Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on

The Conversion of the World Begins with Me. A Pastor’s Reflection On A Brutal Weekend

Every now and then the Lord just has you look at something in depth and experience it to the top. It was that sort of weekend for me and the Lord was clear that he wanted me to meditate deeply and experience personally the tragedy of the taking of  human life.  Put more positively, the Lord wanted me to see the dignity of human life and grieve it’s loss. My lesson came in three stages.

Stage One: At the Abortion Facility – Early on Saturday morning I went to St. Matthews Cathedral here in DC to celebrate the 8:00 am Mass. The Mass was sponsored by the Archdiocese and was a “Witness To Life Mass.” After the Mass, thirty of us walked several blocks and stopped to pray in front the Planned Parenthood Abortion “Facility” (I will not call it a clinic), just up the street from the White House on 16th Street. It was a cold and snowy morning but we prayed and prayed. Twenty decades of the Rosary and over twenty hymns were sung.  Sadly, despite the snow, it was a brisk business at Planned Parenthood. I saw over a dozen women enter the facility in just over an hour.

It really is a devastating experience to pray in front of abortion facilities. I have done it many times before and always leave drained and deeply sad. Most of the “women” were not really women at all. Most of them were young girls and very young women, most were minorities,  and most of them were scared. Most of them were also led there by a parent or a “boyfriend.” Pro-Choice “escorts” would surround them and lead them to the door. Our presence was one last attempt to beg them to consider adoption and to not give up on life.  What a tragedy this steady procession was, for both mother and child. Yes, most of them look very scared. And why not? Something awful was about to happen, something awful. Deep down they know.

And so we prayed. We prayed for a last minute change of heart. And even if the worse did happen it was somehow important for us to pray for the children who were lost. Perhaps somehow they will know, and the Lord will reveal to them that someone was praying for them as they lost their life. Someone knew, someone wept, someone prayed.

For those young women we also prayed. They may not have understood that. In fact, we may have seemed like their worst nightmare. Perhaps they hoped to slip into the facility unnoticed, but  there we were. But though we seemed like a bad dream, I pray that one day they will know that we prayed for them too. We prayed in love, prayed for their strength to choose life.  And those pro-choice escorts may have seemed friends, but true friends don’t lead friends into abortion facilities. Yes, we prayed that these young women will know that, long after Planned Parenthood has collected its money, and the escorts have gone home, the Church will remain to offer healing and acceptance as  the weight of what took place Saturday morning remains.  Yes we prayed for them and Project Rachel waits for them.

The most difficult moment came for me when one mother, after having left her daughter behind for the abortion, came back out and rebuked us saying that “My daughter has a future career to think about, forget you!” I doubt she knew that the final line of the epistle at Mass said  Children, be on your guard against idols (1 John 5:21). It echoed eerily in my mind as she breezed by and I prayed for her too.

A Sacrifice of pain – Yes, praying in front of an abortion facility is devastating and difficult. But just as the prayers had their effect, so too does the Lord allow us to suffer and to offer that suffering in sacrifice. The pain is deep, but surely no deeper than the pain of Jesus as he beheld our sins and died for us.

Stage Two: Agony in Arizona – The rest of the morning featured parish meetings. But the morning took its toll and a nap was necessary before the evening Mass. Yet I awoke depressed, and soon found out why. It was not just the morning, that was awful enough, but my radio had been on during my brief nap and it broadcast news of the terrible shootings in Arizona. Surely this news had entered my dreams for I awoke knowing something awful had happened. Indeed it had, six were dead, twelve critically injured. A crazed killer, more death, more disregard for human life. It was like two bookends to a bloody Saturday.

Stage Three: Bomb Threat – And yet, if all lessons are perfect in threes, the Lord gave me a final lesson today. Mass was wonderful and as the last of the parishioners prepared to leave the police ordered us back into the building. A bomb threat was received in a building near the parish and it was not safe to leave the Church. Two members of Congress live in the building and this would seem the likely cause for the threat. The Arizona carnage had reached East Capitol Street. Human life again, under threat and many more lives disrupted. After an hour and a half the all clear was sounded. No further information was available.

I can only tell you what I told the faithful this weekend. Human life is sacred. No one on this planet is a mistake, no one is an accident. All of us are directly intended and willed by God. We exist because He thought of us, loved us, and personally created us. Every attack or threat on human life is an attack on us all for,  if one life can be disregarded or thought to have no worth, then any human life can be considered in this way. Even the troublesome among us are loved by God.

The Catechism has this to say:

The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society or the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.

 The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.” (CCC # 2273)

Change begins with me: We live in times in which human live is seriously threatened by huge numbers of abortion, by violence, unjust war, and euthanasia. We may, as individuals feel powerless to stop it. But, truth be told, the conversion of this world has to start with us. We cannot simply lament. We must pray and act. The conversion of the whole world begins with me as I learn to be less reactive and violent, less anger-prone, less ridiculing, less bigoted, less fearful. The conversion of the world begins when I ask God for the miracle to help me to deeply love everyone, even the difficult people in my life. The conversion of the whole world begins when I ask God for the miracle to forgive people who have harmed or hurt me. The conversion of the world starts when I begin to more deeply experience the dignity of every person, especially the most vulnerable, the poor and the troubled.

No, I can’t change the world, But I can change myself by God’s grace. And when I get better, others get better too.

A bloody weekend for this pastor. But a newfound commitment to ask God for a deeper love and reverence for every human person.

Here’s a video I put together some time ago. The song text is Psalm 139 and focuses especially on the love of God despite even our sins. The photos use 3D imagery to show the stages of development in the womb.

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).

Posted on

The Bountiful Blessings of Baptism: A Meditation on the Baptism of the Lord.

Today’s feast of the Baptism of the Lord is a moment to reflect not only on the Lord’s baptism, but also on our own. For in an extended sense, when Christ is baptized, so are we, for we are members of his body. As Christ enters the water, he makes holy the water that will baptize us. He enters the water and we follow. And in these waters he acquires gifts to give us,  as we shall see below.

 Let’s examine this text in three stages:

 1. The Fraternity of Baptism – The text says Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. John tried to prevent him, saying,  “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?”

John is surely puzzled about Jesus requesting baptism. And likely so are we. Why? John’s baptism of repentance presumes the presence of sin. But the scriptures are clear, Jesus had no sin.

