Benedict XVI's "Urbi et Orbi" Message

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 24, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a Vatican translation of Benedict XVI's Easter message delivered today at midday before he imparted his blessing "urbi et orbi" (to the city of Rome and the world).

* * *

"In resurrectione tua, Christe, coeli et terra laetentur! In your resurrection, O Christ, let heaven and earth rejoice!" (Liturgy of the Hours).

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Rome and across the world,

Easter morning brings us news that is ancient yet ever new: Christ is risen! The echo of this event, which issued forth from Jerusalem twenty centuries ago, continues to resound in the Church, deep in whose heart lives the vibrant faith of Mary, Mother of Jesus, the faith of Mary Magdalene and the other women who first discovered the empty tomb, and the faith of Peter and the other Apostles.

Right down to our own time even in these days of advanced communications technology the faith of Christians is based on that same news, on the testimony of those sisters and brothers who saw firstly the stone that had been rolled away from the empty tomb and then the mysterious messengers who testified that Jesus, the Crucified, was risen. And then Jesus himself, the Lord and Master, living and tangible, appeared to Mary Magdalene, to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and finally to all eleven, gathered in the Upper Room (cf. Mk 16:9-14).

The resurrection of Christ is not the fruit of speculation or mystical experience: it is an event which, while it surpasses history, nevertheless happens at a precise moment in history and leaves an indelible mark upon it. The light which dazzled the guards keeping watch over Jesus' tomb has traversed time and space. It is a different kind of light, a divine light, that has rent asunder the darkness of death and has brought to the world the splendour of God, the splendour of Truth and Goodness.

Just as the sun's rays in springtime cause the buds on the branches of the trees to sprout and open up, so the radiance that streams forth from Christ's resurrection gives strength and meaning to every human hope, to every expectation, wish and plan. Hence the entire cosmos is rejoicing today, caught up in the springtime of humanity, which gives voice to creation's silent hymn of praise. The Easter Alleluia, resounding in the Church as she makes her pilgrim way through the world, expresses the silent exultation of the universe and above all the longing of every human soul that is sincerely open to God, giving thanks to him for his infinite goodness, beauty and truth.

"In your resurrection, O Christ, let heaven and earth rejoice." To this summons to praise, which arises today from the heart of the Church, the "heavens" respond fully: the hosts of angels, saints and blessed souls join with one voice in our exultant song. In heaven all is peace and gladness. But alas, it is not so on earth! Here, in this world of ours, the Easter alleluia still contrasts with the cries and laments that arise from so many painful situations: deprivation, hunger, disease, war, violence. Yet it was for this that Christ died and rose again! He died on account of sin, including ours today, he rose for the redemption of history, including our own. So my message today is intended for everyone, and, as a prophetic proclamation, it is intended especially for peoples and communities who are undergoing a time of suffering, that the Risen Christ may open up for them the path of freedom, justice and peace.

May the Land which was the first to be flooded by the light of the Risen One rejoice. May the splendour of Christ reach the peoples of the Middle East, so that the light of peace and of human dignity may overcome the darkness of division, hate and violence. In the current conflict in Libya, may diplomacy and dialogue take the place of arms and may those who suffer as a result of the conflict be given access to humanitarian aid. In the countries of northern Africa and the Middle East, may all citizens, especially young people, work to promote the common good and to build a society where poverty is defeated and every political choice is inspired by respect for the human person.

May help come from all sides to those fleeing conflict and to refugees from various African countries who have been obliged to leave all that is dear to them; may people of good will open their hearts to welcome them, so that the pressing needs of so many brothers and sisters will be met with a concerted response in a spirit of solidarity; and may our words of comfort and appreciation reach all those who make such generous efforts and offer an exemplary witness in this regard.

May peaceful coexistence be restored among the peoples of Ivory Coast, where there is an urgent need to tread the path of reconciliation and pardon, in order to heal the deep wounds caused by the recent violence. May Japan find consolation and hope as it faces the dramatic consequences of the recent earthquake, along with other countries that in recent months have been tested by natural disasters which have sown pain and anguish.

May heaven and earth rejoice at the witness of those who suffer opposition and even persecution for their faith in Jesus Christ. May the proclamation of his victorious resurrection deepen their courage and trust.

Dear brothers and sisters! The risen Christ is journeying ahead of us towards the new heavens and the new earth (cf. Rev 21:1), in which we shall all finally live as one family, as sons of the same Father. He is with us until the end of time. Let us walk behind him, in this wounded world, singing Alleluia. In our hearts there is joy and sorrow, on our faces there are smiles and tears. Such is our earthly reality. But Christ is risen, he is alive and he walks with us. For this reason we sing and we walk, faithfully carrying out our task in this world with our gaze fixed on heaven.

Happy Easter to all of you!

© Copyright 2011 -- Libreria Editrice Vaticana

On the Way of the Cross in the Philippines

by Chipi Buenafe

It piqued my interest -- every year during Lent and during the Paschal Triduum -- to always notice two versions of the Way of the Cross (Via Crucis) used in the Philippines. I guess everyone knows the "traditional form" of the Via Crucis (the Franciscan form from the 17th century) where the First Station is "Jesus condemned to death" and the Fourteenth Station is "Jesus is laid in the tomb". However, in recent years, I've noticed a more popularized "new" form where the First Station is "The Last Supper" and the Fourteenth Station is "The Resurrection of Jesus".

Right now, my own "little study" with "few resources" available led me on a sort of academic trip over the last few days of Holy Week. I'll probably mention some of them and if the reader notices any error in my facts or details, please feel free to contact me for the corrections.

About the new form

Honestly, there isn't a lot of material online about the "new" form (or what we'll abbreviate as New-PH). Except for a couple of references in Wikipedia and Yahoo! Answers, I haven't found any authoritative reference on the history of New-PH.

However, the traditional form (abbreviated as TradForm) has been revised by soon-to-be-Blessed John Paul II in 1991 to make the Via Crucis "scriptural" (abbreviated as New-JPII). But New-JPII is not the same as New-PH (contrary to the claim in Wikipedia) since New-JPII starts with "Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane" and ends with "Jesus in the tomb". The TradForm is still valid, on the other hand.

There has been a proliferation of "new forms" apart from New-PH and New-JPII. For example, the Via Crucis for World Youth Day 2011 (abbreviated as New-WYD11) follows neither New-JPII nor New-PH. It does start with "The Last Supper" but still ends with "Jesus in the tomb". In fact, New-WYD11 still maintained the "non-scriptural" stations like "Jesus is met by Veronica" and "Jesus is laid in the arms of the Blessed Mother", so we can't claim that New-WYD11 follows the intent of John Paul II to make the Via Crucis scriptural.

Some other forms promote a Fifteenth Station known as the "Resurrection of Jesus" (which, in New-PH, is the Fourteenth Station), but there hasn't been any publication that presents all fifteen.

So what's correct?

An obvious consequence of noticing and studying the different forms of the Via Crucis is asking which one is, well, correct. This is a bit tricky since to determine what's correct requires us to understand the complete parameters for, well, correctness.

I suppose that many will put forward various schemas and frameworks to answer this thesis question, but for now, I will put forward my framework and work around that. (If the reader has a more academically acceptable framework here, again, please feel free to let me know.)

In order to determine correctness, it must be both correct in substance and correct in form. Luckily, for my own purposes, there is one Church document that would help me simplify my above process: The Handbook of Indulgences of 1986. In Grant #63 titled "Stations of the Cross", the Apostolic Penitentiary grants a plenary indulgence to the exercise of Via Crucis.

This point provides a criterion on what is "correct in substance":

"This devout exercise of the Stations of the Cross helps renew our remembrance of the sufferings that our divine redeemer underwent on his journey from Pilate’s praetorium, where he was condemned to death, to Mount Calvary, where for our salvation he died on the cross."

To nitpick, let's break this down into three points.

1. The Via Crucis helps renew our remembrance of the sufferings of Jesus.

2. It is a recollection of the journey from the scene of the praetorium.

3. It is a recollection of the journey until the death of Jesus.

The succeeding sentences of the Grant helps provide criteria for what is "correct in form":

"1. This devout exercise must be performed before stations of the cross that have been lawfully erected.

2. Fourteen crosses are required in order to erect the Stations of the Cross. As an aid to devotion these crosses are customarily attached to fourteen tableaux or images representing the Jerusalem stations.

3. In accord with the more common custom, this devout exercise consists of fourteen pious readings to which are joined some vocal prayers. But in order to perform this devout exercise it is required only that one devoutly meditate upon the passion and death of the Lord. It is not required that one meditate upon each of the individual mysteries of the stations.

4. Movement from one station to the next is required. If this devout exercise is carried out publicly and such movement by all present cannot be done without some disorder, it is sufficient that the person who is leading the exercise move from station to station while the others remain in their places.

