Category: Uncategorized

There are times when Scripture seems to contradict itself. On the one hand we read, Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it (Mk 10;15). And yet elsewhere Scripture says, then we will no longer be infants, tossed about by the waves and carried around by every wind of teaching and by the clever cunning of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into Christ Himself, who is the head (Eph 4:15).

However, the seeming contradiction flows more from the modern human tendency to absolutize certain teachings while forgetting that others also exist to balance and augment, than from a true contradiction. Sophistication is necessary in interpreting speech/writing, because everything cannot be communicated all at once.

Therefore, the above passages indicate that there are some qualities of children that ought to be emulated and others that should be avoided.

What are some qualities of children that should be strived for by the spiritually mature? Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. speaks to these qualities as he meditates on the teachings of St. Therese of Lisieux:

We find in a child as a rule, simplicity and consciousness of his weakness …. The simplicity, or absence of duplicity, of a child is wholly spontaneous, in him there is no labored refinement, no affectation. He generally says what he thinks and expresses what he desires without subterfuge, without fear of what people will say. As a rule, he does not pose; he shows himself as he is. Conscious of his weakness … he depends in everything on his father and mother, from whom he should receive everything (The Three Ages of the Interior Life, Part Two, Tan Publications P. 433).

Clearly there are many qualities here that we should have, before God and also one another. For indeed as adults we posture; we wear masks; we are pretentious; and sometimes we’re just downright phony. Above all we are self-conscious, which is actually a paradoxical way of saying that we are obsessed with what others think of us. Full of pride, we refuse to acknowledge that we need God’s help in everything. Instead, we think that we only need His help in extreme situations; then we will pray.

Oh, for the simple and unpretentious qualities of children, who have not yet learned to be obsessed with what others think of them; who have not yet become cynical to the point of retreating into lies and posturing to navigate the convenient deceptions of men and ingratiate themselves to others!

Lagrange continues,

The child of God should, first of all, be simple and upright, without duplicity; he should exclude hypocrisy and falsehood from his life, and not seek to pass for what he is not …. Our Lord says, “If thy eye be single, thy whole body shall be lightsome.” That is, if the gaze of your spirit is honest, if your intention is upright, your whole life will be illuminated. The child of God should [also] preserve the consciousness of his weakness and indigence … (p. 435)

The idea of our “eye being single” is similar to being pure in heart. The concept is a kind of purity that is not admixed with all sorts of foreign materials. The pure heart is intent on one thing, not thousands of competing things. The simple eye is content to look to one thing, not every passing pleasure and distraction. One = pure = simple. Thus we are warned by the Lord that we cannot serve both Him and the mammon of this world; we cannot serve two masters. But as it is, we want too many things. We want to please too many people. We want to be in two kingdoms. Holiness, and the purity and simplicity it requires, cannot abide such duplicity. To some degree, children are more able to say, “Sum quod sum” (I am what I am). They are focused on pleasing their parents rather than myriad other people. And the very youngest children need only the basics: food, shelter, and intimacy.

Here are some final thoughts on spiritual childhood: Children are not perfect, but in their better moments they display important traits that we who would be spiritual ought to imitate.

Everything I need to know about being God’s child, I learned in infancy!

As a further reflection in the wake of Corpus Christi Sunday, permit me to offer a reflection on the two great Eucharistic hymns of Benediction. I sometimes get requests for help in understanding the Latin texts of these very familiar hymns for Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction.

“O Salutaris Hostia” and “Tantum Ergo Sacramentum,” though familiar to many Catholics, remain only vaguely understood in terms of a word-for-word translation. They are sometimes referred to as just “O Salutaris” and “Tantum Ergo.” 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 accomplish here is to provide a very literal rendering (preserving the Latin word order) so that one can understand the Latin precisely. It is my hope to bring these hymns more alive for the faithful who sing them, but may not be highly skilled in Latin.

“O Salutaris Hostia” – This is actually the last two verses of the hymn “Verbum Supernum Prodiense” (The heavenly Word going forth), written by St. Thomas Aquinas. He composed it for Lauds (Morning Prayer) of the Divine Office for the Feast of Corpus Christi. The meter is iambic dimeter, which is accentual with alternating rhyme. Even the hostile Jean-Jacques Rousseau was said to have been so pleased by this hymn that he said he would have given all his poetry to be its author. To facilitate easier comparison, I present the Latin text on the left; a very literal, word-for-word English translation preserving the Latin word order in the center; and an English translation with more English-like word order (and some punctuation for additional clarity) on the right:

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

I have prepared a more thorough word study here: Study of the O Salutaris.

