Christmas Day 2004
I love Christmastime. I love the entire season. From Thanksgiving to the Epiphany is my favorite time of the whole year. I love the preparations, the decorating, the lights, the shopping, the snow, the cold, the warmth, the music, the atmosphere, the togetherness, the food, the sweets, the hustle and the bustle. I love the tradition, the gift-giving, parades, preparing music for Midnight Mass, choosing the tree, the family gatherings, the memories, the time off work to spend with my wife and children, the tastes, the smells -- I love it all.
While it may seem like the true reason for our Christmas celebration gets lost, this should be a time a great celebration of when Our Savior became flesh and lived among us. I could launch into a diatribe against the secularization or commercialization of Christmas, or worse yet, the assault on Christianity by our so-called civil libertarians who want to eliminate Christ from Christmas. I could, but not now. I only hope that the judges who agree with this position are willing to remain on the job Christmas day.
Instead, I would like to dwell on the wide range of emotions that flash through my mind on this particular Christmas Day. Being personally involved with many elements of preparation leaves precious little time to concentrate on the plight of others. Having served on the local Park Board for some 27 years, I have assumed annual duties of repairing and hanging street decorations downtown, decorating the town park, and of course, performing similar tasks at home. As a Vincentian, I assist with coordinating the Angel Tree in our church where parishioners can adopt a needy family at Christmastime. Shopping, school programs, and other seasonal activities occupy most every evening after work.
With so much happening, we have little time to think. Then, all of a sudden Christmas Day arrives and it's over. Our loved ones depart for their homes and a certain melancholy feeling settles in. I seem to often find tears in my eyes on Christmas evening and this year is no exception. I think about my oldest son who comes to visit so seldom. He spent Christmas Eve in our home and most likely will not spend another night here until next Christmas, if then. We were so close when he was growing up, but now he seems so distant at times. When he was younger, we worked on projects together. We fixed things together. While our relationship once carried a strong bond of family and faith, something happened that I don't fully understand. How I wish I could fix this, and how I hate to see him drive away.
After spending some time feeling sorry for myself, I think about others who are so much worse off than I am. I think about my cousin who is spending this Christmas alone in a hospital so distant from his home in a desperate fight against the cancer that has ravaged his body. I think about another cousin who may be on the streets of Indianapolis this Christmas night when the temperature is expected to dip below zero. I think about my brother who is blind and confined to a wheelchair. I think about friends who lost their only child, a teenage daughter, to a tragic auto accident this past year. I think about all the families who have loved ones at war, not knowing whether they will ever see them alive again. I think about the elderly couple down the street who may be spending their last Christmas together after 63 years of marriage. I think about all the lonely souls in the Health Facility which we visit. Some of them have no family left to care for them. I wonder about all those who are silently suffering some personal grief this Christmas night with no one to comfort them.
I have so much to be thankful for. I have a wonderful wife, and three great children. We are all healthy and warm. I had two loving parents who were always there for me until they died. I have a sister I am close to and a terrific extended family. I cherish these Christmases because there is no telling how many of them we will have to enjoy together. I have my faith and my Church. I was born into the Body of Christ who was Himself born this day to save us. No amount of preparation or celebration is too much. Thank you God for giving me this Christmas day.
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Aging Gracefully
Having spent considerable time with an elderly couple during the past year, I sometimes found myself wondering why God allows some people to live way beyond the normal lifespan. I watched their senses deteriorate, their awareness fade, and their health fail. After several falls and other medical emergencies, it became evident that they were no longer able to care for themselves. Fortunately, they were able to afford hiring fulltime live-in care-givers, but even with assistance, their quality of life continued to diminish.
Broken hips, cuts and bruises, surgeries, symptoms of Alzheimer's and daily dealings with pain and suffering made me think about what all of us may be headed for should we live that long. What will happen to those who cannot afford needed care? What will the future hold for the elderly in this society that seems to be losing respect for life? Will euthanasia become an accepted alternative when medical science keeps us going beyond our productive years? Why would God permit people to suffer like this? I wondered if this was their purgatory on earth, paying reparation before death for a faster road to heaven.
Despite all of their problems and being barely ambulatory, this couple insists on attending Mass together every weekend. Other church-goers often wince at the sight of these two octogenarians straining to climb the 13 steps to the vestibule. Sometimes, it appears they just won't make it. They stop, grasping the railing with both hands, reminiscent of Christ struggling to carry His Cross to Calvary.
They pray aloud before each meal, and one can sense a spiritual presence in their home. As various health care providers come to visit, conversation often turns to faith in God. Several of the live-in caregivers who were not particularly religious and had problems of their own, began asking me to pray for them. One of them who was raised Catholic, but had not set foot in a Catholic Church for 35 years, began attending Mass again.
As I witnessed all of this, something suddenly occurred to me. God was still using this elderly couple as an instrument in His hands to bring others closer to Him. These two old people, who many of us had written off as having lived beyond their years, are still doing more important work than any of the rest of us around them. Perhaps they are not even aware of the power of God acting within them, but because their relationship with Him is so alive, others are moved by this spiritual presence in the home.
I also believe that none of these encounters occur by accident. When we allow ourselves to be used in this way, God will bring us together as necessary. Suddenly, we see purpose in the daily struggles of the elderly. Good can come from it, not only through redemptive suffering, but by bringing about conversion in others. There is no more important work on this earth than saving souls, and we are never too old or too weak to allow God to work through us. Life can always have meaning and purpose when we nurture our spiritual relationship with Our Lord.
