What a Mystery!

Yes!

2006-05-08T11:54:00.000Z

The Da Vinci Code Catechism

For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was proclaimed to you by us, Silvanus and Timothy and me, was not "yes" and "no," but "yes" has been in him.

2 Corinthians 1:19

On The Da Vinci Code & Opus Dei blog, via Openbook

Christ is the Answer

2006-03-28T14:13:00.000Z

A Reflection on the Fourth Week of Lent

Christ is the Answer. But to what? This is the mystery of the meaning of life: Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? As we enter the Fourth Week of Lent, the Church reminds us of the important questions which lead us to the Answer—the Answer to the yearning of our hearts—the Answer to which no Man can be happy without.

Our lives bear the wounds of sin and out of the depths we cry to an Other—The Other—who alone can save us from our folly. Last week we were reminded of the gift of the Law. Indeed, a gift. But what was it for? The gift of the Law points to the Law of the Gift: the undeserved gift—the gift of Grace—the Grace of being born from above as sons of God by adoption in God the Son made flesh.

This is the Grace by which we have been saved through faith. This is the Grace in which we are created to do good works. This is the Grace through which we are called sons of God, and so we are.

But the sign of being His sons is the sign of the Cross. As we journey closer to the Passion, the shadow of the Cross reaches even further into the recesses of our souls. It is on the Cross that Grace perfects Love, For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son. To us he gave His Son, on a Cross, lifted up—a sign of the contradiction of our sins, and a sign of the Love that is stronger than death. Believe in Him, you who behold Christ crucified: you, who as sons, are raised with Christ on the Cross for sinners to see, and that through your total gift of self, they should come, by Grace, to believe in Him and so receive the gift of eternal life.

Brothers, far be it that we should forget that we are His sons. Far be it that we should depart from the Grace of the waters in which we were washed. Far be it that these waters not overflow from the Temples of the Holy Spirit that we are and draw others to Christ, who alone gives the spring welling up to eternal life.

Remember that Christ is the Answer, that it is only in Him that we have that which the heart is restless without: Life—the Life of the sons of God who live forever.

Dei Genetrix

2006-01-01T06:19:00.000Z

"Let us celebrate the motherhood of the Virgin Mary;
let us worship her Son, Christ the Lord."

Invitatory for the Solemnity of Mary, the Mother of God

The meaning of "Subsists"

2005-08-09T01:43:00.000Z

Second Vatican Council:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists [subsistit] in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.

These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium
(emphasis and paragraph spacing added)

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

With this expression, the Council differs from the formula of Pius XII, who said in his Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi: "The Catholic Church "is" (est) the one mystical body of Christ".

The difference between subsistit and est conceals within itself the whole ecumenical problem. The word subsistit derives from the ancient philosophy as later developed in Scholastic philosophy. The Greek word hypostasis that has a central role in Christology to describe the union of the divine and the human nature in the Person of Christ comes from that vision.

Subsistere is a special case of esse. It is being in the form of a subject who has an autonomous existence. Here it is a question precisely of this. The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in this world can be found in the Catholic Church.

This can take place only once, and the idea that the subsistit could be multiplied fails to grasp precisely the notion that is being intended. With the word subsistit, the Council wished to explain the unicity of the Catholic Church and the fact of her inability to be multiplied: the Church exists as a subject in historical reality.

The difference between subsistit and est however contains the tragedy of ecclesial division. Although the Church is only one and "subsists" in a unique subject, there are also ecclesial realities beyond this subject — true local Churches and different ecclesial communities.

Because sin is a contradiction, this difference between subsistit and est cannot be fully resolved from the logical viewpoint. The paradox of the difference between the unique and concrete character of the Church, on the one hand, and, on the other, the existence of an ecclesial reality beyond the one subject, reflects the contradictory nature of human sin and division.

. . .

Whereas division as a historical reality can be perceived by each person, the subsistence of the one Church in the concrete form of the Catholic Church can be seen as such only through faith.

"The Ecclesiology Of The Constitution On The Church"
(paragraph spacing added)

Summa Wrestling

2005-08-09T00:58:00.000Z

Jericho Cane: "I would like to talk to you about Thomas Aquinas."

One of my crazy goals is to read the Summa Theologica from cover to cover (I'm currently at the 1st part, 5oth question). I have 581 questions to go, so if I read a question a day, I should be done in about a year and a half.

But tackling just one article a day can be tough. There are about 3,000 articles in the Summa, which is about eight years of reading.

Why do it? "Because it's there."

Celibacy, as law, expresses the Church's will

2005-08-09T00:03:00.000Z

But the will of the Church finds its ultimate motivation in the link between celibacy and sacred ordination, which configures the priest to Jesus Christ the head and spouse of the Church.

The Church, as the spouse of Jesus Christ, wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her head and spouse loved her.

Priestly celibacy, then, is the gift of self in and with Christ to his Church and expresses the priest's service to the Church in and with the Lord.
Pope John Paul II
(paragraph spacing added)

2005-08-06T01:00:00.000Z

"I'm in . . ."

The Mini Cooper of Catechisms

2005-06-22T18:28:00.000Z

"Compendium of Catechism to be presented June 28" (VIS)

Finally!

More info on this new resource:

The catechism in a post-Christian world (with Joseph Ratzinger)

Letter of John Paul II to H. Em. Card. Joseph Ratzinger for the Preparation of a Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church should contain, in a concise form, the essential, fundamental content of the faith of the Church whose completeness and doctrinal integrity it must fully respect so as to be a vademecum (handbook) that will allow persons, believing or not, to embrace in a general way, the entire panorama of the Catholic faith.

I AM your . . . Mother ?!

2005-06-22T16:19:00.000Z

I finally came across the RCL's "The Faith Connection" bulletin insert that Dr. Philip Blosser mentioned last month. I didn't realize just what I was looking at until I read and reread the title:

Why Is It Okay to Call God "Mother"?

The insert appeals to "a number of Catholic feminist theologians" who "have written in recent years about the negative consequences for the Catholic faith of a narrow reliance on exclusively male imagery . . ."

As bizarre as it sounds, it tries to find support in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, of all places. Since the Catechism states that "God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood," the insert implies that it's okay, therefore, to "relate to God as our Divine Mother".

Dr. Blosser and others have pointed out that there's a difference between being a mother and being like a mother. Fathers can have the motherly attribute of tenderness, but it doesn't make them mothers. And since you call a thing by what it is, you don't call a father—no matter how tender he is—"Mother".

The insert also claims, "In the patriarchal world of Jesus, it would have been quite unexpected to speak of a divine Mother." Sure. But it would've been—and was— absolutely novel to refer to God as "Daddy". And that's just what Jesus taught us to call Him. Abba.

After trying to convince us that calling God "Mother" is "okay," it invites us to pray,

"All Holy God, Loving Mother of us all . . . you are Brother and Sister to me, Mother as well as Father . . ."

Sister, too? To me?

Pope Benedict XVI is familiar with these claims. When interviewer Vittorio Messori mentioned that, "it seems that even a Catholic can maintain (indeed, a Pope has recently recalled it) that God is beyond the categories of his creation. Hence he is Mother as well as Father," then-Cardinal Ratzinger replied,

"This is in fact correct . . . insofar as we place ourselves on a purely philosophic, abstract point of view. But Christianity is not a philosophical speculation; it is not a construction of our mind. Christianity is not 'our' work; it is a Revelation; it is a message that has been consigned to us, and we have no right to reconstruct it as we like or choose. Consequently, we are not authorized to change Our Father into an Our Mother: the symbolism employed by Jesus is irreversible; it is based on the same Man-God relationship that he came to reveal to us . . . But what radical feminism—at times even that which asserts that it is based on Christianity—is not prepared to accept is precisely this: the exemplary, universal, unchangeable relationship between Christ and the Father.

. . .

"I am, in fact, convinced," he says, "that what feminism promotes in its radical form is no longer the Christianity we know; it is another religion . . ."

The Ratzinger Report, p. 96- 97

Mark Brumley also discusses this controversy in "Why God is Father and not Mother".

Are human embryos human beings?

2005-06-14T06:14:00.000Z

This question is often reduced to a religious issue. Can science tell us the answer?

Consider these quotes from an embryology textbook:

"Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (or spermatozoon) from a male."

"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e . an embryo)."

—The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology
(Taken from a sample page at Amazon.com)

Human embryos are human beings. That's a scientific fact.

Interview with the Editor of First Things

2005-06-08T01:37:00.000Z

In Depth: Richard John Neuhaus (BookTV)

The interview was pretty good. He's very articulate.

The St. Lawrence Nine

2005-06-08T01:18:00.000Z

"Rebel Catholics plan to ordain women on river" (Reuters)

Yes, it's been done before. And we're probably going to see this again:

In order to give direction to the consciences of the Catholic faithful and dispel any doubts which may have arisen, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wishes to recall the teaching of the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of Pope John Paul II, which states that "the church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" (n. 4). For this reason, the above-mentioned "priestly ordination' constitutes the simulation of a sacrament and is thus invalid and null, as well as constituting a grave offence to the divine constitution of the Church. Furthermore, because the "ordaining" Bishop belongs to a schismatic community, it is also a serious attack on the unity of the Church. Such an action is an affront to the dignity of women, whose specific role in the Church and society is distinctive and irreplaceable.

—Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, July 2002

Hard truths

2005-06-08T01:00:00.000Z

3. I'm a priest. If I preach about what's wrong with contraception, I'll lose people.

Let me turn that around: If priests don't preach the Church's message about contraception, heaven loses people. Don't be afraid. When Jesus preached the truth, he lost people. But, little by little, he gained even more people. Take courage in the Lord. It shouldn't surprise us that people find this teaching hard to accept. Every Gospel-based life has things which are hard to accept. Should we stop teaching the truth because it's difficult? Of course not. We have the joy and the responsibility before God to preach the truth lovingly, in season and out of season.

The Church won't be renewed without a renewal of family life. And the family can't be renewed without a return to the truths taught in Humanae Vitae. Ignoring this issue can't be an option: In the long run, its cost is too high. Therefore, we should make every effort to better understand the importance of Church teaching in this regard, and witness to it boldly and with confidence.

—Archbishop Charles Chaput

What Vatican I meant by Ex Cathedra

2005-06-07T19:59:00.000Z

There's a discussion on Pontifications about the number of ex cathedra acts (as defined by Vatican I).

Most people say that there are only two: the dogmatic definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. I agree that those are ex cathedra acts, but I'm not sure if that's what Vatican I meant by ex cathedra.

The object of the Vatican I definition is "doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa ecclesia tenendam" — a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

The key word is tenendam (to be held).

According to the CDF's "Doctrinal Commentary", doctrines that have the theological note of tenenda aren't proposed as divinely revealed. Doctrines that have the theological note of credenda, on the other hand, are proposed as divinely revealed.

But what about the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption? They aren't doctrines de fide tenenda, but doctrines de fide credenda.

The Immaculate Conception was defined as a doctrine that's "a Deo revelatam" (revealed by God), "atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam" (and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful). The Assumption was defined as a "divinely revealed dogma".

Since Vatican I was referring to doctrines with the theological note of tenenda, it seems that the dogmatic definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption aren't examples of ex cathedra acts as Vatican I defined it.

On the other hand, I get the feeling that I'm missing something, like "all doctrines that are credenda are tenenda, too," or something like that. It's possible that reading the credenda/tenenda distinction of the "Doctrinal Commentary" into the Vatican I definition is anachronistic.

Perhaps by "doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa ecclesia tenendam", the Fathers of Vatican I really meant to include everything proposed as divinely revealed. If that's the case, then the dogmatic definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are instances of ex cathedra acts as defined by Vatican I.

Living the Faith

2005-05-27T14:31:00.000Z

Last week’s RCIA discussion on the Catholic vision of human sexuality went well.

As I was preparing for my presentation, I was struck at how well integrated Catholic sexual morality— especially John Paul II’s Theology of the Body — is with the other doctrines of the Catholic faith.

The Trinitarian dimension of Catholic sexual ethics, for example, can be seen in the mutual self-donation of persons in communion. The Incarnational aspect is visible in the “en-fleshing” of the marriage vows through conjugal consummation. And then there’s the Eucharistic meaning as well — “This is my body given for you.” All of these aspects and more fit into the call to holiness in matrimony. It’s really beautiful stuff.

It’s too easy to draw a line between what we believe and how we should live and isolate faith and morals from each other. It’s refreshing to see that the Catholic Church not only professes the truth but offers the insight to live it with joy, too.

Birth Control = No Birth, No Control

2005-05-27T13:52:00.000Z

and now . . .

