Posts from — June 2009

Here are some pictures from my Bar Call on June 26. I’m now an actual lawyer, as opposed to just a law school graduate. The little guy is my Nephew, Nathan.

The greatest gift, not just of a particular day, but of a lifetime, is to receive Jesus in the Eucharist. As Archbishop Burke observed, “the Body and Blood of Christ is a gift of God’s love to us. It is the greatest gift, a gift beyond our ability to describe … A gift is freely given out of love and that is what God is doing for us every time we are able to participate in Mass and approach to receive Holy Communion.”

On the Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, the priest of Corpus Christi Parish in St. John’s, Newfoundland, recalled the reverence with which St. Justin, Martyr directed Christians of the early Church to receive Our Lord:

“Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is about to receive the king. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying after it, Amen. Give heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee gold dust, wouldest thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss? How much more cautiously then wilt thou observe that not a crumb falls from thee, of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?”

St. Justin’s image of the hands of a communicant as a throne for the King finds modern parallel in the memoirs of Francis Xavier Cardinal Thuan Van Nguyen. Persecuted for his loyalty to the Catholic Church, the Bishop spent more than 13 years of extreme sufferings in Communist prisons in Vietnam. During that time it was the Eucharist, reverently celebrated in the most horrendous of conditions, which sustained and strengthened him:

“When I was arrested, I had to leave immediately with empty hands. The next day, I was permitted to write to my people in order to ask for the most necessary things: clothes, toothpaste…I wrote, ‘Please send me a little wine as medicine for my stomachache.’ The faithful understood right away.

They sent me a small bottle of wine for Mass with a label that read, ‘medicine for stomachaches.’ They also sent some hosts, which they hid in a flashlight for protection against the humidity. The police asked me, ‘You have stomachaches? Yes. Here’s some medicine for you.’

I will never be able to express my great joy! Every day, with three drops of wine and a drop of water in the palm of my hand, I would celebrate Mass. This was my altar, and this was my cathedral! It was true medicine for soul and body, ‘Medicine of immortality, remedy so as not to die but to have life always in Jesus’, as St. Ignatius of Antioch says. Each time I celebrate the Mass, I had the opportunity to extend my hands and nail myself to the cross with Jesus, to drink with him the bitter chalice. Each day in reciting the words of consecration, I confirmed with all my heart and soul a new pact, and eternal pact between Jesus and me through his blood mixed with mine. Those were the most beautiful Masses of my life!”

In the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, the Church states that sacred vessels “should be made from materials that are solid and that in the particular region are regarded as noble. The conference of bishops will be the judge in this matter. But preference is to be given to materials that do not break easily or become unusable.” (290) Through the Holy Eucharist, Cardinal Thuan Van Nguyen came to embody the sacred vessels of which he was deprived. In his weakness, Our Lord made him solid, noble and unbreakable. Despite his persecution, he was filled with life and love. This is the same grace that was offered to the early Church and is available to every one of us each time we attend Mass. Let us prepare ourselves to receive Jesus worthily and respectfully, becoming living tabernacles for Our Lord and King. It is through the Eucharist that we will find the strength to persevere.

SOURCES:

St. Justin, Martyr, “Ordo Romanus I” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.html).

“Francis Xavier Cardinal Thuan Van Nguyen: By His Own Accounts” in Vietnamese, compiled by Rev. Msgr. Tran Van Kha (California: Co So Hy Vong Publishers) at  p. 131.

Before you buy a Catholic relic, I hope you take a few minutes to consider this post.

After a Sunday Mass on May 31, a security guard at St. Michael’s Cathedral in Toronto realized that a priceless first-class relic of Therese of Lisieux had been stolen. When staffers searched the cathedral to ensure that nothing else had been stolen, they also discovered that two screws were missing from the Plexiglas protecting their relic of St. Anthony. Fortunately, this relic remained.

This was not the first time a relics was stolen from St. Micheal’s. In 2000, a portion of the “true cross” was taken from the Cathedral’s pieta statue. The relic was never recovered.

Michael Busch, the cathedral’s rector, commented that without the certificate of authenticity, the priceless St. Theresa’s relic was worthless. However, he also noted that person could forge the necessary accompanying documents.

Mr. Busch claims that a first-class relic of the quality of that stolen can fetch anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 on the black market.

But who would purchase such a relic? Something is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it and no Catholic should be willing to pay anything for any relic, genuine or not.  To Catholics, a relic really ought to be priceless, not just figuratively, but literally.

Canon Law clearly forbids Catholics from selling relics:

§1190 §1 - “It is absolutely forbidden to sell sacred relics.”

§1190 §2 - “Relics of great significance and other relics honored with great reverence by the people cannot be alienated validly in any manner or transferred permanently without the permission of the Apostolic See.”