5. Persons who are legitimately prevented from fulfilling the above requirements can obtain this indulgence if they at least spend some time, e.g., fifteen minutes, in devout reading and meditation upon the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

6. Equivalent to this devout exercise of the Stations of the Cross — even with regard to obtaining the indulgence — are those other devout exercises which have been approved by competent authority and which call to mind the remembrance of the Lord’s passion and death in a manner similar to the Stations of the Cross.

7. In order to obtain this indulgence, the patriarchs can establish some other devout exercise in memory of the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ for those Eastern Christian faithful whose usages do not include this exercise of the Stations."

To nitpick this lengthy list, we can derive a few essential points here:

1. The stations must be lawfully erected, although the Grant talks about the physical stations rather than the text of the Via Crucis.

2. There should only be fourteen distinct stations that one can move from one station to another.

3. There should be fourteen pious readings/reflections, accompanied by vocal prayers, for the purposes of meditating on the Passion and Death of Jesus.

4. In cases whether the above items are substituted by another devout practice, they must be approved by competent authority (ordinarily, the Bishop) and they must [still] call to mind the Passion and Death of Jesus.

One caveat here is that if at least one item has not been satisfied, then it's only that the plenary indulgence is not granted. It can still be meritorious, assuming the basic moral principles are maintained.

Taking the framework and applying it actual context, we can draw the following conclusions.

1. The TradForm is both correct in substance and in form. In fact, when the Handbook of Indulgence was drawn up, the new forms such as New-JPII and New-PH were not yet around. So the only possible basis for the Grant would have been TradForm.

2. In the case of New-JPII, while it can be sweeping to say that this is approved on the sole authority of the Pope (making it "automatically correct in form"), nevertheless, New-JPII is still correct in substance. Although the First Station does not start at the praetorium, the prior scenes did lead Jesus necessarily to the praetorium in the proximate sense. (Judas knew that Jesus should be at the Garden of Gethsemane at that time and his arrest will eventually lead the Jew to hand Him over to Pilate). In any case, the first two stations still present to us the sufferings of Jesus, still consistent with the intent of the Via Crucis.

3. In the case of New-PH, I find it a bit difficult to evaluate, only because material is not exactly available for a deeper consideration. However, with what is available now, I would have to say that New-PH is apparently deficient in substance but possibly correct in form. Why?

3.a. The First Station (The Last Supper) does not have anything evident that Jesus is suffering. Maybe the possibility of being betrayed is there, maybe the anticipation of his death is there, but these possibilities are more reflective of the divinity of Jesus more than His humanity (which was the recipient of suffering). In fact, the Last Supper is also the context of the Fifth Luminous Mystery of the Holy Rosary (Institution of the Eucharist), so the element of suffering is not evident.

3.b. The Fourteenth Station (The Resurrection) is obviously devoid of suffering. While it makes sense to highlight the "endgame" of Jesus in the Resurrection, this does not fulfill the intent of the Via Crucis -- namely, to reflect on His suffering.

3.c. On the aspect of form, assuming that most of the publications by St. Paul's or Word and Life on the New-PH have ecclesiastical approval (I'm sure they must have), then it can be correct in form. They are only fourteen stations in the published texts and I have yet to see a text with fifteen stations. However, with something that may be correct in form but lacking in substance, the Catholics in the Philippines can [yet again] be criticized for having a lot of popular devotions left and right but does not exactly lead to a change in lifestyle.

Conclusion

Evidently, it is not a sin to use New-PH for the Via Crucis. The text in itself is worthy of personal prayer and reflection during the season of Lent. But one must be aware that the first and last stations are not exactly reflective of the suffering of Jesus. Also, one must not use New-PH in prejudice of the other approved forms, especially TradForm and even New-JPII.

To have a flexibility in the use of various forms for the Via Crucis, it is noteworthy that the parishes and chapels in the Philippines should not have fixed tableaux of the New-PH. Instead, just have fourteen noticeable crosses around the place.

At the end of the day, we should make use of the season that the Church provides us in order to continue to live a spirit of penance and expiation. It is by putting ourselves into the sufferings of Christ, especially in the small duties of each day, that we will find our Easter eventually.

Article: Are You Growing Holier?

JEFF MIRUS

How do we know whether we are growing in holiness?

We want to be holy and we pray and work toward that end. But if we are honest and self-aware, we also realize that we do some picking and choosing among the various paths and regimens of holiness, selecting those which are most congenial to our personalities, and avoiding what we find too taxing or even intolerable. So how do we know whether we are growing in holiness?

A person is typically a poor judge in his own case, and I don't mean to ignore the potential assistance of a good spiritual director. But most of us, most of the time, must rely pretty heavily on our own understanding both of what it means to be holy and of whether we are progressing along that road. In general, if we constrain our beliefs and our piety within the limits set by the Church, if we pray regularly, and if we truly try to discern the promptings of the Holy Spirit, we will not go far wrong. But sometimes we'd be willing to trade half our kingdom for a checklist.

I think I've found one.

In the latest issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Fr. Basil Cole has an article entitled "Formation of novices and seminarians: Nine signs of steady growth". Fr. Cole, a Dominican scholar and prior whose writings I have found both interesting and helpful, is attempting to set forth a series of indicators of spiritual growth by which someone preparing for the priesthood can be evaluated. But it turns out that his list is a pretty good tool for evaluating all growth in holiness, making suitable adjustments for each person's situation.

Here are Fr. Cole's indicators, simplified in the form of nine questions, which suggest the key areas in which we should honestly look for continual growth:

1. Am I God-centered? This addresses the question of whether we think ourselves the center of the universe, in which case we are likely to be tense, negative and critical. We discern progress here if we come more easily to see the good in others, to accept the dispositions of Providence cheerfully, and to trust in God even in the midst of trials and temptations.
   
   
2. Do I take joy in serving others? There may be times when either our normal duties or interruptions in our routine demand that we occupy ourselves with tasks we do not particularly enjoy, primarily for the benefit of others. We are growing in charity if we find such services easier to perform over time, especially with a sincere desire to be of benefit, and if we gain the ability to remain recollected and prayerful even when doing something we do not naturally enjoy.
   
   
3. Do I hate sin? As time goes on, if we are growing spiritually, we should be increasingly averse not only to great sins but to lesser ones. We should be developing a progressively stronger resolve to avoid anything &ndash including objectively innocent pursuits &ndash which can be an obstacle to our union with God. And of course we should be actively seeking the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit, which are the opposite of the disposition to sin.
   
   
4. Is my conscience delicate? This is closely related, and refers to the need to become ever more sensitive in discerning what is displeasing to God. In the beginning, for example, we may wish to avoid adultery but think nothing of flirting or stealing the odd kiss or two. In time, true growth demands that we more clearly perceive the sinful attitudes at work across the board. Then we will become more watchful over our virtue, even in our thoughts, and we'll also more easily distinguish among degrees of sin, and between temptation and sin.
   
   
5. Am I humble? To use Fr. Basil's own words, a sense of humility "means a submission to whatever God desires in the moment, even if it means being unknown or unrecognized." Pride and vainglory lead us to be calculating in all that we do, in order to increase in stature before the world. But God wants our personal surrender to Himself and to those who, in each moment, represent His will.
   
   
6. Am I faithful in prayer? If we prefer to lose ourselves in a constant whirl of activity, and find that we are uncomfortable being alone with God in the silence of our hearts, we'll go backwards. Spiritual growth is marked by a growing willingness to put ourselves in the presence of God, even if we suffer from dryness or distractions in prayer.
   
   
7. Do my decisions reflect truth and prudence? As we grow spiritually, we should become more adept at knowing when to seek counsel, yet we should also be increasingly able to advise others, or act quickly and decisively ourselves, in ways that will still seem spiritually right after the fact. We should grow in our capacity to size up each situation properly and apply the right virtue and the right solution to each challenge.
   
   
8. Is my heart undivided? Simply put, this question asks whether we allow various interests and attachments to conflict with our thirst for God or whether we are gradually developing a more ordered appreciation of all good things in, through and for God, in proper relationship to Him. Especially with things we particularly enjoy, we should be praying and working to see them in the light of Christ.
   
   
9. Do I love the Church? To again quote Fr. Basil, "the institutional Church is the unsullied Bride of Christ through which He gives Himself and His graces to a flawed people in need of enlightenment and purification from sin." Each day, each moment, we should find ourselves loving the Church more and more wholeheartedly, despite her all too evident human flaws. If that is not happening, it is a sure sign we are backsliding.

To me, this seems like an excellent set of indicators for self-evaluation. Each item is a tool for spiritual growth in its own right. And in the end, progress in every area is essential if we are to maximize the potential God has given us for union with Him.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Jeffrey A. Mirus. "Are You Growing Holier?" Catholic Culture (April 12, 2011).

