Category: Sacraments

Posted on

Should the Government Have Any Role at All in the Institution of Marriage?

David Harsanyi has written an interesting article over at Townhall.com wherein he argues that the Government should get out of the marriage business completely and have no involvement or interest whatsoever in any “personal relationship”  that individuals choose to enter. I would like to excerpt the article here and then raise a few points and ask for your thoughts. The full article by Mr. Harsanyi can be read here: Time for a Divorce. Here follow the excerpts in bold, italics and indented:

In the 1500s, a pestering theologian instituted something called the Marriage Ordinance in Geneva, which made “state registration and church consecration” a dual requirement of matrimony.

We have yet to get over this mistake. But isn’t it about time we freed marriage from the state? Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman — or no one at all — and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives…..

I believe your private relationships are none of my business. And without any government role in the institution, it wouldn’t be the business of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, either.

As the debate stands now, we have two activist groups trying to force their own ethical construction of marriage on the rest of us. And to enforce it, they have been using the power of the state — one via majority rule and the other using the judiciary (subject to change with the vagaries of public opinion)……

Is there any other personal relationship that is defined by government? Other than in legal terms, of course, this one isn’t, either.

Yet we have decided that a majority on the Supreme Court or, perhaps, a majority of the voters in your state or, even worse, a majority of the legislators in your state have the power to define what is often the most intimate bond of your life.

In our Utopian vision, no group is empowered to dictate what marriage should mean to another. And one of the great perks would be the end of this debate.

I will admit, there are times where the Libertarian perspective seems refreshing. (I am not sure if Mr. Harsanyi is Libertarian but his argument is). The Libertarian approach appeals to an instinct many have to simply an de-clutter in a civic world where government regulations and involvement leads to bewildering complexity and a tax code only a computer could love. It can be appealing to show Government the door in our lives and ask that it do less, far less. But I want to object to Mr. Harsanyi’s perspective in the matter of marriage on several counts and then ask for your input.

  1. Marriage is not a purely “private relationship” as Mr. Harsanyi states. Marriage involves the most essential and serious task of any community, state or nation, that of the procreation of the human species. Because there are children involved the merely private yields to a third party if you will, that of the child or children usually conceived in traditional marriage. And since children are involved who will venture forth as they mature into the wider society, it is a fact that others have a concern for marriage in terms of its definition, its quality, its stability and so forth. The quality of marriage and family life effects children profoundly and children affect the wider civic order profoundly, for better or worse. While others may wish to call their essentially non-fertile unions marriage and one might argue that such unions are private, one cannot argue that about traditional marriage which involves children. Neither can one remain completely disinterested in non traditional unions which involve the adoption or other of inclusion of children in their midst.
  2. Hence, the State does have legitimate interests when it comes to marriage. “State” here should not be seen as a mere abstraction or merely in governmental terms. Take “State” here to mean, the wider community as well. It is right and makes sense that there should be policies which protect and encourage traditional marriage. Further it makes sense that the State should insist on some degree of stability for this essential union that so involves children and their well-being. Until 1969 it was a rather lengthy and difficult process to get a divorce in this country. After 1969 most states passed “no-fault” divorce laws that made marriage the easiest contract in America to break. Since then, realizing the terrible impact that divorce was having on children, many States have begun to require waiting periods prior to divorce and some insist on counseling prior to divorce proceedings. It also makes sense that the State has some more proactive policies meant to strengthen the family. This may involve tax policy, emergency assistance to families in crisis and so forth. It is true that reasonable people will differ on the degree of help that should be provided and that at some point too much help makes people dependant. Nevertheless, due to the fact of children, there is an interest in the wider community that traditional marriage, as an institution, be strong.  It is a true fact that the many states have recently become ambivalent to the traditional view of marriage and we may wish to dismiss any governmental role based on this. But in the end, due to the presence and interests of third parties, there is going to be some governmental involvement and it is up to the Church to continue advocating for the traditional view of marriage there due to that fact.
  3. Mr. Harsanyi’s argument opens the door to Government – He calls his vision of marriage a “contractual agreement.” Oops. Where there are contracts there are laws. Where there a contracts there are often breeches of contract, lawsuits and the like. And where there are legal actions there is need for a judiciary. And where there is a judiciary there is Government. So even in his “Utopian” and libertarian world the government is not far behind.

So I think the purely libertarian argument of Mr. Harsanyi has flaws in it that fail to recognize the legitimate third-party interests involved in the fundamental institution that traditional marriage has always been. The most significant “third-party” involved is children who have needs and rights that must be fostered and protected.

But I would like to recast Mr. Harsanyi’s argument in reference to the Church and ask what you think. This recasting of the argument does concern the intersection of Church and State in the matter of marriage. I wonder if we were to consider what might ultimately become necessary anyway and do what many other nations already do? That is, what if we were to detach the Church’s role from the Civil License altogether? Currently in most U.S.  jurisdictions, when the priest or deacon officiates at at a wedding he is wearing two hats: Sacred minister and Justice of the Peace, he is acting on behalf of the State as well as administering a Sacrament. In other nations the couple goes to the civil magistrate and gets civilly “married.” Then they go to the Church, sometimes on the same day, and receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. As the rift gets wider between the world and the Church as to what we mean by marriage I wonder if this sort of separate arrangement will not become necessary here in America?

