, adult Catholics ready and willing to defend his name and his Church. Those who are ordained as deacons, priests and bishops must also be prepared – whatever the stakes – to shepherd the flock of the Lord. Those priests who wear the Roman collar show forth their role unmistakably as leaders in the Church.
    
    
21. The saints have never approved of a lackadaisical approach concerning priestly vesture. For example, Saint Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787), Patron Saint of Moral Theologians and Confessors, in his esteemed treatise The Dignity and Duties of the Priest, urges the wearing of the appropriate clerical dress, asserting that the Roman collar helps both priest and faithful to recall the sublime splendor of the sacerdotal state instituted by the God-Man.
    
    
22. Most Catholics expect their priests to dress accordingly. Priests have long provided a great measure of comfort and security to their people. As youths, Catholics are taught that the priest is God's representative – someone they can trust. Hence, the People of God want to know who these representatives are and what they stand for. The cherished custom of wearing distinguishable dress has been for centuries sanctioned by the Church; it is not an arbitrary imposition. Catholics expect their priests to dress as priests and to behave in harmony with Church teaching and practice. As we have painfully observed over the last few years, the faithful are especially bothered and harmed when priests defy the legitimate authority of the Church, and teach and act in inappropriate and even sinful ways.
    
    
23. Your life is not your own; you belong to God in a special way, you are sent out to serve him with your life. When we wake each morning, we should turn our thoughts to our loving God, and ask for the grace to serve him well that day. We remind ourselves of our status as His chosen servants by putting on the attire that proclaims for all to see that God is still working in this world through the ministry of poor and sinful men.
    

    

Part 2: Arguments advanced against the wearing of clerical clothing

There is a host of reasons advanced for the position that priests should not be required to wear the Roman collar. What follows is a sampling of these opinions, along with our comments.

1. "I can't be one of the guys when I am 'dressed up."' To which we answer, "Good, because a priest is never just one of the guys." Furthermore, wearing the collar is not "dressing up." Rather, a priest wearing lay clothing (apart from legitimate exceptions) is himself constantly dressing up as someone he is not.

   "I need time for myself." Priests, of course, need time for themselves, especially for prayer. Yet, a priest is a priest – always. Apart from the times noted in the introduction (recreation, vacation, etc.), there is no need to dress as a layman. The priest should take his personal time as a priest and nothing else.
   
   
2. "I want to relax." We make a big mistake when we equate wearing the collar with not being relaxed, and relaxing with being out of the collar. The naturalness of the priest should include wearing the collar without constantly averting to it. We should go about our daily duties, which include relaxing, without feeling uncomfortable about our priestly garb. It should become second nature to us.
   
   
3. "My ministerial and personal lives are separate." To have a "split personality" is never healthy. No priest can temporarily put his priesthood on the shelf. To hide one's priesthood may often be symptomatic of a desire to engage in something sinful, or – at the very least – disedifying.
   
   
4. "I need diversion." If you mean the type of diversion that you would be ashamed to be seen enjoying while in a collar, then forget the diversion, not the collar.
   
   
5. "Those who always wear their collars are insecure and seek to hide behind their uniforms." The Roman collar is hardly a work uniform which is removed at the end of one's day. Rather, the tried and true wisdom of the Church has determined that such garb best represents who the priest is. The collar is the established manner in which ordained ministers live out their ecclesial vocations both in the private and public spheres. True, some may think themselves better because of what they wear. But the collar and habit should not be dismissed out-of-hand on that basis. Priests and religious are weak and tempted. Wearing the appropriate clothing can strengthen those who totter on the brink of grave sin. On the other hand, those who do not want to appear in public as they really are seem to be suffering from a type of insecurity.
   
   
6. "I do not want to stand out in a crowd." This is part of the glory and at times the sacrifice of being God's chosen servant: priests stand out not because of their own accomplishments or merits, but because they represent Jesus Christ. Priests are different, but not thereby strange.
   
   
7. "The Roman collar erects a barrier between me and my people." Some priests have publicly stated such. (For example, a priest-tribunal official and another priest involved in ecumenical work both asserted the necessity of not wearing the Roman collar for fear that they would insult non-Catholics and those hostile to Church teaching.) Could it be that some think that what the collar signifies – Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, the priesthood – are obstacles? Priests must relate to others as priests, never in spite of being priests.
   
   
8. "I can't be one of the guys when I am 'dressed up."' To which we answer, "Good, because a priest is never just one of the guys." Furthermore, wearing the collar is not "dressing up." Rather, a priest wearing lay clothing (apart from legitimate exceptions) is himself constantly dressing up as someone he is not.
   
   
9. "I don't want to offend non-Catholics or be provocative in our pluralistic society." Some took offense at Jesus as he walked the streets of Palestine. Are we trying to be "nicer" than he? Are we perhaps afraid to suffer for the sake of his name?
   
   
10. "Clerical clothing is for a clerical Church – I believe in the radical equality of all believers." There is no such thing as a clerical Church which will pass away. There is just one Church, and the priesthood is a constitutive part of the Church which cannot be abolished. The equality of all believers does not contradict the diversity of vocations and states of life in the Church. For priests to self-exempt themselves from one of the duties of priestly life – the wearing of the Roman collar – is a form of clericalism which denies the faithful their right to know who their priests are in order to call upon them for priestly ministrations whenever necessary.
    
    
11. "My work with young people is hampered by the collar." Many priests attest that their ministry to youth is enhanced, not hindered, by the wearing of the collar. Young men and women cannot help but detect the priest's love for and dedication to the Lord and the Church. Since there is no reason for the priest to demonstrate that "I'm just like you" (because he is not) the priest can be content to wear his collar when around young people, knowing that he has nothing to prove or hide. He need only show the love and compassion of the Savior.
    
    
12. "Clothes do not make the man – the people of God can see my priesthood by the way I live, not by the way I dress." This statement as it stands is true. But the legitimate, Church-sanctioned vesture of the priest does not somehow mask who he is; instead, it highlights that he is indeed a priest who is required by the Church to dress accordingly as he seeks to imitate the First Priest.
    
    
13. "External symbols are not my thing – I am who I am, not what other people want me to be." Exactly. As priests, we should be priests and happily, humbly give that clear message to others. When collars were quickly taken off a few decades ago, the common argument proclaimed was: "What's really important is what's inside me . . . I don't need an article of clothing to define my priesthood." Our lives should unabashedly display these characteristics; otherwise, we might be simply seeking our own interests and not Christ's. We use symbols all the time, and need not be embarrassed by them. To obediently and humbly wear the collar expresses one's submission to the authority of God and his Holy Church.
    
