Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on

The Second Hardest Promise: Experiencing the Lord’s Gift of Peace

In yesterday’s Gospel the Lord made a promise to us of peace: Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid. (John 14:27) Now this promise is perhaps the hardest of promises for many Christians to realize. Anxiety seems deeply rooted in the human condition, at least the fallen version of it that we have inherited. Upon hearing the words, “Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid” many become downcast and even feel a failure at their incapacity to “snap out of it.”  Exhortations and rational expectations seldom ease feelings. And being told to have courage or cheer up can sometimes seem almost cruel.

But is that what the Lord is really doing here? Is he merely exhorting us to do something out of our flesh power? No indeed. But He is leaving us a promise of a gift to increasingly receive and experience. It must however be his work, his peace. True inner peace and serenity cannot be something this world gives or that emerges from our own unregenerate flesh. It must be Christ’s peace.

What is inner peace? Like most of the deepest gifts of the Lord peace is hard to reduce to mere words. But generally speaking inner peace is the experience that everything is all right.  I have underlined the word experience since the statement “everything is all right” is not just a postulate of the intellect, it is an experience of the whole person. It is deeper than knowledge, it is an experience that is present and very real. It is sometimes called “serenity” which comes from the Latin word serenus that referred to water that was clear because it was calm and untroubled.

The experience that everything is all right does not have to mean that everything is exactly the way we want it or that there are not issues that puzzle us as to their outcome. There may in fact be things that need attention and resolution but we are not vexed by this fact and do not ruminate endlessly as to their outcome. We may even have preferences as to certain outcomes but inner peace supplies the experience that, whatever happens it will be just fine.

The experience of true inner peace, though it can be given by God at any time is usually the fruit of long experience and deepening prayer. The gift of peace usually grows gently, almost imperceptibly in the person who is serious about prayer, reception of the Sacraments and growing in the faith through recourse to the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church. One who is faithful in these matters becomes gradually aware that anxiety has largely departed and many things that used to vex and trouble them, no longer have the power to do so.

It is a true fact that some people are naturally less anxious than others. Further, most people are not anxious in the same way, but have a certain range of things that provoke worry and other things over which they are care-free. While these natural dispositions to being carefree are sometimes called peace, they are not to be confused with the Lord’s gift of inner peace which is a far deeper experience than a lack of worry.  It is more than an absence of anxious thoughts, it is the positive presence of calm and the experience that everything is in God’s hands and hence, is just as it should be.

Perhaps it will be helpful to describe some of the signs of inner peace. They are fruits that emerge in the person who is increasingly experiencing God’s gift of inner peace:

1. A tendency to think and act deliberately, rather than from fears based on past experiences.– As fear and anxiety begin to dissipate we begin to be less reactive to life and more reflective and proactive. Fear tends to incite rash judgements. Serenity permits greater reflection and deliberation and we can act more from what we positively value than from what we fear. As trust grows we are less superstitious and we also see how bad experiences of the past are not necessarily predictive of the present circumstances. For example, a person may have grown up under a severe or domineering father. But that does not mean that every male authority figure is this way. As inner peace increases in us we begin to stop projecting bad experiences from childhood or the past on to persons or situations of the present.

2. An increasing  ability to enjoy each moment and live in the moment – Rumination and worry  about future matters rob from us an appreciation of the present moment and blinds us to the blessings of this moment. As peace increases and worries subside I am freed to be present to the blessings of the moment.

3. A loss of interest in conflict and aggressive behavior– As peace increases in us we become content with what God has given us. We are open to the invitation to “come up higher” but are also content to “sit at the lowest place.” As this takes place we are less aggressive in getting our needs met and less conflicted that there are some things we don’t have. We are not drawn into silly competitions with others as to place, position, reward, or credit. Happy with what we have, we do not need to fight to get things we don’t have. When necessary we will fight for what is right but not out of ego needs and the desire to “win.” But, rather, from a serene desire to usher in what is just and right. As peace increases in us fighting and aggressive behavior seem foreign and increasingly unnecessary.

4. A loss of interest in interpreting the actions of others– A rather large source of anxiety and unease in our lives are suspicious and cynical attitudes. We too easily observe the actions of others and rush to conclude often negative motivations. For example, “He’s trying to make me look bad.” Perhaps this true, perhaps there were other motives too. But as inner peace begins to increase in us we are less concerned with the motives of others. Inner peace helps us to be less concerned with the motivations. Cynicism and suspicion begin, little by little to seem foreign to us and we just loose interest in their voice.

5. An increasing loss of ability to worry – As inner peace increases, it is not just that worry goes away, but the actual ability to worry also wanes. People frequently try to get us to worry about stuff. There is a lot of fear mongering in our culture. It’s everything from the advertisers trying to get us to obsess about how we look or what others think of us to the doomsayers trying to work us into a frenzy over the impending doom of the planet. But as inner peace increases in us it is harder for others to get us to carry their fear. We have fewer buttons for them to push. Even if someone frantically warns of this or that, it is not enough to trigger worry in us. This is a miraculous sort of transformation as we begin to discover an increasing loss of even the ability to worry.

6. Frequent, overwhelming episodes of appreciation and joy – A fear begins to depart we are less distracted by its gnawing presence and freer to enjoy and appreciate things. Joy and gratitude begin to occupy the space fear once did.