"Taking the Pill may lead to permanent loss of sex drive" (telegraph.co.uk)

It reminds me of what Janet Smith said in "Contraception: Why Not?":

Most women complain of:

increased irritability

increased propensity to depression

weight gain

a reduced libido

Now, I don't know about the rest of you women, but I've been looking for a pill that will make me more irritable, more depressed, help me to gain weight, and reduce my libido so I can have sex. And I'm sure all the men would like the woman he's dealing with to be more irritable, more depressed, gain weight more easily, and have a reduced libido, don't you?

via Amy Welborn

Welcome to the family!

2005-05-19T13:31:00.000Z

Pontificator is coming home!

What's "Santo Subito" in Latin?

2005-05-13T15:44:00.000Z

"Pope puts John Paul on fast track to sainthood" (Reuters)

In a surprise announcement to priests in Rome, the Pope told them he had dispensed with Church rules that impose a five-year waiting period after a candidate's death before the procedure that leads to sainthood can even start.

The priests in St John's Basilica broke into sustained applause when he made his comments in Latin, the official language of the Church. He then joked that there was no need to repeat it in Italian since they all understood.

Knowledge serves Love

2005-05-11T02:18:00.000Z

While it is obvious that an ignorant man can be virtuous, it is equally obvious that ignorance is not a virtue.

—F.J. Sheed, Theology for Beginners

To sing is to pray twice

2005-05-10T17:33:00.000Z

Yesterday I bought Franck's Panis Angelicus and Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus from iTunes. I fell in love with these works ever since I first heard them at Sophia University in Tokyo way back in 1997.

I was also looking for Chanticleer's rendition of Franz Biebl's Angelus Domini (Ave Maria), but iTunes didn't have it, so today I bought the Our Heart's Joy CD from the Chanticleer website. It's a fifteen year old recording, but it was remastered just last year. Click here to find an archived rehearsal by the Alliance of Greater Central Ohio (sung at a faster tempo than Chanticleer's).

Last night I filled in for a friend's 11pm-12am slot at the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and for most of the time I had the chapel all to myself (besides Christ being there, of course). After having listened to Panis Angelicus and Ave Verum Corpus over and over again, I thought, why not sing in here? I looked around in one of the hymnals and found the chant settings for the ordinary of the Mass. I was a bit hesitant — I'm not that confident about my singing abilities, but I was pleasantly surprised when I gave it a shot.

Singing to the Blessed Sacrament — I'll definitely try that again when I'm alone in the chapel.

God became Man right here

2005-05-10T16:52:00.000Z

There came a Man, a young Man, who entered the world in a certain town, a certain place in the world that can be identified on a map, Nazareth. When one goes to the Holy Land, to that little town, and enters the shadowy hut where there is an inscription on the wall that reads Verbum hic caro factum est (the Mystery of God, here, was made flesh), he is overcome by shivers. This is the Man Jesus of Nazareth, chosen to be the humanity of the Word, the humanity of God, God who is the answer to the heart of man whom He created, the complete, superabundant answer to the cry of the heart He created; the cry that reverberates in the mystery of the Trinity through the presence brought about by the spirit of a Jewish Man, born of a 17-year-old woman.

— Msgr. Luigi Giussani

Bowing

2005-05-10T16:44:00.000Z

At last Sunday’s Mass, I bowed, as I always do, during the line of the Creed in which we say, “by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

I must confess that saying the Creed sometimes gets to be mechanical, but something was struck me this time: the wonder of just I was saying. The Word becoming flesh. Spirit assuming Matter. God becoming Man.

The Incarnation.

It’s entirely fitting that the Church asks us to bow (and at Christmas, kneel) during this part of the Creed. We’re witnessing to the gift of a Person who embodies everything that God ever wanted to say to us. In saying the words and moving our bodies, we're drawn into the mystery of the Incarnation, in which Word and Body come together.

They have a friend in Rome

2005-05-09T15:02:00.000Z

Terry Mattingly on the the relationship between Benedict XVI and those affliated with the Traditional Anglican Communion inside the Church of England: Anglicans meet Rome's Big Ben

You might remember the letter that the then-Cardinal Ratzinger sent to the American Anglican Council's Plano-West conference, which was called in response to the ongoing ECUSA same-sex controversy.

Mattingly mentions Dr. Peter Toon, who, like the current Pontiff, is a big fan of ad orientem.

via Insight Scoop

What's next, Liturgical Tai-Chi?

2005-05-09T14:33:00.000Z

An op-ed piece in the LA Times takes on liturgical orientation: Grappling With Catholic Feng Shui.

The author tries his best to describe Pope Benedict's views, but he could've been more sympathetic. And he predictably frames the issue in terms of political categories.

It's odd to describe ad orientem as the priest having "his back to to the people", but that's forgivable. "Turning the altar around," is just as bad, but I can take that.

But "feng shui"?

via Amy Welborn

Take courage

2005-05-09T06:23:00.000Z

In today's Gospel, Jesus says,

In the world you will have trouble,
but take courage, I have conquered the world.

It's tempting for us to think that if we pray, go to church every Sunday and be "good" that we'll be free of heartache. But Jesus reminds us that while we are not of the world, we are definitely in it.

The world is at War. Hostilities have been going on ever since the Fall. We will suffer and die. We will watch our loved ones suffer and die. Pain is inescapable, whether we're Christian or not. But especially, if we're Christian— the Head carried His Cross, and so shall the Body. As Jesus says, we will have trouble, for we are in the world.

Why not despair, then?

No. Jesus tells us that He has conquered the very world in which we suffer. We are to take courage. But the Cross is oh, so heavy. Still, Jesus whispers, take courage! But I can't! Yes, you can! He says. I will be with you.

Jesus had already conquered the world even as the world was preparing to conquer Him. And try they did. The world gave their best shot. And for a short while, that seemed like forever, they looked like they won. But it was to their own defeat. For He had already conquered them.

The members of the Body are making present in the sufferings the Head who conquers. Like Jesus, we will be in the world. We will have trouble. We will cry out for deliverance and be delivered into suffering. But we will win. For Jesus has already conquered the world. And so shall we.

Struggle. Bleed. Weep.

And take courage —

A little while longer, our sorrow shall turn into joy.

Woman, Motherhood and Mary

2005-05-09T04:39:00.000Z

The greatest human person in the Church is not a man, but a woman. The Woman. No deacon, priest or bishop — not even the Pope — can come even close.

The sanctity of the Blessed Virgin Mary points to the greatness of motherhood, and of our own mothers.

Happy Mother's Day, Mom!

Imperial march

2005-05-09T04:18:00.000Z

I watched Attack of the Clones again last night.

The first time was somewhat entertaining, but I felt deflated at the end. Sure, the Yoda-swinging-his-lightsaber sequence seemed to be worth the non-matinee ticket price. At that time, anyway. But, the acting! Sheesh!

The second time I watched the IMAX version, which thankfully had the silly romance scene cut out — you know, the part that, for a moment, almost looks like the opening for Sound of Music. This time around I noticed how unbearably forced and artificial all the elements were—the special effects, and yes, the acting. I didn't feel like watching it again—not that I hated it.

Last night's viewing was the third, and surely, the last, time. I've just about had it with the acting. I know, it's supposed to be a popcorn movie, but come on! The dialogue sure didn't help.

Will Revenge of the Sith be just as disappointing? Well, Spielberg cried when he saw it, so I guess that means it's pretty good.

I'm keeping my expectations low, just in case.

After that comes Judgment

2005-05-09T02:46:00.000Z

Words from a homily today:

God is not out to "get" us. But in meeting Him we become painfully aware of just how far we've fallen.

Kyrie Eleison.

I swear

2005-05-08T06:52:00.000Z

The Swiss Guards' Oath of Loyalty:

I swear I will faithfully, loyally and honourably serve the Supreme Pontiff [Benedict XVI] and his legitimate successors, and also dedicate myself to them with all my strength, sacrificing if necessary also my life to defend them. I assume this same commitment with regard to the Sacred College of Cardinals whenever the See is vacant.

Furthermore I promise to the Commanding Captain and my other superiors, respect, fidelity and obedience. This I swear! May God and our Holy Patrons assist me!

"Then one by one the new recruits are called by name. Each one advances alone, and with his left hand he grasps the Guarďs standard, holding high his right hand with three fingers open, as a symbol of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he confirms the oath:"

I, . . ., swear I will observe faithfully, loyally and honourably all that has now been read out to me! May God and his saints assist me!

Tradition. Sacrifice. Trinitarian handsignals.

Cool.

And the Oath is sworn in German, too.

[original image source: Reuters]

And Man fully alive is . . .

2005-05-08T05:48:00.000Z

In his talks, Fr. Brian Mullady, OP tells us that, when he was studying at "Berserkeley" during the '60s, it was popular to put up banners that had St. Irenaeus's famous line, "The glory of God is man fully alive".

The problem is that the rest of St. Irenaeus's quote is left out. As Fr. Mullady points out, the quote might suggest "the triumph of secular humanism" when it's wrenched from its proper context. Of course, St. Irenaeus wasn't really saying that radical human autonomy is the key to happiness.

Msgr. Philippe Delhaye discusses the real meaning of this quote in "Pope John Paul on the Contemporary Importance of St Irenaeus":

In fact, this formula was truncated and ended up making the Bishop of Lyon say the contrary of that which he had taught. Man's life is for him the glory of God provided that man remains in contact with his Creator. Shortly after the Council, some theologians and some historians such as Père du Lubac had already protested against this false interpretation. The Holy Father did just as much with the tact which distinguishes him. In his address at Lyon (n. 2), he recalled the authentic and complete text of Saint Irenaeus: "The glory of God is man fully alive, and the life of man is the vision of God. If the revelation of God through creation already brings life to all living beings on the earth, how much more will the manifestation of the Father by the Word bring life to those who see God" (AH IV, 20, 7).

Thus the life of the Christian, in faith as in future vision, is essentially knowing and being known. This is one of the fundamental texts of Christian personalism. The disciple of Jesus is not an isolated being. In order to exist, in order to act, he must know the Christ and his Father and be known by them. Nothing is taken away from human values; they are merely taken up and transfigured. In this, Irenaeus, as the Holy Father said (Address, n. 2), "has been at the same time the theologian of God and of man".

(emphasis added)

To paraphrase Fr. Mullady, Man is fully alive precisely when he is in communion with the Trinity.

On Being and Personhood

2005-05-07T18:54:00.000Z

Are human embryos human beings?

Indeed they are, and contemporary human embryology and developmental biology leave no significant room for doubt about it. The adult human being reading these words was, at an earlier stage of his or her life, an adolescent, and before that an infant. At still earlier stages he or she was a fetus and before that an embryo. In the infant, fetal, and embryonic stages, each of us was then what we are now, namely, a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens. Each of us developed by a gradual, unified, and self-directed process from the embryonic into and through the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages of human development, and into adulthood, with his or her determinateness, unity, and identity fully intact. Although none of us was ever a sperm cell or an ovum—the sperm and ovum from whose union we emerged were genetically and functionally parts of other human beings—each of us was once an embryo, just as we were once infants, children, and adolescents. In referring to “the embryo,” then, we are referring not to something distinct from the human being that each of us is, but rather to a certain stage in the development of each human being—like saying “the teenager” or “the five-year old.”

Are human embryos human persons?

. . . [P]ersonhood is not an accidental characteristic, that is, a characteristic which one acquires at some point after he exists and may lose at another point. One is a human person by being a living member of the human community, a member of the human species. It is true that many people cannot immediately exercise the rational capacities characteristic of members of the species—such as the elderly person with dementia whose rational powers are gone forever, or the comatose person whose rational powers may or may not return, or infants, fetuses, and embryos whose rational powers are still developing. But such individuals are still morally valuable persons, at least to those who value all human beings equally. They are still members of the human community. Being a person is not a result of acquired accidental attributes; rather, it is being a certain type of individual, an individual with a rational nature. And human beings are individuals with a rational nature at every stage of their existence. We come into being as individuals with a rational nature, and we do not cease being such individuals until we cease to be (by dying). We did not acquire a rational nature by achieving sentience or the immediately exercisable capacity for rational inquiry and deliberation. We were individuals with a rational nature even during the early childhood, infant, fetal, and embryonic stages of our lives. If we are persons now, we were persons then. We were never “human nonpersons.”

—Robert P. George and Patrick Lee, "Acorns and Embryos"

[via Amy Welborn]

Should I start a latin chant schola?