  1. For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin (Heb 4:15 ).
  2. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin (1 John 3:5 ).

 So why does Jesus ask for baptism? He will answer this in a moment.

But first let’s consider this dramatic fact: Jesus identifies with sinners, even if he never sinned. As he comes to the riverside he has no ego concerns. He is not embarrassed or ashamed that some might think him a sinner even though he was not. It is a remarkable humiliation he accepts to be found in the company of sinners like us, and even to be seen as one of us. He freely enters the waters and, to any outsider who knew him not, he would simply be numbered among the sinners, which he was not.

Consider how amazing this is. The Scripture says He is not ashamed to call us his Brethren (Heb 2:11). It also says  God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21).

Jesus ate with sinners to the scandal of many of the religious leaders: -This man welcomes sinners and eats with them!” (Lk 15:2).  Jesus was known as a friend of sinners, had pity on the woman caught in adultery, allowed a sinful woman to touch him and anoint his feet. He cast out demons and fought for sinners. He suffered and died for sinners in the way reserved for the worst criminals. He was crucified between two thieves and He was assigned a grave among the wicked (Is 53).

Praise God, Jesus is not ashamed to be found in our presence and to share a brotherhood with us. There is a great shedding of his glory in doing this. Again, Scripture says, [Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself (Phil 1:3)

2.  The Fulfillment of Baptism – The text says:  Jesus said to [John] in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him.

 The Fathers of the Church are of varying opinions as exactly what Christ means by fulfilling all righteousness.

  1. Chromatius links the righteousness to all the sacraments and the salvation they confer: “This is true righteousness, that the Lord and Master should fulfill in himself every sacrament of our salvation. Therefore the Lord did not want to be baptized for his own sake but for ours” (tractate on Matthew 13.2)
  2. Chrysostom links it to the end and fulfillment of the Old Covenant: He is in effect saying, Since then we have performed all the rest of the commandments, this Baptism alone remains. I have come to do away with the curse that is appointed for the transgression of the Law. So I must therefore fulfill it all and, having delivered you from its condemnation, bringing it to an end. (Homily on Matt 12.1)
  3. Theodore of Mopsuestia sees Christ to mean that he is perfecting John’s Baptism which was only a symbol of the true Baptism.  The Baptism of John…was perfect according to the precept of Law, but it was imperfect in that it did not supply remission of sin but merely made people fit of receiving the perfect one….And Jesus makes this clear saying, ‘For thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’  (Fragment 13).

From another perspective,  the word “righteousness” refers, biblically, to God’s fidelity to his promises. Thus, is this sense, Jesus would mean that his baptism would be the sign of the fulfillment of God’s righteous promise of salvation. God had promised this and God is faithful to his promises. Jesus’  baptism indicates this. How?

St. Maximus of Turin speaks of the Old Testament prefigurement of baptism at the Red sea and then shows how Christ fulfills it:

 I understand the mystery as this. The column of fire went before the sons of Israel through the Red Sea so that they could follow on their brave journey; the column went first through the waters to prepare a path for those who followed……But Christ the Lord does all these things: in the column of fire He went through the sea before the sons of Israel; so now in the column of his body he goes through baptism before the Christian people….At the time of the Exodus the column…made a pathway through the waters; now it strengthens the footsteps of faith in the bath of baptism. (de sancta Epiphania 1.3)

So what God promised in the in the Old Testament by way of prefigurement he now fulfils in Christ. They were delivered from the slavery of Egypt as the column led them through the waters. But more wonderfully, we are delivered from the slavery to sin as the column of Christ’s body leads us through the waters of baptism. God’s righteousness is his fidelity to his promises. Hence Jesus says, in his baptism and all it signifies (his death and resurrection) he has come to fulfill all righteous and he thus fulfills the promises made by God at the Red Sea and throughout the Old Testament.

 3. The Four Gifts of Baptism – The Text says, After Jesus was baptized,  he came up from the water and behold,  the heavens were opened for him,  and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove  and coming upon him.  And a voice came from the heavens, saying,  “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.“

Eph 5:30 says we are members of Christ’s body. Thus when Jesus goes into the water we go with him. And in going there he acquires four gifts on our behalf as this text sets them forth. Lets look at the four gifts he acquires on our behalf:

  1. Access – the heavens are opened .  The heavens and paradise had been closed to us after Original Sin. But now, at Jesus’ baptism,  the text says the heavens are opened. Jesus acquires this gift for us. So, at our baptism, the heavens open for us and we have access to the Father and to the heavenly places. Scripture says: Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.  Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, (Romans 5:1) It also says, For through Jesus we have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God (Eph 2:17). Hence the heavens are opened also at our own Baptism and we have access to the Father.
  2. Anointing – the Spirit of God descends on him like a dove – Here too, Jesus acquires the Gift of the Holy Spirit for us. In Baptism we are not just washed of sins, but we also become temples of the Holy Spirit. After baptism there is the anointing with chrism which signifies the presence of the Holy Spirit. For adults this is Confirmation. But even for infants, there is an anointing at baptism to recognize that the Spirit of God dwells in the baptized as in a temple. Scripture says, Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?  (1 Cor 3:16)
  3. Acknowledgment  – this is my beloved Son.  Jesus receives this acknowledgment from his Father for the faith of those who heard, but also to acquire this gift for us. In our own Baptism we become the children of God. Since we become members of Christ’s body, we now have the status of sons of God. On the day of your Baptism the heavenly Father acknowledged you as his own dear Child. Scripture says:  You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ (Gal 3:26)
  4. Approval – I am well pleased .  Jesus had always pleased his Father. But now he acquires this gift for you as well. Our own Baptism gives us sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace is the grace to be holy and pleasing to God. Scripture says, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens, as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in his sight. (Eph 1:1-3)

Thus, at his Baptism, Christ acquired these gifts for us so that our own Baptism we could receive them. Consider well the glorious gift of your Baptism. Perhaps you know the exact  day. It should be a day as highly celebrated as your birthday. Christ is baptized for our sakes, not his own. All these gifts had always been his. Now, in his baptism he fulfills God’s righteousness by going into the water to get them for you. It’s alright to say, “Hallelujah!”