Therein lies the root cause of the disappearance. If Catholics followed this edict, in all likelihood St. Michael’s would still have its relic. Unfortunatey. a quick search of ebay makes it clear that the sale of relics is both prolific and lucrative. It’s also reasonable to speculate that most purchasers are probably genuine in their desire to obtain relics for personal devotion. Unfortunately, their piety and devotion do not excuse their ignorance.

SOURCES:

Jill Colvin, “Priceless relic swiped from Toronto cathedral” (Wednesday, Jun. 17, 2009)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/priceless-relic-swiped-from-toronto-cathedral/article1184823/

If the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court is successful, half of the Catholics who have ever served on the Supreme Court will be serving simultaneously. Writing recently for First Things, Jordan Ballor noted that this zenith in Catholic representation contrasts the Protestant nadir – the retirement of David Souter will mean that John Paul Stevens will be the lone Protestant on the bench. Ballor raises this point to ask whether the shift in legal influence reflects an underlying deficiency in American Protestantism. Despite the considerable influence of Protestantism on the development of the western common law, contemporary Protestant conceptions of justice have severed theology and law, created a division between word and deed. He argues that Natural Law, which flourished in the first two centuries following the Reformation, has subsequently come to be perceived as the strict domain of Catholic moral and legal theorists. As a result, he laments that even when “Protestants are in the game, whether morally, legally, or politically, they are largely playing from behind. And Protestants will continue to do so until they begin again to draw from the same well of wisdom that once nourished centuries of Protestant moral, legal, and political thought: the natural law tradition.”

However, Catholics would be amiss in thinking that, unlike Protestants, they have got it right. Sotomayor’s nomination is a segue to Ballor’s exposition, but he realizes that “Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court is not […] an indictment of contemporary Protestant approaches to the law.” Not only is Sotomayor not known as an adherent to the Catholic-developed natural law tradition, she may oppose the Church’s clearly defined teaching on the inviolability of life from the time of conception. During a meeting with Sotomayor, Senator Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, purportedly asked the judicial nominee if the preborn have any rights. “I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it,” DeMint said in a statement. Unsurprisingly, reports have since appeared which claim to link Sotomayor with pro-abortion briefs. It would have been astounding if Obama’s nominee had been pro-life (one wouldn’t expect a Republican Administration nominee to be pro-abortion). When Obama was elected, the nomination of pro-abortion candidates was a fait accomplis. Catholics should now focus their attention not on Sotomayor’s limited words and alleged views, but remedying the underlying problems which they manifest: the Church’s failure to effectively disseminate its teachings at a foundational level.

If the reports prove accurate and Sotomayor is pro-abortion, she is only one of a myriad of such Catholics who have gained prominence under Obama. Other pro-abortion Catholics serving under the President include:

- Vice President Joe Biden, who incorrectly asserted in 2007 that his pro-abortion position is allowed by Church teaching, a remark that incited a barrage of rebukes from dozens of U.S. bishops.

- Obama appointed former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). While a state representative, Sebelius fought against laws that would provide parental notification of minors’ abortions, greater abortion waiting periods, and informed consent. As governor, Sebelius issued two vetoes against abortion facility regulation legislation, and one against a bill requiring explicit medical reasons for a late-term abortion.

- Obama appointed Leon Panetta as the head of the CIA. A practicing Catholic, Panetta amassed a strong pro-abortion as a California congressman. He co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act in 1990 and during his run as Clinton’s Chief of Staff supported the president’s veto of the partial-birth abortion ban.

The appointment of pro-abortion politicians to influential positions was the inevitable consequence of Obama’s election. However, when those appointed are self-purported Catholics, the non-Catholic public is left with uncertainty as to where the Church stands on abortion and how strongly it holds its ground. Poorly-catechised Catholics are left with the illusion that Catholicism and abortion are compatible. The Church needs to address the misperceptions which arise. Failure to evangelize from the pulpit is causing the doctrines of secularization and moral relativism to flourish.

It is a strong indictment of the Church when a practicing Catholic, particularly one so well educated, could even assert that she has never thought about the rights of the pre-born. True, there are many teachings of the Church which Catholics need to hear during Sunday homilies, but the protection of the pre-born has taken on special significance for the faithful. The Church has supported and entrenched the view that life begins at conception and must be defended. That Sotomayor can seriously claim that she has never thought about the rights of these children is evidence enough that many homilists have been negligent in their duty to teach and lead the faithful.

SOURCES:

Jordan Ballor, “Sotomayor, Catholic Supremacy, and Protestant Approaches to Law” First Things (Jun 11, 2009 )
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/6/sotomayor-roman-catholic-supre

Kathleen Gilbert, “Obama Selects Yet another Pro-Abortion “Catholic” for Leading Office” LifeSiteNews (January 6, 2009)
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09010603.html.