Having spent considerable time with an elderly couple during the past year, I sometimes found myself wondering why God allows some people to live way beyond the normal lifespan. I watched their senses deteriorate, their awareness fade, and their health fail. After several falls and other medical emergencies, it became evident that they were no longer able to care for themselves. Fortunately, they were able to afford hiring fulltime live-in care-givers, but even with assistance, their quality of life continued to diminish.
Broken hips, cuts and bruises, surgeries, symptoms of Alzheimer's and daily dealings with pain and suffering made me think about what all of us may be headed for should we live that long. What will happen to those who cannot afford needed care? What will the future hold for the elderly in this society that seems to be losing respect for life? Will euthanasia become an accepted alternative when medical science keeps us going beyond our productive years? Why would God permit people to suffer like this? I wondered if this was their purgatory on earth, paying reparation before death for a faster road to heaven.
Despite all of their problems and being barely ambulatory, this couple insists on attending Mass together every weekend. Other church-goers often wince at the sight of these two octogenarians straining to climb the 13 steps to the vestibule. Sometimes, it appears they just won't make it. They stop, grasping the railing with both hands, reminiscent of Christ struggling to carry His Cross to Calvary.
They pray aloud before each meal, and one can sense a spiritual presence in their home. As various health care providers come to visit, conversation often turns to faith in God. Several of the live-in caregivers who were not particularly religious and had problems of their own, began asking me to pray for them. One of them who was raised Catholic, but had not set foot in a Catholic Church for 35 years, began attending Mass again.
As I witnessed all of this, something suddenly occurred to me. God was still using this elderly couple as an instrument in His hands to bring others closer to Him. These two old people, who many of us had written off as having lived beyond their years, are still doing more important work than any of the rest of us around them. Perhaps they are not even aware of the power of God acting within them, but because their relationship with Him is so alive, others are moved by this spiritual presence in the home.
I also believe that none of these encounters occur by accident. When we allow ourselves to be used in this way, God will bring us together as necessary. Suddenly, we see purpose in the daily struggles of the elderly. Good can come from it, not only through redemptive suffering, but by bringing about conversion in others. There is no more important work on this earth than saving souls, and we are never too old or too weak to allow God to work through us. Life can always have meaning and purpose when we nurture our spiritual relationship with Our Lord.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Voting Catholic
Catholics all over the United States are being asked to view a video presentation this weekend on Faithful Citizenship, A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility. With much controversy in the Catholic Community about Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry's position on many moral issues, the Church has taken unprecedented steps to inform Catholic voters of their obligation to support Christian ethics at the polls.
John Kerry calls himself a Catholic, but he supports abortion rights and voted against the ban on partial birth abortion. He supports embryonic stem cell research, and opposes a federal law that would prohibit same-sex marriage. As an active accomplice to intrinsically evil acts, a number of bishops have banned Kerry from receiving Holy Communion. Incumbent President Bush, though not Catholic, stands much more closely aligned with Church teaching on all of these issues.
Traditionally Democratic Catholics find themselves in a dilemma. Any time President Bush tries to appoint a conservative, and presumably pro-life, federal judge, the Democrats block the nomination. Assuming one or two Supreme Court Justices could be appointed during the next four years, the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade may hinge on the upcoming election. It is probably no coincidence that Catholic Bishops have become uncharacteristically vocal about exercising moral responsibility at the voting booth.
Complicating the matter is the perception, mostly perpetrated by the Democrats and the liberal press, that President Bush grossly erred in leading the country into an Iraqi War where more than 1000 Americans have given their lives. Some Catholic priests and bishops have openly preached against the war, and by implication, against the current administration. Many consider their vote to be choosing between the lesser of two evils. Combine this fact with the effort by some to deny tax-exempt status for religious communities who have become too vocal in the political arena, and the result is a number of somewhat ambiguous mandates for political responsibility by Catholic voters.
The video presentation at our parish this evening took about eighteen minutes. It was followed by a discussion among the twenty or so participants, monitored by a parishioner well-known as a leader in the local Democratic party. He raised several questions about how we as Catholics can support all moral issues while not turning our backs on those who are less fortunate than we are. The implication seemed to be that while the abortion issue is important, that voting for the other candidate also carries its share of societal immorality.
Another parishioner, once a high ranking army officer, spoke on the abortion issue saying that the Church has always taught that it is wrong, and we must support this teaching if we are to be faithful Catholics. The moderator did not disagree, but kept coming back to the notion that choices are difficult when other considerations come into play. Our pastor made a remark about God's Law taking precedence over our Civil Law or something to that effect.
The video, like all other statements from the Church regarding the election, never mentions any candidate by name. Even those participating in the discussion were not mentioning names -- at least not until I spoke up! As the moderator seemed to be leading us into a consensus of a no-win situation, I pointed out that the abortion is the key issue here. The possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade is prompting all of this activism within the Church. During the next four years, one or two vacancies on the Supreme Court could occur. If George Bush is re-elected, the possibility exists that abortion rights could be limited or overturned. If John Kerry is elected, there is no chance it will happen.