Posted on

I’ve Got A Mom, She’s Long and Tall, Sleeps in the Kitchen With Her Feet in the Hall

There’s a line from vintage Jazz songs that says, I’ve a got a girl, she’s long and tall, sleeps in the kitchen with her feet in the hall. You can see I have a adapted it for this blog post.

The “mom” I am talking about is Holy Mother Church. There is just something wonderfully universal, and catholic, about our mother. She sleeps in the kitchen because she is always feeding her children with the Holy Eucharist. She’s  “long” in the sense that she stretches all the way back to the time of Jesus.  She’s tall in that her numbers keep growing. Here in the West we lament the decline of the Church. But worldwide, the Church is growing and in many places is both vibrant and rich in vocations. We in the West need to remember this from time to time.

In his recent book  The Light of the World, Pope Benedict and Peter Seewald have the following conversation regarding this matter:

Peter Seewald:  According to the Annuario Pontificio, the almanac of the Catholic Church, you erected in the year 2009 alone nine episcopal sees, an apostolic prefecture, two new metropolitan sees, and three apostolic vicariates. The number of Catholics increased by seventeen million, as many as the population of Greece and Switzerland combined. In the almost 3,000 dioceses you appointed 169 new bishops. Then there are all the audiences, the homilies, the journeys, the great number of decisions—and besides all that you also wrote a major study on Jesus, the second volume of which will be published in the near future. You are now eighty-three years old: Where do you get your energy?

Pope Benedict:  First I must say that the statistics you list are a sign of the Church’s vitality. Viewed exclusively from the European perspective, it appears that she is in decline. But that is only one part of the whole. In other parts of the world she is growing and thriving, she is quite dynamic. The number of new priests worldwide has increased in recent years, also the number of seminarians. We on the continent of Europe are experiencing only one particular side but not the great dynamic of a new beginning that is really present elsewhere and which I encounter again and again on my journeys and through the visits of the bishops.

Yes, despite things looking at times bleak from a Western perspective, things are vivid and vital elsewhere. The Church, after all, is a bride, not a widow. She reaches every land, every culture, and speaks every language.

She has a history and memory not only encompassing today’s diversity but also stretching back over 2000 thousand years. She has seen cultures rise and fall: The Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, The British Empire, French, Portuguese, Spanish Empires and their vast networks of colonies. Both the Chinese and Japanese have had multiple dynasties and empires come and go, the Nazis rose and fell, the Soviet Union rose and fell, the Muslims too have waxed and waned in their power and scope and …..well….you get the point.  The Church has stood while all this maelstrom, all this rising and falling took place.

Clearly the Church is a miracle and would not have lasted 20 minutes if she depended on human beings. As it is, the Holy Spirit indwells her and the promise of Christ that the gates of “Hell would not prevail” protects her. She may not always be numerous and popular in every region but she will continue, she will prevail by Christ’s promise.

The Western World, especially Western Europe, and to a lesser extent, America may insist on committing suicide. But to quote another old (and somewhat irreverent) Jazz line: One monkey don’t stop no show.   The Church will teach and warn for she loves all her children, but if the West insists on suicide, the Church will still go on. God does not lie and his promise still holds, the gates of hell itself cannot prevail. Satan may try (spare us O Lord!) but he will always and ultimately loose.

We do well to keep our sights on the bigger picture. For the Church continues to thrive in many places, often despite all odds and against poverty and persecution. Yes, indeed, I’ve got a mom, she’s long and tall, sleeps in the kitchen, with her feet in the hall. Our mother’s reach is vast and wide and she is alive. She is bride, not a widow.

Posted on

On Good Intentions and Flawed Moral Reasoning

I have noticed that it is very common today that moral assessments seem to center quite a lot around the intentions and feelings of the person involved. What is actually being done seems less significant and as long as a person “means well” or feels something is right then it is OK for them and we should make no further moral discernment. It is enough for too many that the person feels the act is right and means well.

But the fact is such criteria are NOT enough. Moral uprightness consists in doing well, not just meaning well or feeling good. Intentionality is not wholly insignificant, especially when it comes to assigning a level of “culpability” (guilt or blame). But intentionality and surely feelings cannot be the only determinative factors in assessing a moral act. We must look at the act itself, what actually happens, as the primary consideration of the moral quality of that act. We cannot simply say that something is good, it must actually be good.

Let me give a few examples as to how the actual, concrete act overrules whatever feelings or intentions we have:

1. Intentions alone do not turn locks, keys do – Every day I move between the buildings that make up our parish plant. Going in and out of buildings requires the use of keys. Now many of these keys look alike. As I approach the Church door, I take out my keys and put what I think is the Church key in the lock. Now I do this with best of intentions. I think I am doing what is right, I feel that what I am doing is right. Only problem is that I put the rectory key in the Church lock. Despite all my good intentions, despite that I thought and felt I was doing what was right, the lock does not turn.

All the good intentions in the world will not make that lock turn. I may swear that I think I am right, and that I feel right. But none of those things will win the day and turn that lock. I actually have to DO what is right to get the proper result. The right key has to go in the right lock to get the right result. What I actually do is the determinative factor. Feelings, thoughts and intentions cannot win the day.

2. Good intentions alone do not get me there, following the directions does. To get to your house you tell me to turn right on Park Ave. But I turn left. I may think you said left, I may sense or feel I am going in the proper direction, I may intend to be doing what is right, but none of that is going to change the fact that I am going 30 mph in the wrong direction and am not going to get to your house until I actually DO what is right.

3. Accidents happen, but there’s still a mess. There is a can of paint in a hallway as I walk down. I kick the can of paint over and paint spills all over the floor. Whether I did so intentionally or not will not change the fact that we’ve got a mess on our hands here that has to be cleaned.

But in this example, intentionality and what I think or know is important to determine how blameworthy I am. It is possible that my act of kicking the paint over was purely accidental. Perhaps I was unaware that painting was going on in the hall and I could not see the can as I rounded the corner. In this case my culpability (or blameworthiness) is probably very low if not non-existent. But suppose I knew there was painting going on and failed to exercise proper attentiveness. I kick the can of paint over through carelessness. In this case I have some blame. But suppose I saw the can of paint and (perhaps out of anger) purposefully kicked it over. Now my blame is full.

So intentions, knowledge and feelings are important in assessing the blameworthiness of a person. But these things cannot render a bad thing good. No matter what my intentions thoughts or feelings, we still have a big mess to clean up. The objective truth is that there is paint all over the floor. Simply saying, I had good intentions or didn’t know any better does not make the mess go away.

