Wednesday Liturgy: Which Ordinary to Mention at Mass

ROME, SEPT. 27, 2011 (Zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org)).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: When a priest is celebrating the liturgy of one rite in a church or institution of another rite, which ordinary has primacy of remembrance in the commemorations: the bishop of the rite being celebrated or the bishop whose diocese the church or institution is in? Similarly, I belong to an Eastern-rite religious community. But, because of our evangelical ministries -- for example, Teen Encounter and Cursillo -- in our community's spiritual center, we have biritual faculties in the Roman rite as well. The majority of our attendees belong to the Roman rite. Therefore, this question: When we celebrate Mass in the Roman rite, which ordinary ought to have primacy of remembrance, the ordinary of our institution or the local Roman-rite ordinary? Finally, I took over the ministry at a local assisted-living facility. The priest who did it faithfully for several years returned to Lebanon and the social director ask me to continue. Since he had been celebrating the Maronite liturgy (in English, of course) for the residents, I am doing the same. The majority of the tiny congregation, however, is Roman rite. Again the question: Which ordinary has the primacy of remembrance, the Maronite ordinary or that of the local diocese? (The facility is not a Catholic one.) -- J.T., Methuen, Massachusetts

A: This is not an easy question and there may be no clear-cut answer as the situations can vary widely.

The purpose of mentioning the Pope, the local ordinary and in some cases the patriarch or major archbishop in the Eucharistic Prayer is not a question of honor or respect but of communion. As the Roman Canon says, we pray "una cum," "together with," the Pope and the local bishop. In a way this mention renders each local assembly a true manifestation of the universal Church.

In the Latin rite the criterion for mentioning the local bishop is based on territorial jurisdiction. Only a bishop who has present jurisdiction over the territory or place where the Mass is celebrated is mentioned.

The priest may optionally mention the auxiliary bishop by name; or do so collectively if there is more than one auxiliary. Not mentioned are bishops emeritus or bishops who preside over a celebration outside of their diocese.

There are some special cases in which territorial jurisdictions do not coincide with diocesan borders. For example, a military ordinary usually exercises his territorial jurisdiction over military bases around the country and it is his name which is mentioned when Mass is celebrated in those bases or on navy ships. The recently appointed Anglican ordinary will exercise his jurisdiction over the churches and other institutions that pertain to the ordinariate and his name is mentioned when Mass is celebrated in those churches.

When priests are traveling, they only mention the bishop of the place where they happen to be celebrating Mass, and never their own ordinary, even if they are celebrating for groups from their own diocese.

This is the case of the Latin rite. With respect to the Eastern Catholic Churches, my knowledge does not extend to the particular laws and customs on each and every one of them. I believe that they follow the same basic rule of territorial jurisdiction, but some might also have other special forms of jurisdiction.

For example, jurisdiction in India's Syro-Malabar Church is basically territorial, although the jurisdiction of the Archeparchy of Kottayam is co-extensive with that of the territory of the Syro-Malabar Church. This eparchy serves exclusively the members of the Knanaya community which traces its origin from a group of 72 Judeo-Christian families who arrived in India from Mesopotamia in A.D. 345. If a member of this diocese marries outside of the community, he or she ceases to pertain to the archeparchy and is incorporated into the eparchy of residence.

Thus the variety of the venerable Eastern Churches precludes a definitive answer for all cases. At the same time, I believe it is safe to say that when celebrating according to an Eastern liturgy the question of which bishop should be named should be resolved according to the laws and customs of the specific Eastern Church and not those of the Latin rite.

With this in mind I would say the following with respect to the specific questions.

If Mass is celebrated in a church or monastery which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of an Eastern bishop, then he should be mentioned even in those cases where the Mass happens to be celebrated according to the Latin rite. The local Latin-rite bishop would still have authority over the celebration of the Roman Mass at the church, and any norms he has given regarding liturgical practice for his diocese should be followed.

When, as mentioned above, an Eastern priest celebrates Mass according to his own rite outside of a place under the territorial jurisdiction of his own eparch, the mention of the bishop will be based on the laws and customs of the rite itself. If those laws allow for the mention of the local Latin ordinary, well and good; if not, then the priest follows his own tradition. The fact that most of the people assisting at an Eastern Mass might belong to the Latin rite would not determine which bishop was named.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Self-communion

ROME, SEPT. 27, 2011 (Zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org)).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Several readers asked for further clarifications regarding self-communion, an issue we dealt with in the Sept. 13 (http://www.zenit.org/article-33420?l=english) follow-up article.

One correspondent asked: "Relative to the interesting discussion regarding self-communion at Mass by extraordinary ministers, which I understand (from your ZENIT article) is prohibited, I wonder whether this prohibition also pertains to extraordinary ministers who offer Christ's blood to the faithful at weekday Masses. On Sunday Mass, with multiple extraordinary ministers engaged, the extraordinary ministers form a prayer circle after Mass and pass the cup around to each other in a circle, doing so with proper reverence, seemingly in compliance with the Holy See's instructions. Our practice in weekday Masses, however, is quite different. Normally there are only two extraordinary ministers offering the Blood. If all the Blood is not consumed during distribution, then our practice has been that each extraordinary minister consumes what remains in the chalice as he takes the cup to the sanctuary side-table. Is this improper self-communication? If so, one might correct this by having the two ministers administer the unconsumed Blood to each other. But I wonder what the practice should be if, for some reason, there is only one extraordinary minister distributing the Blood?

"In a related matter, when I take Communion to a homebound individual and find that for some reason I am unable to distribute the host, I have always said a prayer and consumed the host myself. Our pastor has allowed this as an alternative to bringing the unconsumed host to the rectory. Presumably one would do the latter in the case of multiple unconsumed hosts, but I personally have never encountered that particular situation."

According to the U.S. norms for distribution of Communion under both kinds:

"52. When more of the Precious Blood remains than was necessary for Communion, and if not consumed by the bishop or priest celebrant, 'the deacon immediately and reverently consumes at the altar all of the Blood of Christ which remains; he may be assisted, if needs dictate, by other deacons and priests.' When there are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, they may consume what remains of the Precious Blood from their chalice of distribution with permission of the diocesan bishop."

First of all, it is presumed in this case that the extraordinary ministers have first received Communion from another minister before initiating the distribution of Communion. This is why their later consuming would not be a simple self-communion.

If there is only one extraordinary minister, then the priest and/or deacon would consume the extra Precious Blood. Since the number of those attending daily Mass is usually quite regular, it should be fairly easy to calculate the amount of wine needed for consecration. The extraordinary minister should consume from the chalice only if the celebrant were impeded for some legitimate reason.

It is not correct to consume the Precious Blood after Mass. If the extraordinary ministers have received necessary permission from the bishop, they should consume immediately after the distribution of Communion. It is probable that this practice is based upon a misinterpretation of the norms that allow for the purification of the sacred vessels after Mass.

With respect to the situation when the extraordinary minister is unable to distribute a host, I would say that in this case it is legitimate for the minister to consume the host. If possible, it would be preferable to give two hosts to the last communicant, but such situations are not always foreseeable.