As the adage goes, “when I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck a quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.” A simple saying, but an accurate one. It is necessary to look at an object’s qualities and traits before determining its identity. If a bird cannot fly, runs 65 kilometers an hour and weighs 120 kilograms, it’s an ostrich, even if someone decides to call it a duck. An ostrich by any other name is still an ostrich.

The above analogy applies to many aspects of our Christian lives. We may profess to be Christians, but if we do not live according to the Word of God, our words are hollow. To be a Christian is not to simply state a belief in Christ, but to follow the words of Jesus, who is the Word made flesh. We must walk the path of faith not as mere wayfarers, but as pilgrims, our faith manifested in the lives that we live. Our actions and deeds must evidence our faith. Our witness must be so strong that it compels others to conclude we are Christians.

However, as we selectively disregard Christ’s teachings and live according to our own prerogatives, our lives may cease to bear the marks of Christianity. Rather than attempting to overcome our fallen nature and ensure that our lives reflect God’s design, we may attempt to recreate God in our own image. If we persist in individually caricaturing the Divine, emphasizing that which we like and minimizing that which we do not, at a certain point we risk presenting an image of God so distorted that what we portray is not the Lord of all, but rather our own personal god.

It is at this juncture, where an individual clearly deviates from scripture in their characterization of the faith, that we must heed Jesus’ admonishment to “Judge not, that you be not judged.” (Matt 7:1 - RSV) We are in no position to fully comprehend the context from which one approaches their faith. We are oblivious to how deeply their convictions are held, their ability to understand the scriptures, their influences, etc. Final judgment is reserved to God alone, and his mercy is unfathomable, as St. Faustina tells us in her Diary (1698):

“I often attend upon the dying and through entreaties obtain for them trust in God’s mercy, and I implore God for an abundance of divine grace, which is always victorious. God’s mercy sometimes touches the sinner at the last moment in a wondrous and mysterious way. Outwardly, it seems as if everything were lost, but it is not so. The soul, illumined by a ray of God’s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God forgiveness of sin and punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things.

Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy! Although a person is at the point of death, the merciful God gives the soul that interior vivid moment, so that if the soul is willing, it has the possibility of returning to God.”

Not privy to the intimate workings of the Lord within a person’s heart, we are unable to judge the soul of another. It is for this reason and in this context which Christ warns us not to judge. Yet it is fallacious to contend that Jesus wishes us to refrain from seeking the truth and pronouncing it openly. It is our duty to “[a]lways be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls [us] to account for the hope that is in [us]” as Christians. We must do so with “gentleness and reverence”, but not fear to speak (1 Peter 3:15). Christ has given us our gifts and talents precisely so that we may equip ourselves to speak the truth in love. Not to admonish for its own sake, but to uphold right doctrine and defend the deposit of faith which God has entrusted to His Church. While our words may oppose the beliefs of others, we must speak the truth in the hopes of reuniting all people within the mystical body of Christ:

“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.” Ephesians 4:11-16 RSV

Yet, rather than unity, there is currently great division even among the Abrahamic traditions. As books can and have been written on this subject, it is necessary to restrict the discussion. Focusing on Islam, for example, striking doctrinal differences are evident in the qualities and traits ascribed to God. While both assert that the God of Abraham is the One, true God, the Quran rejects the Trinity, the Sonship of Christ and Jesus’ divinity:

The Quran denies the Trinity:

Certainly they disbelieve those who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve (Sura 5:73).

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not ‘Three’ - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son (Sura 4:171).

The Quaran denies the Father and the Son:

The Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them (Sura 9:29-30).

It does not befit GOD that He begets a son, be He glorified (Sura 19:35).

The Quran denies the Deity of Christ:

The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was no more than God’s apostle (Sura 4).

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is Christ the son of Mary (Sura 5:72).

And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right (Sura 5:116).

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary (Sura 5:17).

Despite these beliefs expressed within the Quran, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, while affirming the Trinity, the Sonship of Christ and Jesus’ divinity, simultaneously expresses the view that we worship the same God:

841 […] “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Logically, this is a rather puzzling statement. If you asked a Christian and a Muslim if they believed in one God, who is the God of Israel, both would reply in the affirmative. However, if you asked both if Jesus is God, the Christian would reply that Jesus is God whereas the Muslim would deny Jesus’ divinity, stating that “in blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary”. For the Christian and the Muslim, the qualities and traits of God differ, even God’s very essence differs, and to such an extent that one must wonder whether the Catechism’s statement of ordinary, rather than extraordinary, magisterium is correct.