7. Contented feelings of connectedness with others and nature and God. – As fear competitiveness, anger and suspicion begin to depart we are more compassionate and aware of the gifts and goodness of others. Since fear less distracts us we become better listeners and are more present to others, more connected. With distracting fear and rumination increasingly behind us we can also become more aware the world around us and appreciative of its beauty. As for God, as peace begins to grow, we often begin to experience the first beginning of contemplative prayer. This sort of prayer is described as a restful quiet in the presence of God beyond words, images or discourse. It is a simple, calm, serene and ever deeper grasp of God’s loving presence.

8. An increasing tendency to allow things to unfold, rather than resisting and manipulating the outcomes– As our experience that everything is alright grows we have less need to control and manipulate life. We make necessary plans and provisions but are more able to allow things to unfold differently than our plans insisted. Imperfect outcomes are not seen as failures necessarily. Perhaps they are opportunities to learn. Control is paradoxically an enemy of peace. For control is ultimately more illusion than reality. You may have plans for tomorrow but I cannot guarantee you that you will even finish this article before you die. Whatever things we do control are contingent on many more things that we do not control. As inner peace grows we are less insistent on controlling every detail and more content to allow things to unfold.

These 8 signs are adapted from the original material ©1984, Saskia Davis. The Bold principles are substantially hers but the plain text commentary for each is mine.

So there it is, the second hardest promise of the Lord: Peace. But what is the hardest promise of  the Lord? you may ask. Perfection! Jesus promised it when he said, So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:48) Don’t try to do it on your own. Only the Lord can do it in you. But it’s the hardest promise since it will surely wait until death and probably beyond in Purgatory. Perfection will come, but that’s another article.

Meantime:

Let nothing disturb you,
Let nothing frighten you,
All things pass away:
God never changes.
Patience obtains all things.
He who has God
Finds he lacks nothing;
God alone suffices.

– St. Teresa of Avila

Posted on

Anti Christian Bigotry in California School District is Rebuked by Judge.

I have marveled over the years at the kind of fear and anger the Christian Faith generates in some sectors of our society. Even the suggestion that there might a a small nativity scene in a park, or Christmas tree near City Hall, or a display of the Ten Commandments often elicits a hew and cry and brings forth camera crews and elicits lawsuits. But the venom seems especially reserved  for symbols of the Christian faith in particular and to some extent the wider Judeo-Christian heritage. A reference from the Q’ran in school is seen by many of this same crowd to be “tolerant” and “diverse.”  But to quote the Bible is an egregious violation of the (so-called) separation of Church and State. A comedy skit on a TV show that even indirectly depicts Mohammad is bemoaned as intolerant and anti-Muslim (which it may be) but a photo of a crucifix submerged in urine is called “art” and receives funding from the National Endowment of the Arts. Well, you know the basic drill.

Most Americans are not offended by religious display. It remains a small but very vocal minority which seeks to remove all reference to America’s spiritual and religious heritage. And due to this movement’s particular hostility to things Christian one is left to conclude that we are not dealing with a rational objection here but rather one rooted in bigotry, hatred or at least aversion to the Christian faith.

The latest round in anti-Christian fervor has taken place in San Diego (Spanish, by the way and meaning “St. James”!)  California. I will excerpt the story here from briefing by the Thomas More Law Center and provide a few comments of my own in red. The Full briefing with other links can be found here: Poway School Board Continues Fight to Ban God  .

In a closed-session meeting held on Monday night, the Poway Unified School District board in San Diego, California, voted to appeal the ruling of Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez that held school officials violated math teacher Bradley Johnson’s constitutional rights when they ordered him to remove two patriotic banners from the walls of his classroom because they referred to “God.” The appeal will be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Notice, the specific reason they said they wanted the posters removed was because they referred to God. The posters did not endorse a specific denomination or even reference Jesus, they simply mentioned God. Note too, they were all quotes from official US documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the National Seal, and the usual conclusion to any presidential speech: “God bless the United States of America.” Now the School officials SAY that they were concerned about references to God. But where they? As we shall see they allowed other religious references to remain. It would seem that their objections focused only only on religious references to God that emanated from the traditional Judeo-Christian heritage of this Nation’s past. This God has to go but other religious figures from Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu sources can stay. Also, as you will see anti-religious slogans were also permitted to remain. So, what are we dealing with here? Is it some sort of misguided but at least consistent and principled stance against any religious or sectarian display in public schools?  Obviously not. It is an inconsistent singling out of the Judeo-Christian heritage of this land and seems more bigoted than principled.

The banners included the phrases, “In God We Trust,” “One Nation Under God,” , “God Bless America.” [“All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator.”]. The school district claimed Johnson’s banners, which had hung in his classroom for two decades without complaint, advocated an impermissible Judeo-Christian view point and may be offensive to a Muslim student. I could not find in any of the articles I read on this that a Muslim Student had actually complained. The School officials seem to have merely concluded that a Muslim student might be offended. But I wonder if they would? Muslims are not Christians but neither are they secular. If I were in a largely Muslim Country and saw references to Allah and was greated Allahu Akbar (God is Great) I would not be offended. After all I too think God is great. I do not share the Muslim faith or worship God under the title or vision of Allah. But somewhere I suspect that they and we are both striving for God. I think their notions of Him are quite flawed but I am surely not offended by references to Allah. It is always possible that a militant Muslim of some sort might be offended by a reference to “God” but the militants aren’t going to be pleased no matter what. So I seriously doubt that the average Muslim is going to be offended by a sign that says, “In God We Trust.”