Rectitude is tied to reality – Too many people today use flawed or incomplete reasoning when it comes to morally assessing acts. Intentions, how a person feels, or what they think and know can affect blameworthiness, but they cannot make a bad thing good, they cannot make an evil act upright, they cannot remove the harm or negative results of an incorrect, bad or evil act.  There is still a mess to clean up. There is still a U-turn to make, there is still a right key to find. Reality sets in.

There is a lot of flawed moral reasoning today around the issue of intentionality, feelings and thoughts. Important though these factors are they cannot undo reality. They cannot form the basis for judging the uprightness or wrongness of an act. Time to get back to reality in moral judgments. Time to do well, not just mean well. Time to actually do what is right not just think or feel you’re right. Back to reality.

The following video is a good example of the world’s moral reasoning. A man is in jail. All we need to know is that he meant well and had the best of intentions. How he landed in jail, all the other wrong things he’s done in his life, they matter so little that we are not even told what they were. ALL that matters is that he had the best of intentions. “Enjoy” the video.

Posted on

What’s A Bishop to Do? A Pondering of the Role of the Bishops in Questions of Public Policy

As a priest I am very careful to avoid the trip wire of partisan politics. The Catholic faithful are currently a very politically divided lot. One thing is sure, if I speak to a topic in a way that is perceived as taking sides in a political matter,  I will be loved by about 40%, hated by about 40% and 20% will have no idea what I am talking about.

Another factor is that it’s not always easy to decide what a political issue is. Many of the critical moral issues of our day have woven themselves into the political fabric of our times. I may intend to speak against abortion but some insist that I am just a shill of the Republican Party. I may quote right from the catechism regarding the duties of this nation to immigrants and some will say that I’m just a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. Now I surely will and do speak to the moral issues of these days, but I have to be very careful to stick to the issue, since people are very prone to listen with partisan, rather than Catholic ears. But honestly, it is a very difficult balance.

Then too, there are just some issues I should stay away from. I am not an expert on every public policy matter. I am aware that reasonable men and women differ on the best policies to deal with concerns of Americans. There are questions about the size and role of government, the proper level and way of taxing, the degree and extent of necessary welfare reform, the percentage of affordable housing in a given area,  etc….,   many reasonable people just differ on these things. Is it my role as a priest to opine on these topics?  Should the pulpit be used to weigh in on these things?  How about the bulletin?

Recently here on the blog there was a discussion about Cardinal Wuerl’s interview on Fox News Sunday  and his reflections on the issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). Many people in the comments box wanted him to specifically denounce the repeal of DADT. TO be sure, the question of homosexual activity is a moral issue, and the Cardinal articulated that. But DADT is a policy question. For 17 years now the military has allowed Gay people to serve, but insisted that their sexual preference be kept private for the sake of morale. Such has been the policy and it appears that this policy is going to gradually change.

Now what’s a bishop to do in cases like this? Is it sufficient for him to restate the Church’s position on the wrongfulness of homosexual acts and stay out of policy debates? Or should a bishop articulate a clear position, for or against, on a policy like DADT? What is most prudent and effective? What are the limits?

A matter of prudential judgment – The fact is, not all bishops agree on those limits. This is because determining those limits is a matter of prudential judgment. Judgments such as these vary from person to person, from issue to issue, and from region to region.

Whose ox? Even many of those commenting on last week’s blog and wishing for a more direct denunciation of DADT by the Cardinal, would probably be far less happy to hear him or another bishop indicating support for legislative efforts such as the DREAM Act or giving a negative opinion on the Arizona immigration law. Some might even opine that the bishops were overstepping their role in making such comments or that they don’t really understand the issues involved.

What is most prudent? So, on the one hand, people on both sides of the political aisle are often eager to draw the bishops into matters where reasonable people debate. On the other hand, when the given bishop does not take the desired side, they are often said to have over-stepped their authority, or that they are excoriated as being “just a bunch of left-wingers,” (or)  “just operatives of the Republican Party.”  Does all this really help the bishops in the end to preach the Gospel? Or does in merely cause them to be labeled and written off as mere political opponents with political motives?

I do not ask these as merely rhetorical questions. As stated the answer to many of these questions is matter of prudence. That the Church should annunciate moral principles is clear. When and to what extent the clergy should opine on matters of policy and legislation is less clear and requires great prudence. If all we do is annunciate principles we risk merely preaching abstractions and generalities, and this is akin to irrelevance. However if we clergy go too far into policy and legislative details we may well over step into an area that rightfully belongs to the laity, to experts and to the political process.

As a concluding example to this pondering I want to quote from an article by Deal Hudson who critiques the Bishops for not being more hawkish on the principle of subsidiarity. Then I want to ask some questions:

U.S. district court judge Henry Hudson, responding to a suit brought by Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, recently ruled the new health care law unconstitutional. Hudson found the legislation represented an “unchecked expansion” of congressional power. He explained that Congress does not have the authority, even under its power to regulate interstate commerce, to force a citizen to purchase private insurance coverage…..

When I first commented on the Virginia decision, I noted that no official response had been released by the USCCB. That remains the case. But with the likelihood that the Obama administration’s version of universal health care will be dismantled either by the Supreme Court, the Congress, or both, the USCCB should be looking for other ways of reaching the same goal….

While the bishops objected vigorously to the presence of abortion funding in the legislation, they seem untroubled by the question of its general constitutionality, one that comports closely with the principle of subsidiarity as articulated in Catholic social teaching….

Commentators on the Catholic culture wars focus on abortion, marriage, and homosexuality while completely overlooking the deep divisions over subsidiarity and the role of government in seeking the common good.

But now that a state court has found that the principle of individual liberty is violated by the health-care legislation, the questions of subsidiarity and individual liberty again come to the fore. As this case, and perhaps similar cases, moves toward the Supreme Court, the USCCB will no longer be able to duck questions about expanding the power of the federal government.

It’s a good moment in our nation’s history for all of us to take a fresh look at our founding documents. And while we are at it, Catholics can lay them alongside the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church and note how a limited government with a separation of powers, as well as a respect for individual liberty and free enterprise, is not antithetical to what is found there.[1][2]

In effect Mr Hudson wants to draw the US Bishops into the debate about the size of Government. He of course is free to do so and to seek, as he does, to influence them to weigh the principle of subsidiarity more heavily in their thinking.