Yet Hilarie Belloc, a great and orthodox thinker, appears to support the teaching of the Catechism. Although he wrote well before the Catechism, he notes that Mohammedanism arose not as a new religion, but as a heresy within Christianity:

“Mohammedanism was a heresy: that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was – not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all) heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world – on the frontiers of which he lived, whose influence was all around him and whose territories he had known by travel – which inspired his convictions […]

He took over very few of those old pagan ideas which might have been native to him from his descent. On the contrary, he preached and insisted upon a whole group of ideas which were peculiar to the Catholic Church and distinguished it from the paganism which it had conquered in the Greek and Roman civilization. Thus the very foundation of his teaching was that prime Catholic doctrine, the unity and omnipotence of God. The attributes of God he also took over in the main from Catholic doctrine: the personal nature, the all-goodness, the timelessness, the providence of God, His creative power as the origin of all things, and His sustenance of all things by His power alone. The world of good spirits and angels and of evil spirits in rebellion against God was a part of the teaching, with a chief evil spirit, such as Christendom had recognized. Mohammed preached with insistence that prime Catholic doctrine, on the human side – the immortality of the soul and its responsibility for actions in this life, coupled with the consequent doctrine of punishment and reward after death.

[…]

But the central point where this new heresy struck home with a mortal blow against Catholic tradition was a full denial of the Incarnation.

Mohammed did not merely take the first steps toward that denial, as the Arians and their followers had done; he advanced a clear affirmation, full and complete, against the whole doctrine of an incarnate God. He taught that Our Lord was the greatest of all the prophets, but still only a prophet: a man like other men. He eliminated the Trinity altogether.

With that denial of the Incarnation went the whole sacramental structure. He refused to know anything of the Eucharist, with its Real Presence; he stopped the sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore the institution of a special priesthood. In other words, he, like so many other lesser heresiarchs, founded his heresy on simplification.

Catholic doctrine was true (he seemed to say), but it had become encumbered with false accretions; it had become complicated by needless man-made additions, including the idea that its founder was Divine, and the growth of a parasitical caste of priests who battened on a late, imagined, system of Sacraments which they alone could administer. All those corrupt accretions must be swept away.

[…] Simplicity was the note of the whole affair; and since all heresies draw their strength from some true doctrine, Mohammedanism drew its strength from the true Catholic doctrines which it retained: the equality of all men before God – “All true believers are brothers.” It zealously preached and throve on the paramount claims of justice, social and economic.”

Does Belloc’s exegesis lend enough support to the Catechism’s view that Islam and Christianity worship the same God so as to overcome the obvious problems posed by the denial of the incarnation and issues related to the Trinity which arise as a result?

Personally, I feel that Islam and Christianity differ to such a degree at the doctrinal level that I do not see how the two could describe the same God. Even if you disagree with this end conclusion, there should be little doubt that the Christian must view Islam as doctrinally flawed. The teaching of Islam on the Trinity is incorrect - The Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Trinity is God. We know this because, while we have had a personal relationship with the Father, we have also had a personal relationship with the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is absolutely incumbent upon Christians to learn those ways in which Christian and Muslim beliefs differ, learn why they differ, and be able to defend our faith and beliefs.

Despite the above, I believe that on the personal level it may be impossible to know whether an individual Muslim worships the One God. For most people, our faith his not an intellectual exercise. It is an emotive response to the stirring of the heart. We can never be sure the degree to which any person has either turned their heart toward God, nor away from Jesus. Even for those who have been taught about Jesus, it is impossible to determine the depths to which their current religious beliefs have been instilled and to assess their capacity to be fully open to conflicting teachings. Further, surely the Muslims worship Someone, and with admirable reverence at that. Is it not possible that they may worship the God of the Trinity without awareness or an acknowledgement of the Mystery – much as a man might fall in love with a woman only to learn over time the many aspects of her beauty that he could never have discovered before they grew in intimacy? It is perhaps for this reason that the Catechism states that Muslims individually worship the One True God but does not make any assertions with regard to Islam and its teachings.

All this strengthens rather than reduces the obligation of Christians to evangelize and teach the Word. Iinspired by the Holy Spirit, we must draw others to the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. We must introduce others to Jesus, through our love and compassion. However, we must do so with love, gentleness and reverence. As St. Francis said to the Sultan of Babylon: “If you wish to be converted to Christ along with your people, I will most gladly stay with you for love of Him.”

SOURCES:

St. Faustina Kowalska, “Divine Mercy in my Soul: The Diary of Sister Faustina Kowalska”

<http://www.faustina.org/pages/diary.htm>.

Passages from the Quran - Dr Joseph Mizzi, “Do Catholics and Muslims Worship the Same God?”
<www.justforcatholics.org/islam.htm>.

Hilaire Belloc, “The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed”
<http://www.trosch.org/bks/mohammed.html>.

Brother David Kazmarek, TOR, “St. Francis of Assisi and the Muslims”

<http://www.franciscanfriarstor.com/archive/stfrancis/stf_st_francis_and_the_muslims.htm>.

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to visit the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles. I entered the main doors, walked up a flight of stairs, down a hallway, and into the main part of the Church. I looked around for a second, desiring to kneel in the direction of the Eucharist reposed in the tabernacle. I turned to the left, then to the right. Dismayed as to where the tabernacle was located, I just kneeled reverently, knowing that it had to be somewhere within the Church.