    
14. "Priests who always wear the Roman collar are rigid, arch-conservative, inflexible, elitist, vain and selfish attention-seekers. I am not one of them." The assertion is made that priests who dress as priests possess an unhealthy desire to be continually needed and recognized; they only wear the collar for adulation and to "lord it over" the laity; they are looking for "clergy discounts" and "freebies" at stores and restaurants. That is an unfair assessment of men who are trying to live as the Church mandates. The collar should mean a simplicity of life and a corresponding humility before Almighty God. For a priest to say, "I'm not like those poor guys who wear this Tridentine-imposed relic of clericalism," is perhaps a means of easing his conscience when it rebukes him for not doing what the Church demands of her ministers.

Final Thoughts

Inarguably, much of Western society revels in a far-reaching decadence aimed at obliterating any sign of the transcendent.

To counter such a reality, priests – emboldened by the Holy Spirit with a strong faith and a genuine missionary spirit – must seek to cooperate with the Creator in re-invigorating the world with a sense of awe for and responsibility to God.

The Roman collar, far from being a nasty reminder of the Church's requirement of clerical dress for her priests, is a sorely-needed reference to the ever-present Paraclete who beckons all men and women to recognize the selfless love and eternal grandeur of the Most Blessed Trinity.

Priests who don the collar may be met with a barrage of objections. "We are the Church . . . we are all priests . . . there's no room for class distinctions in the Church of the twenty-first century...." Even some brother priests may look askance at one of their own, convinced that he is suffering from what could be fatal imprudence. "Wearing the collar will only make you a target and eventually a victim . . . you'll be sorry."

But priests who wear the Roman collar, in addition to obeying the law of the Church and the heartfelt plea of the Holy Father, display the desire to manifest the presence of the Savior to a world gone mad. No matter the abuse which may be heaped upon a collar-wearing priest, he knows full well that the reward is significant: to be able to lead others to Christ despite one's own personal failings.

To priests who always wear the Roman collar we say: keep it up! To those who do not we say: take stock of the value which this seemingly insignificant piece of vesture possesses. Be aware that the priestly work you now do will not suffer but will be enhanced when you dress according to the venerable custom of the Church.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Msgr. Charles M. Mangan & Father Gerald E. Murray. "Why a priest should wear his Roman collar." Homiletic & Pastoral Review (June, 1995).

Reprinted with permission of the author and Homiletic & Pastoral Review.

Founded over one hundred years ago, Homiletic & Pastoral Review is one of the most well-respected pastoral magazines in the world. HPR features solid articles on every aspect of pastoral life and eloquent weekly sermons that illuminate through exposition of Scripture. Subscribe to HPR here.

THE AUTHOR

Msgr. Charles M. Mangan was appointed by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, to a position serving the Vatican's Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Ordained in 1989, Msgr. Mangan formerly served the Diocese of Sioux Falls in several parishes. His is the author of many pamphlets which are available here.

Father Gerald E. Murray is a priest of the Archdiocese of New York. He is a graduate of Dartmouth College and was ordained in 1984 after completing studies at St. Joseph's Seminary in Dunwoodie, N. Y. Currently he is studying canon law at the Gregorian University in Rome.

Copyright © 2010 Homiletic & Pastoral Review

Article: Facing Death in Solidarity and Hope

FATHER TADEUSZ PACHOLCZYK, PH.D.

When I make presentations on end-of-life decision making, I sometimes have audience members approach me afterwards with comments like, “You know, Father, when my mom died 6 years ago, and I look back on it, I’m not sure my brothers and I made the right decisions about her care.”

Remarks like these serve to remind us how the circumstances surrounding death are important not only for the person who passes on but also for those who remain behind.

A "good death" generally involves the confluence of many elements and events: dying surrounded by our loved ones, preferably in surroundings like a home or hospice setting; receiving proper pain management; making use of reasonable medical treatments (and avoiding unduly burdensome treatments); making peace with family and friends; making peace with God (and receiving the last sacraments); and uniting ourselves with Christ in his hour of suffering.

As we take care of those who are sick and suffering, we face the dual challenge of making ethical treatment decisions for them and ensuring a supportive and humanly enriching environment as they approach their last days and hours.

By providing a supportive and nurturing environment for those who are dying, we aid them in powerful ways to overcome their sense of isolation. Sister Diana Bader, O.P. has perceptively described this modern health care challenge:

"In the past, death was a community event. Those closest to the patient ministered in a variety of ways: watching and praying with the patient, listening and talking, laughing and weeping. In solidarity, a close community bore the painful experience together. Today, because of the medicalization of the healthcare setting, death is more often regarded as a failure of medical science. The dying find themselves isolated from human warmth and compassion in institutions, cut off from access to human presence by technology which dominates the institutional setting in which most details occur."

Fostering a humanly enriching environment for those facing death often means giving explicit attention to human presence and human contact, even in the midst of a plethora of technology that may surround a patient.

For example, thanks to the remarkable development of feeding tubes, it has become a relatively simple matter to nourish and hydrate someone who is having trouble swallowing. Such a tube, particularly when inserted directly into the stomach, is a highly effective means of providing nutrition and hydration in various institutional settings. But the ease of injecting food and liquids through a so-called PEG tube into the stomach means that medical staff can quickly and efficiently move on to the next patient after a feeding, perhaps neglecting to meet the very real human need for companionship. Staff members may prefer the efficiency that such a tube affords, but human contact may be diminished in the process.

The dying find themselves isolated from human warmth and compassion in institutions, cut off from access to human presence by technology which dominates the institutional setting in which most details occur.

If a patient is still able to take small amounts of food orally, it may be preferable to feed him or her by hand, rather than relying on a feeding tube. The rich human contact that occurs whenever one person devotes time, energy and love to hand-feed another should not become a casualty to our efforts to streamline medicine or to save money. This focused effort on our part to be present to those who are dying maintains human solidarity with them, it affirms their dignity as persons, it manifests benevolence towards them, and it maintains the bond of human communication with them. It also goes a long way towards helping to overcome their sense of loneliness and their fear of abandonment.