Our Democrat moderator then asked me a question. "What if George Bush drops a nuclear weapon on Afghanistan and kills another thousand people?" I replied by saying first of all, George Bush is not going to do that. (Afghanistan was holding its first presidential election this very weekend, possibly unbeknownst to our moderator.) Secondly, we don't know whether our situation would be better or worse had John Kerry been president the past four years. An older woman sitting with her husband across from me snapped back that their grandson was serving in Iraq and he had no business being there.
I replied that it's easy to look back and say, 'we should not have done this' or 'we should have done that.' I asked how many lives are being saved because Saddam Hussein is no longer conducting mass killings of Iraqi citizens. The question now is, which of the two candidates more closely aligns themselves with Catholic teaching. The abortion stance is a good moral barometer for determining the basic character of the candidate, and likely indicates how that person will respond to the basic needs of those who are unable to defend themselves.
In view of Church teaching, no faithful Catholic can cast a vote for John Kerry. Doing so puts one in jeopardy of being an accessory to evil should Kerry's election result in the proliferation of abortion. (How's that for an oxymoron?) The non-choice for Catholics on election day is clear. Yet, George Bush did not follow Church teaching either in the invasion of Iraq. Can we make a distinction between him and his opponent in terms of moral responsibility?
One may certainly argue that had George Bush not invaded Iraq, more that a thousand American soldiers would still be alive today. So would hundreds of terrorists. An evil dictator would still be in power and his people would still be living in hopeless fear. Who knows how many others innocent people, now living, would have died at his hands? We just don't know. We do know that the President did nothing intrinsically evil, even by Church standards. The Church allows for Just Wars under certain circumstances. Whether the Iraq war can be justified is certainly debatable. The President did what he thought was the necessary thing to do in view of the information he had, and that decision was supported at the time by most others in Congress, including John Kerry. The real question involves which issues are subject to debate.
Catholic Answers, Karl Keating's lay apostolate, has published a Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics which lists five non-negotiable issues which no Catholic can support. Those five issues are Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning, and Same-sex Marriage. The statement on their web site says, "It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues." These are five issues where debate is not an option for Catholics.
Generally speaking, the Republican platform comes closest to the Catholic position on all of these issues, while the Democrats typically stand in opposition. Never has this polarization been more evident. Pro-life Democrats exist, but they are few and far between, especially on the State and Federal level. The Florida Supreme Court recently declared that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube can be removed to allow the brain-damaged woman to slowly starve to death. Many states are now allowing homosexual unions, and a federal bill to prevent same-sex marriage was recently defeated in the Senate. Even human cloning is certain to become a divisive issue when someone figures out how to do it.
While much of the current political rhetoric focuses on Iraq, the Christian conservatives are quietly girding their loins in preparation for an election day attack on Kerry and like-minded liberals. For once, practicing Catholics may be following suit. Past social concerns that may have attracted them to the Democratic party, have been overshadowed by outrage over a 'Catholic' voting against a ban on partial birth abortion. With the polls predicting a close race, an unusually large Christian turnout is likely in November.
If we as Catholics are serious about our citizenship responsibilities, we must cast our votes for candidates who do not violate the basic principles of our Faith. To do otherwise is a grave sin. Many life-long Catholic Democrats justify their votes with concocted moral loopholes. They may say that both Presidential Candidates have moral deficiencies thereby allowing some justifiable discretion for staying within party lines. They may argue that John Kerry does not like abortion, but respects its legality under the Constitution whereas George Bush is a warmonger who is responsible for many unnecessary deaths. The fact is, any mistakes the President may have made were not motivated by an ideology rooted in evil.
Others may say that the President does not have the power to overturn Roe v. Wade anyway, so whichever candidate is elected will make little difference. This is simply not true. Presidents appoint federal judges. During the past four years, every conservative judicial nominee named by President Bush has been opposed by the Democrats. Many of these judges may someday be in a position to decide cases relevant to the non-negotiable Catholic issues.
The outcome of the November election will directly affect the moral direction this country takes. We can not support those who are allied with the culture of death. To do so contributes to the acceptance of evil in our society. We can put pressure on the Democratic party to moderate their platform to more closely conform to mainstream Christian values by sending a message in November. It is our duty as Catholic Americans.
Catholics all over the United States are being asked to view a video presentation this weekend on Faithful Citizenship, A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility. With much controversy in the Catholic Community about Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry's position on many moral issues, the Church has taken unprecedented steps to inform Catholic voters of their obligation to support Christian ethics at the polls.
John Kerry calls himself a Catholic, but he supports abortion rights and voted against the ban on partial birth abortion. He supports embryonic stem cell research, and opposes a federal law that would prohibit same-sex marriage. As an active accomplice to intrinsically evil acts, a number of bishops have banned Kerry from receiving Holy Communion. Incumbent President Bush, though not Catholic, stands much more closely aligned with Church teaching on all of these issues.
Traditionally Democratic Catholics find themselves in a dilemma. Any time President Bush tries to appoint a conservative, and presumably pro-life, federal judge, the Democrats block the nomination. Assuming one or two Supreme Court Justices could be appointed during the next four years, the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade may hinge on the upcoming election. It is probably no coincidence that Catholic Bishops have become uncharacteristically vocal about exercising moral responsibility at the voting booth.
Complicating the matter is the perception, mostly perpetrated by the Democrats and the liberal press, that President Bush grossly erred in leading the country into an Iraqi War where more than 1000 Americans have given their lives. Some Catholic priests and bishops have openly preached against the war, and by implication, against the current administration. Many consider their vote to be choosing between the lesser of two evils. Combine this fact with the effort by some to deny tax-exempt status for religious communities who have become too vocal in the political arena, and the result is a number of somewhat ambiguous mandates for political responsibility by Catholic voters.