At the time, I was perturbed. I was shocked to walk into a Catholic Cathedral and to discover that the tabernacle was so inconspicuously places that I couldn’t even find it. As it turns out, the designers of the Cathedral decided that they would keep the tabernacle in a separate chapel enclosed within one of the massive pillars on the side of the church. I wouldn’t have known it was there if I hadn’t asked. When I did walk inside the chapel, I discovered that it could only accommodate a handful of worshipers. The decor was drab and the room was Claustrophobic. “Does not Our Lord deserves better?”, I thought to myself.  ”Shouldn’t the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of our faith, be front and center in our Churches?” I felt cheated that I was unable to genuflect toward the Eucharist and pay proper reverence. As I left the Cathedral I was convinced that there was something wrong with the placement of the tabernacle.

Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, commented on the role of genuflection and the proper placement of the tabernacle during a keynote talk at Westminster Cathedral in 2006:

“As for those who may ignore the significance of this gesture [ie. genuflection], it may be well to remember that we are not pure spirits like the angels. A Protestant once was visiting a Catholic church in the company of a Catholic friend. They passed across the tabernacle area. The Protestant asked the Catholic what that box was and why a little lamp was burning near it. The Catholic explained that Jesus the Lord is present there. The Protestant then put the vital question: “If you believe that your Lord and God is here present, then why don’t you genuflect, even prostrate and crawl?” The superficial Catholic got the message. He genuflected. Everyone can thus see why the tabernacle of the Most Blessed Sacrament is located in a central or at least prominent place in our churches. It is the centre of our attention and prayer. The October 2005 Synod of Bishops emphasised this point (cf Prop., 6, 28, 34). In some of our churches some misguided person has relegated the tabernacle to an obscure section of the church. Sometimes it is even so difficult for a visitor to locate where the tabernacle is, that the visitor can say with truth with St Mary Magdalene: “They have taken my Lord, and I do not know where they laid him” (Jn 20:13).”

Cardinal Arinze’s statement that the tabernacle should be at “a central or at least prominent place in our churches” is not merely his personal opinion. His clearly based his statement on the Code of Canon Law, 1983:

“The tabernacle in which the blessed Eucharist is reserved should be sited in a distinguished place in a church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer.” - Canon 938 §2

However, much to my surprise, it is worth noting that Canon 938 does not prohibit the use of Blessed Sacrament Chapels. Nor does it contradict Eucharisticum Mysterium, which states:

“The place in a church or oratory where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle should be truly prominent. It ought to be suitable for private prayer so that the faithful may easily and fruitfully, by private devotion also, continue to honor Our Lord in this sacrament. It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible, the tabernacle be placed in a chapel distinct from the middle or central part of the church, above all in those churches where marriages and funerals take place frequently and in places which are much visited for their artistic or historical treasures” - “Sacred Congregation for Rites, Eucharisticum Mysterium, (1967) no. 53:

As Monsignor Peter J. Elliott points out, the Church not only permits Blessed Sacrament chapels, but even prefers then in certain circumstance:

“[…] as indicated in Eucharisticum Mysterium, no. 53, and its adapted repetition in 1973, there are situations when a Blessed Sacrament chapel is appropriate, for example, in a cathedral or major church frequented by crowds of tourists or pilgrims, such as the Roman basilicas, or where a safe place is required for perpetual adoration. The chapel may also be appropriate in the rare case where the tabernacle would seem very distant and inaccessible if placed at the back of a deep sanctuary. Moreover, the Ceremonial of Bishops, no. 49, citing a very ancient tradition, recommends a chapel for cathedrals.”

However, it is important to remember that Canon law always establishes what is licit and legal, but does not necessarily resolve what is best in any particular situation. It is important to remember St. Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 1:8-9 (RSV):

“Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient […]”.

The aim of our Church leaders must not be mere compliance with the law, for the law is laid down to constrain the disobedient. Their aim of all faithful leaders must be “love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.” (1 Timothy 1:5) The question is therefore not whether the placement of the tabernacle is licit, or even whether the tabernacle is in “a distinguished place … conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer.” The question is whether it is conspicuous so as to draw the faithful into the presence of God, adorned to instill reverence and awe, and conducive to inspired adoration of the One True God who is the center time, space and existence.

I am convinced that by this standard the Eucharistic Chapel at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels is horribly wanting. Our Lord does deserve better.

SOURCES:

Cardinal Arinze, “Keynote talk at Westminster Cathedral ‘Hearts and Minds’ event”, (London: Apr 3, 2006)

<http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_7__article_3628.htm>.

Monsignor Peter J. Elliott, “Where Should We Put the Tabernacle? A conspicuously located tabernacle is mandated by the liturgical norms and Canon Law” Vol 3 Adoremus No. 9 (Online Edition: Dec 1997/Jan 1998)

<http://www.adoremus.org/98-01_elliott.htm>.