An English reader asked for clarification on the point that the minister might not receive twice. He wrote: "It is my understanding that ministers, and indeed everyone, can receive Holy Communion a second time in a day provided that they are 'participating' in a sacrament, which the minister you refer to would be. Can you please clarify this point, and perhaps expand upon what qualifies as 'participating' in such cases?"

There appears to be a misunderstanding of the law on this point. At one time there was a doubt regarding the meaning of the word iterum (which can mean either "again" or "a second time") in Canon 917. The Holy See's body for authentically interpreting laws decided that it meant "a second time." Therefore, except in the case of viaticum for the dying, a second communion is permissible only within Mass, not at any sacramental celebration. Communion outside of Mass is not, strictly speaking, a sacrament. This term would only apply to the Eucharistic celebration itself.

Article: A Catholic Moral Worldview

EDWARD SRI

Ethics is not simply a question of what – "What should I do in this situation?" – but also, and even more fundamentally, a question of who – "Who do I want to become?

Shortly before his election to the papacy, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said that one of the biggest challenges to faith in the modern world is relativism – the view that there is no moral or religious truth to which we are all accountable. Indeed, the relativistic perspective that dominates much of the Western world makes it very difficult for Christians to talk about morality.

"Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism," Ratzinger said. "Whereas relativism…seems the only attitude that is acceptable in modern times."

The person who is not a relativist today is often not tolerated in society. The pro-life woman, for example, who says abortion is wrong is likely to be called "judgmental." The Christian college student who says drunkenness and pre-marital sex are immoral will be brushed aside as "rigid," "out-of-touch", or "prudish." In this way, our relativistic culture tends to marginalize those who hold traditional moral convictions. As Ratzinger noted, relativism is emerging as a new kind of totalitarianism – one which seeks to push the Christian belief in truth further out of the mainstream.

"We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."

Ratzinger's comments are interesting not for the implication they have for understandingparticular moral issues, such as questions about abortion, sexuality, or the use of alcohol. Rather, his insights remind us that faithful Christians and moral relativists have radically differentworldviews. The problem is not simply that many people in our culture do not think abortion, pre-marital sex, or drunkenness are morally wrong. The problem is much deeper: many no longer believe in a moral standard altogether.

In a relativistic culture that assumes everyone should be free to determine their own values and live whatever way they desire, Christian talk about moral standards sounds like a bunch of rules imposed on people's private lives that restrict their freedom. This is why Christians must do more than address the particular moral questions of the day. We also need to engage at the higher level of worldview if we are to be effective in communicating moral truth.

But to do so is no simple task, and not one that can be done quickly. It is a lot easier to give a five-point argument for a particular issue than it is to understand, unpack and address one's entire outlook on life. To do that, it will be important to step back and consider key features of a Catholic moral worldview. This we will do over the next several columns, starting briefly with the following introductory reflections.

More than Rules

When teaching morality, I have often asked my students on the first day of class to write down two lists: First, a list of what they think are the top five to ten moral issues we face today and second, a list of what they want to be remembered for at the end of their lives.

When they tell me about their top moral concerns, the students typically mention a wide range of human life issues such as abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, war, and cloning. They also tend mention matters related to sobriety (drug use, drunkenness), sexuality (pre-marital sex, adultery, homosexuality), and general social-economic issues (poverty, corporate greed, the environment). After writing each of these topics on the left side of the chalk board, I then tell them that this list reflects a very modern view of ethics.

"Man finds himself only when he makes himself a sincere gift to others." Or, as Mother Teresa put it, "Unless a life is lived for others, it is not worth living."

Indeed, for many people today, the word "morality" has the connotation of being primarily about rules of conduct or a code for behavior, such as "thou shall not steal" and "Thou shall not commit adultery." The modern notion of morality tends to focus on assessing particular as good or evil. A rules-focused morality primarily considers the question of what – what should one do if faced with a particular choice or situation?

The classical tradition, however, had a much broader moral vision. The Greek word that ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle used to describe the drama of the moral life was ethikos, which means "pertaining to character." For them, ethics was more than a consideration of whether particular actions were good or evil and much more than rules that come into play in certain "moral situations." For them, practically every situation throughout one's daily life was a "moral situation" because ethics were fundamentally about a person's character – his or her dispositions to live a certain kind of life. As such, the whole person was considered by one's virtues and vices. How well one responds to hunger, fear, anger and setbacks in life; how generously one responds to the needs of others; how much one seeks wealth, pleasure and praise – these were the kind of topics often addressed in ethics.

Moreover, ethics ultimately considered where a person's life was heading, what kind of person one was becoming. In sum, ethics was not simply a question of what – "What should I do in this situation?" – but also, and even more fundamentally, a question of who – "Who do I want to become?"

A Question of Character

When I ask my students about the second list regarding how they wanted to be remembered after they died, I typically receive two kinds of responses. First, the students mention various qualities: they want to be remembered as being loyal, kind, generous, sincere, hard-working, loving, honest, selfless or courageous. I write these on the right side of the board and point out that these qualities are virtues. This list more closely reflects the classical understanding of ethics being primarily not about rules or certain moral issue but about virtues and one's personal moral character. Am I becoming a more generous person? A more patient person? A more honest person? These questions get more to the heart of ethics.

Second, students also tend to mention various relationships for which they want to be remembered: they hope to be known as a good friend, a good husband or wife, a good father or mother, a good Christian, someone who "made a difference" in other people's lives. This underscores another aspect of a Catholic moral vision: ethics is all about living our fundamental relationships well. Am I a good son? A good husband or wife? A good father? A good friend? A good citizen? A good son to my heavenly Father? These are the questions at the center of a Catholic moral worldview. The moral laws and how they relate to particular situations must always be seen in the larger context of how they help us to live our relationships with God and neighbor well, for, as we will see, that is where we find happiness.

Made for Friendship

The ultimate friendship we are made for is with God. Indeed, the goal of a human life is to enjoy friendship with God forever in heaven. Accordingly, St. Thomas Aquinas defined the supernatural virtue of charity (love) as friendship with God.

Living our relationships well is crucial for a successful life, for human persons are made for friendship. This can be seen in the first chapter of the Bible: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Gen. 1:26). Notice how God uses the first person plural: "Let us make man in our image and likeness, after our likeness." Christians have seen in this an early hint of the three Persons of the Trinity. And this tells us a lot about our lives. Since God exists as a communion of three divine Persons giving themselves completely in love to each other, the fact that we are made in the image of that God – not some vague supernatural "higher power," but the Triune God – tells us we are meant to live like the Trinity. We are made for communion with others. We are made for relationships of self-giving love, so that our lives might truly reflect the Trinity in whose image we were created.

Written into the fabric of our being is this law of self-giving: only when we live our relationships in imitation of the self-giving love of the Trinity will we find happiness and fulfillment in life. As Vatican II taught, "Man finds himself only when he makes himself a sincere gift to others." Or, as Mother Teresa put it, "Unless a life is lived for others, it is not worth living."