One drawback of course is that many Catholic couples would get civilly “married” and delay the Sacrament. Hence they would be living in an invalid union. However, this often happens now even in the current dispensation through cohabitation and various forms of invalid marriage. Catechesis as always would be essential to avoid the drawback.

But I must say, here in Washington DC, which recently voted to recognize same-sex “marriage”,  I feel increasingly troubled to be signing civil licenses. What am I affirming as I sign the license? At one level I am merely saying that the couple in question stood before me and entered into what the State recognizes as the “civil contract” of marriage. But as a legal functionary (I have a civil license issued by DC to witness marriages and sign civil licenses) of the District of Columbia, am I not cooperating in something that I believe is wrong? Every time I sign a license, in effect am I not affirming the civil definition of Marriage that underlies that civil license? Should I be cooperating in this way and issuing licenses that lend credibility to a flawed notion of marriage?

I ask these as true questions. I am not being rhetorical here. I think it is important for us clergy in these circumstances to ponder with our bishops what is to be done and what are the moral implications of it. This is terra incognita (unknown territory) and in the years ahead the Bishops Conference may also wish to take this up. I have argued elsewhere that we may want to consider using more widely the term “Holy Matrimony” to describe the Sacrament and distinguish it from the world’s notion of marriage.

Hence, while I think Mr. Harsanyi’s argument is ultimately flawed,  there may be in the near future a need for the Church to more clearly distinguish herself from the State when it comes to the question of marriage. As the individual states of this land begin to define marriage in a radically different way than the Church, distinctions, even legal separation, may be necessary. What do you think?

This video depicts why strong marriages are important for the “third party” of marriage: children.

Posted on

Restoring Greater Reverence to Sick Calls

In my Parish I work with the men of the Holy Name Society and also the women of the Sodality to ensure that the numerous sick in our parish are visited regularly. I try to visit the sick at least quarterly on a rolling basis to ensure they have had confession and anointing of the Sick. But, since I am without an assistant priest, as a general rule, I depend on them to bring communion regularly.

We met as a group this past week and had an interesting discussion about a concern that a number of them expressed, that of reverence. When they arrive at the home to which they visit it is not infrequent that a television is blaring, and the person to whom they bring communion is often unprepared by others in the home to receive Holy Communion. It is frequent that the extraordinary minister must ask that the television be turned down and that others might prayerfully participate. I too, upon visiting many of the sick encounter similar issues: loud TVs, other family members who do not understand the sacredness of the moment and a generally difficult setting in which to pray or reflect.

I do not blame either the sick or the family members for this situation. I blame myself and fellow clergy, many of whom, (though not all), have failed to teach or to explain to parishioners and family members (some of whom are not Catholic) as to proper protocol in this matter.

I explained to the extraordinary ministers assembled last week that we must re-catechize and teach on this matter. It will take time but, little by little, perhaps we can make progress toward restoring a greater reverence to sick calls. It is a general fact that sick calls have become very informal over the years. When the liturgy underwent sweeping changes in the 1970s many things were dropped (though we were not directed to drop them) that we are now rediscovering to be of importance.

In the “old days” the visit of the priest to bring communion and/or anointing to the sick was a matter of some formality. Most homes had a sick-call kit on hand that included things like a cross, candles, a cloth, cotton, and a bowl of water. If the priest were on First Friday rounds he might even be escorted by a server with a lit candle. At other times, a family member might greet the priest at the door with a candle and escort the priest to the room where the sick person was. In that room the “altar” was usually set up somewhat like the photo above. Family members usually stood by quietly while the priest administered the sacraments. If the priest did talk with the sick person or the family it was usually very brief. Since he had the Blessed Sacrament, casual talking was kept to a minimum. As he left, if he still had the Blessed Sacrament he was escorted by a family member with a candle. (Photo at left was taken in 1942 – Double-Click and get a better view).

Now what is described in the paragraph above did vary based on location and circumstances. First Friday Holy Communions were more formal. Emergencies might exclude some of the formalities. There were also ethnic differences. Other factors such as the catholicity of other family members and how devout each family was were also factors. But what was described above was the practice in usual circumstances, give or take a few details.

In recent times, as already noted, most of these details have fallen away. Like so many things in our culture we have become very casual, very informal. But it may be beneficial for us to rediscover some of the older practices in order to restore greater reverence to sick calls. I would like to suggest a few matters of protocol for your reflection. I will begin with a few disclaimers and offer some suggestions to which you are invited to add or critique.