In his recent newsletter, Fr. John Corapi posited that Western society is “a train wreck waiting to happen.” He presents moral evil, specifically that of abortion, as the agent for this catastrophe and the denial of objective standards of morality as the catalyst.

Father Corapi points to the U.S. government’s interventionist policies as evidence that the process has begun and indicates the ultimate result – increasing infringements on freedom and liberty:

“Personal liberty has already begun to be compromised. Various governments, including the United States, now own car companies like General Motors and Chrysler, mega insurance companies, soon perhaps health care and energy. Injustice is beginning to be seen from the smallest of individuals to the largest of corporations. The only problem with that is that governments have never been able to operate anything profitably, efficiently, or equitably. The little guy and the large corporation will all be equal opportunity recipients of heavy-handed injustice very soon.

The government is about to dictate what car you can drive, how you insure it, what your bank can pay you or not, what kind of heating you have in your home, if you can have air conditioning or not. And, oh, if you eat a Twinkie your health insurance premium is going up. If you get sick, perhaps the Twinkie did it, and you aren’t covered.”

Hyperbole aside, his proposition is interesting, even if presented a little awkwardly. As I understand his message, Fr. Corapi contends that “the high sounding rhetoric of the day” which surrounds these governmental policies creates only an illusion of progress. The reality is that a lack of respect for human life, of every human being “from the moment of conception to the last moment of natural life”, has left our society unsafe and unsecure. An inevitable regress will occur not because the current policies are bad in and of themselves, but because our lack of adequate moral filtering has left us ill equipped to identify and elect officials who are capable of being trusted and protecting the liberty and dignity of others:

“You might say that the government needs to control things to keep us safe, etc. That might work if the people in government could be trusted. They can’t, but we elected them. We get what we deserve, and many chickens are about to come home to roost.  One of the inherent difficulties with a democratic republic is that it is only as good as the people in it. When a people lose their moral equilibrium, live in sin, and suffer the consequent loss of wisdom, then that nation’s days are numbered.”

It is no secret that politicians are among the less trusted members of society, but are they really that bad? News out of New York may make you wonder. Last night two former Democrats effectively crossed the floor, restoring GOP control of the State Senate for the first time in six years. The response of the out-going majority? Behave like children:

“During the coup, Democrats fled the chamber, turned out the lights, and cut off the Internet feed of chamber proceedings, leaving Republicans and their two Democratic friends to take the vote in the dark.”

Of course, you can’t paint all politicians with the same brush. However, when this is the manner of behaviour of the elected officials of an influential U.S. State act, can you really be surprising that Fr. Corapi doubts their ability to respectfully uphold the dignity of those they were elected to serve?  

SOURCES:

Fr. John Corapi, “Father Corapi on the “Flash Point” in Western Society”(http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09060416.html)(republished from the most recent newsletter from SOLT: http://www.fathercorapi.com/).

CBS News, “In New York, Senate “Coup” Takes Down Dems”

(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/08/ …

politics/main5073657.shtml).

If you didn’t know any better, you might be tempted to think it was a Catholic rapture: parishioners vanishing from Mass en masse. Each year it begins around May and its effects are evident come June. As the temperature outside increases, the number of congregants on succeeding Sundays steadily dwindles.  However, what’s actually happening is more of an exodus. As fall approaches you begin to see faces you haven’t seen in months.  By October the diaspora is almost over.  The weather is cooler and most parishioners having ceased their weekend forays to their cottages and cabins.

I used to think this exodus was a local phenomenon.  The city in which I work and go to mass, St. John’s, Newfoundland, has a population of little over 100,000 people. The greater St. John’s area, including surrounding communities, brings the population closer to 200,000.  That’s not a huge population, but it’s definitely urban. When you consider that the entire province has a population of only around 500,000 people and a land area that would rank fourth in size behind Alaska, Texas and California if it were on of the American states, you should not be surprised to know that Newfoundland is a cabin-lovers haven.  Land is affordable and almost everybody has some kind of get-away. Whether it is a “gravel-pit camper” or a decked-out cottage, most people have a home away from home.

Almost everybody, but not me. Removed from cabin-culture, it can be excused that I had always assumed that the St. John’s exodus was accompanied by an equal and corresponding surge in attendance in rural parishes. However, my naivety disappeared a few months ago. One of my friends was planning to visit her parents’ cabin over the weekend and explained to me that she wanted to go to an early Saturday evening Mass, as she wouldn’t be able to get to mass while she was there. “Well, where’s your mother going to go to Mass?” I asked. “Oh,” she replied, “my mother doesn’t go to Mass when she’s at the cabin”

Then only a few weeks ago I came to realize that this summer absence from Mass reached beyond Newfoundland. In the airport in St. Paul-Minneapolis, I picked up a t-shirt for my roommate: “The Ten Commandments, Minnesota style”. On the back, “Keep the Sabbath holy” was converted to “Go to church – even when yer up nort.”