The video presentation at our parish this evening took about eighteen minutes. It was followed by a discussion among the twenty or so participants, monitored by a parishioner well-known as a leader in the local Democratic party. He raised several questions about how we as Catholics can support all moral issues while not turning our backs on those who are less fortunate than we are. The implication seemed to be that while the abortion issue is important, that voting for the other candidate also carries its share of societal immorality.
Another parishioner, once a high ranking army officer, spoke on the abortion issue saying that the Church has always taught that it is wrong, and we must support this teaching if we are to be faithful Catholics. The moderator did not disagree, but kept coming back to the notion that choices are difficult when other considerations come into play. Our pastor made a remark about God's Law taking precedence over our Civil Law or something to that effect.
The video, like all other statements from the Church regarding the election, never mentions any candidate by name. Even those participating in the discussion were not mentioning names -- at least not until I spoke up! As the moderator seemed to be leading us into a consensus of a no-win situation, I pointed out that the abortion is the key issue here. The possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade is prompting all of this activism within the Church. During the next four years, one or two vacancies on the Supreme Court could occur. If George Bush is re-elected, the possibility exists that abortion rights could be limited or overturned. If John Kerry is elected, there is no chance it will happen.
Our Democrat moderator then asked me a question. "What if George Bush drops a nuclear weapon on Afghanistan and kills another thousand people?" I replied by saying first of all, George Bush is not going to do that. (Afghanistan was holding its first presidential election this very weekend, possibly unbeknownst to our moderator.) Secondly, we don't know whether our situation would be better or worse had John Kerry been president the past four years. An older woman sitting with her husband across from me snapped back that their grandson was serving in Iraq and he had no business being there.
I replied that it's easy to look back and say, 'we should not have done this' or 'we should have done that.' I asked how many lives are being saved because Saddam Hussein is no longer conducting mass killings of Iraqi citizens. The question now is, which of the two candidates more closely aligns themselves with Catholic teaching. The abortion stance is a good moral barometer for determining the basic character of the candidate, and likely indicates how that person will respond to the basic needs of those who are unable to defend themselves.
In view of Church teaching, no faithful Catholic can cast a vote for John Kerry. Doing so puts one in jeopardy of being an accessory to evil should Kerry's election result in the proliferation of abortion. (How's that for an oxymoron?) The non-choice for Catholics on election day is clear. Yet, George Bush did not follow Church teaching either in the invasion of Iraq. Can we make a distinction between him and his opponent in terms of moral responsibility?
One may certainly argue that had George Bush not invaded Iraq, more that a thousand American soldiers would still be alive today. So would hundreds of terrorists. An evil dictator would still be in power and his people would still be living in hopeless fear. Who knows how many others innocent people, now living, would have died at his hands? We just don't know. We do know that the President did nothing intrinsically evil, even by Church standards. The Church allows for Just Wars under certain circumstances. Whether the Iraq war can be justified is certainly debatable. The President did what he thought was the necessary thing to do in view of the information he had, and that decision was supported at the time by most others in Congress, including John Kerry. The real question involves which issues are subject to debate.
Catholic Answers, Karl Keating's lay apostolate, has published a Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics which lists five non-negotiable issues which no Catholic can support. Those five issues are Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning, and Same-sex Marriage. The statement on their web site says, "It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues." These are five issues where debate is not an option for Catholics.
Generally speaking, the Republican platform comes closest to the Catholic position on all of these issues, while the Democrats typically stand in opposition. Never has this polarization been more evident. Pro-life Democrats exist, but they are few and far between, especially on the State and Federal level. The Florida Supreme Court recently declared that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube can be removed to allow the brain-damaged woman to slowly starve to death. Many states are now allowing homosexual unions, and a federal bill to prevent same-sex marriage was recently defeated in the Senate. Even human cloning is certain to become a divisive issue when someone figures out how to do it.
While much of the current political rhetoric focuses on Iraq, the Christian conservatives are quietly girding their loins in preparation for an election day attack on Kerry and like-minded liberals. For once, practicing Catholics may be following suit. Past social concerns that may have attracted them to the Democratic party, have been overshadowed by outrage over a 'Catholic' voting against a ban on partial birth abortion. With the polls predicting a close race, an unusually large Christian turnout is likely in November.
If we as Catholics are serious about our citizenship responsibilities, we must cast our votes for candidates who do not violate the basic principles of our Faith. To do otherwise is a grave sin. Many life-long Catholic Democrats justify their votes with concocted moral loopholes. They may say that both Presidential Candidates have moral deficiencies thereby allowing some justifiable discretion for staying within party lines. They may argue that John Kerry does not like abortion, but respects its legality under the Constitution whereas George Bush is a warmonger who is responsible for many unnecessary deaths. The fact is, any mistakes the President may have made were not motivated by an ideology rooted in evil.
Others may say that the President does not have the power to overturn Roe v. Wade anyway, so whichever candidate is elected will make little difference. This is simply not true. Presidents appoint federal judges. During the past four years, every conservative judicial nominee named by President Bush has been opposed by the Democrats. Many of these judges may someday be in a position to decide cases relevant to the non-negotiable Catholic issues.