However, the school district left untouched displays that included a 35 to 40 foot string of Tibetan prayer flags with images of Buddha; a poster with the lyrics from John Lennon’s anti-religion song “Imagine,” which begins, Imagine there’s no Heaven; a poster with Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi’s “7 Social Sins;” a poster of Muslim leader Malcolm X, and a poster of Buddhist leader Dali Lama. OK the gig is up, they’re singling out Christians and the Judeo-Christian Heritage.

In a public statement made shortly after the vote to appeal the ruling, School Board member Jeff Mangum stated, “[I]f this is allowed, what else can go up on the wall?” The board member’s question was answered by Judge Benitez, who noted in his ruling that school officials banned Johnson’s patriotic displays while permitting other teachers to display personal posters and banners promoting partisan political issues such as gay rights and environmental causes, including global warming. Looks like the Judge smelled a rat of rank hypocrisy and selective outrage

Judge Benitez’s 32-page opinion was strongly worded and critical of the Poway school districts aversion to God: “[The school district officials] apparently fear their students are incapable of dealing with diverse viewpoints that include God’s place in American history and culture. . . . That God places prominently in our Nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson’s public high school classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God.”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed the federal lawsuit on Johnson’s behalf after the school district ordered him to take down his banners in January 2007. The Law Center vows to defend Judge Benitez’s ruling before the Ninth Circuit and to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary…..Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center Senior Trial Counsel handling the case, commented,…. [School Officials]  “have no objection to a 40-foot display of sacred, Tibetan prayer flags in a science classroom, among countless other religious and political displays. But they do have a personal objection to Mr. Johnson’s patriotic banners because they recognize a fundamental truth that school officials dislike: God plays a prominent role in our Nation’s history and heritage.”

The Ninth Circuit is unfortunately not friendly to traditional religion however. I suspect there may be trouble in this appeal but there is hope if it gets to the US Supreme Court which commonly overturns the 9th Circuit. An example of this happened very recently when the Supreme Court allowed a War memorial Cross to stand on a hill top on Federally owned land in California. You can read more of that here: Supreme Court overturns objection to cross on public land

This video summarizes the school case and even includes a little humor.

Posted on

It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us….On the Council of Jerusalem and the Catholicity of the Early Church

In the first reading at Today’s Mass (and all last week at daily Mass) we have recounted for us the Council of Jerusalem which scholars generally date to around the Year 50 AD. It was a pivotal moment in the history of the Church since it would set forth an identity for the Church that was independent per se from the culture of Judaism, and it would open wide the door or inculturation to the Gentiles. This surely had significant impact upon evangelization in the early Church.

Catholic Ecclesiology is Evident here: I want to set forth in this article the proposition that we have reflected here a very Catholic model of the Church in terms of how a matter of significant pastoral practice and doctrine is properly dealt with. In effect what we see here is the same model the Catholic Church has continued to use right to our own time. What is evident here and in all subsequent Ecumenical Councils is a gathering of the Bishops presided over by the Pope which considers a matter and may even debate it. If necessary the Pope resolves debates where consensus cannot be reached. Once a decision is reached, a letter is issued to whole Church and considered binding.

All these elements are seen here though somewhat in seminal form. Let’s consider this First Council of the Church in Jerusalem of 50 AD. beginning first with the remote preparation –

1. Bring in the Gentiles! – The Lord, just before he ascended gave the Apostles the great commission: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). Hence, the Gentiles are now to be summoned  and included in the ranks of discipleship and of the Church.

2. But it looks like the Church was mighty slow in beginning any outreach to the Gentiles. It is true that on the day of Pentecost people from every nation heard the Sermon of Peter and 3000 converted. By they were all Jews (Acts 2). In fact it seems the Church did little at first to leave Jerusalem and go anywhere, let alone to the nations.

3. Perhaps as a swift quick in the pants the Lord allowed a persecution to break out in Jerusalem after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7). This caused the gospel to begin a northward trek into Samaria at least. Samaritans however are not usually considered Gentiles, since they were a groups that had intermarried with Jews in the 8th Century BC. There is also the Baptism of an Ethiopian Official but he too was a Jew.

4. Fifteen Years  ?!  The time line of Acts is a bit speculative however if we study it carefully and compare it to some of what Paul says (esp. in Galatians) it would seem that we are dealing with over 15 years before the baptism of the first Gentile! If this is true then it is a disgrace. There were of course strong racial animosities between Jew and Gentile that may explain the slow response to Jesus’ commission. It explains but does not excuse it.

5. Time for another kick in the pants. This time the Lord went to Peter who was praying on a rooftop in Joppa and by means of a vision taught him that he was not to call unclean what God had called clean. The Lord then sent to Peter an entourage from Cornelius, a high Roman military official who was seeking baptism. He, of course was a Gentile. The entourage requests that Peter go with them to meet Cornelius at Cesarea. At first he is reluctant. But then recalling the vision (kick in the pants) that God had given him he decides to go. In Cesarea he does something unthinkable. He, a Jew, enters the house of a Gentile. Peter has learned his lesson and been guided by God as the first Pope to do what is right and just. After a conversation with Cornelius and the whole household, and signs from the Holy Spirit, Peter has them baptized. Praise the Lord! It was about time. (All of this is detailed in Acts 10)

6. It is a true fact that many were not happy with what Peter had done and they confront him on it. Peter explains his vision, and also the manifestation of the Holy Spirit and insists that this is how it is going to be. While it is a true fact these early Christians felt freer to question Peter than we would the Pope today, it is also a fact that what Peter has done is binding even if some of them don’t like it. What Peter has done will stand. Once Peter has definitively answered them, they reluctantly assent and declare somewhat cynically: “God has granted life giving repentance (even) to the Gentiles!”  (Acts 11:19)

7. Trouble Brewing – So, the mission to the Gentiles is finally open. But that does not mean trouble is over. As Paul, Barnabas and others begin to bring in large numbers of Gentile converts some among the Jewish Christians begin to object that  they were not  like Jews and began to insist that they must be circumcised and follow the whole Jewish Law, not just the moral precepts but also the cultural norms, kosher diet, purification rites etc. That is where we picked up the story in today’s Mass.