However I wonder how prudent it would be for the bishops to be drawn into a debate about the size and role of government here in America. We are a democracy wherein the electorate exercise considerable influence over the size and role of government and the level of taxation, if they choose to. Is it really the role of bishops to determine the extent and role of government in a free democratic republic?

It is surely appropriate for the bishops to speak to the principles of subsidiarity, and solidarity and to encourage balance in an over all sense. But if Mr. Hudson wants them to enter the healthcare debate with a “subsidiarity ruler”  this may be more difficult. Consider some of the following:

1. What is the exact and best level of subsidiarity to be sought? I know its the lowest possible level. But what is the lowest possible level?

2. Can everyone agree and find the lowest level?

3. Is this the federal government?

4. Is it state government?

5. Is it purely private companies?.

6. Or is it a combination?

7. What combination?

8. Do reasonable people disagree?

9. Then who is right?

10. Who is to decide?

In other words, What’s a bishop to do?It is perhaps easy for the Mr Hudson to want to draw the bishops in on this question. But of course he would want them to agree with his level of subsidiarity. Reasonable men do differ on what the proper level of government involvement is. Liberals generally want a higher level and conservatives a lower level. I tend to be fearful of big government and would wish to limit its scope. Am I right? What is the metric we are to use here to gauge proper subsidiarity? What is level should the bishops use? Or is it enough for them to set forth the principles of Solidarity and Subsidiarity, and for lay people, (such as Mr. Hudson), to take these principles into the public arena and influence policy as they see fit? Should bishops reject the healthcare bill on the basis of subsidiarity?

Is that wise to apply the principle to a specific piece of legislation when the exact metric for subsidiarity isn’t even clear? Or is it best for the bishops to allow the political process to make that determination of the proper balance between solidarity, subsidiarity and the proper scope and role of government.

What’s a Bishop to do?

Now these are actual questions I am asking. I would like to know what you think. I would ask that simple attacks on the bishops be kept out. What I’d like to do here is to ponder what is prudent and perhaps discuss some norms and limits.

Here the Pope articulates some Catholic Social Principles including subsidiarity.

Posted on

Curvatus in Se: On the Inward Focus of Modern Liturgy and On Rediscovering the True Source of Our Unity

St. Augustine described the fundamental ailment of the human person when he described man as curvatus in se (turned in upon himself). St. Augustine had the individual in mind but I think communities can also turn in upon themselves.

Indeed, we have been through a difficult period of this sort in the Church, especially in regard to the way we celebrate the Liturgy, where the fundamental premise of unity seems to have become highly anthropocentric. That is to say we have understood the source of our unity to be primarily ourselves, rather than God. We may not have formally taught this,  but it is implicit in many of things we have done. I have remarked on this in another post over a year ago which you can read here:   Anthropocentric Attitudes  But allow just a few examples from Church life to illustrate.

1. The Tabernacle, once invariably at the center of our churches, was placed to the side or in some chapel. It was almost as if Jesus was in the way, somehow, of what we wanted to accomplish in the Mass. Increasingly what it seems our focus shifted to was our very selves. The principle of unity was thus to be found in us.

2. The Linear and cruciform orientation of the church building gave way to the fan shaped and even circular buildings of the past forty years. Again the message seems to be that we should look at each other, and the main goal  seems to be that we be able to see each other’s faces. It would be this that would enhance and create greater unity. Hence anything like tabernacles, candles, crosses, even altars that blocked  the view of others was to be eliminated. The unity was to be found within the assembly and by a physically inward arrangement free of any obstacles.

3. Thus architectural  minimalism became essential since the people and their ability to see each other and thus find unity were the main point. Large impressive altars, statues, high ceilings etc., anything that tended to draw attention away from others or bock the view of others, was to be removed. Somehow these outside and “distracting” objects, even if they were images of our Lord, offended against unity which was to be found within the “gathered” Church.  I remember rather humorously a now deceased liturgist from the 1970s, (Eugene Walsh), coming to our parish and telling us that the altar should be no bigger than a night stand or side table and that the priest should never stand behind anything. Even our rather radical pastor at that time thought that was going a bit too far! The altar stayed.

4. The priest must face the people at all times. The ancient and common orientation of priest and people in one direction, all looking outward toward Christ, was replaced with an inward focus, a circle. This was said to create and emphasize unity in the gathered assembly. The principle of unity was within, among the humans gathered.

5. Self-congratulatory salutations abound. We are endlessly impressed and fascinated by what we are doing and who is doing it. At large parish masses announcements and congratulatory accolades for musicians, visitors, youth et al. may last longer than the homily or Eucharistic prayer. This is seen as affirming and community-building and thus, once again, the impression is created that the we are the main point and that our unity and gifts flow from us, and exist for us. That the worship of God should be the main point  seems to many to be a downer or a distraction.

Now community is an essential partof who we are and why we are at Church. We do not come to Mass as a purely private moment with God and the Church is not a private oratory. Neither is this a question of the old versus the new Mass, for many of these trends set up wel before the missal of 1970. But in our attempt to emphasize the important and essential communal dimension of the liturgy,  it seems we may have over-corrected. It also seems that we have set up a false dichotomy wherein focusing on God, on the vertical and outward dimension of liturgy, is necessarily to offend against the human and communal dimension of the Mass.

Not only is this dichotomy false but it also destroys the very unity it clams to serve. For, if we do not communally focus on the Lord, we have no true unity. It may be argued that there is some vaguely human sort of unity, but it really no different that the unity that exists among the members of a bowling league. And even the members of a bowling league know that at some point it is important to focus on the act of bowling rather than merely on each other. Something outside themselves (i.e. bowling) ultimately unites them.

It is the Lord who unites us – Hence in the Church and in the Liturgy we must resist the false dichotomy of pitting the focus on the Lord against the focus on ourselves. There really is only one focus, the Lord. And our common focus on him unites us. He and his grace are the source of our unity. This will not exclude our unity with each other, but enhance and deepen it. This of course seems an untenable thought to those who see unity as essentially a human work, rather than a mystical or divine one.  But ultimately the only lasting unity for the Church is the unity God creates.