When we show compassion towards others in their suffering, we do far more than express a detached pity towards them. Rather, we manifest a willingness to enter into their situation. The word compassion (from Latin and French roots: com – "with" + pati – "to suffer") means, "to suffer with," to suffer alongside, to participate in suffering. Pope Benedict XVI perhaps stated the importance of compassion most directly in 2007 when he wrote, "A society unable to accept its suffering members and incapable of helping to share their suffering and to bear it inwardly through "com-passion" is a cruel and inhuman society. … Indeed, to accept the "other" who suffers, means that I take up his suffering in such a way that it becomes mine also. … The Latin word con-solatio, "consolation", expresses this beautifully. It suggests being with the other in his solitude, so that it ceases to be solitude."

We suffer alongside our loved ones, aware of the abiding inner truth that a part of ourselves suffers and dies whenever another who is near to us suffers and dies. Our communion with them in our shared humanity, and our dedicated solidarity in suffering invariably leads us, and those who pass on ahead of us, to share in the mysterious and enduring graces of a good death.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. "Facing Death in Solidarity and Hope." Making Sense Out of Bioethics (March, 2010).

Father Tad Pacholczyk, Ph.D. writes a monthly column, Making Sense out of Bioethics, which appears in various diocesan newspapers across the country. This article is reprinted with permission of the author, Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) has a long history of addressing ethical issues in the life sciences and medicine. Established in 1972, the Center is engaged in education, research, consultation, and publishing to promote and safeguard the dignity of the human person in health care and the life sciences. The Center is unique among bioethics organizations in that its message derives from the official teaching of the Catholic Church: drawing on the unique Catholic moral tradition that acknowledges the unity of faith and reason and builds on the solid foundation of natural law.

The Center publishes two journals (Ethics & Medics and The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly) and at least one book annually on issues such as physician-assisted suicide, abortion, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research. Educational programs include the National Catholic Certification Program in Health Care Ethics and a variety of seminars and other events.

Inspired by the harmony of faith and reason, the Quarterly unites faith in Christ to reasoned and rigorous reflection upon the findings of the empirical and experimental sciences. While the Quarterly is committed to publishing material that is consonant with the magisterium of the Catholic Church, it remains open to other faiths and to secular viewpoints in the spirit of informed dialogue.

THE AUTHOR

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk earned a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Yale University. Father Tad did post-doctoral research at Massachusetts General Hospital/ Harvard Medical School. He subsequently studied in Rome where he did advanced studies in theology and in bioethics. He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, MA, and serves as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia. Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk is a member of the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Copyright © 2010 Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.

Article: Liturgical Education

DAVID G. BONAGURA, JR.

Before he was ordained bishop in 1977, Joseph Ratzinger was for a quarter century a professor of theology.

On more than one occasion he has lamented that his episcopal duties – first in Germany, then in Rome as prefect and now pope – have kept him from his first love: writing and teaching. But the papacy has given him many more students than he ever could have expected as a young professor. And it has also provided him an opportunity to teach in a unique and authoritative way what could be called his favorite theological subject: liturgy.

Ratzinger spoke of the need for "liturgical education" as early as 1981 in The Feast of Faith, and again in his magnum opus, The Spirit of the Liturgy, in 1999. In the latter work he defined "true liturgical education" as the direction "toward the essential actio that makes the liturgy what it is, toward the transforming power of God, who wants, through what happens in the liturgy, to transform us and the world." He then bluntly adds, "In this respect, liturgical education today, both of priests and laity, is deficient to a deplorable extent. Much remains to be done here."

A year later he returned to this theme in his book-length interview with Peter Seewald, God and the World. Although he could not have known it at the time, Ratzinger's answers have become a sort of blueprint for how he has educated the clergy and faithful in the liturgy during the first five years of his pontificate. Much remains to be done here, but Pope Benedict has worked diligently to reconnect the world with the true heart of the liturgy.

Responding to Seewald's question whether a "reform of the reform" is necessary "in order to make [the liturgy] holier again," Ratzinger proposed three steps to restore the Mass's sacred character. First, we need "a new liturgical consciousness" in order "to be rid of this spirit of arbitrary fabrication" that has morphed the Mass into a form of religious entertainment void of reverence and solemnity. In all of his writings on the liturgy, Ratzinger has cited deliberate distortions of liturgical norms as the greatest enemy of the Mass properly understood: "The most important thing today is that we should regain respect for the liturgy and for the fact that it is not to be manipulated. That we learn to know it again as the living entity that has grown up and has been given to us, in which we take part in the heavenly liturgy. That we do not seek self-fulfillment in it but rather the gift that comes to us."

His 2007 apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis urges bishops and priests to tend to "the ars celebrandi, the art of proper celebration" of the Mass as the "primary way to foster the participation of the People of God in the sacred rite." In fact, he adds that "the best catechesis on the Eucharist is the Eucharist itself, celebrated well." Benedict has intentionally celebrated his papal liturgies as opportunities to teach the world the proper ars celebrandi, a lesson infinitely more communicable with the aid of modern technology.

Second, Ratzinger proposed a reexamination of the new liturgical books "to see in what area, so to speak, too much was pruned away, so that the connection with the whole history may become clearer and more alive again." This would be the beginning of a "reform of the reform" of the Novus Ordo that some Catholics have eagerly anticipated. The first five years of Benedict's pontificate, however, have been given solely to forming "liturgical consciousness," that is, to reforming the liturgy's spirit before its letter. This follows from what he told Seewald: any reform of the reform "ought in the first place to be above all an educative process" (emphasis added); otherwise, without a proper understanding of the "why" of liturgical change, we risk returning to the liturgical chaos of the 1970s. Benedict, seasoned teacher that he is, knows well that the education process is a marathon, not a sprint; the reform of the reform, therefore, remains a goal for the future.

No. The pace may be slow and the numbers few, but each day more and more Catholics are discovering "the essential actio" of the Mass through Benedict's program of liturgical education

Third, Benedict proposed that the proscription against the old Latin Mass be lifted to help foster "a true consciousness in liturgical matters." He did precisely that in 2007 with Summorum Pontificum; he explained that "the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching," with the older form aiding the newer to demonstrate more powerfully its sacred character.

Teaching is an art always subject to growth and criticism. Not a few think Benedict should dispense with his educational plan and just wield the papal rod to enforce liturgical discipline on wayward priests and congregations. Others – perhaps the vast majority of Catholics – are either unaware that Benedict has convened class, or, in the case of the current liturgical establishment, refuse to hear his lessons. Is Benedict's appoach ineffective?