Disclaimers:

  1. Not everything in the list that follows is possible or even advisable in every situation. Sometimes sick calls are hastily arranged due to emergencies and preparing a sick call altar might mean time away from a distressed or dying relative. Sometimes in nursing homes all the implements are not available or even allowed. For example many nursing homes would not allow the burning of candles. Hence, prudential judgment will weigh in on what is necessary, possible and advisable.
  2. Family situations may also affect the preparation of the sick call altar and other protocol. There may be no one in the home healthy enough to assemble the implements. There may be family members who are non-Catholic and choose not to participate in the rites and preparations.
  3. Not all the implements shown above are necessary for every sick call. Sometimes there will not be anointing and, hence a good amount of the things shown above are not necessary. Even if there is an anointing, it may not be necessary to do everything shown above. Here too, factors vary.
  4. What follows are recommendations only. Not absolute requirements. The hope is to instill some thoughtfulness as to the reverence due the moment of a sick call. Reverence is not pure science. Externals can and do help but ultimately it is our internal disposition that is most important.
  5. Regarding these recommendations, take what you like and leave the rest. Add to them and distinguish as you wish. Discussion with your parish priest is also helpful.

Recommendations.

    1. Consider preparing the place where the Sacraments will be celebrated. If possible and necessary, tidy up a bit.
    2. Consider preparing a sick call table (or altar). Most commonly such a table included at least a candle. Preferably, there is a cross and two candles. A small glass of water is helpful since the sick person sometimes has trouble swallowing the host and a little water can help. A spoon is helpful if the person has a hard time sitting up to drink the water. A napkin of some sort can help if the person spills any water when drinking or gets their face wet. If the priest is going to anoint the sick person it may be helpful to have some cotton balls for him to wipe his fingers. If he does use them they are later to be burned. The picture above also shows bread and lemons to help the priest purify his fingers after anointing but these are rarely necessary and should not be supplied unless the priest asks for them ahead of time.
    3. Sick call kits containing many of these implements are available through Catholic catalogues. For example, HERE & HERE
    4. If possible and advisable, have the sick person awake and aware that the sacraments are about to be celebrated just prior to the arrival of the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister.
    5. Be sure that when the priest, deacon or extraordinary Minister arrives, the television, radio etc. are off and that other unnecessary conversations and activities in the house are ended.
  • In the past it was customary for someone to meet the priest at the door with a candle. This was done out of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. This can still be done today and is a wonderful way to teach others of the sacredness of the moment.
  1. It is preferable to have all the members of the household prayerfully aware of what is taking place. If the room is large enough they can be encouraged to pray along. It may be necessary for some brief privacy while a priest hears confession, but otherwise members of the household can and should join in prayer. It is certainly inappropriate for loud conversations to be taking place in the next room, for children to be playing video games and for any unnecessary activities to be taking place. It is to be hoped that even non-Catholics be respectful of the sacred rites, as they most often are. Usually just a word of invitation and encouragement is all that is needed.
  2. It is best for the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister to celebrate the rites right away. Surely a greeting and an inquiry of health is appropriate. But long conversations prior to the reception of Sacraments is inadvisable. After the celebration of the Sacraments longer and cordial conversations can take place. It is sometimes the case that the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister has other stops to make and, after the rites is still carrying the host with them. In such a case it is not wrong to have conversation with the sick person as this is an act of charity. However, one ought to balance the fact of the presence of the Blessed Sacrament and the need for conversation with prudence and reverence. Staying for lunch and lengthy chatty visits etc. is discouraged in such cases.
  3. Reverential prayer and celebration of the rites is also necessary for those who bring communion.
  4. Those who bring communion to the sick should go straightway to them and not stop at stores. It is best to drive in silence, pray or listen to religious music rather than secular radio in carrying the Blessed Sacrament.

 So, here are some recommendations. Feel free to add to them in the comments and make necessary distinctions. Remember all of this is not possible all the time. The recommendations are made in hopes of provoking thought and discussion on the question of reverence in sick calls. They are made more as gentle reminders than polemical pronouncements. I do not assume that any one intends to be irreverent. It is just that we have become very casual these days and reminders seem opportune.

Posted on

It May be Friday, But Sunday’s Coming

Some years ago in a previous parish assignment, St. Thomas More, in Washington DC,  I was accustomed to take a Friday afternoon walk to focus on my homily for Sunday. At the beginning of the walk I’d often stop by the nearby house of an elderly parishioner, Lillian, and give her communion. She was quite elderly, her mind was beginning to fail and for these reasons it was difficult to get to Church. In mild weather she often be in her wheel chair on the front porch and, as I’d walk up she’d say, “Oh Father! It must be Sunday!”  “No, Lillian,” I’d usually say, “It’s actually Friday.”  And she’d usually say, “Oh, I’m sorry to hear that.”

I was thinking of the calendar most times I answered her, but she she was long past worrying what day the world said it was. And so, Friday after Friday, as I’d stop by she kept asking if it was Sunday. Friday it was, but she kept looking for Sunday.  “Is it Sunday, Father?”…. “No Ms. Lillian, today is Friday.”

The world has a saying: “Thank God, it’s Friday.” But in the Church, especially among African Americans whom I serve, there is an older expression: “It may be Friday, but Sunday’s coming.” It is a thoroughly Biblical reflection wherein Friday represents our sufferings, our own “Good Fridays” and Sunday represents our rising from the dead, our joy and the fulfillment of our hopes.

When Lillian saw her priest, she thought of Sunday, she thought of Jesus and Holy Communion. So, in a way for her it was Sunday, for a moment. But, to be sure,  Lillian was in the Friday of her life. She had all the crippling effects of old age: dementia, arthritis, weakness, hearing and eyesight problems, sugar, and you name it.    “I’s gotten ooooold, Father.”    Yes, Friday had surely come for Lillian.

