Tuesday, September 11, 2012

September 11: Never Forget



O God of love, compassion, and healing,
look on us, people of many different faiths and traditions,
who gather today to remember the attacks on our nation,
that day of incredible violence and pain ten years ago.

We ask you in your goodness
to give eternal light and peace
to all who died in Arlington, New York, and Pennsylvania -—
the heroic first-responders: our fire fighters, police officers, emergency service workers, and Port Authority personnel,
along with all the innocent men and women
who were victims of this tragedy
simply because their work or service
brought them there on September 11, 2001.

We ask you, in your compassion
to bring healing to those
who, because of their presence there that day,
suffer from injuries and illness.
Heal, too, the pain of still-grieving families
and all who lost loved ones in this tragedy.
Give them strength to continue their lives with courage and hope.

We are mindful as well
of those who suffered death, injury, and loss
in the days and years following in the on-going battle against terrorism.
Our hearts are one with theirs
as our prayer embraces their pain and suffering.

God of peace, bring your peace to our violent world:
peace in the hearts of all men and women
and peace among the nations of the earth.
Turn to your way of love
those whose hearts and minds
are consumed with hatred.

God of understanding,
overwhelmed by the magnitude of this tragedy,
we seek your light and guidance
as we confront such terrible events.
Grant that those whose lives were spared
may live so that the lives lost here
may not have been lost in vain.
Comfort and console us,
strengthen us in hope,
and give us the wisdom and courage
to work tirelessly for a world
where true peace and love reign
among nations and in the hearts of all.
--See Prayer His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI at Ground Zero, New York
Sunday, 20 April 2008

Sunday, September 09, 2012

Ephphatha! Be Opened to Hear and Speak in God's Language of Love

This week, over at Cinema Catechism, we are beginning Fr. Robert Barron's Catholicism series in preparation for the Year of Faith and the New Evangelization. So it is appropriate that the Gospel reading for today should have Jesus saying "Ephphatha." (Mk 7:31-37)

A few weeks ago, on August 12, we read of Elijah becoming weary and sleeping after fleeing for his life. He is woken by an angel and told to get up and eat. Elijah then eats some hearth cake, drinks some water, and promptly goes back to sleep. The angel returns, touches him and insists, "Get up and eat, else the journey will be too long for you!" And this time, Elijah listened and ate fully so that, strengthened by that food, he could walk forty days and forty nights to the mountain of God. (1 Kgs 19:4-8)

We too, like the prophet, too often have been wanting to sleep. But it is necessary now for us to get up from our slumber and eat of the Word of God, and the Eucharist as well, so that we might be filled and strengthed for the journey of New Evangelization that awaits us.

And in addition, we should here adopt the "Ephphatha," which Jesus said and pray that He say to us, so that we too, in our closed-in deafness and muteness, might be opened up to communication and relation (communion) with God and others as we prepare ourselves and thereafter go out into the world to proclaim His Good News.

Reflection of Pope Benedict XVI
Sunday Angelus, 9 September 2012
Dear brothers and sisters!

At the heart of today's Gospel (Mk 7, 31-37) there is a small but, very important word. A word that - in its deepest meaning- sums up the whole message and the whole work of Christ.

The Evangelist Mark writes it in the same language that Jesus pronounced it in, so that it is even more alive to us. This word is "Ephphatha," which means, "be opened."

Let us look at the context in which it is located. Jesus was travelling through the region known as the "Decapolis", between the coast of Tyre and Sidon, and Galilee, therefore a non-Jewish area. They brought to him a deaf man, so that he could heal him - evidently his fame had spread that far. Jesus took him aside, touched his ears and tongue, and then, looking up to the heavens, with a deep sigh said, "Ephphatha," which means, "Be opened." And immediately the man began to hear and speak fluently (cf. Mk 7.35).

This then is the historical, literal, meaning of this word: this deaf mute, thanks to Jesus’ intervention, "was opened", before he had been closed, insulated, it was very difficult for him to communicate, and his recovery was '"openness" to others and the world, an openness that, starting from the organs of hearing and speech, involved all his person and his life: Finally he was able to communicate and thus relate in a new way.

But we all know that closure of man, his isolation, does not solely depend on the sense organs. There is an inner closing, which covers the deepest core of the person, what the Bible calls the "heart." That is what Jesus came to "open" to liberate, to enable us to fully live our relationship with God and with others.

That is why I said that this little word, "Ephphatha – Be opened," sums up Christ’s entire mission. He became man so that man, made inwardly deaf and dumb by sin, would become able to hear the voice of God, the voice of love speaking to his heart, and learn to speak in the language of love, to communicate with God and with others.

For this reason, the word and the gesture of '"Ephphatha" are included in the Rite of Baptism, as one of the signs that explain its meaning: the priest touching the mouth and ears of the newly baptized says: "Ephphatha" praying that they may soon hear the Word of God and profess the faith. Through Baptism, the human person begins, so to speak, to "breathe" the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus had invoked from Father with that deep breath, to heal the deaf and dumb man.