2005-05-07T14:13:00.000Z

The Blueprint: Sacred Music in Your Parish

I can't direct. I sure can't read notes, much less Gregorian chant notation. And, oh, I can't sing (well, anyway), either.

But this sure sounds like a great idea!

[via St. Cecilia Schola Cantorum]

A virtual St. Columba

2005-05-07T14:04:00.000Z

Unlock the mysteries of the Loch with the new Urquhart Castle Cam!

The Church needs Mary

2005-05-07T14:00:00.000Z

To use the very formulations of Vatican II, Mary is "figure", "image" and "model" of the Church. Beholding her the Church is shielded against the aformentioned masculinized model that views her as an instrument for a program of social-political action.

In Mary, as figure and archetype, the Church again finds her visage as Mother and cannot degenerate into the complexity of a party, an organization or a pressure group in the service of human interests, even the noblest.

If Mary no longer finds a place in many theologies and ecclesiologies, the reason is obvious: they have reduced faith to an abstraction. And an abstraction does not need a Mother.

—Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report
(paragraph spacing added)

Conscience

2005-05-07T13:50:00.000Z

Notes based on a talk by Msgr. William Smith, Professor of Moral Theology, St. Joseph's Seminary at Dunwoodie, Archdiocese of New York

“Follow your conscience” is slogan we often hear. It’s true insofar as we must always act on a certain conscience and never act on a doubtful one.

This maxim presupposes a prior responsibility: the proper formation of conscience according to what is true.

The proper formation of conscience is a personal responsibility. Others can help us, but it's always up to us—and no one else—to form our consciences correctly.

We're taking in information all the time. And information forms our consciences. If my only source of information is MTV, then I'm going to have an MTV conscience. Is an MTV conscience aligned with “True North”?

I could and do make the claim that I'm Catholic and that I have a conscience. But just because I make those claims doesn’t guarantee that whatever I say is Catholic or conscientious. Why?

I could be mistaken about what the Catholic Church teaches.

Or, I could know what the Catholic Church teaches but apply it improperly.

Or, I could know what the Catholic Church teaches, but be selective: I might cling to what the Catholic Church teaches on social justice because I like it, but turn a deaf ear to what the Church teaches on contraception because what the Church says on that cramps my style.

If I make the claim to be Catholic, then clearly, what the Catholic Church teaches is the most important factor in the formation of a Catholic conscience— a correct Catholic conscience. This formation continues throughout life.

The correct formation of conscience is a very important thing. We don't want a dead conscience, or a conscience that's corrupted by a corrupt lifestyle. We don’t want to have a conscience that’s not aligned with reality. We want to have a conscience that’s in tune with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

We want to have a truth-full conscience because it is the truth that will set us free. We must, therefore, be and continue to be the disciples of Jesus, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

We're not???

2005-05-07T02:45:00.000Z

We humans are not the center of the universe, and the world owes us nothing.

—Charley Reese, "New Pope"

[via A Saintly Salmagundi]

Thoughts on my recent trip to Gotham

2005-05-07T00:49:00.000Z

Food

Toasted bagels and cream cheese. Excellent stuff. Why can't they make them this good in Texas?

Chicken quesadillas at Chevy's on 42nd and 8th. Almost as good as Ninfa's. (On the other hand, maybe I'm just being generous) I know, I know . . . New York City?!

Chantico. Umm . . . chocolate . . . What?! 390 calories in 6 ounces!?

Dried anchovies, rice and mung-bean cake are passable on a budget.

Faith

11:00 Mass (1962 Missal) at St. Agnes. The chant was top-notch. I love the reverence, but the more I go to the so-called "Tridentine" Mass, the less I long for it. I'm going to the 12:30 PM so-called "Novus Ordo" Latin/English Mass the next time.

Came across a street preacher on the way to Chevy's. Loud. Obnoxious. Passionate. Loved his message ("Come to JEE-SAS! Abortion is wrong!!!"). I thought about asking him if he was Catholic.

Re-read The Ratzinger Report. The guy's brilliant. And now he's Pope! Yay!

Friends

Went out with a friend whom I haven't seen in ten years. Had deep conversations on life, God and hope. Now I feel more inspired than I have been in years! Thanks, Tippy!

Family

Visited my 79 year-old grand-aunt in Long Island. She's in the ICU, looking beat up after her triple bypass. She suffered from a blood clot after the surgery and had to have another operation. We prayed the Sorrowful Mysteries by her bedside. I prayed that I could have the gift of healing to restore her back to health. Redemptive suffering means a lot now. It was sad to hear my relatives say to her, "Don't leave us . . ."

And now for something totally different

2005-05-06T21:39:00.000Z

The Loch Ness Monster isn't a zeuglodon (d'oh!) or a plesiosaur (double d'oh!) but a . . .

Drumroll please! (Highlight to read)

A giant mutant eel!

Tada!

So says Steve Alten, author of the new cryptozoological thriller, The Loch. He claims to base his ideas on recent discoveries, like massive tracks and a four inch-long tooth.

Umm . . . the mother-of-all-Unagi-don's.

Dogma

2005-05-06T21:31:00.000Z

"It's doctrine, not dogma," said one deacon about a teaching of the Catholic Church that some prospective Catholic converts had trouble figuring out. But just what is a dogma?

If we go by the the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 1973 declaration Mysterium Ecclesia, a dogma is a doctrine that’s an "object of the Catholic faith" and is "divinely revealed". It "must be believed with the same divine faith".

All dogmas, therefore, are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas.

Dogmas seem to be the same thing as doctrines "de fide credenda", which we find described in the CDF's 1998 "Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei" (no. 5, 8-9, 11).

The CDF provides some examples of truths in this category:

The articles of faith of the Creed
The various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas
The doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace
The doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration
The foundation of the Church by the will of Christ
The doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff
The doctrine on the existence of original sin
The doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death
The absence of error in the inspired sacred texts
The doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.

What about the teaching that only men can be priests?

If the term “dogma” is restricted to doctrines de fide credenda, then the teaching that priestly ordination is reserved to men alone is not, in this sense, “dogma”. It’s not a doctrine de fide credenda, but a doctrine de fide (or “sententia definitive”) tenenda.

It is, however, infallible.

Whether it's infallible that only men can be priests

2005-05-06T19:03:00.000Z

It’s been over a decade since Pope John Paul II declared that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”

This declaration was to remove “all doubt . . . regarding a matter of great importance.” Yet, as we’ve seen in the media coverage of John Paul II’s death and the election of Benedict XVI, some doubt about this teaching appears to remain among a number of Catholics.

Needless to say, John Paul II's declaration caused quite a stir. A year later, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a Reply, stating that the teaching that priestly ordination is reserved to men alone pertains to the deposit of faith.

The congregation explained that “this teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

On the very same day, the Prefect of the CDF presented some reflections on the congregation’s Reply. According to the Prefect, the CDF confirmed that the the teaching on male-only priestly ordination was "definitive tenenda" — a particular doctrinal category that’s explained in the CDF’s "Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei," published in 1998.

According to the “Doctrinal Commentary,” truths that are “sententia definitive tenenda” are to be given “full and definitive assent”. This kind of assent is based on “faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.”

Yes, the nature of the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women is infallible. This teaching, as the Prefect of the CDF (now Pope Benedict XVI) confirmed, requires “full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church.”

Holiness and Art

2005-05-06T16:51:00.000Z

The only really effective apologia for Christianity comes down to two arguments, namely the saints the Church has produced and the art which as grown in her womb.

Better witness is borne to the Lord by the splendor of holiness and art which have arisen in the community of believers than by clever excuses which apologetics has come up with to justify the dark sides which, sadly, are so frequent in the Church's human history.

If the Church is to continue to transform and humanize the world, how can she dispense with beauty in her liturgies, that beauty which is so closely linked with love and with the radiance of the Resurrection?

No. Christians must not be too easily satisfied. They must make their Church into a place where beauty—and hence truth—is at home. Without this the world will become the first circle of hell.

—Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report
(paragraph spacing added)

Re-turning to the East?

2005-04-22T19:05:00.000Z

Prior to the 1970's, Mass was commonly celebrated towards geographical or liturgical east (priest turning his back to the people—a puzzling description, I know).

The versus orientem posture can still be seen in Masses celebrated according to the Roman Missal of 1962. But it's not limited to the so-called "Tridentine" Mass: Our Lady of Walsingham, The London Oratory, Church of St. Agnes and others celebrate Mass according to the current Roman Missal facing liturgical east.

It's often said that Vatican II "changed all that". Yet, the Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy—or any other Vatican II document, for that matter—mentions nothing about the direction the celebrant should face. It's certain that the Council didn't mandate that Mass should be celebrated versus populum ("towards the people").

Some may assert that the General Instruction to the Roman Missal instructs the celebrant to face the people through the entire liturgy, but Frs. Cullen and Koterski show that that cannot be sustained and demonstrate that the GIRM suggests otherwise. Fr. Joseph Fessio (who studied under the new Pope) and U.M Lang argue in favor of versus orientem for similar reasons.

In the The Spirit of the Liturgy, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger proposed restoring the versus orientem posture. In an interview he said,

Versus orientem, I would say could be a help because it is really a tradition from the Apostolic time, and it’s not only a norm, but it’s an expression also of the cosmical dimension and of the historical dimension of the liturgy. We are celebrating with the cosmos, with the world. It’s the direction of the future of the world, of our history represented in the sun and in the cosmical realities. I think today this new discovering of our relation with the created world can be understood also from the people, better than perhaps 20 years ago. And also, it’s a common direction – priest and people are in common oriented to the Lord. So, I think it could be a help. Always external gestures are not simply a remedy in itself, but could be a help because it’s a very classical interpretation of what is the direction of the liturgy.

Now that he's Pope, some may wonder if the traditional orientation will be restored. Maybe. Maybe not. In The Spirit of the Liturgy, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote,

Ought we really to be rearranging everything all over again? Nothing is more harmful to the liturgy than a constant activism, even if it seems to be for the sake of genuine renewal. I see a solution in a suggestion that comes from the insights of Erik Peterson. Facing east, as we heard, was linked with the “sign of the Son of Man,” with the Cross, which announces the Lord’s Second Coming. That is why very early on the east was linked with the sign of the Cross. Where a direct common turning towards the east is not possible, the cross can serve as the interior “east” of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community. In this way we obey the ancient call to prayer: “Conversi ad Dominum,” “Turn to the Lord!” In this way we look together at the One whose death tore the veil of the Temple — the One who stands before the Father for us and encloses us in his arms in order to make us the new and living Temple.

Mass celebrated versus populum with an altar cross that functions as a virtual iconostasis seems to be a reasonable solution for most parishes today. Some congregations (and priests!) may already be receptive to trying out the traditional orientation, and so celebrating Mass versus orientem at least occasionally could be a viable option. In "Celebration of Mass Ad Orientem in a Parish Setting," Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek shows that it can be done.

I think the versus orientem posture should be given a chance—with proper catechesis beforehand—like any of the other options in the current missal. There's something to be said about being on the same side of the altar as the celebrant. Being oriented together reveals a unique dimension in the liturgy that isn't as apparent when the celebrant faces the people.

It bears keeping in mind, however, that while versus orientem is desirable, the now-Pope Benedict XVI recognized years ago that it's more helpful to implement liturgical developments gradually. Imposing drastic changes overnight, "even if it seems to be for the sake of genuine renewal," might not be as prudent, as we've witnessed in the years following—but not because of—Vatican II.

"He deserves death."

2005-04-22T03:46:00.000Z

I found this passage from The Fellowship of the Ring on Amy Welborn's discussion of the now-Pope Benedict XVI and capital punishment:

". . . O Gandalf, best of friends, what am I to do? For now I am really afraid. What am I to do? What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!"

"Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity."

"I am sorry," said Frodo. "But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum."

"You have not seen him," Gandalf broke in.

"No, and I don't want to," said Frodo. "I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death."

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. . . ."

I might also suggest the final encounter between Frodo and Saruman in The Return of the King.

JPII's been busy

2005-04-20T19:04:00.000Z

Check out Fructus Ventris' "Unless a grain of wheat"

With God, nothing is impossible. Even Benny Hinn and Jack Van Impe on the Journey Home program. ;-)

Well. Someday.

Keep praying!

[via Amy Welborn]

Answering the "Your Pope was a Nazi" charge

2005-04-20T14:48:00.000Z

New Pope Risked Death by Deserting in WWII (Associated Press)

Ratzinger a Nazi? Don't believe it (The Jerusalem Post — registration required)

[via The Corner]

On labels

2005-04-20T07:02:00.000Z

Conservative Catholic? Liberal Catholic? Here's what Pope Benedict XV wrote in 1914:

"It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as 'profane novelties of words,' out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: 'This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved' (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim 'Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,' only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself."

—Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum 24

Getting to know Pope Benedict XVI

2005-04-20T04:32:00.000Z

Available online from EWTN RealAudio:

9/2003 Interview with Raymond Arroyo — Listen or Download

10/2000 Biography by Fr. Charles O'Connor — Listen or Download

And please remember to pray for him!

Beyond politics

2005-04-19T23:36:00.000Z

Truth is neither liberal nor conservative.

2005-04-19T16:04:00.000Z

Habemus Papam!

Grace is free, but it sure ain't cheap

2005-04-18T18:30:00.000Z

"The mercy of Christ is not a cheap grace; it does not presume a trivialization of evil. Christ carries in his body and on his soul all the weight of evil, and all its destructive force. He burns and transforms evil through suffering, in the fire of his suffering love. The day of vindication and the year of favor meet in the paschal mystery, in Christ died and risen. This is the vindication of God: he himself, in the person of the Son, suffers for us. The more we are touched by the mercy of the Lord, the more we draw closer in solidarity with his suffering – and become willing to bear in our flesh 'what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ' (Col 1, 24).

. . .

"All people want to leave a mark which lasts. But what remains? Money does not. Buildings do not, nor books. After a certain amount of time, whether long or short, all these things disappear. The only thing which remains forever is the human soul, the human person created by God for eternity. The fruit which remains then is that which we have sowed in human souls – love, knowledge, a gesture capable of touching the heart, words which open the soul to joy in the Lord. Let us then go to the Lord and pray to him, so that he may help us bear fruit which remains. Only in this way will the earth be changed from a valley of tears to a garden of God."

—from the Homily at the Mass for the Election of the Roman Pontiff

Married Priests: Why Not?

2005-04-15T03:09:00.000Z

Ever since Pope John Paul II died, we've been incessantly bombarded by campaigns for married priests. The usual MSM talking heads gleefully tell us that as fewer men are ordained priests the Church will have no choice but to drop its celibacy requirement.

It's tempting for the Catholic to respond that this discipline is just that—a discipline. "It's not a Church teaching like the Incarnation. The Pope could, if he wishes to, end mandatory celibacy," or so the usual Catholic apologetic goes. Discipline, not dogma, in other words.

The usual defense for this discipline include the appeal to Christ's own single state (unless you buy Dan Brown's "research"), St. Paul's advice that all remain unmarried, like himself, as well as the practical reason, that it's difficult to be a priest and a married man at the same time. These arguments have their merits, but its also helpful to examine the witness of early Church history.

For the past few days I've been listening to a lecture on clerical celibacy by Fr. Daniel Callam of the University of St. Thomas. What follows are some of my notes. I’m still trying to process the information he’s provided and so not everything of what I write next is necessarily what I've made my own. This entry is going to be long and perhaps a little confusing.

Fr. Callam's historical survey of the Church's discipline reveals that it may actually be Apostolic in origin. You read that right—mandatory clerical continence/celibacy likely comes from the Apostles themselves.

It's a bold claim.

First, the status quo. Most of us are aware that since the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church has ordained married men as permanent deacons. Some of us know that the Orthodox Churches have married priests. Even fewer of us have heard of married priests in the Catholic Church. The majority of these married priests serve in the Eastern rites in union with Rome and the rest are minister-converts from the Anglican and Lutheran communions who have been ordained into the presbyterate after joining the Catholic Church.

Here's another very important point: in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, a married cleric can't remarry after his wife dies. Moreover, while married men can be ordained, single clerics can't get married after ordination. Where does this rule come from and can it shed some light as to the origins of mandatory continence/celibacy? We'll return to this question later.

Fr. Callam acknowledges that married clergy existed in the earliest centuries of the Church. We find it the post-apostolic historical record, as well as in the pages of Scripture—St. Peter had a mother-in-law and St. Paul requires that bishops and deacons be the "husband of one wife.”

The issue is whether married men who accepted ordination lived in continence. Did these married clerics (legitimately) exercise their marital rights after ordination, beget children, etc? Or, were these bishops, priests and deacons expected to forgo conjugal relations once they were ordained?

The earliest record we have of obligatory continence/celibacy after ordination dates back to the fourth century. It was, interestingly enough, described by the Second Council of Carthage as "what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed.”

Scholars like Gustav Bickell, Stefan Heid, Christian Cochini and Roman Cholij argue that mandatory continence is indeed an Apostolic ordinance. Heid argues that while you can find married clergy in early Church history, there's no evidence that these clerics married after ordination or that their children were conceived (at least legitimately) after ordination.

If, on the other hand, mandatory continence is a post-apostolic innovation, then we'd have to explain why it was suddenly imposed on the Latin Church in the fourth century.

It can't be for the reasons of a dominant monastic influence, as Fr. Callam once held. The span of time between the arrival of monasticism in the West and the imposition of mandatory continence was just forty years. Moreover, monasticism wasn't widespread, yet mandatory continence was universally imposed in the West.

What about ritual purity? If married priests continued conjugal relations after ordination but abstained the day before celebrating the Eucharist, then it seems to follow that once daily Mass was widespread, priests would be "forced" into permanent continence. Fr. Callam states, however, that Mass wasn't always and everywhere celebrated daily, even until the 6th century, making it difficult to justify the sudden appearance of mandatory continence/celibacy two centuries earlier.

The Church's discipline, therefore, couldn't have been something new when it was put into law in the 4th century. To make sense of the evidence, we'd have to conclude that mandatory clerical continence was an established tradition by the time Carthage called it "what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed."

But St. Paul's requirement for married bishops and deacons needs to be addressed. Fr. Callam explains that "Husband of one wife” isn’t directed against polygamous candidates, as is commonly argued in Catholic apologetics. The term does exclude a man who remarries after his wife dies. Remarrying may indicate the lack of self-control and the inability to live in continence.

This brings us back to the question asked earlier: where does the clerical obligation to not marry after ordination come from? To reiterate, once a married man is ordained, he can’t remarry if his wife dies. Similarly, an unmarried cleric can’t enter into the married state after ordination.

If all clergy were expected to relinquish conjugal life after ordination, then not entering into marriage after ordination makes sense.

How is this so? If a married priest promised to live in continence, he couldn’t have any more children. Since he couldn’t have any more children, there's no reason to remarry after his wife dies. Hence, we have the ancient tradition, which continues to this day, of clerics not entering into marriage from the time of ordination. (I know, I'm probably missing a step—I'll have to listen to this part of the lecture again.)

But what do we make of the practice of allowing married clergy to continue using their marital rights? As noted earlier, married Catholic priests and deacons aren’t bound to continence. This holds true for married Orthodox clergy, as well— except for bishops, who are required to be celibate. (Apart from Bickell et al.'s "mandatory continence is Apostolic" theory, there doesn't seem to be a way to explain the celibate-bishop rule).

The concession on non-continent priests and deacons, which Fr. Callam describes as a novelty, seems to originate from the seventh-century Council of Trullo. It just doesn't have the evidence of being Apostolic.

Fr. Callam concludes his lecture by briefly speaking on the theology behind mandatory clerical continence/celibacy, but I hope to go into that in a future entry. There's a lot of material here to think about.

Mass in more than one language

2005-04-11T20:00:00.000Z

John Paul II's funeral Mass has demonstrated quite adequately for me that multilingual liturgies can work really well— if a non-vernacular liturgical language, like Latin (and Greek), is preserved for the Ordinary.

The first and second readings, homily and intercessory prayers can be spoken in the various vernacular languages, as it was at the funeral Mass. Everything else, including the Responsorial Psalm and the Gospel can be chanted in Latin.

A multilingual Mass that has these elements might be able to minimize the tension of having one ethnic group feeling left out.

For example, which language is to be used for the reading of the Gospel: English or Spanish? What about the Eucharistic prayer? Will the Spanish speakers consider themselves excluded if it's in English? Will we pray the Lord's Prayer in Spanish and just have the English speakers whisper along in the English (or as I've witnessed at one Mass, everybody prays the Our Father out loud in their own language)?

Multilingual Masses are often suggested to promote unity in diverse parishes. I think there's a lot of potential there, and having Latin (and Greek—remember the Kyrie) for the Ordinary might help in furthering that end.

Terri won't be the last

2005-04-11T18:46:00.000Z

"Thousands of ethicists and bioethicists, as they are called, professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on its way to becoming the justifiable, until it is finally established as the unexceptional."
—Fr. Richard John Neuhaus

"Beware of letting the unacceptable become the norm," John Kass

"A regrettable limit on life," John Leo

"More on Mae Magouirk and her Delivery from Certain Death," BlogsForTerri

[via Christianity Today and Thrown Back]

Wiping away our tears

2005-04-11T04:16:00.000Z

If you attended Easter Vigil Mass two weeks ago you might remember hearing the "Exsultet" at the beginning of the liturgy. This hymn boldly proclaims the mystery of the Resurrection, which is especially poignant in these nine days of mourning for Pope John Paul II.

"This is the night of which it is written: And the night shall be as light as the day, and the night is my illumination in my delights . . ."

With our hope in the Resurrected Christ, sung gloriously in the Easter Proclamation, we anticipate that Day when Our Lord will "wipe away every tear from [our] eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:4).

Pope John Paul II bore that hope in his life, suffering and death. May he rest in peace and be brought to the joy of the resurrection. Amen.

"The Great" on Conscience

2005-04-09T19:17:00.000Z

"Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium.

"As the [Second Vatican] Council affirms: 'In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself' [Dignitatis Humanae 14].

"It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians. This is so not only because freedom of conscience is never freedom 'from' the truth but always and only freedom 'in' the truth, but also because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith.

"The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it."

—Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 64
(edited for readability)

Remembering his call to holiness

2005-04-09T02:32:00.000Z

This morning I and almost 2,000 other Houstonians said goodbye to Pope John Paul II—the only successor of Peter many of us ever knew.

I arrived at the University of St. Thomas at about 11 o'clock last night. There were already hundreds of people waiting for Metro buses to take them to Sacred Heart Co-Cathedral for a procession in memory of the Holy Father. It was exciting to see—the energy of the youth (and the young at heart) reminded me of my experiences at the 2002 World Youth Day in Toronto.

I ran into many friends and acquaintances there: fellow pilgrims from the 2002 WYD, former classmates and teachers, friends in the pro-life movement. I met with blogger Bill Cork, too, and we shared our amazement at the turnout and the dedication of the students who helped organize the event.

I expressed my thanks to Jim McInvale, the owner of Gallery Furniture, who bought a one-page ad in the Houston Chronicle to spread the word about our memorial and helped in many other ways. I was moved by his humility, generosity and devotion.

The Metro buses dropped us off by the parking lot of Sacred Heart, where a thousand people had already gathered. The local news media were there in force, no doubt impressed by the activity on the lot. The Polish members of our group sang enthusiastically.

At around 12:30 AM, we began our procession, singing songs familiar to many in campus ministry. It was quite a sight: the procession stretched over several blocks. We carried banners and candles, which bathed us in a soft glowing light. We passed by several apartment complexes and a number of residents stood outside taking pictures of our procession. Many of us were praying in groups, some were praying the Chaplet of Divine Mercy or the Rosary. We sang a bunch of songs in English and Spanish, and we snuck in the Latin Salve Regina.

It was about a two-mile walk to UST, and when we got there we were greeted by giant bright tv screens set up in the university's Campus Life Mall, televising the scene at St. Peter's. It was like taking a pilgrimage to the Eternal City itself. Fellow Christians were already staking their place on the grass, some with portable chairs, others on beach blankets. Free donuts, cookies, fruit and coffee were offered.

Before the funeral Mass began, we had enough time to pray, in Spanish, English and French, the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary, which Pope John Paul II gave to us. Several UST students gave testimonies on how Pope John Paul II changed their lives.

As the televised Mass began, we were all caught up in rapt attention. We clapped when the crowds at St. Peter clapped. We stood together when the Gospel was proclaimed. We exchanged the sign of peace when, unbeknownst to us, representatives of Syria, Iran, Israel and the United States were doing the same at the piazza.

The funeral Mass itself was magnificent. The multilingual crowds were united in prayer and the Latin prayers and chant helped to contribute to that unity. The awesome chants in Greek and Arabic by the Eastern Catholics emphasized just how catholic the Catholic Church really is. Pentecost is weeks away, but it was present in the here-and-now at that Mass.