At her funeral I could think of no other way to begin the homily than to say, “It’s Sunday Lillian.” And the congregation nodded, some just hummed, others said, “Thank you Jesus.” Lillian had gone to Jesus and Sunday had come. Surely she, like all of us, needed some of the cleansing purgation wherein the Lord wipes away the tears of all who have died (cf  Rev 21:4) lifts the burdens of our sorrows, regrets and sins for the last time. For those who die in the Lord, die in the care of the Lord.  The souls of the just are in the hand of God (Wis 3:1).

Yes, Sunday, glorious Sunday, for all those who trust in the Lord. The Fridays of life will come but if we trust, Sunday will surely follow.

 “Oh, Father! It must be Sunday!” ….”Yes, Ms. Lillian, it is surely Sunday.”

Posted on

Liturgy at the End of an Era

Author’s note: I am away this week preaching a retreat for priests in Connecticut. I may post some new material this week but I also thought in my absence to re post some of my older articles that some newer readers may have missed. Here is one I posted back in Sept 2009:

I received my First Holy Communion in 1968 on my knees at the altar rail in our parish church of Our Lady of Perpetual Help  in a suburb North of Chicago called Glenview. I received from a very elderly pastor, Fr. Dussman, whose hands shook from Parkinson’s. It was an awesome and fearsome event. I was more nervous since Father’s hands shook and receiving communion from him could be a challenge, especially for the first time.

I remember well how seriously we took Church in those days. We had special Church clothes (always a coat and tie), special Sunday shoes and approaching the altar rail was something quite wonderful but very formal: hands folded before the chest, fingers straight, right thumb crossed over left. Kneeling and waiting for the priest and altar boy to pass by was a time of anticipation, a kind of distracted prayer, alert and ready, don’t make the priest wait! Suddenly a altar boy slid a Paten under your chin. Head back, tongue out (not too far!) just over the lower lip! The priest spoke in an ancient language (Latin). Only years later did I learn exactly what he said. I am sure the Sisters taught me but I couldn’t remember(I was only 7 going on 8): Corpus Domini Nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam (May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ guard your soul unto life eternal). And suddenly there he was, Jesus in Holy Communion. Pretty awesome, very special, beyond my comprehension but no doubt this was holy, this was serious and sacred.

But little did I know I was at the end of an era. Within a year strange things began to occur that I did not understand, things that did not comport with my training. I remember my mother telling me that we were going to a special youth mass. I had heard of a school mass, but not a youth Mass. We got there early and I noticed something that confused me. “Mom!” I whispered, (you always whispered in Church in those days), “What are those drums doing there? Right in front of the Mary Altar, behind the rail too, were electric guitars, a drum set and chairs. Then out came these guys I had never seen before, a couple of them were wearing jeans too (a major no-no in the old days). After Church my mother asked me if I liked it. I said no and she was surprised. “But Mom, I don’t know those songs and they were so loud.” I was confused. The sisters said we should dress well, be very quiet in Church so others could pray and only talk or sing when it was time to do that. It all seemed “a violation of my training.” But an era had ended. Something was taking its place. Little by little the familiar gave way to the new. The transition was at times startling, at times exciting.

I do not write this post to “bash” the liturgical changes. Just to document an experience. I have become quite accustomed to the “new” Mass. I am also privileged to say the Traditional Latin Mass. I guess I am blessed to enjoy the best of both worlds. I am proud of the glory of the new Mass as it is celebrated in my parish. We have a wonderful gospel choir which also does classical very well. There is great joy at every Mass. I am also  so happy to be able to celebrate ancient Latin Mass that reminds me of the joy of my youth (qui laetificat juventutem meam).  I merely document here, I leave the judgements to you my faithful readers.

The following video depicts a Mass in the year 1969. It is from an Elvis movie entitled “Change of Habit.”  What an amazing little video for me! It’s just as I remember it as the changes set it. Notice the still strong presence of traditions: people all dressed up for Church, nuns in traditional habits, the priest at the high altar facing east. But notice too the guitars and “informality”  of the musicians. The music is up front not back in the choir loft. And many struggle to understand the new lay of the land. It was 1969. It was the end of an era.

Posted on

Not Magic: On the Fruitful Reception of the Sacraments.

A fundamental principle of the seven Sacraments is that they have a reality that exists apart from the priest’s holiness or worthiness. They work ex opere operato (ie.. they are worked from the very fact of the work). One need not doubt therefore that a sacrament is in fact given just because a bishop, priest or deacon seems less than holy or worthy. Neither can the disposition of the recipient un-work the work. For example, Holy Communion does not cease to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ merely because the one who steps forward is unworthy or even an unbeliever. The Sacrament has a reality in itself that transcends the worthiness of the celebrant or recipient.

However, sacraments are not magic in the sense that they work effects in us in a manner independent of our disposition or will. Sacraments, though actually conferred by the fact that they are given, have a varying fruitfulness dependant upon the disposition, worthiness and openness of the recipient. One may receive a sacrament to great effect or lesser effect depending on how well disposed they are to those effects. This is referred to as the fruitfulness of the sacraments.