“Tantum Ergo Sacramentum” – This is actually the last two verses of the hymn “Pange Lingua” (Sing, my tongue), also written by 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, which rhymes at both the caesura and the end of the line. There is in this hymn a wonderful union of sweetness of melody with clear-cut dogmatic teaching. To facilitate easier comparison, I present the Latin text on the left; a very literal, word-for-word English translation preserving the Latin word order in the center; and an English translation with more English-like word order (and some punctuation for additional clarity) on the right:

Tantum ergo sacramentum veneremur cernui	So great therefore a sacrament let us venerate with bowed heads	So great therefore a sacrament let us venerate with bowed heads;
et antiquum documentum novo cedat ritui praestet fides supplementum sensuum defectui	and the ancient document new give way to the rite may supply faith a supplement of the senses for the defect	and the ancient document to the new rite give way; may faith supply a supplement for the defect of the senses
Genitori Genitoque laus et jubilation salus, honor, virtus, quoque sit et benediction procedenti ab utroque compare sit laudatio	To the One who generates and the One who is generated (i.e., to the Father and Son) be praise and joy health, honor, strength also may there be and blessing to the One proceeding from both equal may there be praise.	To the One who generates and the One who is generated (i.e., to the Father and Son) be praise and joy, health, honor, strength also may there be, and blessing. to the One proceeding from both may there be equal praise.

I have prepared a more thorough word study here: Study of the Tantum Ergo.

Here is setting of the Tantum Ergo (composer unknown, but sometimes attributed to Mozart), which I paired with some video footage I found:

In light of Sunday’s Feast of Corpus Christi, I would like to recall the need for the reverent and worthy reception of Holy Communion and to develop an explanation for the Church’s practice of what some call “closed Communion.”  Not everyone who uses this terminology means it pejoratively, although some do. But to some extent it is fair to say that we do have “closed Communion.” For the Catholic Church, Holy Communion is not a “come one, come all” event. It is reserved for those who, by grace, preserve union with the Church through adherence to all that the Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God. Our response of “Amen” at Holy Communion signifies our communion with these realities and our faith in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Many today have reduced Holy Communion to a mere sign of hospitality, such that if the Church does not extend it to all we are considered unkind. There is often a mistaken notion about the nature of the Last Supper (and the Eucharist that proceeds from it) that lurks behind this misconception. Many years ago, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger articulated the misunderstanding well. I summarize the description here from his Collected Works, Vol 11, Ignatius Press pp 273-274:

Nowadays [some] New Testament scholars … say that the Eucharist … is the continuation of the meals with sinners that Jesus had held … a notion with far-reaching consequences. It would mean that the Eucharist is the sinners’ banquet, where Jesus sits at the table; [that] the Eucharist is the public gesture by which we invite everyone without exception. The logic of this is expressed in a far-reaching criticism of the Church’s Eucharist, since it implies that the Eucharist cannot be conditional on anything, not depending on denomination or even on baptism. It is necessarily an open table to which all may come to encounter the universal God …

However tempting the idea may be, it contradicts what we find in the Bible. Jesus’ Last Supper was not one of those meals he held with “publicans and sinners”. He made it subject to the basic form of the Passover, which implies that the meal was held in a family setting. Thus he kept it with his new family, with the Twelve; with those whose feet he washed, whom he had prepared by his Word and by this cleansing of absolution (John 13:10) to receive a blood relationship with him, to become one body with him.

The Eucharist is not itself the sacrament of reconciliation, but in fact it presupposes that sacrament. It is the sacrament of the reconciled, to which the Lord invites all those who have become one with him; who certainly still remain weak sinners, but yet have given their hand to him and have become part of his family.

That is why, from the beginning, the Eucharist has been preceded by a discernment … (I Corinthians 11:27 ff). The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles [the Didache] is one of the oldest writings outside the New Testament, from the beginning of the Second Century, it takes up this apostolic tradition and has the priest, just before distributing the sacrament saying: “Whoever is holy, let him approach, whoever is not, let him do penance” (Didache 10).