The whole event gave me the opportunity to reflect on the gifts that I have received through this pontificate. I still marvel at the great encyclicals that Pope John Paul II wrote, especially Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae, and the great gift of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I thank the Trinity for the gift of John Paul II: for the Pope's grace-enabled perseverance in his call to holiness, his devotion to the Mother of God and his fidelity to Christ and His Body, the Church.

Forty Days

2005-02-09T05:12:00.000Z

Ash Wednesday, February 9, 2005 begins the season of Lent. And guess what I'm giving up for Lent this year?

Blogging!

Yes, it's true. What A Mystery! will not be updated until March 27. For the next 40-or-so days I'll restrict my internet use to just e-mail and other essential activities. It's going to be challenging for me to give up blogging and recreational websurfing until Easter but I think it'll be worth it.

I know—my blog is still brand new. I started it last Thanksgiving and so far it's been a blast. I'm thankful that many of you have enjoyed reading my entries. Lately, though, I've had to face what Amy Welborn wrote recently: "[A]re you using the blog or is the blog using you?"

Blogging can be a very intense hobby. I must admit that, at times, I've allowed the intensity of blogging to detract from daily prayer. And that's not good. I hope that abstaining from blogging for these next few weeks will be helpful for my spiritual re-orientation. It's a sacrifice that will put the sting back into fasting, as Fr. Groeschel would say.

So what to do for Lent, besides giving up our favorites? How about Fr. McCloskey's "Seven Daily Habits"? The Liturgy of the Hours is good too. And there's the Stations of the Cross. While we're at it, don't forget the works of mercy. Jimmy Akin also has an impressive assortment of Lenten resources for you to consider.

May God bless you abundantly this Lenten season.

[Fr. Groeschel link via Annunciations]

Eastern-rite Catholics are. . .Catholic

2005-02-08T02:27:00.000Z

Some Roman-rite Catholics have a difficulty with the idea of Catholics in other rites, especially if they look Eastern Orthodox. There's an unfortunate expectation that one can't be Catholic unless one's Roman. It's not surprising that some Eastern-rite Catholics are more than a little put off by a sort of Roman-rite superiority complex.

Here's a selection of pre-Vatican II writings that clarify the place of Eastern-rite Catholics in the Church:

"Eastern Catholic Churches

"The definition of an Eastern-Rite Catholic is: A Christian of any Eastern rite in union with the pope: i.e. a Catholic who belongs not to the Roman, but to an Eastern rite. They differ from other Eastern Christians in that they are in communion with Rome, and from Latins in that they have other rites.

. . .

"It is, in the first place, a mistake (encouraged by Eastern schismatics and Anglicans) to look upon these Catholic Eastern Rites as a sort of compromise between Latin and other rites, or between Catholics and schismatics. . .They represent exactly the state of the Eastern Churches before the schisms. They are entirely and uncompromisingly Catholics in our strictest sense of the word, quite as much as Latins. They accept the whole Catholic Faith and the authority of the pope as visible head of the Catholic Church, as did St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom."
— Catholic Encyclopedia

_________________________________________

". . .In point of fact there is more importance than can be believed in preserving the Eastern rites. Their antiquity is august, it is what gives nobility to the different rites, it is a brilliant jewel for the whole Church, it confirms the God-given unity of the Catholic Faith.

"For that very reason, even as her Apostolic origin is all the more proven especially by these Churches of the East, at the selfsame moment there shines out and is made manifest these Churches' original, complete unity with the Roman Church. Nothing else, perhaps, is so breathtakingly effective for illustrating the mark of Catholicity in God's Church than that striking sight of differing forms of ceremonies and noble examples of the tongues of the ancient past - made all the more noble by their use by the Apostles and Fathers - rendering their submission to the Church. This is almost an image of that most excellent submission that was rendered to the newly-born Christ, the divine Founder of the Church, when the Magi were drawn from the different regions of the East and came to adore Him."
—Pope Leo XIII, Orientalium Dignitas

Eastern-rite Catholics are Catholic as Catholic can be.

To be read at gunpoint

2005-02-08T01:09:00.000Z

In one of his lectures, Peter Kreeft recommended several books for saving civilization as we know it:

Lost in the Cosmos, Walker Percy
Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis
Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis
Everlasting man, G. K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton
Brave New World, Aldous Huxley

Elsewhere he also spoke highly of Thomas Howard's Chance or the Dance, and even Jean-Paul Sartre's Nausea as a way of converting die-hard agnostics!

Give Me That Ol' Time Catholicism

2005-02-08T00:54:00.000Z

Time Magazine takes a look at "Bible-Belt Catholics".

The article describes the newest batch of seminarians as being more conservative than those who entered the seminary in the wake of Vatican II, and how traditional Catholic identity is even attracting numerous converts from Southern bastions of anti-Catholicism.

May their tribe increase!

[via The Thing Is]

Headship vs. Domination

2005-02-08T00:26:00.000Z

"Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord."

Whenever I hear this line from the Letter to the Ephesians read aloud at Mass, I feel the air around me bristle with discomfort. I can almost see eyes rolling in their sockets and hear people shifting in their seats.

I'm inclined to feel pity for the poor reader who gets to read St. Paul's words as he sweats bullets at the ambo. And what happens to the context from which that line is taken from? It's just about ignored.

There's much debate about what St. Paul really meant. You might remember how MSM jumped on the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention resolution that stated, "A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband." (You can read the article of non-Southern Baptist Carolyn Gargaro on her thoughts about this controversy).

Due to the aggressive secularism of 21st century American culture, it's easy to dismiss St. Paul's instruction as just a bygone relic of ancient male chauvinism. For Catholics and other Christians who revere Scripture as inspired by God, rejecting God's Word is not an option. What we really need to do is to figure out what St. Paul was really intending to say in the way that he was saying it.

Fr. Ray Ryland explains what subordination in Christian marriage means in his article, "Wives Be Subject to Your Husbands". He draws some analogies which might clarify how the Pauline concept of "being subject" doesn't detract from equality, and that service—not domination—is the point of the leadership of husbands. Fr. Ryland also has a dialogue with readers who think that his article didn't do St. Paul's words any justice.

Yes, St. Paul's instruction to wives is very difficult for us in this day and age to hear. But I propose that his instruction to husbands is even more challenging:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church. . . "

Disclaimer

2005-02-05T20:17:00.000Z

"[L]et me ask of my reader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go on with me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to join with me in inquiring; wherever he recognizes himself to be in error, there to return to me; wherever he recognizes me to be so, there to call me back: so that we may enter together upon the path of charity, and advance towards Him of whom it is said, 'Seek His face evermore.'

. . .

"If, then, any reader shall say, This is not well said, because I do not understand it; such an one finds fault with my language, not with my faith: and it might perhaps in very truth have been put more clearly; yet no man ever so spoke as to be understood in all things by all men. Let him, therefore, who finds this fault with my discourse, see whether he can understand other men who have handled similar subjects and questions, when he does not understand me: and if he can, let him put down my book, or even, if he pleases, throw it away; and let him spend labor and time rather on those whom he understands.

. . .

"Let him, again, who says, when he reads my book, Certainly I understand what is said, but it is not true, assert, if he pleases, his own opinion, and refute mine if he is able. And if he do this with charity and truth, and take the pains to make it known to me (if I am still alive), I shall then receive the most abundant fruit of this my labor. And if he cannot inform myself, most willing and glad should I be that he should inform those whom he can.

. . .

"Yet, for my part, 'I meditate in the law of the Lord,' if not 'day and night,' at least such short times as I can; and I commit my meditations to writing, lest-they should escape me through forgetfulness; hoping by the mercy of God that He will make me hold steadfastly all truths of which I feel certain; 'but if in anything I be otherwise minded, that He will himself reveal even this to me,' whether through secret inspiration and admonition, or through His own plain utterances, or through the reasonings of my brethren. This I pray for, and this my trust and desire I commit to Him, who is sufficiently able to keep those things which He has given me, and to render those which He has promised."

—St. Augustine of Hippo

The Six Commandments

2005-02-05T19:19:00.000Z

Greg Easterbrook of the New Republic proposes a version of the Commandments that he believes everybody—perhaps even the ACLU—can be happy with. In "The 60% Solution" he refers to Jesus's conversation with the rich young man, and writes,

Quickly now, which commandments did [Jesus] leave out? "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God. Remember the Sabbath Day, and keep it holy." These are the commandments having to do with formal religious observance--from today's perspective, the ones that clash with the Establishment Clause. Jesus' Six Commandments make no mention of God or faith. They could be posted on public property without constitutional entanglements.

Easterbrook's proposal might seem attractive. As one person puts it, "if there's one thing all liars hate, it's being lied to." Most people would hopefully agree that murder, adultery, theft, and bearing false witness ought to be avoided and honoring father and mother ought to be done. Easterbrook reasons that these six commandments (he claims that Jesus deleted [?!] the others) can be appropriately displayed on government property because they have nothing to do with "formal religious observance".

Would it work? Not without running into the very problems that Easterbrook is trying to avoid. I don't know much about the folks at ACLU, but it's possible that they would argue that these six commandments, like the standard ten, still violate (their interpretation of) the Establishment Clause because these precepts come from a religious text. I disagree with the interpretation of the Establishment Clause that expresses an outright hostility to religion in the public square, as the ACLU and others seem to make. Still, it's an argument that can be made, and so I don't think Easterbrook's idea solves anything.

What about Easterbrook's other charge that Jesus deleted the other Commandments (an argument from silence, if I've ever seen one) and that Christians would do well to adopt this "deletion"? Is that what he's really after? A de-emphasis of "formal religion", as he calls it?

It's absurd to argue that Jesus deleted the Commandments that some find politically incorrect. As others have pointed out, Jesus called the commandment to "love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind," the "greatest and first". With the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, they comprise the ediface of "the Law and the Prophets". This shows that Jesus did not do away with the commandments that pertain to our relationship with God. He is all into religion—the binding of God and Man together.

The Commandments—and make no mistake, it is God who commands them—can be taken only as a whole. When we seek to do away with the "First Tablet," the meaning behind the "Six Commandments" risks withering away. A reader of HMS blog submitted the following quote from J. Budziszewski's "The Second Tablet Project," which I think sums up the importance of keeping God in the Commandments:

The Second Tablet depends on the First; whoever denies his duty to God will find, if he is logical, that he can no longer make sense of his duty to his neighbor. Conscience will certainly persist, reminding him of both, but it will seem to him an absurdity in a sea of absurdities. Though he may admit that he has a nature, he will be unable to say why he should keep it. Though he may admit that this nature is governed by certain laws, he will find that their oughtness creeps out the door and that even their prudence slips away. All this will be needless, for he does have the knowledge of God; he merely denies it. But denial only makes his crisis deeper, for lies metastasize, and the greatest lie metastasizes to the greatest degree.

[via HMS Blog]

Mea Maxima Culpa!

2005-02-03T18:47:00.000Z

Jimmy Akin has an entertaining, yet humbling entry on Aristotle's opinion of the young and restless. Here are a few of The Philosopher's observations that I find relevant to my own experience:

Young men have strong passions, and tend to gratify them indiscriminately. Of the bodily desires, it is the sexual by which they are most swayed and in which they show absence of self-control.

They are changeable and fickle in their desires, which are violent while they last, but quickly over: their impulses are keen but not deep-rooted, and are like sick people's attacks of hunger and thirst.

While they love honour, they love victory still more; for youth is eager for superiority over others, and victory is one form of this.

They have exalted notions, because they have not yet been humbled by life or learnt its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things -- and that means having exalted notions.

And of course,

They think they know everything, and are always quite sure about it; this, in fact, is why they overdo everything.

Sigh. Thank God Lent begins next week!

All Karl Keating, All the Time

2005-02-03T16:55:00.000Z

The entire archive of This Rock magazine from its very first issue is now online. It's hard to believe that this magazine got its start in 1990. I read it for the first time around 1996 as I was struggling with my faith.

Here's a couple of gems:

Articles by Bobby Jindal (yes, the young Indian-American recently elected to Congress—you can read more about him here.)

Karl Keating's self-interview on Catholic Answers in its early days.

An account of Catholic Answers at World Youth Day in Denver. (I didn't get to go to Denver, but went to the WYD in Toronto, where I found Phil Lenahan handing out copies of Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth).

There's a bunch of others in those early issues. It's great to see how far Catholic Answers has come and how many people they've helped, including yours truly.

Public Morality

2005-02-03T16:49:00.000Z

As expected, Robert P. George's lecture on "The Obligations of Government and the Responsibility of Citizens" was a great success. Here's a few of my notes (subject to personal fallibility, of course):

"Public morality, like public health and safety, is a concern that goes beyond considerations of law and public policy. Public morals are affected, for good or ill, by the activities of private parties, and such parties have obligations with respect to them" (George's words, as quoted by nationalcoalition.org).