The outcome of the November election will directly affect the moral direction this country takes. We can not support those who are allied with the culture of death. To do so contributes to the acceptance of evil in our society. We can put pressure on the Democratic party to moderate their platform to more closely conform to mainstream Christian values by sending a message in November. It is our duty as Catholic Americans.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
The Nature of His Presence
In my earlier efforts to emphatically describe the Reality of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, I sometimes said that He is physically present. By this, I meant to contrast the Protestant belief of a mere spiritual or metaphorical presence. I used the word physical to convey that we can perceive Him with our senses, though the appearance is bread and wine.
The September, 2004 issue of This Rock Magazine contained a letter to the editor from Richard Gaillardetz, the author of a book titled By What Authority, in response to a Book Review which appeared in This Rock last March. The reviewer criticized the book on several points and accused Gaillardetz of believing that Christ is present in the Eucharist "symbolically but not physically." In Gaillardetz's letter, he says that both Augustine and Aquinas insisted that the Eucharistic Body of Christ was not Christ's physical body. Rather Christ is present in a real but spiritual manner. Then he quotes an Aquinas commentary on Augustine to back his argument.
James Kidd, the author of the critical Book Review, responded in the September issue by acknowledging that "it is true that the Church does not teach that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist". This exchange forced me to reevaluate my description of the Holy Eucharist. The problem lies not in my misunderstanding the nature of the Eucharist, but rather in my misunderstanding of the word physical. The first definition in my dictionary says "of nature and all matter." To me, physical meant having substance or form, perceptible to the senses. While we often use the word in that way, it carries a deeper philosophical meaning which renders it inappropriate when describing the nature of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.
The July/August, 2000 issue of Envoy Magazine contains discussion on this topic in some detail, pointing out that the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, all avoid using the word physical when describing the Real Presence. The editor includes the following statement:
Whether Christ's real presence in the Sacrament is "physical" depends on how we choose to define "physical," since the Magisterium hasn't defined this term for us as a way of speaking about the matter. Some orthodox Catholic writers have used the word in this regard, and if we use it in the popular sense of "material" or "corporeal," then the Church does in fact affirm such a "physical" presence. On the other hand, if we define the term in such a way that we would argue against a "physical" presence, then we must make clear that in doing so we don't mean to imply that the presence is merely "spiritual," "symbolic," or "psychological."
This is where the confusion arises. I originally used the word physical to emphasize that Christ is Bodily present, and what appears to be bread and wine is NOT bread and wine. What we see, feel, hear, smell, and taste is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the same Body and Blood sacrificed on Calvary, made Present on the altar today. Yet, the accidents, or appearance of bread and wine normally remains, and philosophically, we must distinguish between the appearance and the substance. By proper definition, we cannot say the presence is physical because it is not natural. Rather, it is supernatural. The substance changes, but the accidents do not. Therefore, I used the term physical incorrectly.
As the Envoy editor points out, a problem arises when we Catholics try to describe the nature of the Holy Eucharist to our Protestant brothers and sisters. If we say the Presence is not physical, most will take us to mean it is symbolic. On the other hand, when I used the word physical during a discussion with an Evangelical Protestant, he thought I was claiming the Body and Blood could be discerned by laboratory analysis. How do we avoid the word physical and convey the reality? I can now empathize with the Council of Trent. Confronted with this dilemma in 1551, they coined a new word,
Transubstantiation, to describe what happens during the consecration. Today, we are still challenged to find English words to adequately explain what it means.
If Christ is not physically present, what term can we use? Substantially present? Sounds too much like mostly present. Really present may not adequately convey the change in substance that actually takes place. We can say that He is Sacramentally present, but non-Catholics will probably interpret this as a symbolic existence.
The Envoy magazine article noted above, quotes the Council of Trent's explanation. It says the following: "In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things." Perhaps the Council's repetitative emphasis says it best. What appears to be bread and wine, is truly, really and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ.
In my earlier efforts to emphatically describe the Reality of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, I sometimes said that He is physically present. By this, I meant to contrast the Protestant belief of a mere spiritual or metaphorical presence. I used the word physical to convey that we can perceive Him with our senses, though the appearance is bread and wine.
The September, 2004 issue of This Rock Magazine contained a letter to the editor from Richard Gaillardetz, the author of a book titled By What Authority, in response to a Book Review which appeared in This Rock last March. The reviewer criticized the book on several points and accused Gaillardetz of believing that Christ is present in the Eucharist "symbolically but not physically." In Gaillardetz's letter, he says that both Augustine and Aquinas insisted that the Eucharistic Body of Christ was not Christ's physical body. Rather Christ is present in a real but spiritual manner. Then he quotes an Aquinas commentary on Augustine to back his argument.
James Kidd, the author of the critical Book Review, responded in the September issue by acknowledging that "it is true that the Church does not teach that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist". This exchange forced me to reevaluate my description of the Holy Eucharist. The problem lies not in my misunderstanding the nature of the Eucharist, but rather in my misunderstanding of the word physical. The first definition in my dictionary says "of nature and all matter." To me, physical meant having substance or form, perceptible to the senses. While we often use the word in that way, it carries a deeper philosophical meaning which renders it inappropriate when describing the nature of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.