To illustrate fruitfulness let’s take a non-sacramental example. Imagine two men in the Fine Arts Museum and lets us also imagine that they are looking at a Rembrandt painting:  Apostle Peter Kneeling of 1631 (See photo at right). Now one man is a trained artist. He knows and understands the use of shadow and light. He can observe and see the techniques of brush strokes. He knows of  Rembrandt and his life and times. He also knows the Bible and a good bit about hagiography. He knows about St. Peter, the significance of the keys, of Peter’s penitence and how he finally died. The second man knows none of this and is actually rather annoyed to be in the “boring” museum. All he thinks is, “Who is that guy and why is he sitting on the floor?….Why don’t we get out of here, go to a sports bar and hook a few brews or something more interesting?”

Now, both men are actually standing before a Rembrandt painting. It has a reality in itself apart from what either man thinks. It is, in fact,  what it is. But the experience of beholding the painting is a far more fruitful experience for the first man than for the second. The first man gains a lot from the experience, the other gains little and may in fact have an experience that is adverse or repelling.

It is like this with the sacraments. They have a reality in themselves that is objective and real and they actually extend the graces they announce. But how fruitfully a person receives them is quite dependent on the openness and disposition of the recipient. Sacraments are not magic as though they zap us and change us independently of our disposition.

Consider some examples:

  1. Two people come forward to receive Holy Communion. One comes forward with great piety and mindfulness  to what and Who she is to receive. She has recently made a good confession and is in a state of grace. She prayerfully, mindfully and devoutly receives the sacred host and returns to her pew to pray. The second person comes forward inattentively. Instead of thinking of what she is about to do she is irritated at the priest for going long in the homily and distractedly considering what she is going to do when she leaves here. She has not been to confession in many years and may in fact be in mortal sin. She receives the Sacred Host with little thought or devotion and heads for the nearest door. Both in fact receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity  of Jesus. Objectively the sacrament is conferred. But one receives fruitfully and the other has little or no fruitfulness. In fact, if she is in state of mortal sin, not only did she not fruitfully receive a blessing but she may have brought a condemnation upon herself (cf 1 Cor 11: 29). So the sacrament is not magic and does not zap the second woman into holiness. A sacrament worthily received in a mindful manner to a person well disposed can have great effects, but proper and open disposition including faith-filled and worthy reception are essential. The more open and disposed one is, the more fruitful the reception.
  2. Two people go to confession. One carefully prepares by examining his conscience and has a true contrition (sorrow for sin and a firm purpose of amendment). In examining his conscience he does not merely consider his external behaviors but looks to the internal and deeper drives of sin within him. He seeks to reflect on his motivations, priorities, resentments and the like. He goes to confession once a month. Once in the confessional he makes a good confession and listens carefully to what the priest says and accepts his penance with gratitude to God. The second man makes little preparation only coming up with a few vague sins on his way from the car. He comes yearly to confession to make his Easter duty and after a year can only figure he has said a few bad things and been a little grouchy, and looked at a few dirty pictures. In the confessional he mentions his sins only in a perfunctory way and pays little attention to the exhortation of the priest. Now both men receive absolution but one receives the sacrament for more fruitfully than the other. The first man will likely experience growth in holiness and spiritual progress if he routinely approaches the sacrament in this manner. The other will probably be back next year with the same list or with worse things.
  3. Marriage is a sacrament received once.  As such it’s graces are received at once but unfold throughout married life. Hence, two are made one on the day of marriage but the couple’s experience of this may vary and hopefully grow as time goes on. Through daily prayer, weekly communion, personal growth in holiness of the spouses, consistent work at their relationship, the graces of marriage will be experienced more fruitfully as time goes on. But it is also possible to stunt or hinder the fruitfulness of graces of marriage through neglect of prayer, sacraments, interpersonal growth and communication.

Sacraments therefore are not magic acts. They convey a reality,  but internal disposition, worthy, mindful reception and faith are all essential factors for the sacraments to be received more and more fruitfully. Perfunctory and mindless reception yields little fruit. Devout, mindful and worthy reception yields increasing fruit. And those are the ones on whom seed was sown on the good soil; and they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold (Mark 4:20).

More can be said on this topic and I invite your comments and questions to fill in the details.

Now here’s a daring video to put in this post where we have talked about Catholic Sacraments. It is of a Protestant Preacher, Paul Washer who talks about the Protestant version of the Problem of perfunctory observance. He states rather memorably that Jesus is not just some flu shot you can take. The fruitfulness of faith cannot proceed from perfunctory observances.

Posted on

Learning the Latin of the Hymns for Benediction and Adoration

I sometimes get requests for help in understanding the Latin texts of the very familiar hymns for Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction. The O Salutaris and Tantum Ergo, though familiar to many Catholics remain only vaguely understood in terms of a word-for-word translation. Most know the poetic English renderings (“O Saving Victim Opening Wide” and “Humbly Let us Voice our Homage”) but this does not necessarily facilitate a word-for-word understanding as the Latin is sung. What I hope to do here,  and in greater detail in the attached PDF files, is to give a very literal rendering that preserves the word order of the Latin so that one can understand the Latin precisely. In the PDF I also give a brief word study of each word in both hymns. It is my hope to bring these hymns more alive for the faithful who sing them who may not be highly skilled in Latin.