The Old Latin hymn, Ubi Caritas has this to say: congregavit nos in unum Christi amor  (The Love of Christ has gathered us in one). It will be noted that Amor Christi (the Love of Christ) is the subject of the verb congregavit (has gathered) and nos (us) is the direct object. That is to say, it is Christ who acts, and we who are acted upon. It is Christ who gathers and we who are gathered. The resulting unity is Christ’s work.

To focus on Christ, therefore, is to  focus on the very source of our unity.  Unity for  two really requires a third principle or person. Consider these images from Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s book Three to Get Married (TTGM):

Two glasses that are empty cannot fill up one another. There must be a fountain of water outside the glasses, in order that they may have communion with one another. It takes three to make love. (TTGM Kindle version Loc. 137-39)

Love of self without love of God is selfishness; love of neighbor without love of God embraces only those who are pleasing to us, not those who are hateful. One cannot tie two sticks together without something outside the sticks; one cannot bind the nations of the world together except by the recognition of a Law and a Person outside the nations themselves. Duality in love is extinction through the exhaustion of self-giving. Love is triune or it dies. (TTGM Kindle version Loc. 831-34)

Yes, there it is, the great paradox: the true source of our unity is outside ourselves. The inward focus of modern times in the Church has led to very divisive times in the Church. The more we seek to find our unity in a purely humanistic, inward focused manner, the more we have argued, divided and diminished. The great paradox is that the more we look up and out, the greater our unity can be. It is like a man pointing to a wonder in the sky and the crowd around him also looks up to marvel. And in the shared experience of something outside themselves, they find greater unity than before he pointed out and up.

 Consider too this image from Sheen:

 Imagine a large circle, and in the center of it, rays of light that spread out to the circumference. The light in the center is God; each of us is a ray. The closer the rays are to the center, the closer the rays are to one another. The closer we live to God, the closer we are bound to our neighbor; the farther we are from God, the farther we are from one another. (TTGM Kindle version Loc. 910-12)

Yes, it is a paradox, but like most paradoxes, it is true. The anthropocentric premise of unity in modern times has ultimately offended against unity. In the world we sought brotherhood,  and so, many, under a false notion of tolerance, kicked truth to the curb. We have not found brotherhood though, rather, extreme factions in our culture, strident demands and a battle of wills. For nothing outside us, such as truth, or God unites, we are left only to struggle for power. In the Church we sought community within. We turned inward to the merely human. And here too a battle of wills and tastes ensued. Liturgy more often divides than unites today, for in the current thinking, there is no one outside us to unite us: not God, not the Church, not tradition. What’s left is just us,  and unfortunately we are a disagreeable lot. The promise of community falls flat.

The true source of our unity must be discovered outward and upward. Outward and upward to God, outward to the wider community of the Church and the voice of the ancient community that tradition is. Congregavit nos in unum Christi amor!

I would like to finish with the words of Pope Benedict in his recent book The Light of the World. Here too he speaks with a clarity, that we have got to do a better job of getting outside ourselves if we are to find true liberation and unity in God:

Our preaching, our proclamation, really is one-sided, in that it is largely directed toward the creation of a better world, while hardly anyone talks any more about the other, truly better world. We need to examine our consciences on this point. Of course one has to meet one’s listeners halfway, one has to speak to them in terms of their own horizon. But at the same time our task is to open up this horizon, to broaden it, and to turn our gaze toward the ultimate. These things are hard to accept for people today and seem unreal to them. Instead, they want concrete answers for now, for the tribulations of everyday life. But these answers are incomplete so long as they don’t convey the sense and the interior realization that I am more than this material life, that there is a judgment, and that grace and eternity exist. By the same token, we also need to find new words and new means to enable people to break through the sound barrier of finitude. (Pope Benedict XVI Light of the World Kindle Edition Loc 2271-78)

Onward, outward, upward!

Posted on

Mary and the Muslim World: Is She the Key to Evangelization?

I have often heard that Muslims hold our Blessed Mother Mary in high regard. This reverence may stop short of devotion but there is said to be a respect for her in the Muslim tradition.

 Now, I first learned this from the great Archbishop, Fulton Sheen in his book, The World’s First Love. I read it 25 years ago and have pondered it ever since. I would like to present excerpts from the chapter entitled “Mary and the Moslems” [sic], reflect on its significance and ask a few questions. Please note that the book was written in 1952 and therefore some of the spellings are not the modern ones. Here are the excerpts:

The Koran, which is the Bible of the Moslems, has many passages concerning the Blessed Virgin. First of all, the Koran believes in her Immaculate Conception, and also, in her Virgin Birth…..The Koran also has verses on the Annunciation, Visitation, and Nativity. Angels are pictured as accompanying the Blessed Mother and saying, Oh Mary, God has chosen you and purified you, and elected you above all the women of the earth. In the 19th chapter of the Koran there are 41 verses on Jesus and Mary. There is such a strong defense of the virginity of Mary here that the Koran in the fourth book, attributes the condemnation of the Jews to their monstrous calumny against the Virgin Mary. 

Mary, then, is for the Moslems the true Sayyida, or Lady. The only possible serious rival to her in their creed would be Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed himself. But after the death of Fatima, Mohammed wrote: Thou shalt be the most blessed of women in Paradise, after Mary. In a variant of the text Fatima is made to say; I surpass all the women, except Mary. 

This brings us to our second point; namely, why the Blessed Mother, in this 20th Century should have revealed herself in the significant little village of Fatima, so that to all future generations she would be known as “Our Lady of Fatima.” Since nothing ever happens out of Heaven except with a finesse of all details, I believe that the Blessed Virgin chose to be known as “Our Lady of Fatima” as pledge and a sign of hope to the Moslem people, and as an assurance that they, who show her so much respect, will one day accept her divine Son too. 

   Evidence to support these views is found in the historical fact that the Moslems occupied Portugal for centuries. At the time when they were finally driven out, the last Moslem chief had a beautiful daughter by the name of Fatima. A Catholic boy fell in love with her, and for him she not only stayed behind when the Moslems left, but even embraced the Faith. The young husband was so much in love with her that he changed the name of the town where he lived to Fatima. Thus the very place where our Lady appeared in 1917 bears a historical connection to Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed. 