Reprinted with permission of Jeffrey Mirus and Catholic Culture.org.

The mission of CatholicCulture.org is to give faithful Catholics the information, encouragement, and perspective they need to become an active force for renewal in the Church and in society, working to shape an authentically Christian culture in a secular world.

THE AUTHOR

Jeffrey A. Mirus received a Ph.D. in Intellectual History from Princeton University in 1973. In 1977, Mirus collaborated with Warren H. Carroll in founding Christendom College. Jeff Mirus served as a professor, founded the apologetics program, was the first Director of Academic Affairs, made Faith & Reason the College's journal and founded and directed Christendom Press. He also co-authored the apologetics text Reasons for Hope and authored The Divine Courtship(Franciscan Herald Press). Jeffrey Mirus now spends a majority of his time managing Trinity Communications and developing the CatholicCulture.org website.

Copyright © 2011 Catholic Culture

Article: The Cross of Christ the Measure of the World

BLESSED JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN

A great number of men live and die without reflecting at all upon the state of things in which they find themselves.

A great number of men live and die without reflecting at all upon the state of things in which they find themselves. They take things as they come, and follow their inclinations as far as they have the opportunity. They are guided mainly by pleasure and pain, not by reason, principle, or conscience; and they do not attempt to interpret this world, to determine what it means, or to reduce what they see and feel to system. But when persons, either from thoughtfulness of mind, or from intellectual activity, begin to contemplate the visible state of things into which they are born, then forthwith they find it a maze and a perplexity. It is a riddle which they cannot solve. It seems full of contradictions and without a drift. Why it is, and what it is to issue in, and how it is what it is, and how we come to be introduced into it, and what is our destiny, are all mysteries.

In this difficulty, some have formed one philosophy of life, and others another. Men have thought they had found the key, by means of which they might read what is so obscure. Ten thousand things come before us one after another in the course of life, and what are we to think of them? what colour are we to give them? Are we to look at all things in a gay and mirthful way? or in a melancholy way? in a desponding or a hopeful way? Are we to make light of life altogether, or to treat the whole subject seriously? Are we to make greatest things of little consequence, or least things of great consequence? Are we to keep in mind what is past and gone, or are we to look on to the future, or are we to be absorbed in what is present? How are we to look at things? this is the question which all persons of observation ask themselves, and answer each in his own way. They wish to think by rule; by something within them, which may harmonize and adjust what is without them. Such is the need felt by reflective minds. Now, let me ask, what is the real key, what is the Christian interpretation of this world? What is given us by revelation to estimate and measure this world by? The event of this season, – the Crucifixion of the Son of God.

It is the death of the Eternal Word of God made flesh, which is our great lesson how to think and how to speak of this world. His Cross has put its due value upon every thing which we see, upon all fortunes, all advantages, all ranks, all dignities, all pleasures; upon the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. It has set a price upon the excitements, the rivalries, the hopes, the fears, the desires, the efforts, the triumphs of mortal man. It has given a meaning to the various, shifting course, the trials, the temptations, the sufferings, of his earthly state. It has brought together and made consistent all that seemed discordant and aimless. It has taught us how to live, how to use this world, what to expect, what to desire, what to hope. It is the tone into which all the strains of this world's music are ultimately to be resolved.

Now, let me ask, what is the real key, what is the Christian interpretation of this world? What is given us by revelation to estimate and measure this world by? The event of this season, – the Crucifixion of the Son of God.

Look around, and see what the world presents of high and low. Go to the court of princes. See the treasure and skill of all nations brought together to honour a child of man. Observe the prostration of the many before the few. Consider the form and ceremonial, the pomp, the state, the circumstance; and the vainglory. Do you wish to know the worth of it all? look at the Cross of Christ.

Go to the political world: see nation jealous of nation, trade rivalling trade, armies and fleets matched against each other. Survey the various ranks of the community, its parties and their contests, the strivings of the ambitious, the intrigues of the crafty. What is the end of all this turmoil? the grave. What is the measure? the Cross.

Go, again, to the world of intellect and science: consider the wonderful discoveries which the human mind is making, the variety of arts to which its discoveries give rise, the all but miracles by which it shows its power; and next, the pride and confidence of reason, and the absorbing devotion of thought to transitory objects, which is the consequence. Would you form a right judgment of all this? look at the Cross.

Again: look at misery, look at poverty and destitution, look at oppression and captivity; go where food is scanty, and lodging unhealthy. Consider pain and suffering, diseases long or violent, all that is frightful and revolting. Would you know how to rate all these? gaze upon the Cross.

Thus in the Cross, and Him who hung upon it, all things meet; all things subserve it, all things need it. It is their centre and their interpretation. For He was lifted up upon it, that He might draw all men and all things unto Him.

But it will be said, that the view which the Cross of Christ imparts to us of human life and of the world, is not that which we should take, if left to ourselves; that it is not an obvious view; that if we look at things on their surface, they are far more bright and sunny than they appear when viewed in the light which this season casts upon them. The world seems made for the enjoyment of just such a being as man, and man is put into it. He has the capacity of enjoyment, and the world supplies the means. How natural this, what a simple as well as pleasant philosophy, yet how different from that of the Cross! The doctrine of the Cross, it may be said, disarranges two parts of a system which seem made for each other; it severs the fruit from the eater, the enjoyment from the enjoyer. How does this solve a problem? does it not rather itself create one?

I answer, first, that whatever force this objection may have, surely it is merely a repetition of that which Eve felt and Satan urged in Eden; for did not the woman see that the forbidden tree was "good for food," and "a tree to be desired"? Well, then, is it wonderful that we too, the descendants of the first pair, should still be in a world where there is a forbidden fruit, and that our trials should lie in being within reach of it, and our happiness in abstaining from it? The world, at first sight, appears made for pleasure, and the vision of Christ's Cross is a solemn and sorrowful sight interfering with this appearance. Be it so; but why may it not be our duty to abstain from enjoyment notwithstanding, if it was a duty even in Eden?

This being the case, the great and awful doctrine of the Cross of Christ, which we now commemorate, may fitly be called, in the language of figure, the heart of religion.

But again; it is but a superficial view of things to say that this life is made for pleasure and happiness. To those who look under the surface, it tells a very different tale. The doctrine of the Cross does but teach, though infinitely more forcibly, still after all it does but teach the very same lesson which this world teaches to those who live long in it, who have much experience in it, who know it. The world is sweet to the lips, but bitter to the taste. It pleases at first, but not at last. It looks gay on the outside, but evil and misery lie concealed within. When a man has passed a certain number of years in it, he cries out with the Preacher, "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." Nay, if he has not religion for his guide, he will be forced to go further, and say, "All is vanity and vexation of spirit;" all is disappointment; all is sorrow; all is pain. The sore judgments of God upon sin are concealed within it, and force a man to grieve whether he will or no. Therefore the doctrine of the Cross of Christ does but anticipate for us our experience of the world. It is true, it bids us grieve for our sins in the midst of all that smiles and glitters around us; but if we will not heed it, we shall at length be forced to grieve for them from undergoing their fearful punishment. If we will not acknowledge that this world has been made miserable by sin, from the sight of Him on whom our sins were laid, we shall experience it to be miserable by the recoil of those sins upon ourselves.

It may be granted, then, that the doctrine of the Cross is not on the surface of the world. The surface of things is bright only, and the Cross is sorrowful; it is a hidden doctrine; it lies under a veil; it at first sight startles us, and we are tempted to revolt from it. Like St. Peter, we cry out, "Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall not be unto Thee." [Matt. xvi. 22.] And yet it is a true doctrine; for truth is not on the surface of things, but in the depths.

And as the doctrine of the Cross, though it be the true interpretation of this world, is not prominently manifested in it, upon its surface, but is concealed; so again, when received into the faithful heart, there it abides as a living principle, but deep, and hidden from observation. Religious men, in the words of Scripture, "live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved them and gave Himself for them:" [Gal. ii. 20.] but they do not tell this to all men; they leave others to find it out as they may. Our Lord's own command to His disciples was, that when they fast, they should "anoint their head and wash their face." [Matt. vi. 17.] Thus they are bound not to make a display, but ever to be content to look outwardly different from what they are really inwardly. They are to carry a cheerful countenance with them, and to control and regulate their feelings, that those feelings, by not being expended on the surface, may retire deep into their hearts and there live. And thus "Jesus Christ and He crucified" is, as the Apostle tells us, "a hidden wisdom;" – hidden in the world, which seems at first sight to speak a far other doctrine, – and hidden in the faithful soul, which to persons at a distance, or to chance beholders, seems to be living but an ordinary life, while really it is in secret holding communion with Him who was "manifested in the flesh," "crucified through weakness," "justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, and received up into glory."