This problem is apparently so wide-spread that even Pope Benedict had something to say about it during his most recent general audience at St. Peter’s Square. The pope remarked:

“While at work, with its frenetic rhythms, and during vacation, we have to reserve moments for God. [We have to] open our lives up to him, directing a thought to him, a reflection, a brief prayer.

“And above all, we mustn’t forget that Sunday is the day of Our Lord, the day of the liturgy, [the day] to perceive in the beauty of our churches, in the sacred music and in the Word of God, the same beauty of our God, allowing him to enter into our being.”

“Only in this way,” the Pontiff concluded, “is our life made great; it is truly made a life.”

The faithful must remember that Sunday is a holy day of obligation. Mass attendance is not optional:

Canon 1247

On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass; they are also to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord’s Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body.

As you and your family prepare for your summer vacations, please don’t forget to heed the pope’s words. Rest in the Eucharist and your vacation time will be both more replenishing and rejuvenating.

Source:

Pope Bendict, “General Audience” (St. Peter’s Square: June 3, 2009) <available online: http://www.zenit.org/article-26080?l=english>.

I was poking through the pages of Zenit.org two days ago and came across Pope Benedict’s papal address to the Envoy from New Zealand.  Although the average non-Kiwi would probably find most of the text fairly sterile, the pontiff did include an engaging remark explaining how true common ground can found among diverging interests:

“The Church’s engagement with civil society is anchored in her conviction that authentic human progress — whether as individuals or communities — is dependent upon the recognition of the spiritual dimension proper to every person. It is from God that men and women receive their essential dignity (cf. Gen 1:27) and the capacity to transcend particular interests in order to seek truth and goodness and so find purpose and meaning in their lives. This broad perspective provides a framework within which it is possible to counter any tendency to adopt superficial approaches to social policy which address only the symptoms of negative trends in family life and communities, rather than their roots. Indeed, when humanity’s spiritual heart is brought to light, individuals are drawn beyond themselves to ponder God and the marvels of human life: being, truth, beauty, moral values, and relationships that respect the dignity of others. In this way a sure foundation to unite society and sustain a common vision of hope can be found.”

Let me unpack this for you a little and more clearly draw out how Benedict proposes that we unite society

First, Benedict suggests that a prerequisite for uniting society is (i) recognizing the spiritual dimension proper to every person and (ii) recognizing our inherent essential dignity.

Second, if these prerequisites are present, society can transcend particular interests by seeking (i) truth and (ii) goodness.

If these elements are present (i) individuals will find purpose and meaning in their lives and (ii) we can unite society and sustain a common vision of hope.

These comments are timely, as they seem, at first blush, to fit very nicely with President Obama’s proposal of how to unite society amidst our differences.  During his commencement speech given at Notre Dame University, Obama provided his vision of how society can unite despite its conflicting views on abortion:

“The question, then — the question then is how do we work through these conflicts?  Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort?  …

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called “The Audacity of Hope.”  A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election.  He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life — but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.”  …  He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”  Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter … I didn’t change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website.  And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.  Because when we do that - when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe - that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

… I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.  Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.  Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.  But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts.  Open minds.  Fair-minded words. …”

On the surface, Benedict’s vision and that of Obama seem very similar. Obama’s words reflect a sense of the spiritual dimension of people.  An opening of minds connotes an openness to truth.  We may presume a desire for goodness.

But will Obama’s plan allow us to “join hands in common effort.” Are there substantive differences between the messages of Benedict and Obama?

Certainly, at some level, we can find common ground.  Like the Christian doctor who voted for Obama despite his views on abortion, many members of society can overlook many issues.  It is unlikely that any politician’s funding approach to policy areas such as the environment or infrastructure will reconcile completely with all member of the electorate.  Some will consider the funding excessive; some will consider it too slight.  Many may consider it acceptable.  How many can claim that they know the perfect balance on such issues, let alone that a particular politician has struck it? There is obviously room for compromise on such matters.

However, Obama rightly concludes that there are some views which are irreconcilable.  During the Bush administration, many viewed the war in Iraq as such an issue.  For some citizens it was essential for American soldiers to invade.  For others the war was intolerable.  While debate could arise after the fact as to the number of soldiers to deploy or which particular exit strategy was most effective, the initial question was simply whether to invade or not to invade.  For those who had a passionate opinion on this question, the decision to invade likely impacted their decision at the ballot box.

Obama recognizes that the legality of abortion raises a number of issues post facto where some consensus may be attained:

“So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies.  Let’s make adoption more available.  Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.  Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics [sic], as well as respect for the equality of women.  Those are things we can do.”