No. The pace may be slow and the numbers few, but each day more and more Catholics are discovering "the essential actio" of the Mass through Benedict's program of liturgical education, and their faith is deepening as a result. It may require decades, but developing liturgical consciousness will authentically renew the Mass, not through the papal rod, but from within.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

David G. Bonagura, Jr. "Liturgical Education." The Catholic Thing (July 8, 2010).

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

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

THE AUTHOR

David G. Bonagura, Jr. is an associate editor of The University Bookman.

Copyright © 2010 The Catholic Thing

Wednesday Liturgy: The "Te Deum"

ROME, JULY 13, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: I read with great interest your discussion of the Adoro Te Devote. I wondered if you would prepare a similar explanation and discussion of the Te Deum. I consider it to be a beautiful hymn and would be interested to know more about its history and use. -- B.D., Columbia City, Indiana

A: Compared to the labyrinthine history of the Te Deum, that of the Adoro Te Devote was quite straightforward.

The Te Deum, an ancient Latin hymn in rhythmical prose, is probably a compilation of three sources. In fact, there are triple rhythms and three distinct melodies within the one piece. In many ways it resembles another ancient liturgical prose hymn, the Gloria in Excelsis Deo.

The chant melodies are from pre-Gregorian and Gregorian styles. Polyphonic versions have been composed by, among others: G. Palestrina, G.F. Handel, Henry Purcell, Ralph Vaughan Williams, M.L. Cherubini, Benjamin Britten, H. Berlioz, A. Bruckner and A. Dvorak. Numerous English translations have been made, including one by the poet John Dryden (1631-1700). The popular "Holy God, We Praise Thy Name," originally a 1775 Lutheran hymn in German, is also based on the Te Deum.

We present the Latin version and the translation published in the 1975 Liturgy of the Hours. For the sake of clarity we have divided it into the three parts mentioned above.

"Te deum laudamus te dominum confitemur / Te aeternum patrem omnis terra veneratur / Tibi omnes angeli Tibi caeli et universae potestates / Tibi cherubim et seraphim incessabili voce proclamant / Sanctus sanctus sanctus dominus deus sabaoth / Pleni sunt celi et terra maiestatis gloriae tuae / Te gloriosus apostolorum chorus / Te prophetarum laudabilis numerus / Te martyrum candidatus laudat exercitus / Te per orbem terrarum sancta confitetur ecclesia / Patrem inmense maiestatis / Venerandum tuum verum unicum filium / Sanctum quoque paraclytum spiritum

"Tu rex gloriae christe / Tu patris sempiternus es filius / Tu ad liberandum suscepisti hominem non horruisti virginis uterum / Tu devicto mortis aculeo aperuisti credentibus regna caelorum / Tu ad dexteram dei sedes in gloria patris / Iudex crederis esse venturus / Te ergo quaesumus tuis famulis subveni quos pretioso sanguine redemisti / Aeterna fac cum sanctis tuis gloria numerari

"Salvum fac populum tuum domine et benedic hereditati tuae / Et rege eos et extolle illos usque in aeternum / Per singulos dies benedicimus te / Et laudamus nomen tuum in saeculum et in saeculum saeculi / Dignare domine die isto, sine peccato nos custodire / Miserere nostri domine miserere nostri / Fiat misericordia tua domine super nos quemadmodum speravimus in te / In te domine speravi non confundar in aeternum"

"You are God: we praise you; You are the Lord: we acclaim you; / You are the eternal Father: All creation worships you./ To you all angels, all the powers of heaven, / Cherubim and Seraphim, sing in endless praise: / Holy, holy, holy, Lord, God of power and might,/ heaven and earth are full of your glory./ The glorious company of apostles praise you./ The noble fellowship of prophets praise you. / The white-robed army of martyrs praises you. / Throughout the world the holy Church acclaims you:/ Father, of majesty unbounded, / your true and only Son, worthy of all worship, / and the Holy Spirit, advocate and guide.

"You, Christ, are the king of glory,/ the eternal Son of the Father./ When you became man to set us free / you did not spurn the Virgin's womb. / You overcame the sting of death, and opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers. / You are seated at God's right hand in glory./ We believe that you will come, and be our judge./ Come then, Lord, and help your people, bought with the price of your own blood, / and bring us with your saints to glory everlasting.

"Save your people, Lord, and bless your inheritance./ Govern and uphold them now and always./ Day by day we bless you./ We praise your name for ever. / Keep us today, Lord, from all sin. / Have mercy on us, Lord, have mercy. / Lord, show us your love and mercy; / for we put our trust in you. / In you, Lord, is our hope: / And we shall never hope in vain."

As we mentioned, we are probably dealing with three distinct hymns in one. The first is directed toward the Father and ends with a Trinitarian doxology. It could be a rare survivor of the hymns that were popular before the Council of Nicaea in 325. There are probable references to this hymn in the writings of St. Cyprian of Carthage and in the Passion of St. Perpetua, which would make its composition earlier than the year 250.

The second part, entirely Christological, is evidently later and reflects the controversies surrounding the fourth-century Arian heresy. It is also the more-perfect composition faithfully respecting the rules of Latin rhetoric.

The third section is formed from a series of verses from the Psalms. It is possible that these were originally versicles added as a litany at the end of the hymn. Something similar happens today when we add the versicle "You gave them bread from heaven " after the Tantum Ergo. Eventually this litany also became part of the hymn itself. Indeed, in the Milanese Ambrosian rite the Te Deum ends with the "Aeterna fac cum sanctis tuis gloria [Munerari]." The present rubrics also allow this part to be omitted in the Roman rite.

There are many theories regarding the author, especially with respect to who composed the second part and added it to the older first part. The most likely candidate is Nicetas (circa 335-414), bishop of Remesiana, now Bela Palanka in present-day Serbia. This zealous missionary bishop's poetical talent was acknowledged by contemporaries such as St. Jerome and St. Paulinus of Nola, as well as Gennadius writing about 75 years later. Nicetas' authorship is attested by about 10 manuscripts, the earliest from the 10th century and mostly of Irish origin. It is likely that Ireland's isolation could have kept alive an older attribution, whereas in continental Europe the hymn was attributed to more famous names such as St. Hilary and St. Ambrose. A more detailed discussion of the question of authorship and translation of the text can be found in the online Catholic Encyclopedia.

The earliest evidence for the use of this hymn in the Divine Office is found in St. Caesarius of Arles in 502. St. Benedict (died 526) also prescribed it for his monks. The general rubrics of today's Divine Office direct the recitation of the Te Deum before the concluding prayer of the Office of Readings on all Sundays outside of Lent, during the octaves of Easter and Christmas, and on solemnities and feasts.