Thanks to Pope Benedict’s writing prior to his papacy, we can see the root of the problem: the failure to see the Eucharist for what it truly is—a sacred banquet wherein those who enjoy communion with the Lord (by His grace) partake of the sign and sacrament of that communion. Holy Communion serves to celebrate and deepen the communion already operative through the other sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Confession.

If you want to call this communion “closed,” fine, but at its heart it is more positively called a “sacrum convivium,” a sacred meal of those who share a life together (con = with or together + vivium = life).  This is not a “come one, come all” meal; it is a Holy Banquet for those who wear the wedding garment. The garment is righteousness and those who refuse to wear it are cast out (cf: Matt 22:11-12 & Rev 19:8).

Many moderns surely would prefer a “no questions asked” invitation to all who wish to come; they love this notion of unity. But to a large degree it is a contrived unity that overlooks truth (the opposite of which is falsehood, not just a different viewpoint). Yes, it overlooks the truth necessary for honest, real, and substantive unity. Such a notion of communion is shallow at best and a lie at worst. How can people approach the Eucharist, the sacrament of Holy Communion and unity, and say “Amen” when they differ with the Church over essentials such as that baptism is necessary; that there are seven sacraments; that the Pope is the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ on Earth; that homosexual acts, fornication, and adultery are gravely sinful; that women cannot be admitted to Holy Orders; that there is in fact a priesthood; that Scripture must be read in the light of the Magisterium; and on and on? Saying that there is communion in such a case is either a contrivance or a lie, but in either case it does not suffice for the “Amen” that is required at the moment of reception of Holy Communion.

Such divisions do not make for a family meal or a “sacrum convivium.” Hence, to share Holy Communion with Protestants, dissenters, and others who do not live in communion with the Church is incoherent. To paraphrase Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict), the Eucharist is not a table fellowship with publicans and other “sinners”; it is a family meal that presupposes grace and shared faith.

This, then, leads us to a second point: the need to approach the Sacrament of Holy Communion free from serious and unrepentant sin. Let’s consider some texts to show that the Church’s desire that her sons and daughters receive Holy Communion in a state free from serious sin is not only a proper requirement but a loving one. Each quote is followed by some of my own commentary in plain red text.

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world (1 Cor 11:27-32).

St. Paul teaches that examining oneself is a prerequisite for worthy reception of the Eucharist. If not, Holy Communion has the opposite of the desired effect of union with our Lord, bringing condemnation rather than blessing. So, out of respect for Christ and for our own good, the Church requires us to be in a state of grace when we receive. We are required to abstain only when there is mortal sin. Confessions of devotion, however, are highly recommended.

[At the Last Supper the disciples asked]: “Lord, who is it [who will betray you]?” Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.” Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor. So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night (Jn 13:21-30).

It is unclear and debatable whether or not the “morsel” taken by Judas was Holy Communion (why would Jesus have dipped it?). But still, there is something of a picture of what unworthy (sacrilegious) reception of Holy Communion might cause in an extreme case.

So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny (Mat 5:21-26).

Note the use of the simple word “first.” Jesus teaches that we cannot approach the altar if we are filled with hate or injustice toward our brethren. Reconciliation and the restoration of unity are required prior to approaching the Sacrament of Holy Communion, lest our “Amen” be incoherent or a lie.

A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (Code of Canon Law # 916).

Note that the use of the Act of Contrition mentioned here is an exception requiring moral or physical impossibility to go to Confession beforehand and the necessity of receiving Communion immediately (such as a priest who must celebrate Mass). There are some pastoral notes that can be added here later for those who struggle with certain habitual sins that are possibly grave (e.g., masturbation). The Catechism has some notes to review that a confessor can apply to a penitent in such cases. But no Catholic should simply take it upon himself to use the exception described in Canon 916. A confessor must be consulted.

To respond to this invitation, we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion (Catechism # 1385).

If anyone is holy, let him approach; if anyone is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen. … But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs” (Didache 10, 9).

Note that the Didache was written sometime between 90 and 110 AD. Hence very early on there was an understanding that the Eucharist was not a mere “table fellowship with sinners” but rather a sacral meal that presupposed grace and communion with the Church.

Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g., excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (Ratzinger Memo to Cardinal McCarrick, # 1). Clear enough!

In all these quotes we see a tradition that is Scriptural, ancient, and clear: the Eucharist is a sacred meal that requires of us something more than just “showing up.” Indeed, there are warnings against irreverent reception, in which the Eucharist is regarded as ordinary or is treated casually.