Missionaries, in the future will, more and more, see that their apostolate among the Moslems will be successful in the measure that they preach Our Lady of Fatima. Mary is the advent of Christ, bringing Christ to the people before Christ himself is born. In any apologetic endeavor, it is always best to start with that which the people already accept. Because the Moslems have devotion to Mary, our missionaries should be satisfied merely to expand and develop that devotion, with the full realization that our Blessed Lady will carry the Moslems the rest of the way to her divine Son. She is forever a “traitor,” in the sense that she will not accept any devotion for herself, bit will always bring anyone who is devoted to her to her divine Son.

 A beautiful reflection by Archbishop Sheen and one we can surely hope will come to pass. Relations are much more tense however between Christians and Muslims today than in 1952.

This leads to my first question.

Do Muslims today still manifest the reverence to Mary that Sheen described in 1952? I have seen a few people in Muslim garb at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception here in D.C., but I was not sure if they came to pay homage to Mary or just tour. I think we Catholics ought to be careful before we presume too much of what Muslims today think of Mary. The lines in the Quran quoted by Sheen are impressive but that does not mean that Muslims either know them well or interpret them as we would wish. Hence, I am merely posing a question here. If any of you know of good sources that answer the question of the Muslim stance on Mary I would be grateful if you can point it out. The answer to this question has a lot of bearing on my speculations to follow.

Astonishing Fact – I must say,  I have always considered it nothing less than astonishing that Mary should appear in a town called, of all things, “Fatima.”  Surely this is no mere coincidence and, as Sheen aptly points out, heaven does nothing without purpose. That we are not to merely pass over this detail, is very clear to me. One of the more well known modern titles of Mary is “Our Lady of Fatima.” Fatima is the daughter of Muhammad. This is hugely significant.

Third Secret of Fatima?  For many years, before its revelation,  I was sure that the Third Secret of Fatima  had something to do with the Muslim question. Frankly I figured it likely described a great conflict with the Muslim world that would arise and lead to great suffering for the Church, even a kind of Babylonian captivity, but that ultimately Mary’s Immaculate Heart would triumph by the power of God. Imagine my chagrin when the third secret was finally revealed with a less than worldwide, apocalyptic content. Granted, the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II was a serious and significant matter but it was less than the worldwide conflict I had expected. It is also true that his would-be assassin was Muslim, but the plot was likely more communist and Russian in origin. In the end my theory was rocked back on its heels and fell flat.

But still we are left with Fatima. Why Fatima? Why a town bearing the namesake of Muhammad’s daughter? It seems clear that Mary will play an important role in the years ahead as the Muslim/Christian conflict likely grows sharper. Perhaps, as Sheen notes, she will be the bridge that connects two vastly different cultures, the common mother who keeps her children talking. Right now this connection seems little pursued, even,  as far as I can tell,  by the Vatican. But here too allow a question from me. Are there any of you who know if Our Lady of Fatima has any role in Vatican-Muslim dialogue?

The Guadalupe connection –  I wonder too if  the history of Our Lady of Guadalupe presents some historical parallels to our current struggle with the Muslim world. In the early 16th Century in Mexico, missionaries had made only meager progress in bringing the Aztec people to Christ. It was a combination of  the sometimes rude and cruel treatment of the indiginous people by the Spanish soldiers, and also of the fearful superstition surrounding the Aztec gods. These gods required horrific human sacrifices and kept the people locked in with this fear that, unless they fed these gods,  their  greatest god,  the sun,  would no longer shine.

Into this fearful and suspicious setting entered Mother Mary. The miraculous image she left in 1531 was richly symbolic: Her face  is a mother’s face, gentle and compassionate, unlike the frightful Aztec gods who wore fierce masks. Her features seem to be both an Aztec and European, two cultures are combined in kindness and peace. Her attitude is one of humble prayer, so she is clearly not a god. She is a merciful mother who consoles and prays for us. She is to be honored but not adored. The black band around her waist means that she is with child and offers Jesus to the people. Her message is about him. The sun was the greatest of the Aztec gods and, by standing in front of the sun, Mary shows that she is greater than all their gods. The moon represented to them the god of darkness and death. That she is standing on the moon is a sign that these powers too have been defeated by the son she bears.

 Mary brought the breakthrough. Within ten years over 12 million Mexicans came to Christ and entered the Catholic Church.

This history is paralleled in many ways today in the current tensions with the Muslim World. In many Muslim lands today conversions are few. Part of the reason for this is  a strong aversion for the western culture from which Catholicism comes. Another reason includes many alleged grievances that Muslims have of American and Western “mistreatment.”  Finally,  a large factor is fear. Leaving the Muslim faith is likely to get you killed in many parts of the Muslim world. So, it is a combination of a wide cultural gulf, alleged grievances, and fear, that keep conversions low. All not unlike 16th Century Mexico.

Is Mary key? It took Mary to bridge all these similar gaps between the Aztecs and the Christian Missionaries. Might Mary also be that bridge today when similar gaps divide? Time will tell, but one of her greatest Modern titles is Our Lady of Fatima.  And then,  there is the crescent moon upon which Mary stands in the image of Guadalupe. In modern times the crescent moon is the symbol of Islam. Mother Mary of Guadalupe, by God’s grace, was victorious and overcame the false religion of the Aztecs with love and humility.

Might this crescent moon on which Our Lady of Guadalupe stands also point to our times, and the crescent moon of Islam?  Might it indicate that her victories, by God’s grace, are not at an end. Perhaps we can hope that what our Lady of Guadalupe was to the Aztec people of Mexico, Our Lady of Fatima will be to the Muslim people of the world.

As always, I invite your comments and answers to my questions.

*
Here is “Immaculate Mary” sung in Arabic

Posted on

On Time Warps and Missing Feasts: Puzzling Over the Confusion in the Liturgical Cycle of Christmas

I must admit that I have a few concerns about the Christmas Calendar and I am interested in your thoughts on the matter.

1. In the First place I think that having the Feast of the Holy Family inside the Octave is a mistake. This is due, not to the feast per se,  but especially to the Gospel readings that are selected for the Feast.

In cycle A we read of the flight to Egypt, an event that takes place after the Epiphany which we have yet  yet to be celebrate! In effect, we jump forward in time either weeks, or even two years, (depending on when we reckon Epiphany to have taken place historically, (for some scholars think the Epiphany may have take place up to two years after the birth, which I personally doubt)). After having  jumped forward in time and place (Egypt), we then go back in time and place, (Bethlehem), to celebrate Epiphany on January 6th or the nearest Sunday.