The primary responsibility for upholding public morality belongs to private institutions, like families and churches. Government plays a secondary role by enacting laws. Government should not displace private institutions in preserving morality, and private institutions should not abdicate this responsibility to the government.

Accumulation of private choices affects public judgment. For example, pornography weakens the institution of marriage because it attacks the fidelity of husbands to their wives, teaches boys that women are to be objectified and not to be respected as persons, and even teaches girls that they don't have to demand that men give them the respect they deserve.

Laws have an impact on how people view things. For example, legalizing no-fault divorce has altered public perception of marriage from being something that's permanent to something that's breakable. Now people are getting into marriage with this fragility in mind (I think it might explain, in part, the huge number of nullity cases in the Catholic Church).

Laws can't affect the individual as the family can. When private institutions fail at doing their job, laws are practically powerless at stopping the erosion of public morality. But since laws have an effect on behavior, government should enact laws prescribing vices that attack public morality, even if these laws are enacted merely out of principle and not enforced to the fullest extent.

Muslims and Christians Together

2005-02-02T20:13:00.000Z

When non-Christian monotheists think of God do they think of the Father?

This question was asked at a colloquium on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Trinity, which I had attended several months ago. St. Bonaventure* supposedly said yes. The reason for his answer has something to do with the Father being the source of the Godhead, as the Council of Toledo affirmed.

However, as the speaker pointed out, St. Bonaventure's answer doesn't work. If Muslims, for example, have the Father in mind when they think of God, then that would make Christians out of them, which is absurd, and St. Thomas would've easily figured that out. While the persons of the Trinity are distinct, they are not separate: the Son reveals the Father and the Father reveals the Son. Therefore, Muslims—and other non-Christian monotheists—can't be thinking of the Father when they think of God.

As I was listening to the lecturer, I had initially thought that St. Bonaventure's answer could help address the controversy as to whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God. If Muslims think of the Father when they think of God, then, I reasoned, it's entirely appropriate to say that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. But as we've seen, St. Bonaventure's answer leads to an untenable conclusion. Yes, we can say that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, but for a different reason altogether. I'll explore that reason in a future entry.

*I think that's what the speaker said. Most of his presentation went way over my head, and I probably misunderstood him. I'd love to examine the text where St. Bonaventure is said to have claimed that position.

Robert George is coming to town

2005-02-01T18:46:00.000Z

I posted this a month ago for those of you in Houston:

Dr. Robert P. George, author of The Clash of Orthodoxies, will be presenting a lecture entitled "Public Morality: The Obligations of Government and the Responsibility of Citizens".

Date: Tomorrow, Wednesday, February 2, 2005

Time: 7:30 p.m.

Location: University of St. Thomas, 3910 Yoakum, Jones Hall

Dr. George is an eloquent defender of human dignity, and so I highly recommend taking advantage of this rare opportunity to hear him speak. I'd get there as early as possible— even an hour before the lecture. Finding free parking at St. Thomas can be extremely difficult and Jones Hall fills quickly.

More info here.

A New Springtime

2005-01-29T12:29:00.000Z

Cardinal George Pell of Sydney writes about the decline of atheism and the resurgence of religion in "God makes a comeback". He quotes a Polish poet who turns Marx's famous statement on its head:

"Religion, opium for the people. To those suffering pain, humiliation, illness, and serfdom, it promised a reward in an afterlife. And now we are witnessing a transformation. A true opium for the people is a belief in nothingness after death—the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murder we are not going to be judged."

There's something reasonable about expecting that we should be held personally responsible for the good and the evil that we do. This in part accounts for what makes religion attractive—it speaks to the truth of our humanity. Judgment makes sense because human freedom is real. And freedom is what makes love possible.

[via Crowhill]

But has he tried the dinuguan?

2005-01-28T03:21:00.000Z

Who knows?! :-D

Defenders of the Catholic Faith's Steve Ray is in the Philippines sharing his testimony and holding conferences on evangelism and apologetics. He seems to be getting a very enthusiastic reception from the Catholic Bishops Conference, local apologetics groups and seminarians. He may not be getting enough sleep, but I'm sure he's getting excellent food!

You can keep up with his progress on his blog.

Brave New World

2005-01-27T20:54:00.000Z

In-vitro fertilization, embryonic stem-cell research, cloning and now this:

"Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy" (National Geographic News)

Several months ago, I discussed the creation of chimeras with a friend of mine, and in our conversation he reminded me of the last time human DNA was "compromised". When was that? "The time of Noah," he somberly replied. My friend was referring to a curious interpretation of Genesis 6:4, which supposedly states that angel-human half-breeds were causing havoc on earth, and of course we know what happened as a result. I think that interpretation is highly unlikely, considering that angels are pure spirits, but it leads to interesting apocalyptic conclusions.

What we're facing in ethics today is no less apocalyptic in scale. Science is raising more ethical questions than most people are ready to answer. A number of scientists are invoking the ends-justify-the-means principle, but we know that good intentions alone can't be foundation of ethics (the horrors of the 20th century attest to that). We could say that it's disgusting to have creatures right out of the Island of Dr. Moreau running about, but that's not a good enough reason to say that chimera production is immoral.

The key to the reason why creating animal-human hybrids is wrong, as with every ethical problem conceivable, has to do with the dignity of the human person. The outcry is largely due to the fact that such experiments in some way compromise our humanity. Articulating how these chimera research projects violate human dignity is part of the challenge, as it's a problem that we haven't quite faced before. The closest experience we have to this controversy is in vitro fertilization.

While IVF doesn't tamper with human DNA, it does create a member of the species homo sapiens—fully human, a person— but whose existence was brought about outside the matrimonial embrace as a product of manipulation. But persons aren't products, for products are objects; persons are subjects, not objects. Perhaps one of the problems with producing persons with human nature, whether through IVF, cloning or animal-human chimera research, is that it objectifies personhood, whether it belongs to the scientist or to the one in a petri dish (and that opens another can of chimeras: is it a person?).

It's interesting how this whole enterprise got started. When society separates procreation and spousal union, people end up manipulating one another in the most fundamental sense. We began with the contraceptive mentality in which husband and wife objectify each other for their own utilitarian ends. With IVF, cloning and embryonic stem-cell research, we've objectified the person that's produced. We've turned Thou's into It's.

A person is a gift of self-giving. He is not to be reduced to a mere object, and we cannot know him—much less treat him according to his own intrinsic worth—by "using" him. He's a subject, and as such we can know him only by loving him—by willing his goodness for his own sake.

After years of chattel slavery, it's surprising that we still haven't learned our lesson.

Preach the Gospel—use words, if necessary

2005-01-27T16:57:00.000Z

Former atheist Mike S. Adams writes about his past experience on what drove him to consider reading a book about Christianity:

"The answer is simple. The advice was given to me by someone who sincerely considered the matter to be urgent. And that sense of urgency was conveyed without a trace of anger. It was just a matter of one human being communicating his concern for another without being pushy and holier-than-thou.

"If a Christian really believes the things he professes to believe, he will go to great lengths to share it with others. He would even crawl on his belly across a desert of broken glass if he thought he could reach an atheist. He would certainly do more than utter profanity and show contempt for the atheist."

—"How to talk to an atheist (and you must)"

It bears mentioning that we might be the only Bible people get to read. I'm a slow learner, though. I've come through too engagements where my pride took over and my conversation partners (or as I saw them at the time, targets) left frustrated and were all the more convinced that Christians were a hypocritical bunch.

Compassion immersed in the desire for truth, yet preserved from relativism and apathy, succeeds where psychological coercion fails.

[via Mere Comments]

The Blessing of Guilt

2005-01-27T15:24:00.000Z

"After the abortion, the girls are brought to the recovery room where there are two reactions. The first is: 'I’ve killed my baby'. It amazed me that it was the first time they called it a baby and the first time they called it murder. That is probably the healthiest reaction. That woman is probably going to have the ability to walk out of there and deal with it, and perhaps be healed and move on.

"The second reaction is: 'I am hungry. You have kept me in here for four hour and you told me I’d only be here for two. Let me out of here'. She is running from her abortion. She is not dealing with it; she’s choosing to deny it. They say it’s now an average of five years before people actually deal with the fact that, yes, they did kill their baby."

—Carol Everett, former abortion clinic worker

Guilt is a healthy thing. It reminds us that we're still human, that we can recognize our mistakes and become whole again. The conscience in pain is the beacon of hope by which we turn our gaze back to God, who makes the greatest saints out of the greatest sinners.

[via Open Book]

Last Minute Man

2005-01-27T03:59:00.000Z

I just came back from giving a presentation for our Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults meeting, and man, am I exhausted!

I had been preparing all week for my talk on the Mystery of the Church and didn't make much progress until the last day or so. Ok, I confess, four hours before class. What got me so hung up was a perfectionistic attitude (as usual) and the frustration of expecting myself to cover everything from the symbols and marks of the Church to the hierarchy to the precepts of the Catholic faith—all in twenty minutes or your money back.

I don't want to say that I'm great under pressure— I'll only convince myself to wait until the last minute for my next presentation. But I must say it's amazing what can happen in just a short amount of time. And I couldn't have done it my own. God had to be behind it.

Besides having to rush through my preparation, I waited until five minutes before class to print my paper. I will never do that again! My printer ran out of ink; Murphy's law couldn't have struck at a worse time. I felt like resigning myself to the dire fate of ad-libbing my presentation, but I rushed to Church and, through the help of one of our deacons and a volunteer, I was able to use one of their computers to print my notes.

How did the class go, you may ask? I think it went well. At least everybody thought so. The rush of things got my creativity going and I managed to talk about my topics under the aspect of our call to holiness and in the context of the Trinity, Incarnation and Grace. Like I said, God had to be behind it all.

Spiritual Makeover

2005-01-26T00:11:00.000Z

From "The Seven Daily Habits of Holy Apostolic People", by Fr. John McCloskey:

1. Morning offering upon waking up
2. 15 minutes of silent prayer
3. 15 minutes of spiritual reading
4. Mass
5. Angelus or Regina Coeli at noon
6. Rosary
7. Examination of Conscience before going to bed

Sounds reasonable, don't you think?

Apologizing

2005-01-25T00:29:00.000Z

Earlier I wrote about an experience of defending the Catholic faith and how I've since matured in my approach. I've become more and more convinced of the paradigm of "arguing to explain," which Karl Keating proposed in his apologetics classic, Catholicism and Fundamentalism.

Aiming to explain and clarify your position, rather than setting off to beat your opponent, gets the job done. It avoids the inflammatory attitude that gets in the way of mutually arriving at truth, which is what really matters.

I've seen apologetics misued a number of times during my college years. While I was manning an apologetics desk with a friend of mine, a curious Evangelical came over to see what we were all about and before you knew it we were having a shouting match on the reliability of Scripture— a subject we had absolutely no disagreement on!

Arguing to explain can help prospective inquirers— even hostile ones— see what the Catholic Church really teaches on a certain issue. Once that's done, apologists can show how the Catholic position isn't contrary to reason or revelation, as well as show how objections against the Catholic position are unreasonable and contrary to the Christian faith.

G.K. Chesterton wrote somewhere that quarrels get in the way of a good argument. We have to make sure that we understand what we're talking about, and being unnecessarily polemical keeps that from happening. It does no good beating a dead horse, or even worse, the wrong dead horse.

Engaging the Culture of Death

2005-01-24T18:00:00.002Z

“They are not moral monsters. They are not Nazis or hatemongers. They are our colleagues and very often our friends. Many of them are doing their level best to think through the moral issues at the heart of our cultural struggle and arrive at conclusions that are right and just. They view themselves as partisans of a culture of freedom. In most cases, they carefully and honestly argue for those choices for death (as Dworkin himself calls them) whose moral worthiness they proclaim and whose legal permission and constitutional protection they defend. As a matter of reciprocity, it is, in my view, incumbent upon us, as their opponents, to engage them in debate, to answer their arguments, and to say why they are wrong. While we must oppose them with resolution and, indeed, determination to win, we cannot content ourselves merely to denounce them, as we would rightly denounce the moral monsters who created a different culture of death on the European continent in the 1930s and ’40s.”

—Robert P. George, The Clash of Orthodoxies

[via First Things]

Prepare for Scandal

2005-01-24T02:13:00.000Z

For the past few years Catholics have been hit hard by reports of outrageous actions by clergy and lay people. It cannot be overemphasized how terrible scandal really is. It's a sin against the fifth commandment, and as we've seen, it can wreck lives. We must be prepared for it.