But one does not need to be a Christian or believe in the Bible to grasp this point. Even ancient philosophers saw that human persons were made for friendship and that we find fulfillment in life only when we live our relationships well. Aristotle taught that a good life is all about living true friendship virtuously. No other good on this earth, be it wealth, pleasure, health, or power, would be worth having if one did not have friends: "For without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods" (NE 1155a1-3).

The Christian tradition affirms this insight from Aristotle, but goes a step further. The ultimate friendship we are made for is with God. Indeed, the goal of a human life is to enjoy friendship with God forever in heaven. Accordingly, St. Thomas Aquinas defined the supernatural virtue of charity (love) as friendship with God.

In sum, ethics is primarily not about following a set of rules, but about living our relationships with virtue and excellence. Indeed, when Jesus Himself was asked to sum up the moral law, He did so relationally, focusing on love of God and love of neighbor (Matt. 22:36-39). We need to follow God's moral laws, but, as we will see in subsequent columns, those laws must be seen as being given by God to assist us in living a good, happy life – a life focused on loving God with all our heart and loving our neighbor as Christ loved us.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Edward P. Sri. "A Catholic Moral Worldview." Lay Witness (March/April, 2011): 8-9.

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

THE AUTHOR

Dr. Edward (Ted) Sri is assistant professor of theology at Benedictine College in Atchison, KS, and a frequent contributor to Lay Witness. Edward Sri is the author of Men, Women and the Mystery of Love: Practical Insights from John Paul II's Love and Responsibility, Mystery of the Kingdom, The New Rosary in Scripture: Biblical Insights for Praying the 20 Mysteries. His latest books is Queen Mother based on his doctorial dissertation and which is available by calling Benedictus Bookstoll-free at (888) 316-2640. CUF members receive a 10% discount.

Copyright © 2011 LayWitness

Article: The Immorality of Nice Fornication

ANTHONY ESOLEN

The strongest case that Nice Fornicators make for themselves is that they are “committed” to one another in love, and that this commitment carries sufficient moral weight to justify their actions.

But this case cannot be taken seriously. For the couple either are committed to one another forever, or they are not. If they are, what prevents them from marrying? The Justice of the Peace is a short drive away. Man is the only creature that can make a promise, devoting his future to someone else, here and now. If he makes such a promise and rejoices in it, then naturally he should wish to make that promise public.

A private promise relies too heavily upon private feelings, and in the case of a dispute, involves one person's testimony and interpretation against another's. But when you make the promise publicly, before a delegated representative of the people or of the Church, then it becomes a solemn vow, and you are saying, "I make this vow, and I give you the authority to hold me to it." The "piece of paper" that some Nice Fornicators scoff at is a token that such a vow has been made before one's countrymen or fellow Christians, and that one submits to all the laws pertaining to that vow – for even the sexual revolution has not yet managed to eviscerate those laws entirely.

The "commitment" of the Nice Fornicators is, then, an equivocation. It looks as if it implies all that marriage implies, but it does not. The Nice Fornicators are lying to themselves, lying to one another, and lying to everyone else. Suppose they have set a date for the marriage. They either fully intend to keep the date, or they do not. If they do, why must they engage in sexual relations now? Why must they have the consummation before they have the marriage?

An intention to make a vow is not the same thing as actually making the vow. Why should the act that makes for children precede the vow that provides for their being born within the fold of indissoluble love? Why should the act that says, in the language of the body, "All that I am belongs to you alone, forever," precede the vow that gives that language its sanction and its anchor in a community that upholds its truth? Is it only because the Nice Fornicators want to hold a party and it takes some time to prepare one, or because they want a "church wedding" (without, however, observing the commandments of Scripture)? Why not then remain continent beforehand?

Here we come to the nub of the matter. A consummated action is unmistakable, but a private intention is vague and shifting. The Nice Fornicators want to marry, eventually. But they want to fornicate now. Say to the Nice Fornicators who have set a date, "You must live apart from one another for the next year, and promise to be chaste." What are the choices? They may say, "We can't trust ourselves; we'd better go to the Justice of the Peace." Or, "What difference does chastity make?" – in which case they contradict themselves, because they have all along been claiming, implicitly, that the sexual act is a tremendous guarantee, one to the other, of unbending love, and now they wish it to be treated as something of small import, as if they were being required to abstain from going to the movies. Or they may agree. If they do agree, then why should they not have been chaste all along?

Nice Fornication, then, is a strange mix of hedonism, genuine but compromised love, carelessness for the child that may be conceived, aloofness from the community, wishful thinking, and dishonesty. All that, and a violation of the word of God besides.

The reason is not far to seek. Nice Fornicators want to fornicate. They find one another attractive. They go out for a pizza, or catch a ballgame. They "make out." Soon one thing leads to another. The more scrupulous among them defer intercourse for a while, in the meantime engaging in plenty of actions that violate the letter and the spirit of chastity. They may be quite legalistic in their understanding of sexual morality: "We won't do that, until we feel we are really in love, and are committed."

They engage in sexual activity not because they love one another, but to discover whether they can love one another; it is an act not of free submission, but of trial. There are wheels within wheels. The Nice Fornicators say, "We are committed to one another," but since the commitment resides in the realm of feeling and intention, rather than of publicly enacted vow, neither one can be quite sure of what that commitment entails, either for himself or for the other. The body, in sexual intercourse, speaks: "This is a marital act." But the Nice Fornicator, at the height of sexual pleasure, registers a reservation, thus: "I am committed to discovering whether this would be acceptable as a marital act." The one partner may say, "If I do this, he will marry me," while the other says, "Unless she does this, I can't marry her."

Nice Fornication, then, is a strange mix of hedonism, genuine but compromised love, carelessness for the child that may be conceived, aloofness from the community, wishful thinking, and dishonesty. All that, and a violation of the word of God besides.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Anthony Esolen. "The Immorality of Nice Fornication." The Catholic Thing (August 17, 2011).

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

The Catholic thing – the concrete historical reality of Catholicism – is the richest cultural tradition in the world. That is the deep background to The Catholic Thing which daily brings you an original column that provides fresh and penetrating insight into the current events affecting the Church, along with other commentary, news, analysis, and – yes – even humor. Our writers include some of the most seasoned and insightful Catholic minds in America: Robert Royal, Brad Miner, James V. Schall, S.J., Hadley Arkes, Francis J. Beckwith, Mary Eberstadt, Austin Ruse, George Marlin, William Saunders, and many others.

THE AUTHOR

Anthony Esolen is a professor of English at Providence College, where his classes are featured in the college's Western Civilization Core Curriculum. He is the author of Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child, Ironies of Faith: Laughter at the Heart of Christian Literature, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization, and is the translator of several epic poems of the West, including Lucretius' On the Nature of Things: de Rerum Natura, Tasso's Gerusalemme liberata, and the three volumes of Dante's Divine Comedy:Inferno, Purgatory, and Paradise. Anthony Esolen has published many scholarly articles and essays, including several on Renaissance literature. A graduate of Princeton and the University of North Carolina, Esolen is proficient in Latin, Italian, Anglo-Saxon, French, German and Greek. He lives in Rhode Island with his wife Debra and their two children. Anthony Esolen is a member of the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Copyright © 2011 The Catholic Thing

Article: Why the Liturgical Reform?