1. The O Salutaris – The Author is St. Thomas Aquinas. These are the last two verses of a longer hymn Verbum Supernum Prodiens (The heavenly Word, going forth) which was composed for Lauds (Morning Prayer) of the Divine Office of Corpus Christi. The meter is Iambic Dimeter, accentual with alternating rhyme. This hymn was said to so please even the hostile Rousseau that he would have given all his poetry to be its author.  I propose here to record the Latin text to the left and then a very literal English translation to the right which also preserves the word order for easy comparison:

    • O salutaris Hostia    (O saving victim)
    • quae caeli pandis ostium    (who of heaven opens the gate – i.e. who opens the gate of heaven)
    • bella premunt hostilia    (wars press hostile – i.e. hostile wars press)
    • da robur fer auxilium    (give strength, bear aid)
    • Uni Trinoque Domino    (To the One and Threefold Lord)
    • sit sempiterna gloria    (may there be eternal glory)
    • qui vitam sine termino    (who life without end)
    • nobis donet in patria    (to us may he grant in the Fatherland)

I have prepared a printable and more thorough word study here: Study the O SALUTARIS

2. The Tantum Ergo– The author is St. Thomas Aquinas. It was composed for Vespers (Evening Prayer) of the Divine Office for the Feast of Corpus Christi. The meter is trochaic tetrameter catalectic, rhyming at both the caesura and at the end of the line. These two verses are the last two of the full hymn Pange Lingua.  There is here a wonderful union of sweetness of melody with clear-cut dogmatic teaching. I propose here to record the Latin text to the left and then a very literal English translation to the right which also preserves the word order for easy comparison:

    • Tantum ergo sacramentum   (So great therefore a sacrament)
    • veneremur cernui    (let us venerate with bowed heads)
    • et antiquum documentum    (and the ancient document)
    • novo cedat ritui    (to the new, give way, rite    i.e. gives way to the new rite)
    • Praestet fides supplementum    (may supply faith a supplement  i.e. may faith supply a supplement)
    • Sensuum defectui.    (of the senses for the defect  i.e. for the defect of the senses)
    • Genitori Genitoque    (To the One who generates and to the one who is generated (i.e. Father and Son)
    • Laus et jubilatio    (be praise and joy)
    • Salus, honor, virtus, quoque    (health, honor, strength also)
    • sit et benedictio    (may there be and blessing)
    • Procedenti ab utroque    (to the One proceeding from both)
    • Compar sit laudatio    (equal may there be praise  i.e. may there be equal praise)

I have prepared a printable and more thorough word study here: Study the TANTUM ERGO.

I hope that this may be of some help along with the printable PDF word studies. Venite Adoremus (Come let us adore).

Here is setting of the Tantum Ergo by Mozart which I paired with some video footage I found:

Posted on

Reflections On Teaching the Worthy Reception of Communion

In the last two days on the blog comments I have noticed consternation by some that more stress is not placed on receiving communion worthily. I understand the concern they express but also feel the need to approach this issue carefully. This is because two important goods are at sake that must be kept in balance:

  1. Frequent reception of Holy Communion which is a great and necessary food for us as Jesus insists in John 6:50-55,
  2. Worthy reception which the Holy Spirit through Paul warns is also necessary in 1 Cor 11:27ff. Let’s look at these texts briefly.

SCRIPTURE:  Jesus was very clear to teach that the Holy Eucharist is a necessary food for us:

This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”…..Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. (John 6:50-53)

Hence it seems clear that it is essential to receive Holy Communion frequently, if not every week. The Church’s practice of celebrating Mass every day (or every week as in the Eastern Rites) and offering Holy Communion at each Mass confirms this interpretation of the Lord’s words that the Eucharist is a necessary food for the Faithful to receive with high frequency, preferably every week. This practice also distinguishes us from Protestant notions wherein the frequent reception of Holy Communion (even if they had it) was largely set aside.  The “Unless” in this text is a rather strong word that cannot easily be ignored. Jesus in effect teaches that Holy Communion is a sine qua non (“a without which, not”, an essential)  for having life. In other words it is an essential food without which we are dying spiritually. So here is one value the Church must advance, frequent reception of our necessary food.

But the Scriptures also teach the necessity of receiving worthily, that is, without knowledge of grave sin in oneself. And here too the wording is quite clear and strong:

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world  (1 Cor 11:27-31)

So, Scripture considers unworthy or unmindful reception of Holy Communion to be a very serious matter since it is a sin directly against the Body of the Lord. St. Paul links it to some rather severe punishment from God: sickness, even death. All who sin such bring judgment upon themselves that at the very least requires discipline from the Lord and perhaps condemnation. This text along with Tradition has meant that the Church warns any of the faithful conscious of mortal sin to refrain from Holy Communion until such time as they are reconciled through Confession. In such wise the Church is not “mean” or “restrictive” as some say. Rather she is faithful to Scripture and also charitable in warning the faithful against things that many bring them under the judgement of condemnation.