We now turn in prayer to Mary Most Holy, whose Nativity we celebrated yesterday. Because of her unique relationship with the Incarnate Word, Mary is fully "open" to the love of the Lord, her heart is constantly listening to his Word. May her maternal intercession help us to experience every day, in faith, the miracle of '"Ephphatha," to live in communion with God and with others.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Augustine in His Own Words

Confessions--

You have made us for Yourself and our heart has no rest until it rests in You.
--Book III, ch. 6

The soul is weak and helpless unless it clings to the firm rock of truth. Men give voice to their opinions, but they are only opinions, like so many puffs of wind that waft the soul hither and thither and make it veer and turn. The light is clouded over and the truth cannot be seen, although it is there before our eyes.
--Book IV, ch. 14

Let the ears of my heart move close to your lips, and let me listen to you, who are the Truth . . . You are steadfast, constant in yourself; but we are tossed on a tide that puts us to the proof, and if we could not sob our troubles in your ear, what hope should we have left to us?
--Book IV, ch. 5

Make your dwelling in Him, my soul. Entrust to Him whatever you have, for all that you have is from Him. Now, at last, tired of being misled, entrust to the Truth all that the Truth has give to you and nothing will be lost. All that is withered in you will be made to thrive again. All your sickness will be healed. Your mortal body will be refashioned and renewed and firmly bound to you, and when it dies, it will not drag you with it to the grave, but will endure and abide with you before God, who abides and endures forever.
--Book IV, ch. 11

Eternal Truth, true Love, beloved Eternity – all this, my God, you are, and it is to you that I sigh by night and day. When first I knew you, you raised me up so that I could see that there was something to be seen, but also that I was not yet able to see it. I gazed on you with eyes too weak to resist the dazzle of your splendor. Your light shone upon me in its brilliance, and I thrilled with love and dread alike. I realized that I was far away from you. . . . And far off, I heard your voice saying I am the God who IS. I heard your voice, as we hear voices that speak to our hearts, and at once I had no cause to doubt. I might more easily have doubted that I was alive than that Truth had being.
--Book VII, ch. 10

When He made the world, He did not go away and leave it. By Him, it was created and in Him it exists. Wherever we taste the truth, God is there. He is in our very inmost hearts, but our hearts have strayed from Him. Think well on it, unbelieving hearts, and cling to Him who made you. Stand with Him and you shall not fall; rest in Him and peace shall be yours. * * *
--Book IV, ch. 12

Our Life Himself came down into this world and took away our death. He slew it with His own abounding life, and with thunder in His voice He called us from this world to return to Him in heaven. From heaven He came down to us, entering first the Virgin’s womb, where humanity, our mortal flesh, was wedded to Him, so that it might not be forever mortal. * * * He did not linger on His way but ran, calling us to return to Him, calling us by His words and deeds, by His life and death, by His descent into hell and His ascen­sion into heaven. He departed from our sight, so that we should turn to our hearts and find Him there. He departed, but He is here with us. He would not stay long with us, but He did not leave us. He went back to the place which He had never left, because He, through whom the world was made, was in the world, and He came into the world to save sinners.
--Book IV, ch. 12

I was in a ferment of wickedness. I deserted You and allowed myself to be carried away by the sweep of the tide. * * * But in my mother’s heart you had already begun to build Your temple and laid the foundations of Your holy dwelling * * * How presumptuous it was of me to say that You were silent, my God, when it was I who drifted farther and farther away from You! Can it be true that You said nothing to me at that time? Surely the words which rang in my ears, spoken by Your faithful servant, my mother, could have come from none but You? Yet none of them sank into my heart to make me do as You said. * * * It all seemed womanish advice to me and I should have blushed to accept it. Yet the words were Yours, though I did not know it. I thought that You were silent and that she was speaking, but all the while, You were speaking to me through her, and when I disregarded her, your handmaid, I was disregard­ing You, though I was both her son and Your servant.
--Book II, ch. 2-3

City of God--

St. Augustine points out that there cannot exist a nature in which there is no good. It is because there is still good in man that he can feel the anguish of the desolation of modern times:
"There exists, then, a nature in which there is no evil, in which, indeed, no evil can exist; but there cannot exist a nature in which there is no good. Hence not even the nature of the Devil himself is evil, in so far as it is a nature; it is perversion that makes it evil. . . . The good that God imparts, which the Devil has in his nature, does not withdraw him from God's justice by which his punishment is ordained. But God, in punishing, does not chastise the good which He created, but the evil which the Devil has committed. And God does not take away all that He gave to that nature; He takes something, and yet He leaves something, so that there may be some being left to feel pain at the deprivation.
"Now this pain is in itself evidence of the good that was taken away and the good that was left. In fact, if no good had been left there could have been no grief for lost good. For a sinner is in a worse state if he rejoices in the loss of righteousness; but a sinner who feels anguish, though he may gain no good from his anguish, is at least grieving at the loss of salvation."
--Book XIX, Chapter 13

On Free Choice of the Will--

St. Augustine teaches that evil results from freely choosing to be ignorant and by turning away from Truth: "each evil man . . . is the author of his own misdeeds. . . . Possibly, evil comes about from the fact that man turns his back upon learning and estranges himself from it. . . . to do evil is nothing than to stray from the path of learning."