HELEN HULL HITCHCOCK

Why was there a need for the reform of the liturgy? Can you summarize it for me?

"Some say that the Council intended a radical break with the past to make the liturgy relevant; others claim that the Council's reform of the liturgy was the nefarious work of a few people determined to destroy the Church!"

This question, from a serious and well-informed Catholic, is representative of many similar questions we've encountered recently. It is a different question from "why do we need a new translation" – though it is not entirely unrelated to this significant change in the language of worship we are about to encounter.

More likely, such questions arise in the context of the recent change that permits the old form (vetus ordo) of the Mass to be celebrated side-by-side with the new (novus ordo). People who never experienced the pre-conciliar liturgy, and who have only known a wholly vernacular Mass that may vary widely from parish to parish – and especially those who are attracted to the solemnity and reverence characteristic of the "extraordinary form" of the Mass – are curious about why there ever should have been a liturgical reform. If Pope Benedict, in issuingSummorum Pontificum in 2007, intended to permit wider use of the "extraordinary form" alongside the "ordinary form", doesn't this suggest that the liturgical reform was not needed?

We, too, have read the extreme views of the liturgical reform that the letter-writer mentions. Though they reach polar opposite conclusions, both views have in common one basic assumption: that the Council's liturgical reforms represent a rupture, or "discontinuity" with the entire history of the Catholic Church's liturgy – and both views are equally and very seriously mistaken, as Pope Benedict has stressed repeatedly. The liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council are, truly, in continuity with the Church's history. And a liturgical reform was needed – and still is.

Here's an attempt to pack an eventful century into a very short space.

The Pre-conciliar Liturgical Reform

At the beginning of the 20th century, Pope Pius X initiated what would become known as the "liturgical movement" with his 1903 document on sacred music, "Tra le sollecitudini". Building on an initiative that had begun in the early 19th century to recover the Church's nearly lost patrimony of Gregorian Chant, and responding to the dominance of theatrical-style music performed at Mass, which left the congregation as a passive audience, the pope called for a restoration of sacredness to music – and for the "active participation" (actuosa participatio) of the entire congregation in the holy sacrifice of the Mass.

The "liturgical movement" had many variations in Europe and America; but the principles that Pope Pius X first expressed were repeated by subsequent popes. Pope Pius XI's 1929 encyclical on the Liturgy and music, Divini Cultus, also underscored the importance of truly sacred music in worship.

In the 1940s, Pope Pius XII reformed the celebration of Holy Week – and new vernacular translations of the Bible were undertaken. The pope issued key encyclicals on the liturgy:Mediator Dei (1947), and Musicae Sacrae (1955), in which he reaffirmed the active participation of the people, the members of the Mystical Body of Christ, and approved recent historical research, while he also cautioned against errors and innovations advocated by some liturgical reformers that were inconsistent with the Church's liturgical heritage and tradition.

During the decade or so before the Second Vatican Council the "dialogue Mass" appeared, in which the congregation made the appropriate responses in Latin – formerly made only by the altar boys – although this did not become standard practice.

Ordinary Mass-goers were encouraged to follow the Mass in bilingual hand missals in order that they could more fully understand what was taking place in the sanctuary, even though they could not actually hear the priest's words. But the use of hand missals, too, was the exception rather than the norm.

At the time of the Council, the liturgical movement had made some progress in the effort to increase the understanding of ordinary Catholics and to draw every Catholic believer more closely into the sacred action of the Mass – the "source and summit" of the Catholic faith – and thereby to become more deeply and spiritually connected to the heart of the Church, the Mass.

However, this goal still remained distant. The usual parish Mass was still almost entirely inaudible to the worshippers (except for the sermon), impossible to follow (except for the bell at the consecration), and the congregation mostly knelt silently and said the Rosary or other prayers during the entire celebration of Mass, except when they actually received Holy Communion.

At the same time, some of those who were actively involved in the liturgical movement were veering perilously from the Church's liturgical tradition, often in pursuit of their own interpretation of the liturgies of the "early Church". Liturgical mistakes were made, as Pope Pius XII had observed and censured in Mediator Dei.

The Second Vatican Council's Reform

Recognizing the fundamental importance of the Mass in every Catholic believer's life – a goal of the pre-conciliar liturgical movement that had remained elusive – the fathers of the Second Vatican Council made their first work the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963).

The Constitution reaffirmed the central and indispensable role of the liturgy in Catholic life, and in this document the Council fathers called for a liturgical reform – stressing again the active participation of the laity, precisely in order that the liturgy would become the center of every faithful Catholic's life. This was the true objective of the liturgical reform, as it had been for many years.

The Constitution's directives were by no means extreme, and essentially reaffirmed the earlier papal documents on the liturgy. While it authorized more use of the vernacular in the liturgy, along with Latin, the Council fathers could not and did not foresee the rapid disappearance of all Latin from the Mass; nor could they ever have imagined the radical departure from the Church's traditional liturgical practice that would take place with alarming and confusing speed during the 1960s and 1970s.

A New Liturgical Movement

The Council's reform was genuinely needed. But the errors resulting from misinterpretation of the Council were very serious, indeed, and these errors led to divisions within the Church.

Correction was clearly necessary. Thus Pope John Paul II called for a new reform of the liturgy in Vicesimus quintus annus, his letter on the 25th anniversary of the Council's Constitution on the Liturgy. The letter describes both the positive and negative effects of the post-conciliar liturgical renewal, and concludes:

The time has come to renew that spirit which inspired the Church at the moment when the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium was prepared, discussed, voted upon and promulgated, and when the first steps were taken to apply it. (§23)

Pope John Paul thus set in motion a plan to get the liturgy back on course – a new liturgical reform.

The phrase "new liturgical movement" was used by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in his 1997 memoir, Milestones. Here is the relevant section, in which we can hear echoes of the criticisms by earlier popes of the failures of the liturgical reform to achieve its real purpose:

"I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy."

There is no doubt that this new Missal [after Vatican II] in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something 'made', not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision. From this it also follows that we are not to recognize the scholars and the central authority alone as decision makers, but that in the end each and every 'community' must provide itself with its own liturgy. When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and the source of our life. A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church. [Emphasis added.]

I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur [Lit., as if God is not given], in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not He speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds – partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart.

This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council. [Emphasis added]

Milestones – Memoirs 1927-1977 (1997, English edition, 1998, Ignatius Press, p 148-149)

Rupture or Reform and Renewal?

The answer, he explains, lies in the correct interpretation and application of the Council – "on its proper hermeneutics".