The Church has struggled over the centuries to keep the faithful balanced in regard to these two values. Frankly for many centuries people stayed away from receiving Holy Communion, receiving only very rarely. I remember my Grandmother (who was born in 1896) once telling me that when she was a child almost no one went to communion. In a Church filled with hundreds of people often no one would go to the rail. Even despite confession, many felt unworthy. This infrequent reception had led the Church in the Middle Ages to insist on the “Easter Duty” which required the faithful by way of precept to receive Holy Communion at least once a year in the Easter Season after Sacramental Confession where necessary. During the Middle Ages even monks and nuns received only a few times per year! More recently, at the turn of the last Century, Pope Pius X had also encouraged more frequent reception of Holy Communion by among other things moving the age of First Communion much earlier. You can read more on this topic here: Frequency of Holy Communion.

Rare Reception was one extreme. Lately we seem to have the other extreme wherein almost everyone attending Mass receives Communion but only a very small percentage of them have recently been to confession. To  receive Communion worthily means to be free from mortal sin. Today, very few of the faithful have any notion of  the requirement of receiving communion worthily. This is due to poor catechesis as well as a muted sense of sin in general and of mortal sin specifically. Many in fact are not all that clear on what constitutes mortal sin. I was surprised to learn early in my priesthood that many younger people had the no idea what the expression “mortal sin” meant.  Some figured it meant that you had killed someone. I tried referring to it as serious sin, but also discovered that many people don’t take a lot of things very seriously.

Most pastors are aware that a great deal is needed to rectify this situation. Simply saying “go to confession more”  doesn’t often work since many, although admitting the presence of sin in their lives do not see their own condition as serious. “After all no body’s perfect Father” is about as deep a sense of sin as some have. Again, poor catechesis and bad preaching  is partly to blame.

How Did we get here?  I want to  propose that we are also experiencing a reaction (actually an over-reaction) to the understanding of sin in the 1950s. I was born in 1961 and,  not having been alive in the 1950s, let alone a priest, I must rely for  my information on that period in the Church from older clergy, older people in general and also on aspects of that time that still echo in the confessions and thinking of older people today. From these sources it is my assessment that in the 1950s and before a very objective notion of sin was emphasized that took little account of circumstances and/or  personal factors.

A couple of examples may illustrate. An older priest told me of a confession he once had wherein a woman insisted she must hear her confession since she had committed a mortal sin on the way to Church. It seems the sin involved breaking her fast. What happened was that a bug had flown into her mouth and she had swallowed it by accident. Although the priest tried to reassure her that she was not to blame she insisted that the bug constituted “nourishment” and that she must be absolved in order to receive Communion. Other older priests tell me similar, though less exotic, stories. This was apparently part of the training of the faithful in the old days. I have had personal confirmation of this sort of thinking over my 21 years a priest as well. For example, twice this past winter we had snowfalls here in Washington approaching 30 inches. Despite this I did not have an insignificant number of older people confess that they had missed mass on those weekends. When I reminded them that it was quite impossible to get out in 30 inches of snow they seemed unfazed. “But it was a sin to miss Mass Father.” I have learned to accept that this was their training. They were taught sin only as  a very objective thing. Circumstances were quite beside the point.

Now while this thinking may have been accepted by many in an older generation it is clear that such mechanistic thinking was rejected by many when the 1960s hit. And frankly the extreme objectification of sin with no reference to circumstances needed correction. Proper moral theology does account for circumstances and personal factors in assessing blameworthiness. For mortal sin to be committed requires not just grave matter, but also sufficient reflection and full consent of the will. It sometimes happens that reflection and/or freedom are hindered and such factors need to be taken into account. Such factors cannot make a bad act good but they can affect culpability (blameworthiness). Modern pastoral practice in taking these things into consideration is set forth in the Catechism. Take for example the pastoral note to confessors  included in the catechism regarding masturbation which, though considered objectively a serious sin,  may admit of certain personal factors:

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability. (CCC # 2352)

But older pastoral practice, it seems, took little account of circumstances or of factors such as full consent of the will etc. Official Church teaching DID teach these things but the pastoral practice of the time presented sin in a much more mechanistic sort of a way and other aspects of Church teaching were poorly communicated in the 1950s and perhaps before.

Over-Reaction Sets in –  To some extent this may have led to the over-reaction we experienced in late 1960s through the 1980s. Rather than refine and clarify their understanding of true Catholic teaching, many simply cast overboard a caricature of Catholic teaching which now seemed unreasonable. And the caricature WAS unreasonable. Sadly too, many Catholic priests and catechists of the time,  rather than clarifying the teaching,  also over-compensated. They highly de-emphasized any objective notion of sin and hyper-emphasized matters such as feelings, circumstances, false notions of conscience and so forth. Now  it seemed that ONLY circumstances mattered, along with personal reflection and feeling and a diminished notion of any personal responsibility

So here we are today with long lines for Communion (good) but with no lines for confession (bad). It falls to us,  to the clergy who preach and catechists who teach to re-establish the connection between frequent confession and weekly communion. But, as I have tried to demonstrate, simply saying people should go does not mean they will go. A proper and balanced foundation also needs to be re-established that restores a healthy sense of sin. The 1950s version, at least as I have described it, was not healthy. But neither is our current version that sees nothing as objectively wrong, nothing as serious, that reduces moral reflection to “how I feel about it” and sets aside any notion of final judgment with platitudes like “God will understand.”