This being the case, the great and awful doctrine of the Cross of Christ, which we now commemorate, may fitly be called, in the language of figure, the heart of religion. The heart may be considered as the seat of life; it is the principle of motion, heat, and activity; from it the blood goes to and fro to the extreme parts of the body. It sustains the man in his powers and faculties; it enables the brain to think; and when it is touched, man dies. And in like manner the sacred doctrine of Christ's Atoning Sacrifice is the vital principle on which the Christian lives, and without which Christianity is not. Without it no other doctrine is held profitably; to believe in Christ's divinity, or in His manhood, or in the Holy Trinity, or in a judgment to come, or in the resurrection of the dead, is an untrue belief, not Christian faith, unless we receive also the doctrine of Christ's sacrifice. On the other hand, to receive it presupposes the reception of other high truths of the Gospel besides; it involves the belief in Christ's true divinity, in His true incarnation, and in man's sinful state by nature; and it prepares the way to belief in the sacred Eucharistic feast, in which He who was once crucified is ever given to our souls and bodies, verily and indeed, in His Body and in His Blood. But again, the heart is hidden from view; it is carefully and securely guarded; it is not like the eye set in the forehead, commanding all, and seen of all: and so in like manner the sacred doctrine of the Atoning Sacrifice is not one to be talked of, but to be lived upon; not to be put forth irreverently, but to be adored secretly; not to be used as a necessary instrument in the conversion of the ungodly, or for the satisfaction of reasoners of this world, but to be unfolded to the docile and obedient; to young children, whom the world has not corrupted; to the sorrowful, who need comfort; to the sincere and earnest, who need a rule of life; to the innocent, who need warning; and to the established, who have earned the knowledge of it.

And so, too, as regards this world, with all its enjoyments, yet disappointments. Let us not trust it; let us not give our hearts to it; let us not begin with it. Let us begin with faith; let us begin with Christ...

One more remark I shall make, and then conclude. It must not be supposed, because the doctrine of the Cross makes us sad, that therefore the Gospel is a sad religion. The Psalmist says, "They that sow in tears shall reap in joy;" and our Lord says, "They that mourn shall be comforted." Let no one go away with the impression that the Gospel makes us take a gloomy view of the world and of life. It hinders us indeed from taking a superficial view, and finding a vain transitory joy in what we see; but it forbids our immediate enjoyment, only to grant enjoyment in truth and fulness afterwards. It only forbids us to begin with enjoyment. It only says, If you begin with pleasure, you will end with pain. It bids us begin with the Cross of Christ, and in that Cross we shall at first find sorrow, but in a while peace and comfort will rise out of that sorrow. That Cross will lead us to mourning, repentance, humiliation, prayer, fasting; we shall sorrow for our sins, we shall sorrow with Christ's sufferings; but all this sorrow will only issue, nay, will be undergone in a happiness far greater than the enjoyment which the world gives, – though careless worldly minds indeed will not believe this, ridicule the notion of it, because they never have tasted it, and consider it a mere matter of words, which religious persons think it decent and proper to use, and try to believe themselves, and to get others to believe, but which no one really feels. This is what they think; but our Saviour said to His disciples, "Ye now therefore have sorrow, but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you." ... "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you." [John xvi. 22; xiv. 27.] And St. Paul says, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him." [1 Cor. ii. 9, 14.] And thus the Cross of Christ, as telling us of our redemption as well as of His sufferings, wounds us indeed, but so wounds as to heal also.

And thus, too, all that is bright and beautiful, even on the surface of this world, though it has no substance, and may not suitably be enjoyed for its own sake, yet is a figure and promise of that true joy which issues out of the Atonement. It is a promise beforehand of what is to be: it is a shadow, raising hope because the substance is to follow, but not to be rashly taken instead of the substance. And it is God's usual mode of dealing with us, in mercy to send the shadow before the substance, that we may take comfort in what is to be, before it comes. Thus our Lord before His Passion rode into Jerusalem in triumph, with the multitudes crying Hosanna, and strewing His road with palm branches and their garments. This was but a vain and hollow pageant, nor did our Lord take pleasure in it. It was a shadow which stayed not, but flitted away. It could not be more than a shadow, for the Passion had not been undergone by which His true triumph was wrought out. He could not enter into His glory before He had first suffered. He could not take pleasure in this semblance of it, knowing that it was unreal. Yet that first shadowy triumph was the omen and presage of the true victory to come, when He had overcome the sharpness of death. And we commemorate this figurative triumph on the last Sunday in Lent, to cheer us in the sorrow of the week that follows, and to remind us of the true joy which comes with Easter-Day.

And so, too, as regards this world, with all its enjoyments, yet disappointments. Let us not trust it; let us not give our hearts to it; let us not begin with it. Let us begin with faith; let us begin with Christ; let us begin with His Cross and the humiliation to which it leads. Let us first be drawn to Him who is lifted up, that so He may, with Himself, freely give us all things. Let us "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness," and then all those things of this world "will be added to us." They alone are able truly to enjoy this world, who begin with the world unseen. They alone enjoy it, who have first abstained from it. They alone can truly feast, who have first fasted; they alone are able to use the world, who have learned not to abuse it; they alone inherit it, who take it as a shadow of the world to come, and who for that world to come relinquish it.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman. "The Cross of Christ the Measure of the World." InParochial and Plain Sermons vol. 5 (London & New York: Longman, Green, and Company, 1891).

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

THE AUTHOR

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

Copyright © 2000-2002 Bob Elder

Wednesday Liturgy: Combining Stations and the Passion Liturgy

ROME, APRIL 19, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I know of a parish in Ireland -- and there are probably many of them -- which combines the reading of the Passion according to St. John with the Stations of the Cross during the Good Friday liturgy of the Lord's Passion. This was introduced because of the popularity of the Stations of the Cross in Ireland on Good Friday. Even after 50 years of the revised Good Friday liturgy, the 3 p.m. liturgy is often known as "The Stations." The fear in some parishes is that people won't come to the 3 p.m. liturgy if there are stations at another time of the day. With fewer priests in rural parishes it is becoming more and more difficult to have both events in each church. Another practice I've come across is the insertion of individual veneration of the cross at the 3 p.m. Good Friday liturgy into the Communion procession. In fact, after the invitation to Communion, the people were invited to come forward in procession to venerate the cross and were then told that they could receive Communion if they wished. The reasoning was that there wasn't enough time for two processions, and that venerating the cross was more important. Apparently, the Communion rite on Good Friday was retained by the Latin Church only at the request of Benedictines! One final observation. I've only seen on one occasion the correct practice for the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament from Holy Thursday night until holy Communion on Good Friday; that is, the Blessed Sacrament remains in the tabernacle of the place of repose for this period. Is the correct practice followed anywhere in the world? Exposition of the larger host in a monstrance is not unknown in Ireland after the evening Mass on Holy Thursday. Then the Blessed Sacrament is removed to the sacristy until Communion time on Good Friday. -- F.R., France

A: These questions reflect the existence of a diffused pragmatic mentality which tends to reduce the most solemn liturgical celebrations to problems of logistics.

First of all, I think it is necessary to recall that, for Catholics, there is no canonical obligation to assist at the celebrations of the Easter Triduum. In other words, the people who attend are there because they want to be there. They are expecting to participate in the fullness and beauty of the Church's liturgy and indeed have a right to receive this liturgy from their priests.

Attending to the questions at hand, we had dealt in earlier columns regarding combining the Stations of the Cross with exposition on March 1 and 15, 2005, and the integration of the Way of the Cross with Mass on April 4 and 25, 2006. The documents and arguments presented on those occasions are also applicable to the present case. For the moment we would recall the the Holy See's "Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy":

"142. The Church celebrates the redemptive death of Christ on Good Friday. The Church meditates on the Lord's Passion in the afternoon liturgical action, in which she prays for the salvation of the word, adores the Cross and commemorates her very origin in the sacred wound in Christ's side (cf. John 19:34).

"In addition to the various forms of popular piety on Good Friday such as the 'Via Crucis,' the passion processions are undoubtedly the most important. These correspond, after the fashion of popular piety, to the small procession of friends and disciples who, having taken the body of Jesus down from the Cross, carried it to the place where there 'was a tomb hewn in the rock in which no one had yet been buried' (Luke 23:53).

"143. It is necessary, however, to ensure that such manifestations of popular piety, either by time or the manner in which the faithful are convoked, do not become a surrogate for the liturgical celebrations of Good Friday.

"In the pastoral planning of Good Friday primary attention and maximum importance must be given to the solemn liturgical action and the faithful must be brought to realize that no other exercise can objectively substitute for this liturgical celebration.