In "Are We Really Teaching Religion?" Frank Sheed addressed religious educators on helping their students to face the reality of wolves in sheep's clothing (paragraph spacing added for readability):

The Church then is Christ our Lord continuing to do through a body of men the same truth-giving, life-giving work that He did in His own natural Body while He was on earth. But the Church has a human side too, and the young should be shown the implications of this long before they leave school; otherwise their faith is going to be tried very bitterly.

What Christ has guaranteed in the Church — truth without any alloy of error, life by way of the sacraments — is perfect. What the human members of the Church, from Popes to laymen, do on their own judgment varies from the highest sanctity to the lowest depths of sin. It is a wicked thing to leave children to find this out from the Church's enemies when they have left school.

. . .

On this matter of what is called Scandals — varying from great crimes down to ordinary human failings — it is especially urgent that they should learn in school. Otherwise, when they hear them outside, they may begin by denying them and suffer the humiliation of defeat in a needless battle; and their faith may be shaken by a feeling that their teachers never mentioned these things because the Church is afraid of them. They will on this matter, at least, be unshakable if

(a) they have been taught that the Church depends on Christ's holiness, not on men's; and

(b) they realize that they are in the Church for the sake of the gifts of Truth and Life which Christ gives in it, not for the sake of the men through whom Christ gives them: the essential thing they get from the Church is union with our Lord to the level of their willingness to be united.

Sheed has a very good point: Jesus is the reason for our Faith. It's not you. It's not me. It's not the Pope. It's Christ. We need to remember this well. In doing so, we can prevent scandal from completing its deadly course, which is to drive us away from Christ and His Body, the Church.

Religion

Bush, the Natural Law-yer

2005-01-22T20:32:00.000Z

According to Joseph Bottum of The Weekly Standard, the President's inaugural address had "Just the Right Amount of God":

". . . the most interesting things in Bush's inaugural rhetoric are the moments where justifications are offered for the various truths and truisms. The chain of explanation in his speech is always the logical progression of the natural-law argument. 'Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals,' Bush insisted. And why? Because there is, in fact, a universal human nature: 'Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul.' If 'across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government,' the reason must reside in the enduring essence of human beings as simultaneously corruptible and morally valuable: 'Because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.'

"As it happens, a natural-law explanation carries philosophical reasoning a step beyond the mere assertion of a nature for human beings. The problem for ethics is always how to match empirical and logical claims ('Humans want to be free') with moral claims ('Humans should be free'). And, within philosophy, natural law is a way of bridging the gap by asserting a unity of fact and value--based on the endowment of human nature with moral worth by the model on which humans are based. 'From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value,' as President Bush explained. And the reason? Well, 'because they bear the image of the Maker of heaven and earth.'"

As Bottum points out, Bush wasn't appealing to Christian revelation but to something more basic, which all human beings share by the virtue of being human: natural law. When most people hear the term they think of the laws of nature, like gravity. Or they think it means, "what the animals do." Philosophers mean something more specific.

Natural law is based on the truth of our humanity. Human nature is rational. Therefore, to act in accord with human nature is to act rationally. We act rationally insofar as we live according to what is. Natural Law is our participation in that reality. On this foundation we can say that child rape, armed robbery and chattel slavery violates human dignity and that freedom grounded in truth belongs to every member of the human race.

[via HMS Blog]

Current Affairs

Why believe in God?

2005-01-22T17:02:00.000Z

All men, wrote Aristotle, naturally want to know. Knowing things like the latest rumor or scientific discovery or baseball statistic can be really interesting. But such thrills don't last very long. We go from learning about one new thing to the next, but they aren't what we really want to know. Will knowing everything in this existence totally satiate the intellect? No. Not even close.

We might obtain lots of "stuff", which can be very entertaining for a while. And then we get unsatisfied and want newer and bigger toys. Deep down inside, a voice says, "It's not what I really wanted." Oh sure, possessions can distract us, but they can eventually create a much greater desire for something that's beyond our imaginations.

Pascal observed that, "All men seek happiness. This is without exception." We can pile up all the finite examples of truth and goodness that life offers and we'd be left asking, "Is that all? Is there nothing more?" The happiness that endures, experience teaches us, cannot be based on the things of this world.

As hunger points to food and thirst points to drink, our desire for that which surpasses expectations tells us something. What we ultimately want can only be found in Someone: He who Is without end. In this One is infinite Truth and Goodness. Union with God gives us the participation in happiness without limit— the only kind of happiness that will place our hearts at rest.

Religion

Sex and Pizza

2005-01-21T18:44:00.000Z

From J. Budziszewski's "Sex at the Edge of Night":

"Come on, group," I urged. "A question is on the table. What is the point of sex?"

"The point?" asked Peter.

"The point! What is it for? What is its purpose?"

Thus begins the debate. Is it pleasure? Is it "luv" (or what Mary Beth Bonacci calls "pizza love")? Or is it something far greater? And just how do we know?

Let my people go. . .

2005-01-21T15:33:00.000Z

I've been reading Cardinal Ratzinger's The Spirit of the Liturgy and have gotten much to ponder on for the past few days. He gives insightful commentary on the Exodus that I hadn't thought of before.

He mentions how the Exodus events are oriented toward divine service: "Thus says the LORD, the God of the Hebrews: Let my people go to worship me" (Exodus 9:1). Human freedom has a specific purpose, and that is to enter into the gift-giving of self with God, who gives of Himself to us.

Freedom, truth, love, sacrifice and relationship are all bound together.

Homiletic and Pastoral Review

2005-01-21T14:40:00.000Z

It's website is up!

[via InsightScoop]

Revisiting Contraception

2005-01-21T01:38:00.000Z

"The Catholic Church has something against sexual intimacy, and so it's no surprise that it condemns contraception."

That's one the things conventional wisdom says in light of this week's controversy on condoms and the Spanish Bishops' Conference. And guess what? The controversy's great news, because now we have an opportunity to explore the Catholic vision of sex.

There's nothing wrong with sexual intimacy. The Catholic Church believes that God invented it. The gift of sex is ordered to the matrimonial union of husband and wife, and their marital embrace expresses the kind of exchange that's unparalleled in a communion of human persons—that of complete self-donation. The intimacy that results signifies just how profound this act of oneness really is. It's not just a good thing. It's a wonderful thing! And you and I are here because of it.

In the conjugal act, spouses communicate everything they are to one another, saying with their bodies, "I give myself totally to you." But if they're using contraception, then they're going against the language of the body. How? In contracepting they deliberately withhold the part of themselves that's found uniquely in the marital embrace: the gift of procreativity. All is not given.

Thus, with contraception the act of total self-giving becomes a lie. Lying with one's body in the most intense physical expression of love doesn't sound loving at all. In choosing to frustrate the procreative dimension of sex, husband and wife reduce the act that implicitly signifies the gift of self without reservation to nothing more than a way to mutually manipulate one another. Reason alone tells us that "using" others goes against the dignity of who we are. How much more so when we "use" the one we love with our bodies—and deceitfully, at that?

Rather than building sexual intimacy, contraception erodes it.

________________

For more discussion on this controversy, check out Peter Samwel's excellent blog entry.

Current Affairs

Because I said so

2005-01-20T22:42:00.000Z

An authority no less than St. Thomas Aquinas argues that the argument from human authority is the weakest of all arguments. It's awfully compelling, however. Couch potatoes would nod in agreement; arguing that such-and-such is true because so-and-so said it fuels the advertising industry. But, St. Thomas continues, if God's the authority, then there's no stronger argument. God is Truth, after all.

While God has given the Church the authority to teach, appealing to this authority isn't convincing to a number of Catholics, especially when it comes to certain moral issues. Contraception and homosexual activity are two of the big ones. Admittedly the why's behind these Thou-Shalt-Nots aren't always explained adequately by those who have the responsibility of teaching the Catholic faith— if at all. In "What's Wrong with our Seminaries?", Fr. Robert Johansen and the now-Fr. Todd Reitmeyer called it the "Wink-and-Nod" approach, and as they explain, such thinking has contributed to the crisis of dissent that we're suffering today.

We feel an inner rebellion whenever we're subjected to the, "I said it, and that settles it" routine because by nature we want to know why. There's a lot of hypocrisy going around on this point, though: we blindly accept the argument from authority when we're pushing our carts down the grocery aisle, but when the Church says something about sex, all of a sudden we're up in arms. Why the double-standard?

As you might have gathered from an earlier post on nominalism, the argument from authority had been abused for quite some time. The Silly Sixties came along and wore away the moral strength of authority in the eyes of society, and in the aftermath, a number of Christians abandoned their faith. Arguments from authority don't win points among those who don't accept the authority in the first place— or who have rejected it.

That gives us a great opportunity to renew respect for the authority of the Church. All we need to do is to find out and explain the strength of the Catholic position on whatever controversial issue the culture's engaged in. And the Catholic position is very strong. It's just that many people haven't heard it. Yes, arguing to explain is going to take effort on our part; it's not as "convenient" as the Wink-and-Nod approach, but its positive effects are far more enduring. In reasoning together we treat each other according to the dignity of what we are: human persons, who are made to know and love in the image of God, who is Truth and from whom comes the strongest of all arguments.

Religion

Catholic Bible Studies

2005-01-20T00:02:00.000Z

Yes, they do exist!

There are several kinds of Bible Study methods. The first kind is based on programs like those from Catholic Scripture Study, International and Catholic Scripture Study, Incorporated, in which much of the material is already prepared for you. The second kind, which we have at my parish, take a bit more effort on the part of the Bible Study leader to prepare.

This is the way we do it:

Resources:

Catechism of the Catholic Church (use the Scripture index in the full-sized hardbound version)
A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (out of print)
Haydock Bible
Navarre Bible
Ignatius Study Bible (e.g. The Letter to the Romans)
Summa Theologiae (Scriptural index)
Early Church Fathers (New Testament allusions)
Fr. William Most's commentaries (registration required)
Resources from the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology

Personal Preparation (especially for the Bible Study Leader):

Begin with prayer.
Read passages from Scripture that could be covered in one Bible Study session (one to three chapters).
Meditate on the meaning of the passages in light of the two-fold sense of Scripture (see also the Roman Theological Forum's "Neo-Patristic Approach to Sacred Scripture" Study Program to see how this is done.
Be alert for passages that have dogmatic, apologetical, and "universal call to holiness" applications.
Consult the resource materials (especially see how the Scripture passage is used in the Catechism).
Formulate study questions. The Ignatius Study Bible has good examples.
End with prayer.

Bible study group format:

+Begin with prayer.

Sing "Come Holy Ghost, Creator Blest"
Intercessions
Pray "Come Holy Spirit, Fill the Hearts of thy Faithful"
Conclude with an intercession to the parish's patron saint.

+Scripture reading and discussion

The Bible study leader begins by reading a passage of manageable length.
Incorporate material where the Catechism cites the passage.
The Bible study leader then facilitates discussion by asking the study questions, eliciting responses from the participants.
After discussion for the particular passage is concluded, the Bible study leader invites one of the participants to read the next passage.
Repeat 2-4.

+End with Night Prayer (pray psalms in choir) and chant the appropriate Marian antiphon.

Notes:

The first Bible Study session is good for introductions, a discussion on everybody's expectations for the Bible Study and "ground rules" and responsibilities.
The next few sessions should be a reading and discussion of how the Catholic Church reads Sacred Scripture. The "Introduction to the Ignatius Study Bible" and Catechism paragraphs 50-141— in particular 109-119 —are especially suitable.
If the group is very motivated, then reading the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation is a big plus.
The Bible study leader should consider praying one hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament for every hour he leads the group.

Religion

Redemptive suffering

2005-01-19T04:57:00.000Z

We read through parts of Revelation chapter 12 in our parish Bible Study today, and as expected, the Marian images captivated us. There's so much to say about the Woman and her Son that we could end up studying the first few verses of chapter 12 for weeks. What drew my attention this time, however, was the hymn of praise in verses 10-13:

Now have salvation and power come,
and the kingdom of our God
and the authority of his Anointed.
For the accuser of our brothers is cast out,
who accuses them before our God day and night.

They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
love for life did not deter them from death.

Therefore, rejoice, you heavens,
and you who dwell in them.
But woe to you, earth and sea,
for the Devil has come down to you in great fury,
for he knows he has but a short time.

I speculated that this passage connects the time of salvation with the time of martrydom. This hymn is right smack dab in the middle of Satan's persecution of the Woman, as if God is trying to tell us that we can look at our impending doom as our deliverance from evil.