It is also common to sing the Te Deum as a hymn of thanksgiving to God on special religious and civil occasions. Religious occasions would be such as the election of a pope, the consecration of a bishop, the canonization of a saint, religious profession, and other significant occasions.

In many traditionally Catholic countries it is still common for civil authorities to assist at a special Te Deum on occasion of a royal coronation or presidential inauguration, for peace treaties and significant historical anniversaries. This tradition was sometimes ruled by strict protocol. For example, when General Charles de Gaulle triumphantly entered a liberated Paris during the Second World War the canons of Notre Dame Cathedral debated if the recognized French leader was also the legitimate head of state. The Te Deum could only be sung for the legitimate head of state, and the legal situation was confused. Therefore, when the general entered the cathedral the canons diplomatically received him by singing the Magnificat.

Finally, the Te Deum is traditionally sung on Dec. 31 in thanksgiving for the year about to end. The Church grants a plenary indulgence to those who participate in public recitation of the Te Deum on this day.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Consecration of Both Species for Mass

ROME, JULY 13, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Somewhat related to the question on the need for a double consecration (see June 22), a reader asked about the need for the double reception of communion. He wrote: "When receiving communion, parishioners have the choice to drink from the cup, which has the blood of Christ. There are some, including myself, who do not drink from the cup (because of a medical condition, I fear that I may drop it). After Mass I feel left out because I did not receive the blood of Christ. Can a person say that he/she has received both the body and blood of Christ when they did not drink from the cup?"

Although receiving both species is preferable in virtue of the sign value of communion, the Church's teaching is that one receives the whole Christ -- body, blood, soul and divinity -- under either species. Therefore, a person who receives only under the species of bread, or exceptionally only under the species of wine, receives the same grace as the person who receives both species.

At the same time, our reader's difficulty in receiving from the chalice could be solved with a simple consultation with the parish priest. Once his difficulty is recognized, a means could be arranged, such as communion by intinction, allowing him to receive under both species. Almost every community has some parishioners with particular needs, and they can usually resolve these difficulties in full respect of Church law and liturgical decorum.

The Spirit of the Liturgy: Observance of Liturgical Norms and "Ars Celebrandi"

ROME, JULY 9, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the last article of the Spirit of the Liturgy series, which has been directed by Father Mauro Gagliardi, a consultor of the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff and professor of theology at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum of Rome.

This article by Father Gagliardi concerns the importance of the observance of the liturgical norms and the "ars celebrandi."

* * *

During the Year for Priests, which ended last month, the column "The Spirit of the Liturgy" developed the topic "The Priest in the Eucharistic Celebration," chosen because of the coincidence in 2009-2010 of several anniversaries: the 150th of the death of the Holy Curé d'Ars (1859), the 40th of the promulgation of Paul VI's Missal (1969) and the 440th of Saint Pius V's Missal (1570), which in the edition approved by Blessed John XXIII (1962) represents the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.[1] Hence the opportunity to make clear the peculiar dignity of the ordained priesthood, reflecting further on the theology and spirituality of the Holy Mass, particularly in the perspective of the minister who celebrates it.

In this last article, with which we also wish to take leave of our readers before the summer pause, we wish to reflect with the usual brevity on the topic of the "ars celebrandi."

1. The Post-Conciliar Situation

Vatican Council II ordered a general reform of the sacred liturgy.[2] The latter was effected after the closing of the Council, by a commission commonly called, for reasons of brevity, the Consilium.[3] It is known that, from the beginning, the liturgical reform was the object of criticisms, at times radical, as well as exaltations, in certain cases, excessive. It is not our intention to pause on this problem. We can say instead that it is generally agreed that an increase of abuses can be observed in the celebratory field after the Council.

The recent magisterium has also taken note of the situation and in many cases has called for the strict observance of the norms and of the liturgical indications. On the other hand, the liturgical laws established for the ordinary form (or of Paul VI) -- the one which, exceptions aside, is always and everywhere celebrated in the Church of today -- are much more "open" in relation to the past. The latter allow for many exceptions and different applications, and also provide many forms for the different rites (the pluriformity also increased in the passage from the Latin "editio typica" to the national versions). Despite this, a great number of priests believe that ultimately the space left to "creativity" must be enlarged, which is expressed above all with the frequent change of words or whole phrases in relation to those fixed in the liturgical books, with the insertion of new "rites" often completely foreign to the liturgical and theological tradition of the Church and even with the use of vestments, sacred vessels and decorations that are not always appropriate and, in some cases, even fall into the ridiculous.

Liturgist Cesare Giraudo has summarized the situation with these words: "If before [the liturgical reform] there was fixation, sclerosis of forms, unnaturalness, which made the liturgy of the time a 'liturgy of iron,' today there is naturalness and spontaneity, undoubtedly sincere, but often understood, misunderstood, which make -- or at least run the risk of making -- of the liturgy a 'liturgy of rubber,' slippery, elusive, soapy, which at times is expressed in an ostentatious liberation from all written normatives. [...] This badly understood spontaneity, which in fact is identified with improvisation, taking the easy way out, superficiality, permissiveness, is the new 'criterion' that fascinates innumerable pastoral agents, priests and laymen. [...] Not to speak of those priests who, at times and in some places, arrogate to themselves the right to use wild Eucharistic prayers, or to make up their texts or parts of them here and there."[4]

In the encyclical "Ecclesia de Eucharistia," Pope John Paul II manifested his displeasure over the liturgical abuses that have often taken place, particularly in the celebration of Holy Mass, in as much as "the Eucharist is too great a gift to endure ambiguities and diminutions."[5] And he added: "Unfortunately, it is to be lamented that, above all beginning with the years of the post-conciliar liturgical reform, because of a misunderstood sense of creativity and adaptation, there has been no lack of abuses, which for many have been the cause of uneasiness. A certain reaction to 'formalism' has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the 'forms' adopted by the great liturgical tradition of the Church and her magisterium as not obligatory and to introduce unauthorized innovations often all together unsuitable.