8. The Council of Jerusalem – Luke is a master of understatement and says “Because there arose no little dissension and debate….” (Acts 15:2) it was decided to ask the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem to gather and consider the matter. So the apostles and some presbyters (priests) with them meet and,  of course,  Peter is there as is James who was especially prominent in Jerusalem among the apostles and would later become bishop there. Once again Luke rather humorously summarizes the matter by saying, “After much debate Peter arose” (Acts 15:7). In effect Peter arises to settle the matter since (it would seem) that the apostles themselves were divided.  Had not Peter received this charge from the Lord? The Lord had prophesied: Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you all like wheat but I have prayed for you Peter, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:31-32). Now Peter fulfills this text as he will again and every Pope after him. Peter clearly dismisses any notion that the Gentiles should be made to take up the whole burden of Jewish customs. Paul and Barnabas rise to support this. Then James (who may have felt otherwise) rises to assent to the decision and asks that a letter be sent forth to all the Churches explaining the decision. He also asks for and obtains a few concessions.

So there it is, the First Council. And that Council like all the Church-wide Councils that would follow was a gathering of the bishops, in the presence of Peter who works to unite them. A decision is then made and a decree, binding on the whole Church,  is sent out. Very Catholic actually. We have kept this Biblical model ever since. Our Protestant brethren have departed from it for they have no Pope to settle things when they dispute. They have split endlessly into tens of thousands of denominations and factions. When no one is pope every one is pope.

A final thought. Notice how the decree to the Churches is worded: It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us (Acts 15:28). In the end we trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in matters of faith and morals. We trust that decrees and doctrines that issue forth from Councils of the Bishops with the Pope are inspired by and authored by the Holy Spirit Himself. And there it is right in Scripture, the affirmation that when the Church speaks solemnly in this way it is not just some bishops and the Pope as men, it is the Holy Spirit who speaks with them.

The Church – Catholic from the Start!

Posted on

Truth in the New Translation Series: # 2 – The Memento Domine or Commemoration of the Living in the Roman Canon

This is the second installment of a series begun last week on the New English Translation of the Roman Missal. In this series I seek to present the new translation as a truer translation and hence a truer expression of the Catholic faith than the version in current use. In case you missed the first installment it is here:  Truth in the New Translation Series – The Te Igitur

With the new translation the richness of the Catholic faith in the Roman Missal is once again made available to Catholics in English speaking settings. Many of these riches have been kept hidden by an inferior translation ( a paraphrase, actually) in use since 1970.

We now turn our attention to the second paragraph of the Roman Canon known as the Memento Domine. Presented first is the Latin text, followed by the new translation, followed by the version in current use:

Latin Text: Meménto, Dómine, famulórum famularúmque tuárum N. & N.  Et ómnium circumstántium, quorum tibi fides cógnita est, et nota devótio: pro quibus tibi offérimus, vel qui tibi ófferunt hoc sacrifícium laudis, pro se, suísque ómnibus, pro redemptióne animárum suárum, pro spe salútis et incolumitátis suæ; tibíque reddunt vota sua ætérno Deo, vivo et vero.

New Translation: Remember, Lord, your servants N. and N. and all gathered here, whose faith and devotion are known to you. For them and all who are dear to them we offer you this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves and all who are dear to them, for the redemption of their souls, in hope of health and well-being, and fulfilling their vows to you, the eternal God, living and true.

Version in current use: Remember, Lord, your people, especially those for whom we now pray, N. and  N. Remember all of us gathered here before you. You know how firmly we believe in you and dedicate ourselves to you. We offer you this sacrifice of praise for ourselves and those who are dear to us. We pray to you, our living and true God, for our well-being and redemption.

1. We are God’s servants – In the translation in current use we refer to ourselves as “your people” but the Latin refers to us as famulorum famularumque (literally “servants and handmaids). The new translation restores the more accurate word “servants” to refer to us. It is true that the use of the word “handmaids” has been dropped. This is likely due to its rather archaic sound in the modern setting. The translators have simply made use of the single word, “servants” to  refer to both male and female though, it is true,  the Latin text distinguishes the two. Perhaps in the modern setting we can say it is a distinction without a difference. But the return to the truer rendering of the word “servants” is helpful to our age. In current times we are slow to acknowledge that, before anything else we are or do, we are God’s servants. We are not God’s equal, neither are we free to set the terms of our obedience to God. That would be pride, the primordial sin wherein Adam and Eve essentially said, “I will decide what I want to do and I will decide whether it is right or wrong.” But as it is, we are not to yield to pride, we are to realize and accept that our greatest glory is to be God’s servant. The Lord Jesus said, Whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all. For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mk 10:43-45). It is appropriate as an antidote to the current climate which has downplayed our status as servants of the Lord.

2. A less presumptive declaration of our faith and devotion – The current version rather presumptively tells God what he should know by saying, You know how firmly we believe in you and dedicate ourselves to you. This tone is rather presumptive and boldly  asserts things about ourselves that we are not the judge of. Hence the new translation more accurately and humbly renders the Latin, and all gathered here, whose faith and devotion are known to you. Now we will no longer tell God what he should know about us but rather we will simply and humbly accept that he knows for himself and on his own terms the true degree of our faith and devotion. Here too is another antidote to the rather bold and presumptive tone our times.