"Finally, the integration of the 'dead Christ' procession with the solemn liturgical action of Good Friday should be avoided for such would constitute a distorted celebrative hybrid."

The Catholic faithful are more than capable of understanding the difference between the liturgical service and the acts of popular piety even if there is an apparent confusion in the nomenclature.

With respect to the second question, again we are before a pragmatic mentality which undermines the parts of the liturgy. In the first place, those who attend the celebration of the Passion know that it is a long celebration and there is no call to rush it. Second, it is also a false problem. Why? Because although a single cross must be used, the rubrics foresee the possibility of a common adoration if the number of people is very great. Likewise, the Communion procession need not be as long as the adoration of the cross as several ministers may be used to distribute the sacrament.

The reception of Communion on Good Friday became possible only after the reforms initiated by Pope Pius XII. Before that, only the dying could receive Communion on this day.

Finally, I think the correct practice is followed in many places and might even be the most common. Exposition in a monstrance is totally forbidden on Holy Thursday and this is an abuse. Solemn adoration at the altar of repose ceases at midnight. Ideally the Blessed Sacrament should remain there until the time of Communion on Good Friday so as to permit private visits and adoration.

After midnight the Blessed Sacrament should only be withdrawn to the sacristy or some other safe place for objective safety concerns such as the danger of theft or profanation.

By the way, I wish a blessed and holy Easter to all our readers!

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Infant Baptism in Lent

ROME, APRIL 19, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

A reader commented on our April 5 column: "I think you missed a great point in your instruction about the infant baptism during Lent. There is the question of jurisdiction. It is to the parish priest that authority is given to baptize. I also question why grandparents are assuming the duties of arranging the baptism; what hope is there that the child will be raised in a Christian home if the parents do not even take initiative in the baptism of their child? While I would personally baptize the child, I would still require a statement of membership in a parish and permission to baptize another's subject. Salvation of souls is the greatest concern, but indiscriminate baptisms cause scandal to our Church and the sacrament itself by assuming it is merely a rite of birth or passage and not entrance into the Body of Christ with all the responsibilities and promises therein."

Although I am not aware why the grandparents were organizing the baptism, I presumed their good faith and assumed that they made the inquiries because they have a residence in the area were the family reunion was to take place. I also presumed that the necessary permissions had been sought and obtained. That is why I centered my attention on the question of baptism during Lent. In this sense, my answer would have been the same even if the parents had written regarding the policy of their own parish.

However, the point of jurisdiction is a valid one. As our reader points out, in former times being baptized in one's own parish by the pastor was a strict obligation. A 1907 article in The Catholic Encyclopedia notes: "It is to be noted that though every priest, in virtue of his ordination is the ordinary minister of baptism, yet by ecclesiastical decrees he can not use this power licitly unless he has jurisdiction. Hence the Roman Ritual declares: 'The legitimate minister of baptism is the parish priest, or any other priest delegated by the parish priest or the bishop of the place.' The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore adds: 'Priests are deserving of grave reprehension who rashly baptize infants of another parish or of another diocese.' St. Alphonsus [] says that parents who bring their children for baptism without necessity to a priest other than their own pastor, are guilty of sin because they violate the rights of the parish priest. He adds, however, that other priests may baptize such children, if they have the permission, whether express, or tacit, or even reasonably presumed, of the proper pastor. Those who have no settled place of abode may be baptized by the pastor of any church they choose."

Today, the law still holds a preference for baptism by one's own pastor in the parish church but allows for more flexibility in practice.

The 1973 introduction to the Rite of Baptism for Children affirms:

"10. So that baptism may clearly appear as the sacrament of the Church's faith and of incorporation into the people of God, it should normally be celebrated in the parish church, which must have a baptismal font.

"11. After consulting the local parish priest (pastor), the bishop may permit or direct that a baptismal font be placed in another church or public oratory within the parish boundaries. In these places, too, the right to celebrate baptism belongs ordinarily to the parish priest (pastor)."

The 1983 code enshrined this principle in canon law:

"Can. 857 §1. Apart from a case of necessity, the proper place of baptism is a church or oratory. §2. As a rule an adult is to be baptized in his or her parish church and an infant in the parish church of the parents unless a just cause suggests otherwise."

This general principle regarding the minister is further specified in the 1988 introduction to the rite of Christian initiation:

"11. The ordinary ministers of baptism are bishops, priests, and deacons .

"11.3. Except in a case of necessity, these ministers are not to confer baptism outside their own territory, even on their own subjects, without the requisite permission.

"14. Other priests and deacons, since they are co-workers in the ministry of bishops and pastors, also prepare candidates for baptism and, by the invitation or consent of the bishop or pastor, celebrate the sacrament."

Thus, by positing a "just cause" rather than a "grave" one for baptizing outside of one's own parish, the code retains this as preferred but allows some degree of flexibility and adaptation to the realities of modern life.

Although the universal law, as such, would not absolutely require permission from the parent's pastor in order to for an infant to be legitimately baptized in another parish, this is often required by national and local Church law.

This permission is also prudently requested by a pastor whenever an unknown couple asks for baptism so as to ensure, as far as reasonably possible, that the child will be raised and formed as a Catholic.

Article: How Catholics Work Together: Ten Common Strengths and Weaknesses of Church-based Organizations

JAMES BERLUCCHI

The Spitzer Center has worked with dozens of Catholic organizations, from parishes and dioceses to schools and health care systems.

Our experience has shown us that there's a constellation of traits – both strengths and weakness – that define the type of culture more typically found in a Catholic workplace. There are areas in which Church-based organizations do well but businesses tend to struggle. There are also practices more common in the business world that Catholic leaders might wish to emulate.

Please bear in mind that what follows are generalizations. They aren't true of all the organizations we've worked with, or all groups within a given organization. Let me start with the strengths and move on to the weakness, since the latter sometimes results from taking the former a bit too far.

Five Common Strengths

1. Concern for people and empathy. If you ever read Dilbert, you know that one of the primary sources of humor is the way some business use and abuse their employees. That's not a problem you often find in Catholic organizations, where concern and respect for people is the norm. I see this anecdotally as well as in formal surveys in Catholic settings, which have always affirmed that people see their co-workers as friendly, caring, and encouraging. I'm sure the commandment to love your neighbor plays a large part in this attitude, but it's much easier to live this rule when people around are trying to live it as well.
   
   
2. Loyalty and respect for leaders. In many organizations today, words like loyalty evoke cynicism, and leaders and staff have an Us-versus-Them relationship. But in Catholic organizations, it's rare to see open or private hostility toward leaders. Respect for the Church extends to those invested with authority by the Church. People wish leaders well and give them the benefit of the doubt. They may not agree with every decision, but they don't badmouth leaders or try to undermine their authority. This is all the more true when the leader is a deacon, priest, or bishop.
   
   
3. Strong principle-based ethics. In a business setting, you're much more likely to see utilitarian ethics ("the end justifies the means"), which can easily be used to rationalize bad behavior. The Church has a well established tradition of moral theology and it shows in their cultures. Catholic institutions embrace a principle-based approach to moral decisions, where good outcomes can't be used to justify bad actions. Both clergy and lay leaders take this approach, and it's much the same with frontline employees. They may not have degrees in philosophy, but most have a strong faith life, an alert conscience, and a principle-based moral yardstick. That's why, when we decided to focus on Catholic organizations, we changed our name from the Spitzer Center for Ethical Leadership to simply the Spitzer Center. When we've discussed ethics with Catholic employees, we found we were preaching to the choir.
   
   
4. An affinity for virtue. While ethics isn't seen as a particularly urgent topic in Catholic settings, discussion on virtue are greeted as a welcome reminder of one of the Church's great tradition. In secular organizations, it's hard to talk about virtue for fear of sounding old-fashioned or preachy, but Catholics working in settings where they are free to embrace their faith are inspired by examples of courage, wisdom, justice and self-control. It's impossible to be your best self without cultivating virtue, and it's easier to do so in places where virtue is discussed, esteemed, and pursued.
   
   
5. Humility and freedom to admit mistakes. One of the biggest problems you find in some secular cultures is arrogance, which leaves people highly reluctant to acknowledge flaws, much less change them. I've rarely observed this problem in Catholic settings, where arrogant behavior sticks out in a way that tends to discourage it. An active faith instills a greater willingness to admit mistakes and correct them. If arrogance is a headwind that makes it hard to fix bad habits, humility is a tailwind that makes it easier.
   