Pope Benedict XVI, in his now-famous address to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005, forty years after the Second Vatican Council ended, reflected on the way the Council had been received and interpreted. "What has been the result of the Council?", the new pope asked, "Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken?… Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?"

The answer, he explains, lies in the correct interpretation and application of the Council – "on its proper hermeneutics".

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless.… In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit.

But this shows a basic misunderstanding of the very nature of a Council, he says.

The hermeneutic of discontinuity is countered by the hermeneutic of reform…

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists.

Pope Benedict again recalls the serious problem of the "hermeneutic of discontinuity" in interpreting the Council in Sacramentum Caritatis, his apostolic exhortation following the Synod on the Eucharist (February 22, 2007). He also emphasized that the "riches" of the liturgical renewal "are yet to be fully explored":

The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities (§3 Emphasis added).

This authentic liturgical reform – overcoming "discontinuities" and "ruptures" in the Church's history, and renewing and restoring the "spiritual essence" of the Mass, the heart and font of our faith – is what we are now experiencing, more than 100 years after Pope Pius X's initial actions, and nearly half a century after the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Liturgy.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Helen Hull Hitchcock. "Why the Liturgical Reform? or, 'What if we just say no to any liturgical change?'" Adoremus Bulletin (September, 2011).

The Adoremus Bulletin, a liturgical journal published by Adoremus: Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy, is dedicated to the authentic renewal of the Sacred Liturgy according to the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Liturgy,Sacrosanctum Concilium.

THE AUTHOR

Helen Hull Hitchcock is founding director of Women for Faith & Family and editor of its quarterly journal, Voices. She is also editor of the Adoremus Bulletin a monthly publication of Adoremus – Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy, of which she is a co-founder. She is married to James Hitchcock, professor of history at St. Louis University. The Hitchcocks have four daughters and five grandchildren, and live in St. Louis.

She has published many articles and essays in a wide range of Catholic journals, and is the author/editor of The Politics of Prayer: Feminist language and the worship of God, (Ignatius Press 1992), a collection of essays on issues involved in translation. She has contributed essays to several books, including Spiritual Journeys, a book of "conversion stories" (Daughters of St. Paul).

Copyright © 2011 Adoremus Bulletin

Wednesday Liturgy: Celebrating the Memorial of John Paul II

ROME, SEPT. 20, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Is it OK in the United States to celebrate liturgically in the Liturgy of the Hours and the Mass the memorials of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, Blessed John Henry Newman and Blessed John Paul ll? -- A.W., Sacramento, California

A: We have already replied on another occasion regarding the celebration of the blessed. In part we repeat some of the ideas written on Dec. 21, 2004, and Jan. 18, 2005. Here we add some novelty regarding Blessed John Paul II.

The most recent norms relating to this theme are contained in a notification published by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, on Sept. 20, 1997. These update and complement the norms given in the general calendar and the more-detailed norms given in the instruction "Calendaria Particularia," issued June 24, 1970.

This document touches on the subject of inserting the blessed in local calendars in several places, but above all in Nos. 25-37.

In general, the document warns against the excessive multiplication of celebrations, so as to keep the general Roman calendar's basic unity intact.

Especially in the first years after beatification or canonization, it is probably better to limit the celebration to the locales more intimately united to the saint's life before seeking permission to include a new saint or blessed in a diocesan, regional or national calendar or in a religious order's general calendar (Nos. 28, 30).

The celebration of a blessed differs from that of a saint, above all with respect to the universality of the veneration that may be offered to them.

The blessed are usually venerated with celebrations on a local level in places where they were born, where they died, and where their relics are preserved. They are also venerated in places that had a long-term association with their activities, in a church dedicated to them, or within the confines of the churches and oratories of a particular religious order which has its own liturgical calendar.

However, even in these cases, it is better to begin by inserting this celebration as an optional memorial and later expand, both territorially and in liturgical ranking, as devotion spreads (No. 31).

In some cases, especially in ancient dioceses, it might even be better to restrict this initial veneration to the church where his relics are kept or to his native town.

A priest may celebrate a saint's feast day anywhere in the universal Church as an optional memorial, even if this feast is not included in the general calendar.

However, he must respect the general liturgical norms regarding the precedence of different celebrations. This means that such a celebration may only take place on days where there is no other feast or obligatory memorial during ordinary time, in the weekdays of Advent before Dec. 17, those of Christmas after Jan. 2, and during Eastertide after the Easter octave (No. 33).

In order to include the celebration of a blessed in the national or diocesan calendar, or to dedicate a church to a blessed, either the bishops' conference or the local bishop, as the case may be, requests permission from the Holy See.

The inclusion of a new saint or blessed into a national calendar requires a two-thirds majority of the country's bishops in a secret ballot and the recognition of the Holy See.

Once the Holy See has granted permission, the blessed may be included in the national, regional, diocesan or religious order calendar according to the liturgical ranking permitted.

A blessed is usually accorded the ranking of optional memorial, occasionally an obligatory memorial, rarely a feast (and even then usually restricted to a church containing relics), but never a solemnity.

Thus, in the examples you pointed out: A priest in the United States can celebrate Blessed Junípero Serra, who has been included in the U.S. calendar. But a priest in Rome may not celebrate except, I think, within the North American College, which, like all of Rome's national colleges, is permitted to follow the home calendar.

A priest may not celebrate Blessed Mother Teresa or Blessed John Henry Newman in ordinary churches unless the Holy See has granted permission to include the celebration in the diocesan regional or national calendar. But Mother Teresa's feast may be celebrated anywhere in the world within the chapels and oratories of the Missionaries of Charity.

With respect to John Paul II, the Holy See issued a decree concerning liturgical worship in honor of the beatified Pope on the anniversary of his death April 2, 2011, in view of his upcoming beatification.

The decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship acknowledged that the great Pope was a special case: "Given the extraordinary nature of this event and the numerous requests received concerning liturgical worship in honor of the new Blessed at certain times and in certain places, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments sees fit to communicate in a timely manner what has been decided in that respect."

It then made the following dispositions:

"It has been decided that during the year following the Beatification of John Paul II, that is, until 1 May 2012, it will be possible to celebrate a Holy Mass of thanksgiving in certain places and on certain days. The responsibility of establishing the day or days as well as the place or places for gathering the People of God for this purpose belongs to the Diocesan Bishop. Similarly, in religious communities, it is the responsibility of the Superior General to establish the days and places of such celebrations for the entire religious community.

"The annual celebration of Blessed John Paul II is to be inserted into the liturgical calendars of the Diocese of Rome and all the Dioceses of Poland as a 'memorial' to be observed on 22 October. As for the liturgical texts, the Collect and the second reading of the Office of Readings, together with its Response, are to be inserted into the 'Proper of Saints.' The other texts are to be taken from the 'Common of Pastors: For a Pope.'

"With regard to other local calendars, any request that the celebration Blessed John Paul II be observed as an Optional Memorial is to be submitted to this Congregation by a local Conference of Bishops when it involves an entire territory, a Diocesan Bishop when it involves an individual dioceses, and a Superior General when the request pertains to a religious community.