"Hence, I feel it my duty to make an urgent call to attention so that liturgical norms are observed with great fidelity in the Eucharistic celebration. They are concrete expressions of the authentic ecclesiality of the Eucharist; this is its most profound meaning. The liturgy is never someone's private property, either of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated."[6]

2. Causes and Effects of the Phenomenon

The phenomenon of "liturgical disobedience" has extended in such a way, because of the number and in certain cases also because of the gravity, that the mentality has been formed in many by which the liturgy, with the exception of the words of the Eucharistic consecration, can be subject to all the modifications "pastorally" considered suitable by the priest or the community. This situation induced John Paul II himself to request the Congregation for Divine Worship to prepare a disciplinary Instruction on the Celebration of the Eucharist, published with the title "Redemptionis Sacramentum" on March 25, 2004. Indicated in the quotation reproduced earlier of "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" was the reaction to formalism as one of the causes of the "liturgical disobedience" of our time. "Redemptionis Sacramentum" points out other causes, among them a false concept of liberty [7] and ignorance. The latter in particular refers not only to knowledge of the norms, but also to a deficient understanding of the historical and theological value of many eucological texts and rites: "Finally, abuses very often find their foundation in ignorance, given that in general that is rejected whose profound meaning is not understood, nor is its antiquity known."[8]

Introducing the topic of fidelity to the norms in a theological and historical understanding, in addition to the text of the ecclesiology of communion, the instruction states: "The mystery of the Eucharist is too great 'for someone to allow himself to treat it with his own personal choice, which would not respect either its sacred character or its universal dimension.' [...] Arbitrary acts do not benefit true renewal, but harm the true right of the faithful to liturgical action, which is expression of the life of the Church, according to her tradition and discipline. Moreover, they introduce in the very celebration of the Eucharist elements of discord and deform it, when it tends, by its very nature and in an eminent way, to signify and realize admirably communion with divine life and the unity of the People of God. Derived from these arbitrary acts are uncertainty in doctrine, doubt and scandal for the People of God and, almost inevitably, a violent repugnance that confuses and afflicts forcefully many faithful in our times, in which frequently Christian life suffers the very difficult environment of 'secularization.'

"On the other hand, all Christian faithful enjoy the right to celebrate a true liturgy, and especially the celebration of the Holy Mass, which should be exactly as the Church has desired and established it, as written in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Moreover, the Catholic people have the right to have the holy sacrifice of the Mass celebrated for them in keeping with all the teaching of the magisterium of the Church. Finally, the Catholic community has the right to have the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist carried out in such a way that it seems truly a sacrament of unity, excluding absolutely all the defects and gestures that can manifest divisions and factions in the Church."[9]

Particularly significant in this text is the appeal to the right of the faithful to have a liturgy celebrated according to the universal norms of the Church, in addition to stressing the fact that the transformations and modifications of the liturgy -- even if done for "pastoral" reasons -- in reality do not have a positive effect in this field; on the contrary, they confuse, disturb, and tire and can also make the faithful abandon religious practice.

3. The "Ars Celebrandi"

Here are the reasons why in the last four decades the Magisterium has reminded priests several times of the importance of the "ars celebrandi," which -- although it does not consist only in the perfect execution of the rites according to the books, but also and above all in the spirit of faith and adoration with which these are celebrated -- cannot be carried out, however, if it is removed from the norms established for the celebration.[10]

It is expressed thus, for example, by the Holy Father Benedict XVI: "The first way with which the participation of the People of God in the sacred rite is fostered is the proper celebration of the rite itself. The 'ars celebrandi' is the best premise for the 'actuosa participatio.' The 'ars celebrandi' stems from faithful obedience to the liturgical norms in their plenitude, as it is precisely this way of celebrating which has ensured for two thousand years the life of faith of all believers, who are called to live the celebration as People of God, royal priesthood, holy nation (cf. 1 P 2, 4-5.9)."[11]

Recalling these aspects, one must not fall into the error of forgetting the positive fruits produced by the movement of liturgical renewal. The problem indicated, however, subsists and it is important that the solution of the same begin with the priests, who must commit themselves first of all to know in a profound way the liturgical books and also to put faithfully into practice their prescriptions. Only knowledge of the liturgical laws and the desire to hold oneself strictly to them will avoid further abuses and arbitrary "innovations" that, if at the time might perhaps move those present, in reality soon end by tiring and disappointing. Saving the best intentions of those who commit them, after forty years of "liturgical disobedience" it does not in fact build better Christian communities, but on the contrary it puts in danger the solidity of their faith and of their belonging to the unity of the Catholic Church.

The more "open" character of the new liturgical norms cannot be used as pretext to pervert the nature of the public worship of the Church: "The new norms have much simplified the formulas, gestures, liturgical acts [...]. But neither must one go in this field beyond what is established: in fact, by doing so, the liturgy would be stripped of the sacred signs and of its beauty, which are necessary so that the mystery of salvation is truly realized in the Christian community and that it also understood under the veil of visible realities, through an appropriate catechesis. In fact the liturgical reform is not synonymous with de-sacralization, nor is it the motive for that phenomenon called the secularization of the world. Hence, it is necessary to preserve in the rites dignity, seriousness, sacredness."[12]

Therefore, among the graces we hope to be able to obtain from the celebration of the Year for Priests is also that of a true liturgical renewal in the heart of the Church, so that the sacred liturgy is understood and lived for what it is in reality: the public and integral worship of the Mystical Body of Christ, Head and members, worship of adoration that glorifies God and sanctifies men.[13]

Notes

[1] Cf. M. Gagliardi, "The Priest in the Eucharistic Celebration," ZENIT, Dec. 11, 2009: http://www.zenit.org/article-33257?1=spanish

[2] Cf. Vatican Council II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, No. 21.

[3] Abbreviation of "Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia."

[4] C. Giraudo, "La costituzione 'Sacrosanctum Concilium': il primo grande dono del Vaticano II," in La Civilta Cattolica (2003/IV), pp. 532; 531.

[5] John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, No. 10.

[6] Ibid., n. 52. Cf. also Vatican Council II, "Sacrosanctum Concilium," No. 28.

[7] "It is not strange that the abuses have their origin in a false concept of liberty. However, God has given us, in Christ, not a false liberty to do as we please, but the liberty so that we are able to do what is fitting and just": Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, "Redemptionis Sacramentum," No. 7.

[8] Ibid., No. 9.

[9] Ibid., Nos. 11-12.

[10] Sacred Congregation of Rites, "Eucharisticum Mysterium," No. 20: "To foster the correct development of the sacred celebration and the active participation of the faithful, the ministers must not limit themselves to carry out their service with precision, according to the liturgical laws, but they must conduct themselves in such a way as to inculcate, through it, the meaning of sacred things."

[11] Benedict XVI, "Sacramentum Caritatis," No. 38. See No. 40, which develops the concept properly.