The July/August, 2000 issue of Envoy Magazine contains discussion on this topic in some detail, pointing out that the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, all avoid using the word physical when describing the Real Presence. The editor includes the following statement:
Whether Christ's real presence in the Sacrament is "physical" depends on how we choose to define "physical," since the Magisterium hasn't defined this term for us as a way of speaking about the matter. Some orthodox Catholic writers have used the word in this regard, and if we use it in the popular sense of "material" or "corporeal," then the Church does in fact affirm such a "physical" presence. On the other hand, if we define the term in such a way that we would argue against a "physical" presence, then we must make clear that in doing so we don't mean to imply that the presence is merely "spiritual," "symbolic," or "psychological."
This is where the confusion arises. I originally used the word physical to emphasize that Christ is Bodily present, and what appears to be bread and wine is NOT bread and wine. What we see, feel, hear, smell, and taste is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the same Body and Blood sacrificed on Calvary, made Present on the altar today. Yet, the accidents, or appearance of bread and wine normally remains, and philosophically, we must distinguish between the appearance and the substance. By proper definition, we cannot say the presence is physical because it is not natural. Rather, it is supernatural. The substance changes, but the accidents do not. Therefore, I used the term physical incorrectly.
As the Envoy editor points out, a problem arises when we Catholics try to describe the nature of the Holy Eucharist to our Protestant brothers and sisters. If we say the Presence is not physical, most will take us to mean it is symbolic. On the other hand, when I used the word physical during a discussion with an Evangelical Protestant, he thought I was claiming the Body and Blood could be discerned by laboratory analysis. How do we avoid the word physical and convey the reality? I can now empathize with the Council of Trent. Confronted with this dilemma in 1551, they coined a new word,
Transubstantiation, to describe what happens during the consecration. Today, we are still challenged to find English words to adequately explain what it means.
If Christ is not physically present, what term can we use? Substantially present? Sounds too much like mostly present. Really present may not adequately convey the change in substance that actually takes place. We can say that He is Sacramentally present, but non-Catholics will probably interpret this as a symbolic existence.
The Envoy magazine article noted above, quotes the Council of Trent's explanation. It says the following: "In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things." Perhaps the Council's repetitative emphasis says it best. What appears to be bread and wine, is truly, really and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Bringing Up Father
Our church building was erected in 1910. The architecture is modeled after the European Cathedrals of that era, being long and narrow with high ceilings and many steps. In those days, people were not so concerned with access for people with disabilities. Wheelchairs were large and unwieldy. Anyone confined to one would not even attempt to attend Mass. In recent years, the Americans with Disabilities Act has brought accessibility needs to the forefront.
A few people left our parish because our previous pastor refused to even consider modifying the church entrance for accessibility. Perhaps he had more insight than for which we gave him credit. Most parishioners with a penchant to opine, chastised him soundly for his unwillingness to help the disabled get to Mass. They rejoiced when his replacement was announced. Finally, we will get our ramp! Well, it did not turn out to be that simple. Two years later, the struggle continues.
Retrofitting such a structure to make it accessible can be difficult if not impossible. The biggest obstacle has been coming up with a design which serves the purpose at a reasonable cost. While a ramp may seem like a simple solution, it is not. To meet ADA requirements, it must be about sixty feet long. Once a wheelchair is transported to the landing at the door, one more four-inch step awaits. The landing is narrow and the closest doors are too small to accommodate a wheelchair. The brick walls and arches over the doors make them impossible to enlarge.
Our parish council has come up with three possible designs to make the church accessible. All three have downsides. Two involve ramps and one involves a lift. All three require drastic modifications to the front of the church. None provide access to the church hall downstairs. Better solutions exist, but they are expensive.
Compounding the problem is a pastor who has little aesthetic savvy. A proponent of post-Vatican II modernism, he would not hesitate to desecrate the old to conform to the new, squeezing square pegs into the round holes if necessary. His emphasis on horizontal worship surfaces in the accessibility debate also. A meeting of the parish council was held earlier this month where a vote to select one of the three proposals was to be taken. Father provided those in attendance with a written statement which contained the following passage:
"Evidently the many stairs that led up to the Church proper reflected the poor theological mindset of that day, that is, God is 'up there' in the Heavens or riding mysteriously on some cloud and everything and everyone else was below. Recall the picture that depicted the hierarchical arrangement of Heaven & Earth in the older Bibles? As people finally ascended the stairs and entered the Church building they were drawn to that concept with the adorned ceiling that displayed such artistry and celebrated the Tridentine style of worship as to where the focus was magically and mysteriously 'up there'. The Communion Rail and Choir Loft both served to enhance such a concept."
I wonder where we ever picked up that "poor theological mindset." Perusing the New Testament alone, I found 42 references to God being 'up there' in the heavens. Include other passages in the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, Eucharistic Prayer I (Roman Canon), and the fact that we celebrate Christ's ASCENSION, it is not difficult to understand why we look up to seek God. Lift up your hearts. We lift them up to the Lord. Jesus Himself used this imagery frequently. Too bad none of the modernists were around then to correct Him.
Many Biblical accounts describe Jesus "looking up to heaven" when He performed miracles. (Mk 6:41, Mk 7:34, Matt 9:16, Matt 14:19) We read of angels descending from heaven (Matt 28:2), the Holy Spirit descending from heaven. (Lk 3:22) (John 1:32-33) "So then the Lord Jesus . . . . was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God." (Mk 16:19) ". . . . and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matt 24:30) "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." (John 3:3) "For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." (John 6:33) And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself." (John 12:32)
There are many more. "For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead of Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." (1Thess 4:16-17) "What does 'he ascended' mean except that he also descended into the [regions] of the earth? The one who descended is also the one who ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things." (Eph 4:9-10) [All Bible quotations are from the New American Bible.]