Is the Church merely being “fussy” about Holy Communion? No more so than were St. Paul and the Holy Spirit, who inspired him to write and warn us against unworthy reception of the Eucharist. The Church is charitably exhorting us to receive the Eucharist, but also charitably warning those who are unprepared to refrain from reception. Indeed, Scripture warns that the unworthy reception of Holy Communion brings not a blessing but a condemnation. This is God’s teaching, not mine.

Perhaps an analogy can be found by noting that some people are allergic to penicillin. For them, a drug that has saved many lives can threaten their own. They are simply not able to receive it, though it is good in itself. Similarly, sinners, not by accident of birth or genetics but by choice, will find that the Eucharist, though life-giving to many, is problematic for them. In charity, the Church teaches that individuals unprepared to receive Communion should refrain from doing so until the problem can be resolved. This is charity, not cruelty or a lack of hospitality.

I have written more extensively (here) on some pastoral issues and solutions related to the Church’s stance. Questions do arise as to what is meant by mortal sin and how to handle the current problem of dissenters, those in serious sin, and those in invalid marriages or other irregular situations. Such questions and issues must be handled charitably and equitably by the Church, but not in a way that violates the principles given by Scripture and Tradition on the need for worthy reception of Holy Communion. This fundamental stance of the Church deserves to be reiterated and needs to be better taught and applied with clarity and charity:

The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004).

Last week as we finished the Easter Cycle and crowned it with Pentecost. We also finished the lengthy reading of the Acts of the Apostles. There are two parts of the Acts of the Apostles: The Acts of Peter and those of Paul. But to be honest, the book has an unfinished quality to it. Let’s consider that.

First, a quick summary: The second part of Acts is focused on the evangelical mission of St. Paul as he made four journeys into Asia Minor and then into Greece. The final chapters of Acts deal with Paul’s arrest, imprisonment, and appearance before Roman officials (e.g., Felix and Festus, Herod Agrippa in Jerusalem and Caesarea).

Paul appeals his case to Rome and is sent there on an ill-fated journey that ends in shipwreck at Malta). After finally making it to Rome, Paul is imprisoned and awaits trial. The story seems to be building to a climactic conclusion, but then the story just ends! Here is the concluding line of the Acts of the Apostles:

[Paul] remained for two full years in his lodgings. He received all who came to him, and with complete assurance and without hindrance he proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 28:30-31).

And that’s it. Acts just ends. But Luke, don’t just leave us hanging! Did Paul ever go on trial? Was he acquitted (as some traditions assert) and then made his way to Spain as he wanted? Or did he lose his appeal and suffer beheading right away? What was the outcome of the trial?

How can we answer this exasperating and unsatisfying end?

The simplest answer is that the Acts of the Apostles is not really about Paul. It’s about the going forth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all the nations. Luke chose to recount this going forth of the Gospel by focusing first on Peter and then on Paul.

Once Paul reaches Rome (and though under house arrest is able to freely preach the Gospel there) the story reaches its natural conclusion. While others had preached the Gospel in Rome before, Luke chose to illustrate the going forth of the Word of God through Paul’s activities, and so once Paul arrives there the goal has been accomplished. From the central hub of Rome, the Gospel would now radiate outward, by the grace of God, to every part of the Roman Empire.

But what about Paul’s fate? The answer is that it doesn’t matter. It never was about Paul; it was about the Gospel. Paul himself testified to this when he said, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace (Acts 20:24).

We are often focused on personalities, and in so doing lose track of what is most important. Frankly, the person we are most focused on is often our own self. Acts never really was about Paul. And your life is not about you; it is about what the Lord is doing for you and through you. We often want things to revolve around us: around what we think and what we want. But truth be told, we are not all that important. We must decrease and the Lord must increase (Jn 3:30).

Some of these notions hit hard in today’s culture that is so focused on bolstering self-esteem. But in the end, our true glory is not our own; it is the glory of God radiating in us. If we decrease, the Lord increases. That does not mean that we are swallowed up and lost in Christ. Rather, it means that we truly become the man or woman God has always made us to be, one who reflects the very glory of God. Perhaps it is best to let Paul himself have the final word:

For we do not preach ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves for the sake of Jesus. For God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to bring to light the knowledge of the glory of God on the face of (Jesus) Christ (2 Cor 4:5-6).