Five Common Weaknesses

1. Less emphasis on personal and professional development. In the business world, it's common for employees to have development plans to ensure they're gaining new skills and preparing themselves to take on more responsibility. This is not as common in Catholic organizations. Available funding for development is a factor, but it's not the only factor. Perhaps there's a tendency among staff to see personal development as unseemly self interest ("I'm here to serve the Church, not advance my own interests"). But companies don't promote development only as a service to employees; they do it to strengthen the overall organization. The more people develop, the better they can contribute. When you help people to grow, you're more likely to retain ambitious employees and to reduce problems like "nesting" or stagnation among less ambitious employees.
   
   
2. Less emphasis on goals, performance and achievement. If you ask leaders of Catholic organizations their ideal culture their ideal culture looks like, they'll describe a workplace where people set moderately difficult goals and do their best to achieve them. In practice, it's not unusual to find staffs that lack clear goals or regular performance reviews. Even using words like "achievement" and "performance" may seem out of place – like and effort to smuggle the highly competitive ethos of corporations into the collegial, caring environment of the Church. But without clear goals achievement can flounder. And failure to measure achievement can lower expectations and results. The best Catholic organizations inspire high performance, not out of fear or pressure but from a desire to serve God's people.
   
   
3. "Don't rock the boat". In healthy organizations, people feel free to provide honest feedback and constructive criticism. In some business environments, people may keep their mouths shut out of fear. In Catholic organizations, you can see similar behavior arise from deference. My own theory is that people misapply rightful respect for the Church's authority into how things get done. They can end up treating ordinary processes and decisions as vaguely dogmatic, and cling to conventional practices because "that's the way we do things." It's good to respect authority, but it's not disrespectful to offer your own perspective and propose new and better ways to get work done.
   
   
4. Higher dependence, lower initiative. Another misapplication of respect is overly dependent behavior, where the mantra becomes, "Tell me what to do and I'll do it." There are times when it's perfectly fine to take this approach, but organizations accomplish much more when people feel free to act on their own initiative. An overly deferential mindset can thwart initiative and make people reluctant to do anything without explicit direction from above. They may think, "Who am I to solve this problem or even say it's a problem?" But just as Jesus emphasized in the Parable of the Talents, true service requires full use of our abilities. Leaders need to continually encourage people to solve problems and seize opportunities on their own.
   
   
5. Turning off talent. One repercussion of some of the cultural traits described above is that they tend to inadvertently discourage certain types of talented people from working within the Church. If you're highly dynamic … if you love trying new approaches … if you like pushing yourself and others to excel … you could find yourself frustrated in many Catholic organizations. I've had people tell me, "I love the Church but I can't make it my career. I tried it for awhile, but it was too hard to get anything done." I'm not suggesting that Catholic organizations with a slow-but steady culture need radical change, but a really successful organization can accommodate good people with very different personalities and work styles.
   
   

Interestingly, when Catholic leadership teams are surveyed on how they view their ideal culture, they consistently choose behaviors which reflect high achievement and initiative. But when the weaknesses I've described above become the status quo, they're easy to overlook. It's only when you measure the current reality in an organization that these problems become easy to identify. Moreover, it's our experience that when leaders address these issues openly, the staff enthusiastically welcomes the effort.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

James Berlucchi, M.T.S. "How Catholics Work Together: Ten Common Strengths and Weaknesses of Church-based Organizations." The Spitzer Center (March 31, 2011).

The Spitzer Center's mission is to strengthen culture, faith and spirit in Catholic organizations for the new evangelization.

Reprinted with permission of The Spitzer Center. Endorsements for the work of the Spitzer Center are here. Spitzer Center programs are listed here.

THE AUTHOR

James Berlucchi helped co-found the Spitzer Center after packaging and delivering Fr. Spitzer's insights as an individual consultant for a number of years. He has served as the executive producer and editor for all the Center's media and written resources, personally facilitated multiple seminars and workshops, and trained all of the Center's certified associates. Prior to co-founding the Spitzer Center, Mr. Berlucchi served for ten years as the Executive Director of Legatus, an international association of Catholic CEOs. In that capacity he directed a six-fold growth of membership with a corresponding expansion of member services, conferences, publications, and educational resources. An author, publisher, composer, emcee and educator, he has hosted a national television series, founded a faith-based educational organization, launched a public relations campaign with major league baseball players, directed a performing arts company, and coordinated a graduate program of individualized instruction at the University of Michigan.

Copyright © 2011 The Spitzer Center

Article: The Importance of Christian Names

FATHER ROGER LANDRY

On January 9, after baptizing 21 infants in the Sistine Chapel on the feast of the Baptism of the Lord, Pope Benedict captured international headlines for reminding Catholic parents throughout the world that they should be choosing Christian names for their children.

The choice of a name, he emphasized, shouldn't be done "by chance" or whim, but should reinforce and communicate to the growing child and others one of the essential realities of the sacrament of baptism and the Christian life. The Christian name – in contrast to a non-Christian name – signifies that in baptism "every baptized person acquires the character of a son" and is "an unmistakable sign that the Holy Spirit gives birth to man 'anew' from the womb of the Church." A Christian name manifests that through baptism a child is "raised to the supernatural order" and "placed in communication with God," who then calls that child by that given name. Naming the child after a Christian saint or Biblical hero is a concrete reminder for the child and everyone else that God is calling that child, like his or her Christian namesake, to holiness and heaven. A Christian name concretely that there is, and is meant to be, a connection and continuity between natural and supernatural life, and between earthly and eternal life.

Much of this connection has been getting gradually lost in Christian practice, which is the reason why Pope Benedict needed to bring it to our attention. Recently, the Social Security Administration published a list of the 1,000 most popular boys' and girls' names chosen by American parents in 2009. The main headline for most of the press accounts was that the name "Mary" – which in every year from 1910-1965 was either the first or the second most popular girls' name – was no longer even in the top 100. American parents as a whole were choosing the names Alyssa, Aubrey, Avery, and Aaliyah, Hailey, Bailey, Kaylee, and Riley, Layla, Makayla, Morgan and Destiny more than they were choosing to name their child over the spiritual mother Jesus on the Cross gave to the human race. While Marian derivatives Maria (71st) and Mariah (88th) did make the top 100, they still trailed those named after Manhattan boulevards (Madison, 7th), adrenal disorders (Addison, 12th), Big Apple Boroughs (Brooklyn, 37th) and even the suggested overturning of heaven (Nevaeh – heaven spelled backwards – 34th) by large margins.

On the boys' side, things are not much better. Beginning in 1910, when the frequency of names began to be documented, through 1972, the names of the foster-father of Jesus and of the four evangelists were firmly entrenched in the top ten each year. They haven't fallen nearly as much as the name of Mother of God, but Joseph is now 16th (its lowest since records began getting kept in 1910), Matthew is 13th, John is 26th, Luke is 48th, Mark is 154th. Parents are opting just as much or more for Braydon, Brody and Bryson, Colton, Caden and Camden, Jayden, Jaxon, and Jace.

At a human level, one of the first and most long-lasting gifts – or burdens – parents give to a child is a name. This is the way the child will generally be referred to for the rest of his or her life. The child will hear that name literally millions of times over the course of a lifetime. The choice of a name can have a profound impact on the child's development and self-identity. If, for example, the child receives a name that is equally given to boys and girls – in 2009, like Peyton (43rd for girls, 147th for boys), Taylor (22nd for girls, 298th for boys), or Jordan (45th for boys, 150th for girls) – he or she will likely have a lifetime of misaddressed envelopes, salutations and other tiresome or embarrassing gender-confused situations. If someone is given a neologism like Addisyn, Aditya, Alayna, Arjun, Ayaan, Deandre, Jaliyah, Jamarion, Jaxen, Kaydence, Kimora, Misael, Nayeli, Saniyah, Xander, Xiomara, Xzavier, Yamilet, Yareli, Yaritza, or Zavion – all of which are among the top 1,000 U.S. names in 2009 – not only will these children have to suffer through others' not knowing by their name whether they're male or female but they'll also have to endure a lifetime of mispronunciations as well as having to repeat and spell out their names over-and-over-again. What may have begun with the parents' wanting to give a "special" name to a beloved child will turn into a lifetime of unnecessary hassles, when others will be forced to ask them, "What did you say your name was again?"

A child's name should not be treated like an email handle with which one can basically get as creative as one wants. A child's name, rather, communicates in a sense a person's identity and can dramatically impact a child's development. If Mr. & Mrs. Dover call their son Ben, they're setting him for a life of ridicule. If the name him Benorenaliyah, they're setting him up for a life of social confusion and awkwardness. If they name their child after a soap opera star, professional athlete, rock star, or reality show personality, not only are they manifesting a regrettable superficiality, but they are also linking their child to someone who almost certainly will be irrelevant when they become adults. How many adults today would prefer to be called Humphrey or Petula? It's quite possible that in fifty years, people will feel the same way about being called Eminem or Rihanna, Shaquille or Shakira.

The name is a holy icon of the person.