3. The distinction between the offering of the clergy and the people  – What the priest is doing at the Altar is separate and distinct from what the gathered people are doing. The ordained ministerial priest in virtue of his ordination is making the offering to the Father in persona Christi capitis (in the person of Christ the head). It is Christ himself who is speaking and ministering through the ordained priest. The Latin text does say offerimus (we offer) but the “we” referred to here is the celebrant along with any other con-celebrating priests. As to the people the Latin text says, vel qui tibi offerunt (or who (themselves) offer unto you). Hence the people DO offer unto God, but in an offering distinct from (though related to) what the priest(s) celebrant(s) are doing. The people are offering prayers, a sacrifice of praise, bread and wine, and monetary support, indeed the gift of their very selves to God. And they make this offering as an exercise of the common or royal priesthood they received in baptism. But as the Catechism points out the common priesthood  of all the baptized  and the ministerial priest are ordered to one another but differ essentially (cf CCC # 1547). The Second Vatican Council affirmed that

Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist.  They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity. (Lumen Gentium 10)

Hence the more careful rendering  of the new translation spells out the careful wording of the Latin text which preserves the inter-related though distinct offerings taking place here: For them and all who are dear to them we offer  you this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves and all who are dear to them. The lack of proper distinction in the past decades has led to harm in both distinct branches of the priesthood. It has led to a clericalization of the laity, thus undermining respect for their proper role and mission in the temporal order as well as at mass. It has also tended to laicize the clergy thus diminishing respect for their distinct role among the faithful in terms of the celebration of the Sacred liturgy, thus sanctifying, teaching and governing in sacred matters and equipping the laity to exercise proper oversight of the temporal order. It is surely hoped that the new translation will assist in rearticulating and thus recognizing the proper roles and distinctiveness of clergy and laity.

4. Rendering  our vows– The new translation says that the faithful,  in making their offering,  are  fulfilling their vows to you (a fairly literal rendering of the Latin tibíque reddunt vota sua). This is a gloss on a phrase that occurs not infrequently in the psalms occurring over a dozen times in this or a similar form: I am under vows to you, O God; I will present my thank offerings to you. (Ps 56:12) or again, Praise awaits you, O God, in Zion; to you our vows will be fulfilled (Ps 65:1). The fact is that we owe God our praise. To praise God is described repeatedly in the psalms and elsewhere in Scripture as a kind of debt we owe to God. He is worthy of our praise and since we have this debt we have a kind of vow or promise to render and fulfill that debt of gratitude and praise. Too many people today think of worship as something that exists for them. Hence we hear people say that they “Don’t get anything out of Church” or that they “Are not being fed.” But in the end it is not about you or me. The focus is God and that we owe him a debt of gratitude and praise. We ought to go to Church simply because God is worthy and we have a debt or vow to render. It is nice if the sermon is good, my favorite song is sung etc. but that is not why we go. We go to render or fulfill our sacred duty and vow, to give thanks to God who is infinitely worthy.

The current English version misses the Scriptural allusion altogether by simply saying “We pray to you.” Fine, but again notice the subtle shift to us and what we are doing. Notice too a complete loss of the reason, (our vow or duty). The current text also stumbles badly because it inaccurately links the “We pray” to an expected reward: “for our well being and redemption.” In other words the current translation links our act of praying to reward whereas the Latin text and the new translation link to a duty pure and simple. Here again, the new translation will provide a vast benefit by helping us to recover reference to our duty to worship God and render him thanks simply because he is worthy and we have a duty, obligation and vow to render this even without any hope of reward for it.

So here we are only two paragraphs into the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) and we have had much to discuss. The New translation provides vast benefit in terms of teaching and the recovery of sacred truths which the 1970 version obscured. As can be seen the poor translation of 1970 is directly connected to many struggles we have had in the Church in terms of an improper understanding of the faith and of worship. It is not the only cause, but surely we can see how the new translation will help us recover important truths. More installments in this series will be coming soon.

Video: I realize that some of you do not appreciate Gospel music the way I do. But one of the great blessings of Gospel music is that its focus is almost always on God and what God has done. So much of other modern Church music focuses too much on us. One of the great themes of Gospel music is that God is worthy, worthy of all our praise. This song says,

I’ve got so much to thank God for. o many wonderful blessings, and so many open doors. A brand new mercy along with each new day That’s why I praise You and for this I give You praise

For waking me up this morning, That’s why I praise You,  For starting me on my way,  That’s why I praise You.  For letting me see the sunshine,  that’s why I praise You  of a brand new day.  A brand new mercy along with each new day,  That’s why I praise You and for this I give You praise!

Posted on

Simply Catholic: Why the Faith Ought to Trump Politics

I have long observed that many if not most Catholics are more passionate about their politics than their faith. This goes for both sides of the political spectrum and for moderates too. I will not say  that I am immune from the tendency either. It’s just so much easier to speak of the faith when it conforms to something in our political mindset or worldview, and it’s so easy to doubt it if it offends against it.

Instead of being the light by which we see all things, the Faith tends to get “tucked under” our worldview and political view, our careers and preferences. The world should be seen through faith. The world should be on trial by the Word of God and the teachings of the Church. But as it usually happens, the Church, and the Scriptures end up being on trial instead. In this situation Faith is not the priority, politics and the world are. In any conflict between the two, guess what usually has to give way?