If this were not bad enough Cycle B takes us forty days forward in time for the Feast of the Presentation (also called the Purification).   This too is a jump forward in time for the Rite of Purification was to take place forty days after birth by Jewish law and custom. That is why we celebrate the Feast of the Presentation on February 2nd.

Even worse, Cycle C takes us 12 years into the future as we read of the finding of Jesus in the Temple.  Then suddenly we are back to the infant Jesus for the feast of Epiphany.

All this temporal displacement could be avoided if we returned the Feast of the Holy Family back to the Sunday after Epiphany where it was prior to 1970. Indeed the Traditional Latin Mass still has the feast located there and uses the Gospel of the Finding of Jesus in the Temple. As such it provides a nice bridge from the infant Jesus we had at Epiphany to the Adult Jesus we have and the Baptism of the Lord and the Sundays following. It also avoids the temporal whiplash which the calendar and Christmas cycle causes by celebrating the Feast of the Holy Family on the Sunday inside the Christmas Octave.

2. Asecond concern I have is the loss of the Feast of the Circumcision and the giving of the Lord’s Name. As you likely know, Jewish boys were circumcised on the 8th Day, and their name was announced. Until 1960 we celebrated the octave day of Christmas as the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord. More than the Circumcision we also celebrated the giving of Jesus’ name. However in 1960 Pope John XXIII renamed January 1st as simply, “the Octave Day of Christmas,” though the Gospel of the Circumcision continued to be read. In 1970, the Feast came to be designated as the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.

However! –  Now in this matter, my preference for the Feast of the Circumcision is rooted in my preference for a proper chronology that follows the Biblical Data as close as possible. However, the designation of the Octave Day as “Mary Mother of God” has some very strong arguments for it, I must say.

Evidence for the celebration of this feast goes back in the Roman Church all the way to the 7th Century. Prior to that, there is evidence of this feast being celebrated in other parts of Europe, but usually on the Fourth Sunday of Advent. By the 13th and 14th Centuries, however, the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord came to replace this feast, and the Feast of Mary Mother of God was eventually moved to October 11th and renamed the feast of the “Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.” Just after Vatican II The more ancient feast of Mary Mother of God was restored to January 1st. So, in the first place we see that the Feast of  Mary Mother of God on January 1st is the more ancient practice and this is a strong argument in its favor.

The feast also commemorates a very central dogma, most appropriate for the Christmas season:  that since Christ is one person with two natures (human andDivine), then Mary is rightly called the Mother of God.  Mary is Mother of God because Jesus is God. Some had wanted to argue that she only gave birth to his human nature and,  hence,  is only mother of what is human in him. But Jesus is ONE PERSON with two natures. This is something called in theology the “hypostatic union” and it is an essential teaching on Christ. He unites, in one person, the human nature and the divine nature. There are not two “Jesuses.” Neither is it true that his Divine nature came upon him at a later time such as his baptism. No, his two natures were united in his one person from the moment of of his human conception. And since Jesus is one, Mary gives birth, and is mother to the whole Christ. Mary is Mother of God because Jesus is God and Jesus is one. This title was given to Mary at the Council of Ephesus in 431 in defense of Christ’s divinity. The Greek form of this title is Θεοτόκος (Theotokos) translated more literally as “God Bearer.”

Still! – I love the Blessed Mother and surely affirm her under this proper title. But I regret the loss of the Feast of the Circumcision. As stated, I generally prefer to stick as close to the Biblical narrative as possible. In this case Scripture is clear, on the eighth day (i.e. January 1st for us), Jesus was circumcised and his name given. Three important truths and events are celebrated here. First that Jesus was born under the law and submitted himself to it so that he might fulfill it. Secondly there is the first shedding of blood, and this refers to the passion. Thirdly his name is announced: Jesus, a name which means “God saves.” There is no other name given to men by which we are to be saved, there is no other blood that can atone for our sins than the blood of Jesus and there is no one who can fulfill the Law as Jesus does. It seems a bit of a loss not to explicitly celebrate these  truths about Jesus on the very day (the eighth day) they happened.

3. A final concern is the moving of Epiphany in many parts of the world to the nearest Sunday. This troubles me greatly. Epiphany is a very important feast of the Church and completes the the 12th day of the Christmas feast. January 6th is the proper day for this feast going back to the 4th Century. Now many argue that the Feast is important and that is why it should be moved to the nearest Sunday so that many more will experience it. However, it is a  fact that this inevitably shortens the Christmas Cycle. The liturgical calendar sets forth sacred time, and it seems a very bad idea to allow the demands of the secular world for convenience to intrude on sacred time. Christmas is OUR time and OUR feast. It seems as though the tail is wagging the dog here. Too many Catholics allow the world to influence how they celebrate Christmas. Christmas does not end December 26th or January 2nd. It ends January 6th. Better that we should catechize our faithful as to the importance of this feast and even set it as a holy day of obligation than to move it.  It is true that fewer will experience the feast, even if we oblige it, but at least the Church will speak more clearly to full mystery of the Christmas feast rather than rush its completion and cave to worldly schedules. IMHO.

You may wish to dispute these regrets of mine and I hope you will use the comments section to advance your points. Obviously, greater minds in the Church than I have decided on these matters and do not agree with yours truly.

I suppose though, if I had it my way, here is what I would do:

  1. Celebrate the Feast of Mary Mother of God on the Sunday Between Christmas and January 1st (where we celebrate Holy Family now).
  2. Move the Feast of the Holy Family to the Sunday after Epiphany (where it used to be before 1970). This Feast seems better celebrated after Epiphany as a kind of bridge: Jesus at 12 years of age links the infant Chirst and the adult Christ as we return to Ordinary time.
  3. Restore the Feast of the Circumcision to January 1st.
  4. Return Epiphany to January 6th where this is not currently the case.

But nobody is asking me from Rome what I think! 🙂 So enjoy my “rant” for what it is: , just a slight case of temporal whiplash, grief for a feast that is missing  in action and a wish to tweak the Christmas calendar so it flows a little better.

Enjoy The Ave Maria by Rachmaninoff.

And for those of you who prefer a more modern Christmas, here is a virtual and iPad Christmas:

North Point’s iBand from North Point Web on Vimeo.