While many of these are things which we can do, the fact remains that they are like the post-war responses, what Pope Benedict would describe as “superficial approaches to social policy which address only the symptoms of negative trends in family life and communities, rather than their roots.”  The Church’s teaching is clear that life begins at conception.  For the orthodox Catholic faithful to the magisterium, abortion is the ultimate attack on the family.  An abortion both physically alters the family and is the ultimate affront to dignity of that unborn child - the very premise necessary to achieve Benedict’s vision of hope.  The adoption of the policies refered to by Obama cannot satisfy the Catholic conscience.

Therefore, Benedict knows that a president who believes that abortion should be legal and permissible is not united with Catholics who believe that the dignity of all life is both inherent and essential, including the dignity of unborn person.  Obama surely realizes this, too.

Where does this leave us? Hoping for a brighter tommorrow. As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, we must continue to engage in vigorous debate. As members of the mystical body of Christ we must engage in vigilant prayer, for the inborn, for our nations, for our Presidents and Prime Ministers, for our Pope and for the light of Truth.

Sources:

Papal Address to Envoy from New Zealand

http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-26052

Obama’s commencment address at Notre Dame:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/In-Praise-of-Fair-Minded-Words-at-Notre-Dame/

In the build up to Pentecost, one of my friends and I were engaged in an ongoing dialogue about the Holy Spirit and prayer. She went to Steubenville and often attends praise and worship services. She prays in tongues and apparently knocks people over when she lays hands on them – a good thing she assures me. More of a traditionalist, I have never ‘spoken in tongues’. Further, I perceive a disjoint between the account of speaking in tongues related in Acts 2:1-13 and what occurs when modern Christians are ‘slain in the spirit’. However, despite the intellectual hurdle that this passage continues to pose for me, I do not doubt that prayer has led her to the fruits of the Spirit. Our prayer lives are very different, but we remain brother and sister in the mystical Body of Christ.

Unfortunately, the Church often divides over preferences in worship. Rather than being viewed as descriptions, terms such as charismatic and traditional are sometimes falsely polemicized as paths to either spiritual edification or depravity. The real concern ought not to be a person’s preference in prayer, but their commitment to orthodoxy. A Catholic must always be both faithful to the magisterium and to themselves. Within the Roman Catholic Church there are many roads which lead to the new Jerusalem and, as one of my spiritual directors once told me, the greatest saints are those that are most uniquely themselves.

The desert fathers were particularly aware that each person’s path to sanctity is unique. Each sought to commit himself completely to the particular devotions and practices which God placed within his heart while non-judgmentally respecting the devotions and practices of others. Abba John was ascribed as saying “that the saints are like a group of trees, each bearing different fruit, but watered from the same source. The practices of one saint differ from those of another, but it is the same Spirit that works in them all.”

An exceptional example of different paths leading to holiness is evident in the lives of Abbas Moses and Arsenius:

“A youth who wished to devote himself to the ascetic life, begged an anchorite of the desert of [Scetis] to conduct him to one of the most holy fathers that he might receive advice and instruction from him. The anchorite took him to Arsenius. He was sitting in his cell weaving a mat, and was so immersed in contemplation that he did not observe their entrance, and did not greet them or say a single syllable to them. After some time they went away as silently as they had sat there, and the anchorite took the youth to Moses. He received them so lovingly, spoke of the youth’s intention with such fatherly benevolence, and showed him such hearty sympathy, that he said to his companion after they had taken leave, “Oh, how much holier and better the former robber is than the former courtier.” This saying reached the ancient fathers, and one of them, who was extremely holy, and who had a high opinion of Arsenius, begged God to enlighten him upon the interior state of these two men.” The one, Lord, avoids for Thy Name’s sake all intercourse with men, whilst the other, for the same reason, is kind to them. Which of the two is in the right?” And he fell into ecstasy, and saw two boats floating on one stream. Arsenius sat in one, peaceful and still, and the Holy Ghost hovered above his head. Moses was in the other, and angels travelled with him and were dropping honey upon his lips. Then the father understood that both these holy men, although outwardly different, lived in perfect love, which guided all their actions and made them pleasing to God.”

Our path to sanctity is a journey of relationship. God speaks to us personally, directing each of His words to our individual lives and experiences. The messages we receive are unique, and we must respond to Jesus in a way which is distinctly our own. In our prayers, our devotions, our vocations, we must be uniquely ourselves while never straying from the narrow path which God has set before us through His Church and His promptings.

“I find the great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving: To reach the port of heaven, we must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it, but we must sail, and not drift, nor lie at anchor” – Oliver Wendell Holmes

Sources:

Benedicta Ward, “The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection” (Oxford: Cistercian Publications, 1984) at p. 95.

Emily F. Bowden, “The Fathers of the Desert: Translated from the German of the Countess Hahn-Hahn” Vol. 2 (London: Burns and gates) at pp. 241-242. Available for free on line – This website is amazing: http://www.archive.org/details/a586049002hahnuoft