Some examples and stories:

1. Abortion– The most common and perhaps most egregious example is the horrible scourge of abortion. Too many Catholics allow their politics to trump what they know is the consistent teaching of their Faith and the Church. It is a horrible thing too when we consider that 70 million Catholics in agreement on this issue would be hard to ignore politically. If even 10% showed up in Washington for the Pro-life March that would be 7 million people on the Mall and no media bias could ignore that many people. As it is we are woefully divided and the usual cause of this is politics. Most people of any political persuasion know Abortion is indefensible. But they line up on the issue more on political than moral reasoning. Saying that they merely want to stay out of people’s personal affairs does not add up since EVERY law or legal limit inserts itself into people’s personal affairs. The question is what should the limits be or not be and that gets back to politics. It is a sad truth that many Americans allow politics to over-ride the most crucial moral decision of the day. The Church teaching against abortion is not Republican, it is Catholic.

2. A Story– As a priest in Washington DC I am called on numerous occasions to meet with members of the DC City Council and also on fewer occasions, with Federal officials. Most recently I was meeting with a certain City official over the issue of recognizing so-called Same-sex “Marriage.” I explained to him why the Church opposed such a change in the Law. I remember well what he said to me and though the quote is not exact it’s pretty close, “Father, I know what your Church teaches. But I am a politician, I was not born yesterday and I have read the polls. Almost half of your people don’t agree with your teachings about homosexuality. You claim to speak for them but you don’t speak for at least half,  and I think,  more than half. Don’t tell me how your people are going to vote. I already know how they are going to vote. You don’t represent most of them and surely not the votes I count on to win.” I guess I could have gone on to distinguish between the beliefs and voting patterns of Church-going vs. non-Church- going Catholics but that would merely have led to the fact that we rather pathetically can count on only 30% of Catholics to even come to Church, let alone vote with us. Truth was he DID know his business and he can count votes better than I can. How different would this scenario have been if Catholics were Catholics first before anything else and did vote based on their faith and what the Church teaches about marriage rather than other things such as the wallet or politcal party or personal views? Had that been the case he probably would have asked to me with me and other clergy.

3. What party is the Catholic Church?– Neither of course. But depending on what is in the news you can count on labels being applied. If the issue is abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or homosexual “marriage” detractors will say the Church and bishops are “in bed” with the Republicans. But if the issue is immigration reform, capital punishment, concerns about war, or care for the poor, then they’re all “just a bunch of Democrats.”

Now I hear the objections even now that go something like: “Abortion is doctrinal, Capital Punishment is not. True enough. But it is only solemn and doctrinal things that should claim our loyalties? What if the Pope and Bishops as our teachers and leaders are asking us to stand together on an important issue in the battle against the culture of death?…an issue that affects our credibility (rightly or wrongly) with the world on the matter of abortion? Even if there are proper distinctions to be made, what if the Pope and bishops have determined that, as a pastoral strategy, we ought to oppose the State taking life under either of these circumstances?  Does that have any bearing on the issue? And if not, why not? I am aware that some would not attribute their disagreement here to politics at all but rather are clinging to distinction that the Church does not absolutely forbid capital punishment. But is absolute forbiddance the only source of our unity? Is it not enough that the Catechism, recent Popes and the Bishops see the need for recourse to capital punishment as practically non existent (cf  CCC # 2267). Scripture does ascribe the right of capital punishment to the State. But the Church, through her leaders,  has asked the State to have little or no recourse to this right. What if our stance on capital punishment was not rooted in liberalism but in Catholicism? And what if we stood together with the Church on this issue out of respect for what our legitimate teachers and leaders have asked us to do as a prudential rather than a doctrinal matter? Not as democrats, but as Catholics.

And as regards immigration. I can almost guarantee you that even Bishop’s who are predictably conservative on many issues aren’t going to line up with a strong law and order approach to this issue. There are Catholic and Biblical principles which call us to welcome the stranger and the foreigner. Legality is an important issue as well but it is complicated. Many who are currently here illegally came here legally and their status expired and the process of legalization is bewildering. Not all illegal immigrants have flagrantly violated the law in coming here. Hence, while upholding a respect for law the instinct of the Church is also to attend to the humanity of the problem which is often complex. The Catholic position on this will not be (cannot be) strict, law and order, enforcement. The posture for a Catholic ought to be, why does the Church teach in this manner and why are the Bishops as teachers of the faith taking this position? The reasons are Catholic not Democratic.

4. A story– Some few ago when I was pastor of St. Thomas More Parish I joshed with the congregation there, who, by the way, love me exceedingly more that I deserved. But I said, in jest but not without some truth: “When I preached against abortion some said, ‘He is a Republican.’ When I spoke against Capital Punishment some here said, ‘He is a Democrat.’ When I said, Gay marriage is wrong and that Children should not be given condoms some said, ‘See, he is a Republican!’ Then I preached along with the Pope and Bishops expressing concern about going to War in Iraq so quickly, and when we raised millions to build a new Recreation Center for the kids of Southeast, some said, ‘He is a Democrat!’  And all this time I just thought I was a Catholic Christian. “

Well, I may have stirred up a hornet’s nest here. But true Catholicism is radical. It cannot be tamed by any political party or mindset. True Catholicism will comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. As it was with Christ, most every one will have reason to hate it, and some will come to love the faith as it is and the Church as she is. In the end we are to be those who are “simply Catholic.”  Every other party affiliation, membership, alliance, or connection must yield to the Faith and be judged by it. No worldly thought should ever trump the Faith which God has revealed through the Church. And, even in some matters that are prudential in nature, our alliance to the Church founded by Jesus Christ ought to win the day when it comes giving the benefit of any doubt.