As the saying goes, a name is not just for a birthday, but for a lifetime, and Pope Benedict is reminding us that this audible personal symbol is meant for an eternal lifetime. We know from Sacred Scripture how seriously God took names. He famously changed the names of Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel and Simon to Peter. He commanded Zechariah to name his son John, to incarnate God's graciousness, and Joseph to name Mary's Son, Jesus, to enflesh and effectuate God's salvation. In order to help Adam grow into the image and likeness of his Creator, God allowed Adam to name the beasts, the birds, the cattle, then Eve, then their sons. To give someone a name, as we see from the beginning, is a sacred act, an action that participates in God's creative plan, a solemn responsibility that should be carried out with prayer and joyful seriousness rather than done capriciously and carelessly ignorant of the consequences. One of the questions pregnant couples should ask themselves is what their child will think later of the name chosen and the reasons for which it was chosen. Was it chosen to honor a beloved family member whose influence and virtue really impacted them or chosen simply because they liked the way it sounded and no one had ever heard such associated sounds before? Was it selected to link the person to a genuine hero in this life or in the next, or was it chosen nihilistically, with no connection to anyone or anything whatsoever?

A baptismal ceremony begins significantly with the minister's asking the parents, "What name do you give your child?" This name is given before God. The Catechism says the child's name and God's name are thereby linked. "The sacrament of Baptism is conferred 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' In Baptism, the Lord's name sanctifies man, and the Christian receives his name in the Church. This can be the name of a saint, that is, of a disciple who has lived a life of exemplary fidelity to the Lord. The patron saint provides a model of charity; we are assured of his intercession. The 'baptismal name' can also express a Christian mystery or Christian virtue. 'Parents, sponsors, and the pastor are to see that a name is not given which is foreign to Christian sentiment.'" It adds, "God calls each one by name. Everyone's name is sacred. The name is the icon of the person. It demands respect as a sign of the dignity of the one who bears it" (CCC 2156, 2158).

The name is a holy icon of the person. In our age of titular iconoclasm, Pope Benedict is calling Christian parents back to connect the names of their children with the name of God and the names of those who have lived – and continue to live forever – in God's holy name, entrusting their children to their namesakes' saintly patronage so that one day the Good Shepherd will call those children to his eternal right side by the names they've chosen for them.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father Roger J. Landry. "The Importance of Christian Names." The Anchor (February 18, 2011).

Excerpted by permission of Father Roger J. Landry.

THE AUTHOR

Father Roger J. Landry was ordained a Catholic priest of the Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts by Bishop Sean O'Malley, OFM Cap. in 1999. After receiving a biology degree from Harvard College, Fr. Landry studied for the priesthood in Maryland, Toronto, and for several years in Rome. After his priestly ordination, Father returned to Rome to complete graduate work in Moral Theology and Bioethics at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family in Rome. He speaks widely on the thought of Pope John Paul II and on apologetics, and is pastor of St. Anthony of Padua in New Bedford, MA and Executive Editor of The Anchor, the weekly newspaper of the Diocese of Fall River.

Copyright © 2011 Father Roger J. Landry

Article: Does the Catholic Church Hate Women?

CHRISTOPHER KACZOR

The Catholic Church is subjected to a great deal of suspicion, if not outright scorn, when it comes to its treatment of women. Does the Church treat women as "second class"?

In short, does the Catholic Church hate women? Few people would put the question that strongly, yet many believe the answer is "yes."

As evidence, they point to sexist quotations from Church Fathers and sexist interpretations of Scripture. Even Scripture contains "subordination" passages, such as "Let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands" (Eph. 5:24). Moreover, the Catholic Church is also well-known for its opposition to abortion and contraception, which many believe are the keys to women's sexual and economic freedom. Finally, only men can be ordained priests. Isn't that clear evidence of discrimination? As one slogan puts it: "If women are good enough to be baptized, why aren't they good enough to be ordained?"

We're a Church of Sinners

Unfortunately, members of the Church have not always followed Christ as closely as they should with respect to the treatment of women, and this lends credence to the accusations. As Pope John Paul II confessed, many members of the Church, including some in the hierarchy, have acted – and sometimes still act – in ways that fail to express the equality of man and woman. As John Paul wrote:

And if objective blame [for offenses against the dignity of women], especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole Church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the gospel vision. When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the gospel contains an ever relevant message that goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance, and tenderness. In this way he honored the dignity that women have always possessed according to God's plan and in his love. As we look to Christ at the end of this second millennium, it is natural to ask ourselves: How much of his message has been heard and acted upon? (Letter to Women 3).

The situation today is better than it once was, but sexual and physical abuse of women still occurs, as does unjust discrimination and the failure to recognize talents.

Of course, failing in Christian discipleship is not limited to wrongdoing against the dignity of women – baptism does not remove the believer from the temptations and weaknesses endured by all of humanity. Moreover, it is not only Catholics who victimize, and it is not only women who are victimized. As Robert Burns wrote, "Man's inhumanity to man makes thousands mourn." Cruel and unfeeling behavior stretches beyond Cain and Abel to Adam's blaming of Eve.

But such shortcomings do not reflect what the Church is called to be. Sins against young and old, black and white, male and female are characteristic of all people. What is characteristic of Christians, though, is the imitation of Christ. The degree to which someone does not imitate Christ is the degree to which that person fails to be fully Christian. There is a long list of "Catholic" murderers. But when a Catholic commits murder, he separates himself from Christ, and therefore from the body of Christ, the Church.

Theologians Sometimes Fail

In addition to the sad but real failings of Catholics to live up to their calling in their treatment of women, Christian theology has also fallen short in this regard. Personal sin undoubtedly plays a role in the corruption of theology, but the cultural context must also be considered. Christianity arose in an environment of female inequality. Greek philosophy, as well as Hebrew sources, are rife with misogynistic judgments. It is not surprising that the Church Fathers sometimes adopted these attitudes without critical reflection – and some academics have been quick to interpret passages in the least charitable light. John Paul II continues in his Letter to Women:

By establishing one moral code obligatory on men and women alike, Christianity fostered a lasting commitment of unconditional covenantal love, protecting the family structure and putting the sexes on an equal footing.

Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history that has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women's dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves, and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning that down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting (LW 3).

Just as Christian thinkers will sometimes uncritically adopt the scientific outlook of the day, so, too, in the social realm. Hence, Fathers of the Church and great scholastic doctors not only at times uncritically repeat the sexist truisms inherited from the secular culture of their day but sometimes interpret the theological tradition in light of those assumptions. The same attitudes and judgments can also inform the reading of Scripture.

Therefore, the theology of the Church sometimes stands in need of correction. If revelation is really from God, then nothing revealed can be false or lacking in justice or goodness. But the same does not hold true for any individual's interpretation of revelation, even a saintly and learned individual. The development of doctrine leads to a greater understanding of revelation in part by sorting out what actually pertains to revelation from what only seems to.

From Sublime to Repellent

Among all the sublime thought of great Christian theologians, we occasionally come across something repellent. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas, following the sexist views of his time, held:

The male sex is more noble than the female, and for this reason he [Jesus] took human nature in the male sex (Summa Theologiae III:31:4 ad 1).

Christians believed in the equality of men and women before God and found in the New Testament commands that husbands should treat their wives with such consideration and love as Christ manifested for his Church. Christian teaching about the sanctity of marriage offered a powerful safeguard to married women

At the same time, Aquinas believed that the female sex should not be despised on this account, since Christ took his flesh from a woman. In other passages, too, Thomas shows an awareness of the equality of men and women recognized by Christ:

If a husband were permitted to abandon his wife, the society of husband and wife would not be an association of equals but, instead, a sort of slavery on the part of the wife (Summa contra Gentiles III:124:[4]).

In fact, Thomas used the idea of equality in marital friendship to argue against polygamy and in favor of an unconditional love between husband and wife:

The greater the friendship is, the more solid and long lasting it will be. Now there seems to be the greatest friendship between husband and wife, for they are united not only in the act of fleshly union, which produces a certain gentle association even among beasts, but also in the partnership of the whole range of domestic activity. Consequently, as an indication of this, man must even "leave his father and mother" for the sake of his wife as it is said in Genesis (2:24).

Furthermore, Aquinas believed that the fact that Eve was made from Adam's rib indicates that she was not above him (as she might be had she been created from Adam's head) nor below him, like a slave (as she might be had she arisen from his feet). She comes from his side, indicating that she is a partner and companion. These statements of the equality of man and women – not the statement of male superiority – were new and radical. The specifically Christian attitude toward women – not the pre-existing pagan attitude – was new and radical. It has taken some time, though, for the wheat to be separated from the chaff.