"An indult of the Apostolic See is needed to dedicate a church in honor of Blessed John Paul II (cf. Ordo dedicationis ecclesiae, Praenotanda, n. 4) unless a celebration in his memory has already been inserted into the local calendar; in this case the indult is not necessary and the memorial is elevated to a liturgical Feast in the church named for the Blessed (cf. Congregatio de Cultu Divino Sacramentorum, Notificatio de cultu Beatorum, 21 May 1999, n. 9)."

Therefore, although the same basic rules regarding the celebration of a blessed are to be observed for John Paul II, the congregation has clearly indicated that it will quickly approve requests to insert his name into the national or local calendar.

Such requests regarding the national calendar have to be voted upon by each bishops' conference. If this is done and approval has been received from the Holy See, then it will be possible to celebrate the Mass and office of the new blessed.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Right-handed Gestures

ROME, SEPT. 20, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

In the wake of our comments on left-handedness (see Sept. 6), a reader offered some interesting information: "I have an interest in the history and language of gestures. In medieval times, you would genuflect on your left knee to someone who had authority over you but not ultimate authority. You would use your left knee before your local lord, but your right knee was reserved for the king. We've kept some of that in America. I remember the sisters telling me for my confirmation that I should use my left knee to genuflect to the bishop, because the right knee was reserved for Jesus."

Meanwhile, a reader in Nigeria reader asked about the sign of the cross: "I wish to know the appropriate position of the fingers while making the sign of the cross. It is clear that we begin the sign of the cross with the fingers on the forehead down to the chest or navel, then to the left shoulder and the right. I have a little confusion whether the fingers should be on the navel or the chest. Where should it be? Which one is correct? What is the liturgical and theological implication of each?"

According to the original Catholic Encyclopaedia, the "Sign of the Cross" is:

"A term applied to various manual acts, liturgical or devotional in character, which have this at least in common: that by the gesture of tracing two lines intersecting at right angles they indicate symbolically the figure of Christ's cross.

"Most commonly and properly the words 'sign of the cross' are used of the large cross traced from forehead to breast and from shoulder to shoulder, such as Catholics are taught to make upon themselves when they begin their prayers, and such also as the priest makes at the foot of the altar when he commences Mass with the words: 'In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.' (At the beginning of Mass the celebrant makes the sign of the cross by placing his left hand extended under his breast; then raising his right to his forehead, which he touches with the extremities of his fingers, he says: In nomine Patris; then, touching his breast with the same hand, he says: et Filii; touching his left and right shoulders, he says: et Spiritus Sancti; and as he joins his hands again adds: Amen.) The same sign recurs frequently during Mass, e.g. at the words 'Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini,' at the 'Indulgentiam' after the Confiteor, etc., as also in the Divine Office, for example at the invocation 'Deus in adjutorium nostrum intende,' at the beginning of the 'Magnificat,' the 'Benedictus,' the 'Nunc Dimittis,' and on many other occasions."

Some other sources suggest the lower breast or navel area as appropriate. I do not believe that this point is legislated about with great precision, and a couple of inches here or there makes no substantial difference to the quality of the gesture.

What is important is to do the gesture with reverence and awareness of its significance as a proclamation of Trinitarian faith and remembrance of the Passion.

Interview: Confessional's Green Light an Invite to Conversion: Opus Dei Prelate on Eucharist and Reconciliation

By Antonio Gaspari

ROME, SEPT. 15, 2011 (Zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org/)).- An available confessor and a confessional with a green light is a hand reaching out to conversion, says the prelate of Opus Dei.

Bishop Javier Echevarría made this reflection when ZENIT spoke to him about the sacraments of Eucharist and reconciliation on the occasion of Italy's 25th National Eucharistic Congress. The Pope concluded the congress in Ancona last Sunday.

Bishop Echevarría published a book last year on the Eucharist: "Vivir la Santa Misa" (Living Holy Mass).

ZENIT: Why is the Eucharist "the center and root" of the life of every Christian?

Bishop Echevarría: To put the Eucharist at the center of Christian life means to put Jesus at the heart of everything. In the Eucharist we are called to enter into Trinitarian love. By making the Holy Mass the center of our interior life, we are united to Jesus and, in him, to the whole Church, to all men.

This was the constant teaching of St. Josemaría Escrivá, founder of Opus Dei, who said: "If the tabernacle is at the center of your thoughts and your hopes, how abundant, my son, will be the fruits of holiness and of the apostolate!" The Eucharistic Jesus is the culmination of the gift of himself to humanity; hence, if we identify with him, he will transmit to us the same will to enhance the gift of ourselves and our service to others.

ZENIT: How important is the practice of confession and the Eucharist in the Opus Dei charism?

Bishop Echevarría: In the spirit of Opus Dei, the sacraments of penance and of the Eucharist are as important as they are in the Church: Like all Christians, we try to be penitent and Eucharistic persons, with the practice of frequent Confession and daily participation in the Holy Mass.

The sacrament of reconciliation is profoundly connected to the Eucharist. Confession implies the awareness of being sinners, with faith in divine mercy. Jesus purifies us in his blood shed on the cross for us, so that the Christian can participate with greater fidelity in the Sacrifice of Calvary, which is made present every day in the Holy Mass.

Both sacraments fill the soul with joy and peace -- like the good thief, who, seeing Jesus on Calvary and moved by contrition, felt impelled to acknowledge his sins, and thus found eternal salvation. I insist, confession is very important in the life of the Christian, because it is a sacrament of joy and the door of access to the peace and happiness that are in the Eucharist.

ZENIT: [Mindful of the recently completed National Eucharistic Congress], what suggestions would you make so that the practice of confession and Communion would be more intense and widespread?

Bishop Echevarría: The Church has always taught that fortitude is found in the tabernacle, the surest refuge against fears and anxieties. It is not enough that each one of us, individually, seeks and finds the Lord in the Eucharist; with our witness, we must be able to "infect" the greatest number of persons possible, so that they too will contemplate and discover this "unsurpassable friendship."

Spiritual communion is of great help in the preparation for Eucharistic Communion. To be men and women who are conscious of our divine filiation we must spend time with Christ ever more, receiving him, if we can, every day.

In regard to penance, I think the generous availability of priests to hear confessions is very important: An available confessor, a confessional "with a green light" is a hand reaching out to conversion.

On this point, Benedict XVI suggested to us recently to follow "the example of the great saints of the past from St. John Mary Vianney to St. John Bosco, from St. Josemaría Escrivá to St. Pius of Pietrelcina, from St. Joseph Cafasso to St. Leopold Mandi," (Address (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2011/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110325_penitenzieria_en.html) to participants in the course organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary, March 25, 2011).

[Translation by ZENIT]

Article: Something of the Glory of God Shines on Your Face

PAT GOHN

If we lined up all the major issues of Catholic social teaching and compared them to the Himalayas, the "dignity of the human person" would be Mount Everest – the most magnificent and tallest peak dwarfing the rest.