[12] Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, "Liturgicae Instaurationes," No. 1. The text continues: "The efficacy of liturgical actions does not lie in the constant search for ritual novelties, or for further simplifications, but in deeper reflection on the word of God and on the mystery celebrated, whose presence is assured by the observance of the rites of the Church and not those imposed by the personal taste of each priest. It must be kept in mind, moreover, that the imposition of personal reconstructions of the sacred rites by the priest offends the dignity of the faithful and opens the way to individualism and to personalism in the celebration of actions belonging directly to the whole Church."

[13] Cf. Pius XII, Mediator Dei, I, 1; Vatican Council II, "Sacrosanctum Concilium," No. 7.

Article: The Cost of Loving God

FATHER JOHN A. HARDON, S.J.

We are strange creatures. We can be so inconsistent. Take the matter of buying and selling. We know perfectly well that in order to buy anything we must pay for it.

We know perfectly well that in order to buy anything we must pay for it. The very word "buying" means that we pay whatever an item costs and only then have a right to possess it. In fact, taking something that belongs to someone else without paying is stealing. We may complain about inflation and shop around to get an article of clothing or food or a piece of equipment or furniture at a lower price, but we assume without a second thought that to obtain what someone else has that we need or want, we have to pay whatever the owner asks for what we wish to buy.

Then we turn to the order of spirit and the supernatural world of God and His grace. All of a sudden we seem to change our minds. We know better, of course. But we have to struggle to overcome the peculiar idea that where God is concerned He owes us what we need and that we somehow have a right to what only He can give without bothering to pay for what we want. Inconsistent? It's contradictory! The phrase goes, "You get nothing for nothing." How come some people have a different idea about God? They seem to expect Him to give everything for nothing.

There is, we may admit, some basis for our strange attitude. After all, God brought us out of nothing into existence, without our paying anything for the privilege of creation. He might, in fact, have made us any one of the million other creatures, like a rose, or a lily, or a lowly weed. And, even then, had we been grasshoppers who could speak, we should still have told God, "Thank You." Yet, God made us and made us what we are not only without cost on our part, but even without the possibility of any contribution from us. For the best of reasons, we were not around to offer advanced payment for our future existence. And so on through life. There are so many things we possess and enjoy that God gives us and does not demand so many hours of labor or so much effort in return for what we receive.

God's goodness, therefore, can be taken for granted. What we get used to we think we have a right to. What we've always enjoyed we think we have a claim to. So we can mistakenly assume that because God has given us so much without cost to ourselves – after all, it's God, you know, God – He just gives and keeps giving, and He will give us not only in time, but He will even give us eternity with no exertion from us.

Faith and reason tell us this is not true. No doubt God is loving, and in fact His name is love. but this same God is also just. He is, let us keep telling ourselves, the Creator and Lord of the Universe. His very outpouring of love, we would expect, must call for some requital from our side. We are not robots or mannequins. We are not irrational vegetables or beasts. We are human beings with a free will, and what pray tell do we have a free will for, if not to use it?

Part of our freedom is the sublime but awful power we have to say "yes." and can you imagine, to say "no" to God. God wants us to use this power of freedom, and as the Scriptures make so clear, depending on how we use this freedom we shall finally be saved or lost.

Our purpose in this article, however, is more refined. We shall concentrate on only one aspect of God's expectations of us free human beings, namely, that if we wish to love God as He wants to be loved and thereby merit his fruitful love in return, we must pay the price that this demands.

The love of God is paid for as Christ paid for the love of His Father with the hard currency of willing sacrifice and the holy cross.

Even among ourselves we know that the true love of friendship is demanding. Of those we love and who love us we expect much and they expect much of us. When people are in love they ask from one another what they would never think of asking from a stranger. "I hate to ask her. I don't really know her well enough."

So true is this that two people who are afraid to ask of each other what they respectively need or want, for fear of seeming to impose well, they may respect one another and have a high regard for one another, but they are not selflessly in love. What holds true in the order of nature is equally and eminently true in the order of grace. It is precisely because God loves us so much that He expects us to love Him in return. And the price of being loved by the Almighty is high, as also is the price of growing in His love. The more precious the commodity, the higher the price; the most precious possession in the world is the love of God. You don't get this, I don't say for nothing or cheaply; you pay, and you pay dearly.

Can we be more specific? What does God expect of us who claim that we love Him as recompense for His prior goodness to us and as the wages, so to speak, to merit an increase of His bounty on our behalf? He finally expects these two things:

1. That we are willing to give up whatever pleasant things He may want us to surrender.
   
   
2. That we are willing to take whatever painful things He may want to send us.

Between these two, surrender and suffering, or as I prefer, sacrifice and the cross, lies the whole price range of divine love. Go where you will, seek where you will, consult whom you will. Pray, read, speculate and meditate as much as you will, you will always come back to this fact of the spiritual life and there are no exceptions. The love of God is paid for as Christ paid for the love of His Father with the hard currency of willing sacrifice and the holy cross.

When I was younger, and I thought, smarter, I didn't talk quite this way. But experience is a good, though costly, teacher.

First, then, sacrifice.

Sacrifice is not quite the same as the cross, although they have much in common. When I endure the cross I am ready to accept whatever unpleasant things God in His love wants me to endure and God can be uncanny in what crosses He can send us. Sometimes we think it takes a divine imagination to conjure up the varieties, large and small, different sizes and shapes, of the cross. On the other hand, when I sacrifice I'm rather giving up pleasant things that I already enjoy.

The variety of these pleasant things that God's love may ask me to give up is all but infinite and they will differ with different people. Much will depend on what we as individuals already have. Some have one thing, others have another. What one person has is dear to him. What another person has will be dear to her. Some people have one thing, say, money. Others have something else, say leisure, or privacy or independence (I make sure I have none of these things) or successful business, or a good professional practice, or prestige or authority or any one of the thousand amenities that no one naturally wants to give up. And the strange thing about not wanting to give up is that even when the person has rationally convinced himself, "This is not a good thing," like smoking or drinking, yet once a thing becomes part of us, giving it up is like cutting off an arm.

The love of God is paid for as Christ paid for the love of His Father with the hard currency of willing sacrifice and the holy cross.

But there are certain things that everyone considers precious no matter who he or she is, whether young or old, rich or poor, bishop, priest, religious or layperson. These things are the common source of sacrifice that God will certainly ask of all of us to prove that we love Him and to pray for growth in His love. I would single out especially the following: time, convenience, customary habits and personal opinions and our own preferred way of doing things.