It's certainly not the answer we'd expect. When we're in a crisis we pray that God will rescue us. Yet the hymn gives us the paradox of God answering our prayers precisely by letting us suffer on the Cross with Jesus as He cries out, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"

The implications this has on our lives is truly life changing. It tells us that God is with us even in the midst of suffering, when it feels like God is so far away. As St. Augustine wrote, "God is closer to us than we are to ourselves," and the fact that God became Man, suffered and died, confirms that this is true, even— and most especially— when we're suffering. Christ's Passion is our salvation, and we can be assured that our day of deliverance is at hand when that Passion is made present in us.

Religion

Body Language

2005-01-18T07:42:00.000Z

Christopher brings to my attention a couple of articles on the Theology of the Body, which I think you'll find helpful. They've given me a better grasp of John Paul II's teaching on sex:

"Telling Lies with Our Bodies: What the Pope Thinks About Sex", J. Michael Miller, C.S.B. [registration required]

"John Paul II's Theology of the Body", Christopher West

Here's a great selection from Archbishop Miller's article on "speaking" with our bodies:

"Our sexual actions are a kind of 'body language' through which man and woman speak to each other. Through this language of the body man and woman carry on that dialogue which had its beginning on the day of our creation. This precious gift of being able to 'speak sexually' discloses God's plan for us. God gives us this sexual language to use as He intended.

"When the bride and groom say 'I take you as my wife/as my husband,' they pledge to express their mutual love in conformity with the language of the body. Whenever we speak sexually, the pope says, our expressions are 'subject to the demands of truth, that is, to objective moral norms.' Our sexual 'words'--the actions we use to embody our love--can say something either true or false. 'The body, in fact, speaks the truth through conjugal love, fidelity, and integrity, just as non-truth, that is, falsity, is expressed by all that is the negation of conjugal love, fidelity, and integrity.' Honesty demands that our sexual gestures should mean what they say: our body language should express that God-given meaning unambiguously. A simple rule to judge the goodness of our sexual activity, therefore, is to determine whether it reflects the truth about sexuality as God planned it."

Thanks for your comments, Christopher!

Religion

Sex and the Meaning of Life

2005-01-16T03:07:00.000Z

By now you've probably heard of the Theology of the Body— Pope John Paul II's meditations on the Catholic vision of sex and marriage. It's still very new to me, but here's what I understand about it so far:

In the Trinity, the Father and the Son totally give of themselves to one another in the Holy Spirit. Each person lives in eternal self-donation, holding nothing back. The Triune God made Man in His image, and humanity bears this image in the flesh. The Trinitarian communion of divine persons, therefore, sheds light on the communion of human persons, which we find in marriage.

Jesus reminded us that " . . . from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'[.] So they are no longer two, but one flesh." This "one flesh" union gives us a glimpse of the meaning of sex.

Just by looking at ourselves, we can see that sexuality is ordered to the marital embrace, by which husband and wife say with their bodies, "I give myself totally to you." The language of the body, in other words, reflects the complete and utter self-donation of the Trinity. Through the mutual gift of themselves, husband and wife become so "one" that their love reaches out beyond them. This unitive and procreative significance bears witness to the dignity of the human person, for it tells us that husband and wife participate in the self-giving, life-giving love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It's within this context that we can see just how offenses against the sixth commandment violate human dignity. Sexual sins efface the Trinitarian iconography that's built into our bodies. They turn us from being persons to be loved into being objects to be used. They leave deep wounds because sexuality is deeply rooted in who we are.

From the Catholic perspective, then, sex isn't dirty or evil— it's God's design, after all. Rather, the Church appreciates sex as a gift from the Trinity. Sex is such a mystery, and when we see this mystery unfold through the eyes of faith, we learn more about ourselves and God's love for us.

Anyway, that's my limited understanding of the Theology of the Body. It's certainly countercultural. As George Weigel likes to put it, the modern world often reduces sex into "simply another contact sport." And many people are getting tired of it. Steve Kellmeyer thinks that the reason why the Da Vinci Code is so popular is because it portrays sex as a sacred act. Perhaps Steve's right. The Catholic vision of sex and marriage in the Theology of the Body is what the world's looking for, and it couldn't have come at a better time.

[Image: www.freeimages.co.uk]

Religion

Evangelizing with Annulments

2005-01-15T16:33:00.000Z

Oswald Sobrino has some excellent ideas in "Annulments as a Tool of Evangelization":

So informing Catholics of the Church's laws concerning marriage and declarations of nullity can be a way of educating all Catholics in a pagan culture on the real meaning of marriage and sexuality. Such educational efforts can also be a way of bringing inactive Catholics back to the Church and to the Eucharist. Education on Catholic marriage and annulments is a powerful form of evangelization.

He includes material from the Archdiocese of Boston explaining why so many decrees of nullity have been granted in the past few decades. As I explained in a previous blog entry, culture really matters, and apparently the bad side of our culture has negatively affected how many potential spouses view matrimony. I see an opportunity to evangelize the culture and save the institution of marriage at the same time.

A Call to Chant

2005-01-15T06:02:00.000Z

As I often like to point out, the Second Vatican Council explicitly encouraged the singing of Gregorian chant in the liturgy. Yet, forty years later, we hardly hear it in churches. Ironically, most of us find chant outside of church. You might remember chant's popularity among teens and young adults in the mid-90's. But why is Gregorian chant rarely sung at Mass?

I guess we're still trying to figure out our identity in the aftermath of the Council. For several decades it seemed as if we were eager (perhaps a little too eager) to try something new. Modern hymns were a breath of fresh air for many people. Life Teen music, for example, can be very entertaining. Whenever guitars and drums are played I want to rock back and forth and wave my hands in the air. Most of the time though I find that such musical choices distract me from participating as fully as I can in the liturgy.

I'm not saying that non-chant music can't get one spiritually engaged. But the Church over the centuries, and most especially in the liturgical reforms leading up to Vatican II, has realized that chant possesses a unique quality in directing the soul towards the "making present" of The Sacrifice. Fr. Joseph Fessio even tells us that chant has ancient Hebrew roots: "If you sing the Psalms at Mass with the Gregorian tones, you are as close as you can get to praying with Jesus and Mary. They sang the Psalms in tones that have come down to us today in Gregorian Chant."

There are a good number of sites on the web that you can check out to learn more about chant. The St. Cecilia Schola Cantorum has some resources for exploring chant and bringing it to your parish. You can listen to chants by the monks of the Mosterio de São Bento de São Paulo here. Try it, you like it.

[image source: www.imageafter.com]

This is too good to pass up

2005-01-15T02:32:00.000Z

"Tomb It May Concern"

Mark Shea's right: the Curt Jester is "disturbingly funny".

Charley-horse between the ears

2005-01-14T19:54:00.000Z

A multiple choice question in Karl Keating's pop quiz from Hell:

15. At the Crucifixion

a. Jesus’ human nature died on the cross.

b. Only the human person of Jesus, not the divine person of Jesus, died on the cross.

c. God died on the cross.

d. Jesus’ human and divine natures both died on the cross, but the universe was kept going by the Father and the Holy Spirit until Jesus’ Resurrection.

e. None of the above.

Read the correct answer at "So You Call Yourself a Catholic". If you've been reading this blog you may already know the answer :-D

A gift of tenderness

2005-01-14T19:27:00.000Z

Jay sends me great news that I hope everybody takes advantage of:

POPE GRANTS PLENARY INDULGENCE FOR YEAR OF THE EUCHARIST

VATICAN CITY, JAN 14, 2005 (VIS) - A Decree from the Apostolic Penitentiary, dated December 25, 2004 and published today, states that during an audience granted on December 17, 2004 to Cardinal James Francis Stafford and Fr. John Francis Girotti, OFM.Conv., respectively penitentiary major and regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, "the Holy Father wished to enrich with indulgences several determined acts of worship and devotion to the Most Holy Sacrament, which are indicated below. ... The Decree will be in force during the Eucharistic Year, starting with the day of its publication in the L'Osservatore Romano. Notwithstanding any disposition to the contrary."

Indulgences are commonly thought as permission to indulge in sin or ways to buy salvation. Not so. As the Church explains, an indulgence is a "remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven."

Even after we've received forgiveness we might still struggle with the "unhealthy attachment to creatures" that naturally follows sin. We're healed of this "temporal punishment" as God sanctifies us with His Grace. An indulgence is His gracious gift of tenderness by which we humbly participate in that sanctification.

Jimmy Akin has good material on indulgences which may clarify things further.

[Update: Jeff Geerling's blog has more info on this too. Check it out.]

Lethal questions

2005-01-14T09:18:00.000Z

Msgr. William Smith of St. Joseph Seminary posed a historical dilemma on telling the truth: a convent is hiding persons that Nazis have placed on their "to-euthanize" list. Will the nuns lie to protect the innocent? Examine the conversation:

Nazi: "Do you have any children here with inherited diseases?"

Nun: "No."

Did the nun lie? According to Msgr. Smith, her answer was the truth. What the Nazi really meant was, "Do you have any disposable children?" And of course, there were none for them to dispose of; children aren't disposable. Such is an example of a "mental reservation". The Church explains,

Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet LANGUAGE. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

Yellow Submarine

2005-01-14T07:45:00.000Z

G.K. Chesterton is supposed to have written, "Many a man has been hanged on less evidence than there is for the Loch Ness Monster." This spring, Dan Taylor will look for that evidence using Nessa, his home-built submarine.

Taylor's going to have his work cut out for him: the beastie's been shy since his encounter with St. Columba. Talk about an opportunity for spreading the Gospel!

"And even the barbarous heathens, who were present, were forced by the greatness of this miracle, which they themselves had seen, to magnify the God of the Christians."

Evangelizing with a monster: you gotta love it. The sign of the cross and a few choice words were enough to send Nessie back to the murky depths. Maybe that's why my favorite cryptid has rarely been seen ever since.

Aesthetic experience

2005-01-13T02:01:00.000Z

Peter Kreeft's favorite argument for the existence of God:

There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.
Therefore there must be a God.
You either see this one or you don't.

Tada!

To pray or not to pray

2005-01-13T00:18:00.000Z

Here's a mystery: why is it so hard for us to pray?

We know that praying is good for us, and when we do pray we come away thinking, "I should do this more often!" But when push comes to shove, we come up with excuses for not praying even one Our Father before we go to bed. Yeah, yeah, we're busy and all, but come on— just one Our Father? How hard could that be?

Sure, we can trace our weaknesses to Original Sin. It's the source of irrationality. As St. Paul writes, "I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate."

There are other analogies: we come up with excuses for not exercising, for not eating healthy, for taking the path of least resistance. There are many things that we know are good for us, but we don't do them anyway. It's January 12 and how many of us have already failed to keep our New Year's resolutions?

However, there's something unique about being hesitant towards prayer. We are made to give ourselves to others. We go through life seeking union with those like us. That's the nature of the human person: we're social. A self-centered life, on the other hand, is the personal equivalent of a black hole, and as Chesterton wrote, "Satan fell by the force of gravity." When we communicate with others we communicate ourselves. And in that self-communication comes union— the very thing we seek.

Prayer is that union with the Great Other. We might not feel the earth move, but it's union, nonetheless. Seeking to listen to the still small voice of God is a foretaste of the ecstasy that will be if we're faithful until the end. That's why living prayerfully makes total sense. Prayer is what we're made for, and by Grace, it's more than possible.

Trinitarian Who's and What's

2005-01-12T23:28:00.000Z

In my interreligious dialogues with non-Christian monotheists, I've often come away thinking that many misunderstand what the Trinity really is. Take this description from a Muslim writer, for example:

"Let's put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father + one person, God the Son + one person, God the Holy Ghost = one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?

...

"Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. "

Basically he's saying that the Trinity is "three persons in one person" or "three natures in one nature." And he's right: that's gibberish. But that's not the Trinity. The Trinity is, rather, "three persons in one nature."

The challenge for Christians is to clarify what is meant by person and what is meant by nature and to show that there's a distinction between the two: person answers the question, "Who is it?", and nature answers the question "What is it?"

To put it another way, the Trinity isn't "three Who's in one Who" or "three What's in one What", but "three Who's in one What".

Global reach

2005-01-12T17:11:00.000Z

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has posted satellite data on the Indian Ocean tsunami. Hopefully data like this can help in preventing more tsunami disasters in the future.

You can find an animation on the page that shows the east and west coasts of North America being affected. It's hard to believe since Indonesia is so far away, but it's true. We're all in this together.

Let's keep praying for those who have suffered.

[image source: NOAA]