Part of the re catechizing necessary is to reintroduce a more holistic and less mechanistic sense of sin. Sin includes not just specific acts but also very deep drives and attitudes that can become very significant. We can be very resentful, ungrateful, unchaste, unkind, unmerciful, harsh, greedy, worldly and materialistic. Sin is more than, “I yelled at my kids three times, used curse words several times and was distracted in prayer many times, and engaged in one act of solitary self abuse.” Sin includes those things but it is  also that we are egotistical, thin-skinned, unloving, unforgiving  and sometimes,  just plain mean. We are in deep need of God’s healing mercy and some of these attitudes are much more serious than we like to think. They can cause great harm. At some point, staying away from confession for long periods is to entertain  a prideful delusion that itself becomes a serious sin. Who says he has no sin makes God a liar (1 John 1:10). In trying to insist that people must get to confession before communion if they are aware of any mortal sins, we have to be willing to first expand the notion of what serious or mortal sin is.

The Church will surely need to continue to give guidance by identifying particularly grievous sins, but in the end, the Church can never develop an exhaustive list since circumstances often affect gravity. There are some sins that are always, objectively mortal (ex toto genere suo); sins such as the murder of the innocent. But there are many other things such as gossip that while not always or even usually mortal,  that may become so if reputations are ruined and the intention was  to do so. Since the legalism of the past has largely been rejected it may be better for us to preach a more comprehensive, wholehearted and inclusive sense of sin that accounts for the deep drives of sins and assesses sin in the whole person rather than focus merely on this or that act. If I notice a growth on my arm I may not be sure if it is serious or not. The best thing is to get it checked out. So too with sin, is it mortal or not? Best to get it checked out. Regular confession should be preached.

We have a lot of work to do to restore the balance of the two Scripture texts above. Frequent though worthy reception of  Communion has historically been a difficult balance to maintain. Many factors need to be in play for this balance to be found. Simply telling people to get to confession before communion if they are aware of mortal sin may presume a lot of  knowledge that many do not have and premises people no longer share, sometimes through no fault of their own. We have more work to do than simply to tell people what to do. We have to teach and reestablish a healthy sense of sin and a deeper awareness of what is sacred and proper for the worthy reception of Holy Communion.

As always, I request your input to both balance and complete this article. This video was my attempt today to exhort the faithful to worthy reception of communion through frequent confession.

Posted on

What Do you Expect From Holy Communion?

Some people put more faith in Tylenol than they do in Holy Communion. That’s because when they take Tylenol they expect something to happen. But many people don’t really expect anything to happen when they receive Holy Communion.

In fact this is a problem that is present for many in regard to all the Sacraments and to liturgy in general. Many seem these things as tedious rituals rather than transformative realities. How many people really reflect that, in the Sacred Liturgy, Jesus is ministering to them? It is a sad truth that for many the liturgies of the Church are rather mindlessly attended: Sit, stand, say Amen, recite the Creed but all rather absent-mindedly

But how many really expect to be changed by the Liturgy the attend? How many expect to hear a Word proclaimed and preached that will powerfully change the way they think and see the world? How many expect to actually encounter Jesus Christ and be changed forever by that encounter? How many expect to receive communion and to be marvelously helped by this reception in ways far beyond what Tylenol or any other medicine could ever do in the physical order?

Sadly, expectations are very low among the people of God. The blame can begin with the clergy who have not often taught the faithful to expect dramatic conversion of any kind let alone from receiving Holy Communion. But the blame does not end with the clergy. The fact is low expectations can sometimes be developed as a kind of strategy by many who fear change and see authentic conversion and true holiness as a fearful thing or as requiring just too much of what they would rather not surrender. And so expectations remain low, perhaps out of ignorance or perhaps out of fear and aversion.

On this Feast of Corpus Christi, What do you expect from receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in Communion?

I can only say that I expect to become Christ. I will say it has not happened in an instant. But rather, incrementally, organically. But, as I have been faithful to Holy Communion, to prayer, scripture, Confession and the liturgy, I have experienced dramatic change. I have seen sins be put to death. I have more joy in the Lord, I am more confident and serene, less anxious and resentful. I love more, am more compassionate and have more  understanding. I do not fear most of the things that I used to fear. I am less greedy and more generous.

I do not boast here since it is not I who have done any of this. It’s just Jesus in me. I am not what I want to be but I am not what I used to be. I am becoming the One I receive in Holy Communion.  And I promise you the same. If you are faithful to the Sacraments, God will heal you. You will become holier each day. It may seem imperceptible on a day to day basis, but it is underway. It is true there are some setbacks along the way, but even these can bless us if we let them give us humility. Holiness will grow if we but take our medicine.

What do you expect from Holy Communion? I promise you, in the Lord Jesus Christ that if you are faithful to Confession, Communion, prayer, and the Liturgy, I promise you vigorous progress and ultimate perfection: ….being confident in this that God who has begun a good work in you bring it to perfection (Phil 1:6)