This video is a depiction of the conclusion of the Acts of the Apostles. The scene begins with Paul speaking to Jewish leaders in Rome. (Note that the epilogue, which shows Luke leaving Rome, is not part of the Acts of the Apostles.)

Some of you have heard the news that a local school board in Charlotte, North Carolina voted to eliminate the naming of valedictorians. The following appeared on FoxNews.com:

Citing what it calls “unhealthy” competition among students, the Wake County school board is the latest in the country to make valedictorians and salutatorians a thing of the past, The News & Observer of Charlotte reports. … [S]chool officials say singling out two people for their grade point averages just encourages students to take easy classes and to not help their classmates study.

It seems unlikely to me that there would be a lot of “competition” for just two slots. I think it’s more likely that 99% of the students would never even think they stood a chance and so would not engage in the competition described. Why work so hard for something that you’re not likely to get?

I graduated at the top of my class in Seminary and received a cash award (not a large one, I promise you) but it wasn’t as if I postured or took easy classes to get it. In fact, it never occurred to me that I would get a prize; I just studied hard because I enjoyed learning the faith.

Thus something tells me that the “explanation” offered by the school board is not the real reason. To quote an old Nat King Cole song, “Your story’s so touching, but it sounds just like a lie.”

Pardon me if I suspect old fashioned envy at work here. There are some who despise the fact that others excel because it makes them look worse by comparison. But such an attitude is classic envy: sorrow or sadness at the excellence of someone else because I take it to lessen my own.

Excellence is a beautiful thing, something to esteem and hold up before all. I would argue that it is yet another sign of the decline of our culture that we can’t seem to “tolerate” the celebration of excellence and achievement. Why is this? One reason is the tyranny of relativism. Another is obsessive, excessive concern for the feelings of others. But a more fundamental answer lies in the cardinal or deadly sin of envy.

What is envy? Most people today use the word as a synonym for jealousy. But traditionally, jealousy is not the same as envy.

When I am jealous of you, I want something that you have and wish to possess it, inordinately so. But the key point is that there is something good about you or something good you possess, which I want to have for myself.

In traditional theology, envy is quite different (cf. Summa Theologica, III IIae 36.1). Envy is sorrow, sadness, or anger at the goodness or excellence of someone else, because I take it to lessen my own. The key difference with envy is that (unlike with jealousy) I do not want to possess the good or excellence you have; rather, I want to destroy it.

Envy is diabolical – St. Augustine called envy the diabolical sin (De catechizandis rudibus 4,8:PL 40,315-316), because it seeks to minimize, end, or destroy what is good. Scripture says, By the envy of the Devil death entered the world (Wis 2:24). Seeing the excellence that Adam and Eve (made in the image of God) possessed, and possibly knowing of plans for the incarnation, the Devil envied Adam and Eve. Their glory lessened his, or so he thought, and he set out to destroy the goodness in them. Yes, envy is very ugly; it is diabolical.

The effect of the Wake County school board’s decision is to further suppress the praise of excellence. Excellence should be praised both for the gift that it is to the whole community as well as for the way it acts to encourage excellence in others! Decisions like this further minimize esteem for excellence and mute the encouragement of it.

Some will argue that academic excellence is but one sort of excellence. Is there not artistic excellence, emotional intelligence, and so forth? Certainly. Then find ways to honor those sorts of excellence as well. I paraded around my high school for three years sporting a “letter jacket” that broadcast my athletic excellence as part of the track and field team. The band issued “letter sweaters” to their best students.

Excellence is a blessing. I’m sorry if this implies that some are less excellent, but life is like that. Some people excel, some are also-rans, and some are even poor at certain things. (I never made the cut to become part of the math club but somehow I survived the blow to my ego.)

Count me among those who see the elimination of honors as another sign of an ailing culture. If we cannot honor excellence and achievement we have tipped our hat to what a great saint and learned man, St. Augustine, called a diabolical sin.

Is it too strong for me to say that Satan must be having a good laugh? When we are embarrassed or alarmed by excellence and even call it “unhealthy,” I can hear Satan gleefully crowing, “My perversion of them is almost complete. They are ashamed of their glory and they glory in their shame.”