If we are to love God the way He wants us to we must be willing to sacrifice our time. It takes time to pray. It takes time to do some daily spiritual reading. It takes time to visit the sick or the shut-ins at home or in hospitals. It takes time to help some aged person with shopping or tidying up their house. My secretary in New York who was dying of terminal cancer found it very hard to find anyone to help her cook her meals; and she was willing to pay. People just don't have the time.

It takes time to write letters, answer the telephone, especially with some people, or do some necessary repairs around the house. It takes time to listen to a person tell his story of misfortune or sit perhaps for hours on a bus or train to pay one's respects to a relative or friend.

If we are to love God the way He wants us to we must be willing to sacrifice our convenience. It is not convenient to get up early in the morning to attend Mass and receive Holy Communion, You would think after all these years of getting up we couldn't wait, what a strange expression, to get up in the morning. It is not convenient to go out of my way to perform some favor that I know would be appreciated. It is not convenient to miss one's meal in order to be available when I am needed or to miss a radio or television program because I am on an errand of mercy. I have long ago decided, I don't have a right to three meals a day. It is not convenient to kneel when sitting is so much more comfortable, or to be satisfied with less food or some delicacy in order to share with someone who would enjoy what I give up.

If we are to love God the way He wants us to we must be willing to sacrifice our customary habits. The way we've been doing things perhaps for years can make us addicted to patterns of life that more than once may have to be broken if we are to serve the Lord and love Him, as He tells us, with all our strength. This, I believe, is one reason why so many marriages do not succeed. Husband and wife or both simply do not want to give up their customary ways of behavior before they were married. She wants her freedom and he wants his – the kind they had when they were still single. No marriage can succeed on these impossible terms. If we are to love God the way He wants us to we must be willing to sacrifice our personal opinions and ideas and way's of doing things. Why do people argue? In most cases because one or both parties in the argument are wedded to their own judgment. They are unwilling to yield in conversation or where they're given employment, or as I know among religious, in obedience to a superior. "I've been doing this for fifteen years. She doesn't know what she's talking about." Maybe she doesn't, so I make a representation. She insists, so what do I do? It all depends on how much behind the superior I love God, who faith tells me is giving me this opportunity to prove my love.

To say that the sacrifice of our own ideas and way's calls for humility is only to restate what must be a spectacle to the angels. The Church's authority tells the faithful to accept her teaching and her directives on pre-marital chastity, on priestly celibacy, on chastity in marriage by not interfering with the life process, on the value of confession for children, on the strict and very rare conditions for general absolution. on the vestments that a priest is to wear at Mass, or the recitation of the Divine Office by those in priestly orders, on the rubrics to be observed in the Eucharistic Liturgy, on the whole gamut of Catholic doctrine like the papal primacy, the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and the meaning of sin. I said when the angels see what's going on on earth it's a spectacle. I don't quite know what I am saying, but I am sure the angels must weep at the lack of humility as a result of which those whom God has called, even to His deepest intimacy, fail in loving Him. They reverse the prayer of Jesus in the Garden, "Not your will, but mine be done" – and they mean it, they really mean it. I've reasoned, I've argued, given people every possible cogent reason for not insisting on something which the Church said was wrong. "Don't you see that the Church insists: 'You may not do this, you may not teach this'?" But they have a reason and the reason is their will. In the bible of Satan the first verse reads: "in the beginning was the deed. And the deed was contrary to the will of God; and God was left to take the consequences.

The Cross

The cross, we said, is in one sense already a sacrifice and every sacrifice includes the cross. But properly speaking the cross is something different. When God's love sends us the cross He enters our lives, as it were, unbidden. He does something to us – what a blessed preposition – He does something to us that we do not naturally like. He causes us some pain and as you know pain is anything we do not like. The most philosophical definition of pain is: what the human will does not like. And then God watches how we accept the suffering that this brings. The pain may be physical, like some infirmity or ravaging disease: it may be social, like the estrangement from someone we really love; it may be emotional, like an unjust accusation never rectified or undeserved criticism for something someone else had done; it may he psychological pain, like dryness of spirit, confusion of mind or a despondency that we seem unable to shake off; it may be spiritual pain, like darkness in prayer or a siege of scrupulosity or loss of that clarity of faith that we used to have. No matter. God who is master of His gifts has the right to take them away. He can take away the precious things; He can also impose the painful things. And let's never, unlike Job, fail to bless the same God.

Some implications:

As we look over what we have said about sacrifice and the cross we may be frightened, and little wonder! None of us naturally likes to surrender what we like: it's almost too obvious for words. And none of us is naturally drawn to pain. But just here is the difference between nature and grace. What nature fears grace can actually learn to desire; and what nature runs away from, grace – would you believe it – can make us seek. This is where we need the wisdom of the saints.

The flame of divine love never rises higher than when fed with the wood of the cross which the infinite charity of the Savior uses to finish His sacrifice.

St. Ignatius did not write much on the spiritual life. His vocabulary was very limited but what he said is worth quoting. I quote from my father in God: "If God gives you an abundant harvest of trials, it is a sign of the great holiness to which He desires you to attain. Do you want to become a great saint? Ask God to send you many sufferings. The flame of divine love never rises higher than when fed with the wood of the cross which the infinite charity of the Savior uses to finish His sacrifice. All the pleasures of the world are nothing compared with the sweetness found in the gall and vinegar offered to Jesus Christ, that is, hard and painful things endured for Jesus Christ and with Jesus Christ. Suffering endured for the love of Jesus Christ should be reckoned among God's greatest benefits."

The trouble with quotations like this from the mystics is that we are liable to think they were unlike ourselves. Not so. They shrank from sacrifice and the cross as much as we do. But here precisely is the secret of sanctity. It is possible, through divine grace, for the love of God to reach a degree in our hearts where we experience joy in suffering. Honest, really and it is a taste of this joy which the Savior promised to all who sincerely strive to become like Him by embracing what He embraced – the cross – He, out of love for His Father; we, out of love for Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The cost of loving God is high but God comes through. He rewards the price we pay with an experience of His presence, a sense of His intimacy, and a joy, that the saints tell us, is so sweet they would not exchange their sufferings for all the pleasures in the world. Let's ask our Savior to not just listen or hear what those who have learned to love God tell us but to teach us from experience that this great wisdom is true.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father John A. Hardon, S.J. "The Cost of Loving God." Strain Forward (September, 1979).

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