You will surely want to add some distinctions, and a few “yes-buts.”  That’s what comments are for. But be careful not to distinguish the main point to death which is that in the end we should be simply, plainly and essentially Catholic.

In this video, Cardinal George and the Chicago Archdiocese are making a similar point very creatively:

Posted on

Still Catholic: A New Poll Says 86% of Catholics Have Not Allowed Abuse Scandal to Shake Their Faith

Please permit a brief blog from me today. I am just stepping off a plane from Seattle where I have been the past few days and it is rather late.

I would like to cal to your attention a CBS News report on how Catholics are dealing with the Sexual Abuse scandal.

A New Poll indicates that 86% have not allowed it to affect their belief in the Catholic Faith. The writted version of the CBS article with other links can be read here: Catholics Still Loyal

It is more evidence of what I have also come to know that Catholics are more sophisticated in such matters that the some have either allowed us to be or wanted us to be. I think most Catholics know that there is sin in the Church and that this is surely one of the most egregious things we have recently experienced. But I also think that most Catholics know that God associates with sinners as well as saints  and that the Church, like any other gathering where humans beings are involved will have significant struggles and well and great aspects.

I know that some will remark that what I have just said amounts to a minimizing of what has happened. It deny that it does and surely intend no such minimizing. However most Catholics know that there is more to the Church that the sexual abuse crisis, more to her than abusive priests, or Bishops who were sleepy. The fact is that there are innumerable good things that are happening in the Church as you will see in this video. There are good priests, bishops, and religious, good lay people. The Lord is being worshipped, the poor are being served, schools continue to operate, and many people find the Lord in the Catholic Church.

Our sins are real and hurtful, but our graces are also real and helpful. Enjoy this video.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Posted on

The Price of Our Faith: Do You Know How the Apostles Were Martyred?

It is too easy to take our faith for granted. We can complain at the slightest requirement. Perhaps the Mass is “too long.” Perhaps the air conditioning or PA system is less than ideal. Perhaps the Church’s moral teaching seems too demanding or “out of touch” with modern thinking. Perhaps some  aspect of the Liturgy seems “boring.” And so forth.

But have you recalled that martyrs died so you could have this faith? Every one of the Apostles except St. John the Evangelist died a martyr’s death for our capacity to know that Jesus is Lord and that he died and rose for us.

  1. Andrew was crucified on an X shaped cross after being scourged. He preached to his tormentors to his last breath.
  2. Bartholomew had his skin flayed off
  3. James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded
  4. James the Younger was cast off the Southeast pinnacle of the Temple. When the 100 foot drop did not fully kill him he was beat to death with clubs.
  5. John the Evangelist was thrown into a vat of boiling oil and when he miraculously survived he was sent to prison on the Isle where Patmos where he died years later.
  6. Jude was shot through with arrows
  7. Simon was Crucified
  8. Matthew was killed with a sword
  9. Phillip was beheaded
  10. Peter was crucified upside down.
  11. Thomas was stabbed to death with a spear
  12. St. Matthias was stoned then beheaded.
  13. Mark was dragged to death by horses.
  14. Paul was beheaded
  15. Luke was Hanged to death

What will you suffer for handing on the faith? The martyrs went to death to proclaim Christ but some us cannot bear if some one merely raises an eyebrow at us or scoffs. Merely being less popular or excluded from  the world’s admiration is too high a price for many. The next time you recite the Creed at Mass remember those words are written with blood. The next time you kids protest going to Church or your teenager scorns the faith you insist they practice, remember that others have faced far more formidable does than an unhappy child. The next time you are challenged for your faith and merely have to  risk ridicule, remember others suffered (and still suffer) prison. Many were (and still are) killed for it.

Remember the Martyrs and stay faithful, dedicated and courageous. Stand firm in the Faith and never give up.

Posted on

Truth in the New Translation Series: The Opening of the Roman Canon

I have little understanding why anyone would not want a new translation. I DO understand that familiarity is often appreciated but the fact is,  what we have been using since 1970 is not even a translation. At best,  it is a paraphrase. For those of us who know Latin, the poverty of the current English Missal was enough to provoke anger and deep sorrow. The richness of the Latin text is great and masterful,  and that most Catholics have had no real access to it is a matter that has needed correction for decades.

In this series which I begin today as an occasional feature  I would like to look at some of the  new texts which have already been released. I would like to compare them both to the Latin text and to the current rendering (I cannot call it a translation) we are currently using. I would like to begin with the venerable Roman Canon. In this installment we will look just at the opening lines of that text. As you will see many important teachings are being recovered in the new translation, teaching never lost in the Latin but soon to be restored by a correct and complete translation to the English speaking world. I list first the Latin, then the new translation, then the current rendering for your reference. There follows my commentary.

Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum, Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus, uti accepta habeas et benedicas + haec dona haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata, in primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Pap nostro N. et Antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.

New Translation: To you, therefore, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord: and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices, which we offer you first of all for your holy Catholic Church. Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her throughout the whole world, together with your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, and all those who, holding to the truth, hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.

Current Rendering: We come to you, Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son. Through him we ask you to accept and bless + these gifts we offer you in sacrifice. We offer them for your holy catholic Church, watch over it, Lord, and guide it; grant it peace and unity throughout the world. We offer them for N. our Pope, for N. our bishop, and for all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles.