Are skyward images of God figurative? Maybe. Maybe not. The point is, Scripture teaches us to think in these terms. This 'mindset' was taught by Jesus, and alarms should go off when someone tells us His mindset was theologically 'poor'. Even if this image is personification, a sort of Divinity for Dummies concept of God, we cannot go wrong adopting it as Jesus did. Only by imitating His Human Nature will we someday partake in His Divine Nature.
Our church building was erected in 1910. The architecture is modeled after the European Cathedrals of that era, being long and narrow with high ceilings and many steps. In those days, people were not so concerned with access for people with disabilities. Wheelchairs were large and unwieldy. Anyone confined to one would not even attempt to attend Mass. In recent years, the Americans with Disabilities Act has brought accessibility needs to the forefront.
A few people left our parish because our previous pastor refused to even consider modifying the church entrance for accessibility. Perhaps he had more insight than for which we gave him credit. Most parishioners with a penchant to opine, chastised him soundly for his unwillingness to help the disabled get to Mass. They rejoiced when his replacement was announced. Finally, we will get our ramp! Well, it did not turn out to be that simple. Two years later, the struggle continues.
Retrofitting such a structure to make it accessible can be difficult if not impossible. The biggest obstacle has been coming up with a design which serves the purpose at a reasonable cost. While a ramp may seem like a simple solution, it is not. To meet ADA requirements, it must be about sixty feet long. Once a wheelchair is transported to the landing at the door, one more four-inch step awaits. The landing is narrow and the closest doors are too small to accommodate a wheelchair. The brick walls and arches over the doors make them impossible to enlarge.
Our parish council has come up with three possible designs to make the church accessible. All three have downsides. Two involve ramps and one involves a lift. All three require drastic modifications to the front of the church. None provide access to the church hall downstairs. Better solutions exist, but they are expensive.
Compounding the problem is a pastor who has little aesthetic savvy. A proponent of post-Vatican II modernism, he would not hesitate to desecrate the old to conform to the new, squeezing square pegs into the round holes if necessary. His emphasis on horizontal worship surfaces in the accessibility debate also. A meeting of the parish council was held earlier this month where a vote to select one of the three proposals was to be taken. Father provided those in attendance with a written statement which contained the following passage:
"Evidently the many stairs that led up to the Church proper reflected the poor theological mindset of that day, that is, God is 'up there' in the Heavens or riding mysteriously on some cloud and everything and everyone else was below. Recall the picture that depicted the hierarchical arrangement of Heaven & Earth in the older Bibles? As people finally ascended the stairs and entered the Church building they were drawn to that concept with the adorned ceiling that displayed such artistry and celebrated the Tridentine style of worship as to where the focus was magically and mysteriously 'up there'. The Communion Rail and Choir Loft both served to enhance such a concept."
I wonder where we ever picked up that "poor theological mindset." Perusing the New Testament alone, I found 42 references to God being 'up there' in the heavens. Include other passages in the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, Eucharistic Prayer I (Roman Canon), and the fact that we celebrate Christ's ASCENSION, it is not difficult to understand why we look up to seek God. Lift up your hearts. We lift them up to the Lord. Jesus Himself used this imagery frequently. Too bad none of the modernists were around then to correct Him.
Many Biblical accounts describe Jesus "looking up to heaven" when He performed miracles. (Mk 6:41, Mk 7:34, Matt 9:16, Matt 14:19) We read of angels descending from heaven (Matt 28:2), the Holy Spirit descending from heaven. (Lk 3:22) (John 1:32-33) "So then the Lord Jesus . . . . was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God." (Mk 16:19) ". . . . and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matt 24:30) "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." (John 3:3) "For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." (John 6:33) And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself." (John 12:32)
There are many more. "For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead of Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." (1Thess 4:16-17) "What does 'he ascended' mean except that he also descended into the [regions] of the earth? The one who descended is also the one who ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things." (Eph 4:9-10) [All Bible quotations are from the New American Bible.]
Are skyward images of God figurative? Maybe. Maybe not. The point is, Scripture teaches us to think in these terms. This 'mindset' was taught by Jesus, and alarms should go off when someone tells us His mindset was theologically 'poor'. Even if this image is personification, a sort of Divinity for Dummies concept of God, we cannot go wrong adopting it as Jesus did. Only by imitating His Human Nature will we someday partake in His Divine Nature.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Portafessional?
An announcement from our pastor appeared in the Sunday bulletin on July 25, 2004, under the heading of Projects Underway. It said the following:
As some of you already know, as a part of the accessibility plan, a washroom is presently being installed where the Confessional Booth was located. For those who are questioning, since more people are celebrating the Sacrament of Reconciliation face to face, the "booth" or "behind the screen" way of celebrating this beautiful Sacrament has been dwindling. People will still be given the option of face to face or behind the screen via a portable Confessional. Realistically speaking, the Sacrament can be celebrated anywhere and at anytime. You might say that's because the Church, ever since Vatican II, has reflected in her life and ministry the beauty of Jesus' reconciling Spirit of healing and grace via Sacred Scripture. At least a bathroom on the main level of the Church will serve a practical purpose. That's the essence of Jesus' life with us!