All other social teachings fall under the shadow cast by the dignity of the human person. Not only that, but all other social actions gain their legitimacy from how well they affirm the dignity of the human person.

There are two major reasons why this is true.

But first, here's a little riddle from catechism class that will help us uncover the reason: What are the only man-made things in heaven? Take your time. Puzzle it out. We can wait . . .

Answer: The nail prints on the hands and feet of Jesus, and the scar in his side.

Why?

Jesus still has a human body. The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent almighty Savior of the World still has a human body, albeit a glorified one.

The post-resurrection gospel accounts verify its amazing properties: walking through walls, startling appearances and disappearances (Cf. Lk. 24:31, 36-43; Jn. 20:19-20). Most famously Jesus appeared to Thomas and the apostles, permitting Thomas to probe the nail prints to assuage his doubt (Cf. Jn. 20:24-29).

"The Word became flesh" (Cf. Jn. 1:14). The Son of God incarnate is both God and man.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 469 and 470:

The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother . . .

The Son of God . . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.

Even now, that mystical Body is united with the Trinity. The body of Jesus was not some kind of disposable earthly transport vehicle. No. Jesus completely united himself to humanity in a permanent way.

It is particularly relevant to the "respect life" issues – to respect the life of the body and care for the dignity of the human person in every circumstance of natural life, for the body is also a temple of the Holy Spirit (Cf. 1 Cor. 3:16). The most powerful sign we have of that is that Jesus, God Himself, took on a body.

The humanity of Jesus signals to us the deep meaning of the human person. "Christ by his incarnation has united himself in some fashion with every person" (Gaudium et Spes, par. 22.).

That is the second reason why the dignity of the human person is thus elevated in the hierarchy of social teaching. (And I'm guessing you might already know the first . . .)

All other teachings flow out and radiate from these core values.

Therefore, via the Incarnation, one might say that God took on the image and likeness of a man.

Hey, wait a minute – Doesn't that sound a bit like Genesis 1:26-27?

The first Creation account declares man and woman were made in the "image" and "likeness" of God! Human persons being made in the image of God precedes the Incarnation of Jesus.

This is the first reason why human dignity is the primordial foundation to all social teachings. Humanity made in the image and likeness of God, and God being made in the image of a man is part of God's plan to redeem humanity; these inner truths unlock the richness of Catholic social teaching. All other teachings flow out and radiate from these core values.

Since something of the glory of God shines on the face of every person, the dignity of every person before God is the basis of the dignity of man before other men (Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching, No. 144).

Indeed, that is a more profound view of humanity and the world than one might see from the pinnacle of Everest.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Pat Gohn. "Something of the Glory of God Shines on Your Face." Patheos (April 13, 2011).

Reprinted with permission of Patheos.

Founded in 2008, Patheos.com is the premier online destination to engage in the global dialogue about religion and spirituality and to explore and experience the world's beliefs. Patheos is unlike any other online religious and spiritual site and is designed to serve as a resource for those looking to learn more about different belief systems, as well as participate in productive, moderated discussions on some of today's most talked about and debated topics..

THE AUTHOR

Pat Gohn is a writer, speaker, and host of the "Among Women" podcast and blog. She holds a Masters in Theology, and a Bachelors in Communications. Her passion is working within Catholic adult faith formation and using media for evangelization and catechesis. Find out more at Find out more at PatGohn.com.

Copyright © 2011 Patheos

Article: The Acts We Perform; the People We Become

FATHER ROBERT BARRON

Pope John Paul II put his finger on a problem typical of our time, namely, that people think that they can do lots of bad things while still remaining, deep down, "good persons," as though their characters are separable from the particular things that they do.

From the 1950's through the late 1970's Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) was a professor of moral philosophy at the Catholic University of Lublin in Poland, specializing in sexual ethics and what we call today "marriage and family life." He produced two important books touching on these matters, The Acting Person, a rigorously philosophical exploration of Christian anthropology, and Love and Responsibility, a much more accessible analysis of love, sex, and marriage. These texts provided the foundation for the richly textured teaching of Pope John Paul II that now goes by the name "theology of the body." As was evident throughout his papacy, John Paul had a deep devotion to young people, and he wanted them to see the teaching of the church in regard to sex, not as a burden, but as an invitation to fuller life. In the context of this brief article, I would like to develop just one insight from John Paul's rich magisterium on sex and marriage, for I share the perennial concern of older people that too many young people are treating sex in a morally casual way.

Karol Wojtyla taught that in making an ethical decision, a moral agent does not only give rise to a particular act, but he also contributes to the person he is becoming. Every time I perform a moral act, I am building up my character, and every time I perform an unethical act, I am compromising my character. A sufficient number of virtuous acts, in time, shapes me in such a way that I can predictably and reliably perform virtuously in the future, and a sufficient number of vicious acts can misshape me in such a way that I am typically incapable of choosing rightly in the future. This is not judgmentalism; it is a kind of spiritual/moral physics, an articulation of a basic law. We see the same principle at work in sports. If you swing the golf club the wrong way enough times, you become a bad golfer, that is to say, someone habitually incapable of hitting the ball straight and far. And if you swing the club correctly enough times, you become a good golfer, someone habitually given to hitting the ball straight and far.

John Paul put his finger on a problem typical of our time, namely, that people think that they can do lots of bad things while still remaining, deep down, "good persons," as though their characters are separable from the particular things that they do. In point of fact, a person who habitually engages in self-absorbed, self-destructive, and manipulative behavior is slowly but surely warping her character, turning herself into a self-absorbed, self-destructive, and manipulative person. Viewed from a slightly different angle, this is the problem of separating "self" from the body, as though the "real person" hides under or behind the concrete moves of the body. Catholic philosophy and theology have battled this kind of dualism for centuries, insisting that the self is a composite of spirit and matter. In fact, it is fascinating to note how often this gnostic conception of the person (to give it its proper name) asserts itself and how often the Church has risen up to oppose it.

Now apply this principle to sexual behavior. Study after study has shown that teen-agers and college students are participating more and more in a "hook-up" culture, an environment in which the most casual and impersonal forms of sexual behavior are accepted as a matter of course. As recently as 25 or 30 years ago, there was still, even among teen-agers, a sense that sexual contact belonged at least in the context of a "loving" or "committed" relationship, but today it appears as though even this modicum of moral responsibility has disappeared. And this is doing terrible damage to young people.

I might sum up John Paul's insight by saying that moral acts matter, both in the short run and in the long run. For weal or for woe, they produce immediate consequences, and they form characters.

Dr. Leonard Sax, a physician and psychiatrist, explored the phenomenon of the hook-up culture in his book Why Gender Matters, a text I would warmly recommend to teen-agers and their parents. He described that tawdry moral universe in some detail, and then he remarked that his psychiatrist's office is filled with young people – especially young women – who have fallen into debilitating depression, anxiety and low self-esteem. Dr. Sax theorized that these psychological symptoms are a function of a kind of cognitive dissonance. The wider society is telling teen-agers that they can behave in any way they like and still be "good people," but the consciences of these young people are telling a different story. Deep down, they know that selfish and irresponsible behavior is turning them into selfish and irresponsible people – and their souls are crying out. Their presence, in Dr. Sax's waiting room, witnesses to the truth of John Paul's understanding of the moral act.