Observations:

  1. Getting our focus right– Notice that the New translation begins “To you therefore” whereas the current usage has “We come to you.” The New translation renders the Latin (Te igitur) correctly. But of equal importance is the fact that the proper focus is restored in the New Translation. The focus shifts from us (“we”) to God (“You”).  One of the greatest problems with modern liturgy has been its anthropocentric focus. Modern liturgical notions have wanted to focus on the  self-aware, gathered community than seems to frequently to celebrate and focus on itself. Modern songs go on at great length to describe that we are gathered, that we are church, that we are called, chosen, etc. Modern church architecture too has tended to focus the community upon itself with circular and fan shaped churches. It is true that perhaps in the liturgies of the early half of the 20th century that the congregation had all but been forgotten. But the over correction now needs correction itself. The focus of worship is God, what God has done, is doing and who He is. God is worthy of our worship and praise. Liturgy does not exist to entertain me or please me. It is directed to God. God, it is true speaks to us and ministers to us,  but until we focus on Him and pay attention to him as our true focus, the Lord’s ministry to us is less fruitful than it should be. Consider for example a visit to the doctor. If the focus is merely on what pleases me and makes me feel good, and not the truth that the Doctor offers, the fruitfulness of the visit to the doctor is severely compromised. In the same way, if my visit to God’s house is on me and what pleases me and affirms me, and not on the truth that God proclaims and on his goodness and wisdom, my visit to God’s house is far less fruitful. Hence the Latin text and the new translation focuses on God and leaves behind the anthropocentric emphasis of the current rendering.
  2. Celebrating the Father and the Son– Notice the Latin text and the new translation contain far more adjectives in reference to the Father and the Son than the current rendering. The current render calls him merely “Father” whereas the Latin and the more faithful New translation refer to him as a most clement or most merciful Father. Further the Son is referred to as Jesus Christ your Son and our Lord. The Lordship of Jesus Christ cannot be emphasized enough in an age which has tended to reduce him to a merely affirming brother who told us to love each other and other nice things. Further, the great mercy and clemency of the Father must also be emphasized in an age which has tended to identify the Father with the “vengeful God of the Old Testament.”
  3. Ecstatic joy in the gifts we offer– There is a kind of ecstatic joy in the Latin and the new translation as we describe what we offer as gifts, offering and unblemished sacrifices. When I celebrate the Mass in Latin I sense a real joy as I say haec dona! haec munera! haec sancta sacrificia illibata! (these gifts, these offerings, these holy unspotted sacrifices) We are joyful in what we bring to God and we describe them almost as a child who has personally made a gift for a parent and joyfully presents it. The current rendering does not capture this joy but simply speaks of the them as gifts we offer in sacrifice. Gone is any reference to them as being holy or unspotted. The Old Testament had required a sacrificial lamb that was unblemished, hence the new translation also recaptures the scriptural allusion of the Latin.
  4. Recovering the Church as Bride– One of the most egregious tendencies of the current rendering is to consistently refer to the Church as “it” rather than as “she” and “her.” The Church is not an impersonal institution but is the great Bride of Christ. She is His Bride and our Mother. You will note that the new translation restores the proper pronoun “her” as opposed to the impersonal pronoun “it”.
  5. The Church needs more than guidance, she needs governance–  Note too that the new translation asks the Lord to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her. The current rendering is less strong asking the Lord merely to “guide” the Church rather than govern her. Frankly we need more than guidance. We DO need governance. We need commandments, and clear instruction. Too many moderns prefer a suggestive and supportive God who affirms but does not correct or punish, who does not direct and command. But the real and true God does command, does insist and does correct and punish. It is proper that the Latin “regere” should once again be properly rendered “govern.”
  6. A papal title recovered – One of the great titles of the Pope is Servus Servorum Dei – the Servant of the Servants of God. The current rendering omitted what the Latin says and simply called him our Pope. He is that but there is no greater dignity than to be the servant of God. In Mark 10:43-44  the Lord told the Apostles that the greatest among the flock must be the servant, even the slave of the others. The Pope’s most profound quality is that he has authority as one who serves.
  7. The faith is true– The Latin text is ancient and makes use of the word orthodox. It is used as an adjective, not as a proper Noun as though it were referring to the Orthodox Churches of the East. The word “orthodox” refers literally to “straight (or correct) thinking.” Hence it means that which is revealed to us and which is true. Hence the New translation correctly renders the word orthodoxis in a way that avoids the impression of the Churches of the east and captures what the Latin was originally getting at. The orthodox are those who cling or hold to what is true. The current rendering simply omits any reference to this word. But more than ever we need to recover a sense today that our faith is not just a viewpoint, or a way of thinking. Our faith is a truth claim. The opposite of what we teach is not just less meaningful, it is false. Jesus said, For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice. (John 18:37). The Roman Canon alludes to this verse here. It is good that we have this back in  the new translation. More than ever we need to recover a notion that when the Church announces the faith to the world, she (we) are not just expressing an opinion. We are speaking the truth. And those who are of the truth listen to us.

Well, we’re just getting started. And you can see how much has been lost and how much is being recovered in the new translation just these few lines. Praise God for this new translation which restores to us many teachings lost by the poor paraphrase we are currently using. I hope you’ll see that any discomfort in getting used to a new text is more than worth the price to recover the richness of the Latin Text.

Msgr. Bruce Harbert is a member of the new ICEL commission which was responsible for developing the new translation. In this 11 minute video he describes some of the insights and history of the new translation.