In my over 26 years as a priest (even longer serving in some capacity at the Holy Liturgy) I have witnessed more than a few people faint. Some just slump over; others go out with a real bang. Weddings are a big source of fainting spells, but just about any long Mass produces its share of “lights out” experiences. Some years ago, when I was serving as First Assistant Deacon for a Pontifical Solemn High Mass in the Basilica, we predicted prior to the Mass that at least one person would pass out. It’s usually one of the torch bearers because they have to kneel on the marble for so long. Sure enough, right at Communion time, one of them went down, torch and all. It seems that such a Mass wouldn’t be complete if at least one person didn’t pass out!

In the warmer weather fainting spells are more common. Further, the height of wedding season is approaching. It might not be bad to ponder the topic of fainting.

OK, so what’s going on here? Are people overwhelmed by the presence of God and then they just “rest in the Spirit?” Well, that’s a fine and holy thought; perhaps I should just stop the article here! However, there are probably other explanations.

1. Dehydration – The heat in some churches can cause dehydration. Dehydration lowers blood volume, which causes blood pressure to drop and makes it harder to get the blood to the brain. And then out you go!
2. Anemia – Some women are borderline anemic, especially at certain times of their monthly cycle. This reduces the number of red blood and thus lowers the ability of the blood to deliver oxygen to the brain. And then out you go!
3. Stress – In order to maintain appropriate blood pressure, there must be a proper balance between two chemicals: adrenaline and acetylcholine. Adrenaline stimulates the body, including making the heart beat faster and making the blood vessels narrower, thereby increasing blood pressure. Acetylcholine does the opposite. Fainting can happen when something stimulates the vagus nerve and causes too much acetylcholine to be produced at the wrong time. Pain can do this; so can “situational stress” such as seeing blood or just the prolonged stress that often occurs at funerals and weddings. Such things cause too much acetylcholine, which slows the heart, dilates the blood vessels, and decreases blood pressure. Because of this, not enough blood reaches the brain. And then out you go!
4. Prolonged standing or kneeling – This can also cause the blood to collect in the lower legs. The movement of the blood back from the limbs is assisted by the movement of those limbs. I was always taught never to lock my knees when standing because this slows blood flow and makes blood accumulate in the legs. It is important when standing to bend your knees slightly in order to allow for some movement of the legs by shifting your weight. This improves circulation and keeps blood pressure at a proper level. If you don’t do that, then standing for long periods of time can result in more blood in the legs and less going to the brain.  And then out you go!
5. Low blood sugar – In some cases, this can cause a person to faint. The brain requires blood flow in order to provide oxygen and glucose to its cells. Excessively low blood sugar can cause one to feel drowsy and weak, and in some cases to faint, especially if some of the other factors are present. Hence, if you have been fasting (rare today!) before Communion and also have a tendency to be hypoglycemic … out you go!

There are surely other causes of fainting (some of them very serious (though rare)), but let this list suffice. It would seem that Masses and other church services are overrepresented in the fainting department, due to any combination of the above factors.

It is surely a strange experience to faint. I have done so a number of times in the past, due to an asthmatic cough that I used to get. During an extreme coughing episode, the rhythm of the heart is disturbed, blood pressure drops, and then out you go. When I faint, everything seems to fade to black; the lights just go out. Sometimes I can even feel myself falling but can do little about it. I just hope I fall gracefully! I usually come to a moment or so later but it is a strange experience to say the least. The brain can only go without blood (oxygen) for a few seconds before unconsciousness ensues, and then out you go!

We are wonderfully, fearfully made, to be sure. And yet we are earthen vessels, fragile and in need of delicate balance. We are contingent beings, dependent upon God for every beat of our heart and every function of every cell in our body. Maybe fainting in Church isn’t so bad after all because it helps keep us humble—and that is always a good “posture” before God. Before the immensity of God, it is good to be reminded of our fragility and our dependence upon Him for all things, even the most hidden processes of our body.

Enjoy this video compilation of people fainting (many of them occurring in Church) and consider well that “To be absent from the body is to be present to God” (2 Cor 5:8).

There is an old saying that the opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference. Indeed, it’s pretty hard to hate or even to have a strong aversion to something or someone we don’t really care about. But when we do love, we care. And the stronger our love, the more intense our concern, anger, or even hatred for what is wrong.

But does this mean that love is the cause of hatred? Our instinct is to recoil and say, “Of course not!”

As usual, St. Thomas provides help in sorting out some of the details and making proper distinctions. He takes up the question in the Prima Secundae (question 29 and Article 2): “Is Love the Cause of Hatred?”

Love … precedes hatred; and nothing is hated, except through being contrary to a suitable thing which is loved. And hence it is that every hatred is caused by love (Summa Theologica, I IIae 29.2, respondeo).