In April, I wrote about the problem of getting Catholics to go to confession. (Confession Digression, 4-25-04) One of the suggestions I made to priests was, "Be in the confessional with the door closed prior to the starting time, and do not leave until the end of the schedule. Those who wish to receive the Sacrament anonymously need to be assured that the priest will not wander out of the confessional, thereby invading their privacy." Despite the fact that many of those who go regularly are comfortable with face to face confession, many more are not. And even those who are comfortable on a routine basis, may not be comfortable after committing a serious sin. For this and other reasons, Churches are required to guarantee anonymity for those who desire it. Canon Law 964 says the following:
Can. 964 #1 The proper place for hearing sacramental confessions is a church or oratory. #2 As far as the confessional is concerned, norms are to be issued by the Episcopal Conference, with the proviso however that confessionals, which the faithful who so wish may freely use, are located in an open place, and fitted with a fixed grille between the penitent and the confessor. #3 Except for a just reason, confessions are not to be heard elsewhere than in a confessional.
Does our "portable confessional" meet the criteria prescribed in Canon Law 964? It consists of a kneeler with a small screen (about 18 inches square) which can be raised above the arm rest. It is hardly fixed. The "screen" itself is transparent. The priest sits on a folding chair facing sideways. While he may elect not to look the penitent in the eye, anonymity is by no means guaranteed. Remaining out of the priest's field of peripheral vision may require awkward restrictive movement. Even if he deliberately diverts his eyes, the penitent has to look directly at the priest through the see-through screen. No one wishing to be anonymous would be comfortable in this situation.
Father's bulletin assessment that, "Realistically speaking, the Sacrament can be celebrated anywhere and at anytime" may be technically true, but is not the prescribed method according to Canon Law 964, which says confessions must be normally be heard in a confessional in a church or oratory. The last line of 964 would infer that the confessional is to be an enclosure. Going into this confessional is not a possibility. Furthermore, Canon Law 986 says that regular times must be scheduled for confessions. (We are still in compliance with law 986.)
There is a certain irony to all of this that cannot escape me. Here we have a Catholic Church removing a facility used for cleansing of the soul and replacing it with one used for cleansing of the body. And the priest says, "At least a bathroom on the main level of the Church will serve a practical purpose." How sad. I bet the bathroom will be installed according to code, and it won't have a see-through screen.
An announcement from our pastor appeared in the Sunday bulletin on July 25, 2004, under the heading of Projects Underway. It said the following:
As some of you already know, as a part of the accessibility plan, a washroom is presently being installed where the Confessional Booth was located. For those who are questioning, since more people are celebrating the Sacrament of Reconciliation face to face, the "booth" or "behind the screen" way of celebrating this beautiful Sacrament has been dwindling. People will still be given the option of face to face or behind the screen via a portable Confessional. Realistically speaking, the Sacrament can be celebrated anywhere and at anytime. You might say that's because the Church, ever since Vatican II, has reflected in her life and ministry the beauty of Jesus' reconciling Spirit of healing and grace via Sacred Scripture. At least a bathroom on the main level of the Church will serve a practical purpose. That's the essence of Jesus' life with us!
In April, I wrote about the problem of getting Catholics to go to confession. (Confession Digression, 4-25-04) One of the suggestions I made to priests was, "Be in the confessional with the door closed prior to the starting time, and do not leave until the end of the schedule. Those who wish to receive the Sacrament anonymously need to be assured that the priest will not wander out of the confessional, thereby invading their privacy." Despite the fact that many of those who go regularly are comfortable with face to face confession, many more are not. And even those who are comfortable on a routine basis, may not be comfortable after committing a serious sin. For this and other reasons, Churches are required to guarantee anonymity for those who desire it. Canon Law 964 says the following:
Can. 964 #1 The proper place for hearing sacramental confessions is a church or oratory. #2 As far as the confessional is concerned, norms are to be issued by the Episcopal Conference, with the proviso however that confessionals, which the faithful who so wish may freely use, are located in an open place, and fitted with a fixed grille between the penitent and the confessor. #3 Except for a just reason, confessions are not to be heard elsewhere than in a confessional.
Does our "portable confessional" meet the criteria prescribed in Canon Law 964? It consists of a kneeler with a small screen (about 18 inches square) which can be raised above the arm rest. It is hardly fixed. The "screen" itself is transparent. The priest sits on a folding chair facing sideways. While he may elect not to look the penitent in the eye, anonymity is by no means guaranteed. Remaining out of the priest's field of peripheral vision may require awkward restrictive movement. Even if he deliberately diverts his eyes, the penitent has to look directly at the priest through the see-through screen. No one wishing to be anonymous would be comfortable in this situation.
Father's bulletin assessment that, "Realistically speaking, the Sacrament can be celebrated anywhere and at anytime" may be technically true, but is not the prescribed method according to Canon Law 964, which says confessions must be normally be heard in a confessional in a church or oratory. The last line of 964 would infer that the confessional is to be an enclosure. Going into this confessional is not a possibility. Furthermore, Canon Law 986 says that regular times must be scheduled for confessions. (We are still in compliance with law 986.)
There is a certain irony to all of this that cannot escape me. Here we have a Catholic Church removing a facility used for cleansing of the soul and replacing it with one used for cleansing of the body. And the priest says, "At least a bathroom on the main level of the Church will serve a practical purpose." How sad. I bet the bathroom will be installed according to code, and it won't have a see-through screen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)