I might sum up John Paul's insight by saying that moral acts matter, both in the short run and in the long run. For weal or for woe, they produce immediate consequences, and they form characters. And so I might venture to say to a young person, tempted to engage in irresponsible sexual behavior: please realize that, though you may not immediately appreciate it, the particular things you choose to do are inevitably shaping the person you are becoming.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father Robert Barron, "The Acts We Perform; the People We Become." Word on Fire (August, 2011).

Reprinted with permission of Father Robert Barron.

Father Barron's new video series "Catholicism" as described by George Weigel: "This is the most important media project in the history of the Catholic Church in America. A stimulating and compelling exploration of the spiritual, moral, and intellectual riches of the Catholic world."

For information go here.

THE AUTHOR

Father Robert Barron is the founder of Word On Fire and is an acclaimed author, theologian and speaker. He is the Francis Cardinal George Professor of Faith and Culture at Mundelein Seminary near Chicago. Fr. Barron is also the creator and host of the groundbreaking, ten-part documentary series called CATHOLICISM (www.CatholismProject.org). Word On Fire (www.WordOnFire.org) programs reach millions of people and have been broadcast on WGN America, EWTN, Relevant Radio and the popular Word on Fire YouTube Channel. Fr. Barron is the author of, And Now I See: A Theology of Transformation, Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master, Heaven in Stone and Glass: Experiencing the Spirituality of the Great Cathedrals, Eucharist (Catholic Spirituality for Adults), Priority of Christ, The: Toward a Postliberal Catholicism, and Word on File: Proclaiming the Power of Christ.

Father Barron uses his YouTube channel to reach out to people and bring valuable lessons of faith alive by pointing out things that can be learned by watching popular characters of movies and television shows.

Copyright © 2011 Father Robert Barron

Wednesday Liturgy: Upside-down Crosses

ROME, SEPT. 13, 2011 (Zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org)).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: A Mass server recently told me that he has observed that the crucifix on the Holy Father's chair is turned upside down. It is true? If yes, why? I have not observed that myself. -- D.K., Accra, Ghana

A: In all probability what your server observed was a Petrine cross and not a crucifix.

The use of the symbol of the inverted Latin cross stems from an ancient tradition that St. Peter requested to be crucified upside down as he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as his Lord. There is written evidence of this tradition from before the year A.D. 200.

An analogous tradition has St. Peter's brother, St. Andrew, also requesting to be crucified in a distinctive manner. From his death comes the X-shaped St. Andrew's Cross. This cross is represented on the Jamaican and Scottish flags and, along with St. George's and St. Patrick's crosses, on the flag of the United Kingdom commonly called the Union Jack.

Since the Pope is Peter's successor, the inverted cross is a relatively frequent symbol of the Petrine office along with other symbols such as the keys and the triple tiara. For example, such a cross is found in St. Peter's on the brick wall that seals off the Holy Door until the next jubilee year. Also, when Blessed John Paul II visited Israel he used a chair with a Petrine cross on the back. It is quite possible that other papal chairs repeat this motif.

As far as I know, when this cross is used as a symbol it never contains the crucified figure of St. Peter. It is true that the Vatican contains several representations of the apostle's crucifixion, such as that found on St. Peter's Basilica's bronze central door, cast by Filarete in 1445. These, however, are historical figurations rather than religious symbols.

The use of an inverted crucifix with the figure of Christ attached is something entirely different. At the very least it is disrespectful and is often considered as a satanic or anti-Christian symbol. Certainly, some denizens of popular culture have used it in films, music videos, album covers and stage costumes to represent Satan or the Antichrist.

Among some pagan groups a particular form of upside-down cross can represent the Icelandic and Nordic symbol of the hammer of Thor.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Mentioning Names at Communion

ROME, SEPT. 13, 2011 (Zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org)).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

In the wake of our comments on using names at communion (see Aug. 30 (http://www.zenit.org/article-33315?l=english)), a reader from the Byzantine tradition offered some pointers which I believe help us to understand better the context of their practice, to wit:

"Perhaps I as a [Byzantine Ruthenian Greek Catholic] deacon could add some additional insight into the Byzantine tradition's use of names. First, every sacrament is considered a personal encounter with our Lord Jesus, so every one is given using the recipient's first name, 'The servant of God, N., is baptized ...,' 'The servant of God, N., is crowned in matrimony ...,' 'The servant of God, the pious deacon N., is ordained ...,' etc. This use of the name is so important that when one approaches a priest who does not know them for Communion, they should mention their name so that the priest can use it when giving them Communion. (The worst fate possible for a human being is for God to forget them. That is why when we pray for the dead we pray not only for their blessed repose, but also that their memory may be eternal. Not eternal in human terms, but always in God's memory.) Incidentally, the practice among Catholics of the Byzantine tradition is for frequent Communion, just as it is among Catholics of the Roman tradition. Infrequent Communion is the usual practice among the Orthodox rather than the Catholic."

I thank our reader for this edifying and useful contribution.

Related to the topic of receiving Communion, a Vermont reader made the following query: "Recently our pastor 'informed' the extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion in our parish that they may be needed to hold communion services in the event of his absence. He instructed them to consume the Eucharist before distributing Communion. I told him I had learned that such persons are not to 'self-communicate' and are not to receive Communion unless there is another extraordinary minister present who can offer this. My 'information' is hearsay. Please tell me where I can find out the correct procedures."

The correct procedures, as usual, are to be found in the Church's official ritual books. Both the Directory for the Celebration of Sunday in the Absence of a Priest and the Rite of Distributing Holy Communion Outside of Mass foresee the possibility of the minister, whether a deacon or an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, partaking of the hosts by themselves.

The rubric of the above-mentioned rite describes the minister placing the ciborium or pyx upon the altar before introducing the Lord's Prayer and possibly the sign of peace. It then continues: "The minister genuflects. Taking the host, he raises it slightly over the vessel or pyx and, facing the people, says: this is the Lamb of God " After all have responded with the "Lord I am not worthy ," the rubrics continue: "If the minister receives communion, he says quietly: May the body of Christ bring me to everlasting life. He reverently consumes the body of Christ."

Since the concluding rites that immediately follow contain alternative rites for an ordained and a lay minister, it is clear that no distinction is intended regarding the manner of receiving Communion by the extraordinary minister.

The proviso in the rubrics "If the minister receives communion" does not imply a prohibition. In all likelihood it merely takes into account that the minister may not be receiving at this particular service because he or she has already received Communion on the same day.

The "information" received by our reader quite likely stems from an undue extension of the Holy See's reprobation of the abuse in which extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion self-communicate at Mass. Such reprobation might be incorrectly extended to the various circumstances of an extraordinary minister leading a celebration of the Word with Holy Communion in the absence of a priest.