In other words, St. Thomas is saying that we would not hate that which is wrong, deformed, unjust, or dissonant unless we first loved what it was supposed to be. And thus love precedes hatred. It causes hatred by first instilling the love for what is right and then engendering a detestation of what is wrong.

An important distinction – If the word “hate” is tripping you up, understand that “hate” as used here is not referring to a vengeful wrath that seeks to destroy others. That sort of hate is, of course, forbidden; it flows not from wanting the good, true, and beautiful for others, but from a desire to destroy them. This is diabolical hatred: a hatred that hates, not the sin, but the sinner.

The hate referenced here is more akin to grief, or to the sorrow and anger we feel when someone or something is not as it should be. It is grief and a passion to set things right. This is the sort of hatred that love causes.

St. Thomas adds in his reply to objection 2:

Love and hatred are contraries … [and so] it amounts to the same that one love a certain thing, or that one hate its contrary. Thus love of one thing is the cause of one’s hating its contrary (I IIae 29.2, ad 2).

If we don’t love, we don’t care. But when we love, we care, and we experience indignation when what we care about is deformed, cast aside, or contrary to what it should be. And in this way loves causes hatred.

Love wills the good of the other, for his or her own sake. Love does not will the good of the other in order to win an argument or to be proved right. It wills the good simply for the sake of the other. St. Thomas says that love hates what is contrary to what is suitable and proper. But since no person, human or angelic, is in himself contrary to what is proper, we do not hate the person but rather what is deformed or contrary to what it should be. Therefore, a human (or angelic) person can never be the object of our hatred, per se.

One might object that correlation is not causation, and that is true, but in this case the hatred would not exist at all were the thing not first loved in its ideal form. It is this love of the ideal that causes the hatred of what is deformed. Thus love is the cause of the hatred, not merely correlated to it.

Why is this important for us to grasp? There are many reasons, but of special importance is understanding it in relation to one another.

In modern times, we have tended to reduce love to kindness, warm feelings, affirmation, and approval. But this is a drastic reduction of love. Kindness is an aspect of love, but so is rebuke. Approval and affirmation have their place, but so do forbiddance and insistence on what is right. Love can produce warm feelings but it can also bring about the deepest indignation.

When we love others we want for them what is good, true, just, proper, and beautiful—not what is deformed. And given the fact that we live in a fallen world, governed by a fallen angel, and are ourselves fallen and prone to sin, true love for others will have tensions. But tension is not always bad. No tension, no change. And change is going to be necessary for us to reach the perfection to which we are called.

So true love, properly understood, is capable of great indignation—yes, even of hatred. We ought to hate anything that is deformed or that is less than that to which we are called. Scripture says that if we love the world (a lesser thing) then we are enemies of God—yes, even adulterers! For God is our true love; anything less than loving God above all else is to be hated. Jesus gets even more personal when he says, If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—such a person cannot be my disciple (Lk 14:26). Jesus is insisting on the same truth: that He is to be loved above all. Any lesser love that takes His place is a hateful and harmful thing.

Such strong language! And we in these dainty times wince at it. But vigorous love causes a hatred of deformity and a jealousy for the fullness of what love should be. Much of our problem today is that we do not hate our sins or those of others nearly enough. From this perspective, our modern notion of kind, tolerant “love” is really slothful, weak love that seeks what makes everyone feel good rather than what is best. Feeling good becomes more important that doing good or being good. The ancient motto esse quam videri (to be rather than to seem (to be)) is reversed and it becomes more important to seem to be than it is to actually be.

Thus our modern notion of love is weak at best and a lie at worst. St. Thomas’ teaching that love is the cause of hatred indicates that our lack of hate for sin and other deformities of what is good, true, and beautiful is caused by a lack of love. It is not a display of open-mindedness or tolerance; it is a lack of love.

True love admits of jealousy, indignation, and hatred for what is deformed, deficient, untrue, or obtuse. True love is fiery; it has a passion to set things right and to insist on what is truly good rather than what is merely adequate.

How deep is your love? Is it capable of being the cause of hatred? It ought to be (if properly understood).

Does this sort of talk unnerve you? Let me finish by simply requoting St. Thomas:

Love … precedes hatred; and nothing is hated, except through being contrary to a suitable thing which is loved. And hence it is that every hatred is caused by love.