Equal-Opportunity Moral Code

As it still does today, divorce in the ancient world left many women in dire economic and social straits. At the time of Christ, Mosaic law allowed a husband to leave his wife, but a wife could not leave her husband. Jesus' prohibition of divorce established Christianity as the only religion in the history of the world to call its members to strict monogamy:

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery (Mark 10:11–12).

This teaching of Jesus protected women, for, according to Church Father Gregory of Nazianz:

The majority of men are ill-disposed to chastity and their laws are unequal and irregular. For what was the reason they restrained the woman but indulged the man, and that a woman who practices evil against her husband's bed is an adulteress and the penalties of the law severe, but if the husband commits fornication against his wife, he has no account to give? I do not accept this legislation. I do not approve this custom (Oration 37:6).

By establishing one moral code obligatory on men and women alike, Christianity fostered a lasting commitment of unconditional covenantal love, protecting the family structure and putting the sexes on an equal footing.

What Women Really Thought

By establishing one moral code obligatory on men and women alike, Christianity fostered a lasting commitment of unconditional covenantal love, protecting the family structure and putting the sexes on an equal footing.

Apparently the justice of Christian morality offered a refreshing perspective to women in the ancient world accustomed to husbands who cheated and left at will. The number of women who converted to Christianity in the early centuries after Christ indicates that women were attracted to this new way of life. Indeed, they were among the most zealous converts and defenders of the faith:

Christianity seems to have been especially successful among women. It was often through the wives that it penetrated the upper classes of society in the first instance. Christians believed in the equality of men and women before God and found in the New Testament commands that husbands should treat their wives with such consideration and love as Christ manifested for his Church. Christian teaching about the sanctity of marriage offered a powerful safeguard to married women (Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Penguin, 58–59).

Many women today do feel alienated from the Church for a variety of reasons, but it is often because they disagree with the Church's basic beliefs about the meaning of life, the nature of human happiness, and the interaction of the divine and the human.

Is Scripture Misogynistic?

But what should be made of subordination passages in Scripture, such as "Let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands" (Eph. 5:24)? This appears to contradict the idea that Christianity views the sexes as equal. Pope John Paul II's answer was:

The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ" (Mulieris Dignitatem 24; cf. Eph. 5:21).

Discussing the bond of marriage as it exists after the taint of original sin, John Paul states:

The matrimonial union requires respect for and perfection of the true personal subjectivity of both of them. The woman cannot be made the object of dominion and male possession (MD 10).

That husband and wife are to be subject to one another is reinforced in the next verse of the original passage cited: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her" (Eph. 5:25). This injunction transforms the potentially selfish orientation of male love into a form of intense self-sacrificial service. Subordination is mutual, but the admonition is given to husbands, perhaps because they need it more. What is implied, then, is not general female inferiority but general female superiority in the order that most matters eschatologically – the order of charity.

It's Not about Power

The reservation of priestly ordination to men is perhaps the sorest spot among contemporary critics of the Catholic Church's treatment of women. Many people understandably believe that the Church feels that women are less holy, less intellectually capable, less pastorally sensitive, or less capable of leadership than men. It is true that medieval theologians defended male priestly ordination with just such arguments, but the reservation in and of itself does not imply the inferiority of women. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church recalls, Christ himself established what constitutes the sacraments. The Church, in obedience to the Lord, is free only to follow what Christ has ordained.

Baptism must make use of water and not sand. This does not imply that sand is in and of itself less than water; indeed, those lost at sea need sand much more than they need water. The Eucharist must make use of bread and wine and not sausage and beer, even in Germany, where presumably those celebrating the Eucharist would prefer a meal of sausage and beer to one of bread and wine. Similarly, the Church teaches that Christ established that the proper recipient of the sacrament of holy orders is a baptized male; similarly, this in no way implies that men are better than women. The teaching itself does not imply in any way inferiority on the part of women.

Some theologians have even speculated that one reason for the reservation of priestly orders to males could be that men are typically worse people than women. Most murderers, rapists, thieves, and scoundrels of the highest order are men. It is, therefore, men and not women who are in particular need of models of self-sacrificial service and love. A priest is one who gives sacrifice, and the sacrifice is not only something he does but something he is:

We who have received the sacrament of orders call ourselves "priests." The author does not recall any priest ever having said that "I was ordained a victim." And yet, was not Christ the Priest, a Victim? Did he not come to die? He did not offer a lamb, a bullock, or doves; he never offered anything except himself. "He gave himself up on our behalf, a sacrifice breathing out a fragrance as he offered it to God" (Eph. 5:2). . . . So we have a mutilated concept of our priesthood if we envisage it apart from making ourselves victims in the prolongation of his Incarnation (Fulton J. Sheen, The Priest Is Not His Own, McGraw-Hill, 2).

The priesthood is misconstrued in terms of domination, power, and exultation; it is properly understood in terms of service, love, and sacrifice, and there are more than enough opportunities for both men and women to exercise these offices outside of the priesthood.

Full and Active Participation

It is almost always assumed by advocates of women's ordination that the "full and active participation" in the Church called for by the Second Vatican Council (Sacrosanctum Concilium14) requires priestly ordination. The view that only priests are called to holiness or to important roles or to "full and active" participation in the Church is often called clericalism, an idea rejected by the Council. The lay person can participate actively and fully in the Church – as a lay person. The Spirit bestows different gifts on different people. As the first letter to the Corinthians indicates, just as the human body has different members and each member a different purpose, so, too, the various parts of the body of Christ – successors to the apostles, prophets, teachers, healers, helpers, administrators – are all essential, valuable, and vital (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4–30).

The clericalist view implies that Mother Teresa, St. Thomas More, St. Francis of Assisi, and the Virgin Mary did not fully participate in the Church because they were not priests.

The clericalist view implies that Mother Teresa, St. Thomas More, St. Francis of Assisi, and the Virgin Mary did not fully participate in the Church because they were not priests.

Of course, the ordination question is much more complicated and involved. But having read the literature extensively, I know of no argument in any contemporary source defending the reservation of priestly ordination to men that invokes the idea that men are better, holier, smarter, more worthy, more pastorally sensitive, or superior in any talent to women. I have also never read a critique of the Church's teaching that did not explicitly or implicitly rely on clericalist assumptions.

The myth of Catholic misogyny is well addressed in terms of the practical care the Church offers to women (and men) throughout the world. Has any institution educated more women? Fed more women? Clothed more women? Rescued more female infants from death? Offered more assistance or medical care to mothers and their born and unborn children? Members of the Church have undoubtedly behaved badly, but no less have members of the Church undoubtedly behaved well, heroically well. When they have done so, they have been even more fully incorporated into the mystical body of Christ whose Head came to serve all, love all, and save all, and in whose image – as God – he created both male and female.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Christopher Kaczor. "Does the Catholic Church Hate Women?" This Rock (San Diego: Catholic Answers Inc., March 2006).

Reprinted by permission of Catholic Answers.

This Rock magazine began publication in 1990 and quickly established itself as the definitive magazine of Catholic apologetics and evangelization.

Its mission continues to be the one for which it was created: to explain and defend the tenets of the Catholic faith and present practical ways to spread God's truth. It does so using unfailingly orthodox defenses of the Church's beliefs and always in a spirit of charity. ThroughThis Rock, Catholic Answers cleaves to Peter's exhortation to apologists: "Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" (1 Pet. 3:15).

To subscribe to This Rock, go here.

Visit the Catholic Answers book and tract shop here.

Catholic Answers, 2020 Gillespie Way, El Cajon, CA 92020 USA
Main: 619-387-7200 | Fax: 619-387-0042
U.S. Orders: 888-291-8000 | Non-U.S. Orders: 619-387-7200

THE AUTHOR

Christopher Kaczor is Professor of Philosophy in the Bellarmine College of Liberal Arts at Loyola Marymount University.

Raised in Seattle, Christopher Kaczor graduated from the Honors Program of Boston College (1992) and holds an M.M.S. (1994) and a Ph.D. (1996) from the University of Notre Dame. He did post-doctoral work in Germany at the Universität zu Köln as an Alexander von Humbolt Foundation, Federal Chancellor Fellow in 1996-1997 and returned as a Fulbright Scholar in 2002-2003. He has published eight books including, O Rare Ralph McInerny: Stories and Reflections on a Legendary Notre Dame Professor, The Ethics of Abortion, Thomas Aquinas on the Cardinal Virtues; Life Issues-Medical Choices; Thomas Aquinas on Faith, Hope, and Love; The Edge of Life: Human Dignity and Contemporary Bioethics, How to Stay Catholic in College, and Proportionalism and the Natural Law Tradition. Dr. Kaczor has been interviewed on issues of ethics, philosophy, and religion for newspapers and radio stations across the country as well as on television on EWTN, ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS, MSNBC, and The Today Show.

Copyright © 2011 Catholic Answers