Those that choose to turn away from this truth, must then live in darkness and slavery to error. "Freedom . . . is not true freedom except for those who are happy and who adhere to the eternal law." "Hence, when we say that men are unhappy by their own choice, we are not saying they want to be unhappy but that their will is such that unhappiness results of necessity and even against their will."

"Augustine: [W]hatever that nature is which rightfully excels a mind adorned with virtue, it cannot possibly be unjust. Consequently, though it were within its power to do so, not even this nature will force the mind to become a slave to passion. . . . where passion lords it over the mind, dragging it about, poor and needy, in different directions, stripped of its wealth of virtue, now mistaking the false for the true, even defending something vigorously at one time only to reject at another what it had previously demonstrated, while all the while it rushes headlong into other false judgment; now withholding all assent, while fearful for the most part of the clearest demonstrations; now in despair of the whole business of finding the truth while it clings tenaciously to the darkness of its folly; now at pains to see the light and understand, and again falling back out of weariness to the darkness? And all the while, the cruel tyranny of evil desire holds sway, disrupting the entire soul and life of man by various and conflicting surges of passion; here by fear, there by desire, here by anxiety, there by empty and spurious delights; here by torment over the loss of a loved object, there by a burning desire to acquire something not possessed; here by pain for an injury received, there by the urge to revenge an injury. On every possible side, the mind is shriveled up by greed, wasted away by sensuality, a slave to ambition, is inflated by pride, tortured by envy, deadened by sloth, kept in turmoil by obstinacy, and distressed by its condition of subjugation. And so with other countless impulses that surround and plague the rule of passion. How could we ever think that this is not a punishment when, as you see, it is something that all have to suffer who do not hold fast to wisdom?
"Evodius: I do indeed consider this a heavy penalty and one that is absolutely just, if a man, who once occupied the summit of wisdom, should choose to descend therefrom and become the slave of passion. . . . [but] man was so perfectly created by God and established in happiness that it was only by his own will that he fell from this state into the miseries of this mortal life."

"[I]t is the mark of a wicked and perverse soul to become a slave to the pursuit of those things which should rather be regulated according to the good pleasure of the soul whose right to rule derives from divine order and law. . . . we do evil from the free choice of the will."

Miscellaneous --

Believe that you may understand . . . Understand that you may believe.
--Serm. 43, 9: PL 38, 258

He who made you without your participation, does not justify you without your participation. He has made you without your knowledge; He justifies you if you will it.
--Serm 169, 11, 13: PL 38, 923.

God does not command what is impossible; but when He commands, He exhorts you to do what you can and to ask for what you cannot do.
--De natura et gratia 43, 50: PL 44, 271, Cf. Conc. Trid., D-S
.

Seek and Journey Toward Truth and Allow Him to Find You

Today we celebrate the feast day of St. Augustine.

Catechesis of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
General Audience of August 25, 2010




As you know, I too have a special connection to some saints. Among them, in addition to St. Joseph and St. Benedict whose names I bear, there is St. Augustine, whom I had the great gift of knowing quite closely, so to speak, through study and prayer, and who has become a good travelling companion in my life and ministry.

I wish to underscore once more an important aspect of his human and Christian experience, which is relevant even in our time when paradoxically, relativism seems to be the "truth" that guides thinking, choices and behavior.

St. Augustine is someone who never lived with the superficial: the search, the uneasy and constant thirst for Truth, is one of the fundamental characteristics of his existence - not, however, of "pesudo-truths" that are incapable of bringing lasting peace to the human heart, but of that Truth which gives meaning to existence and which is "the home" in which the heart finds serenity and joy.

We know his was not an easy journey. He thought he could find Truth in prestige, in career, in possession of things, in voices that promised him immediate human happiness. He committed errors, he underwent sorrows, he met with failures - but he never stopped, he was never content with anything that only gave him a glimmer of light. He was able to look into the depth of himself and he realized, as he writes in his Confessions, that the Truth he sought, the God whom he sought with all his powers, was more intimate to him than his own self, that He was always with him, had never abandoned him, was waiting to be able to enter into his life definitively (Book III, ch. 6, 11; X, ch. 27, 38).

As I said in commenting on the recent film on his life, St. Augustine came to understand, in his uneasy seeking, that it was not he who had found the Truth, but Truth itself, who is God, who had chased him and found him.

Romano Guardini, commenting on a passage in Chapter 3 of the Confessions, said: "St. Augustine understood that God is "the glory who brings us to our knees, the drink that extinguishes thirst, the treasure that makes us happy . . . (He not only had) the pacifying certainty of someone who had finally understood, but also the beatitude of a love that knows: 'This is everything, and it's all I need'." (Pensatori religiosi, Brescia 2001, p. 177).

Also in the Confessions, Book IX, our saint recalls a conversation with his mother. St. Monica - whose memory we celebrate on Friday, the day after tomorrow. It is a beautiful scene: he and his mother are in Ostia, in an inn, and from the window they can see both sea and sky - they transcend sea and sky, and for a moment, they touch the heart of God in the silence of Creation.

Here appears a fundamental idea in the journey towards Truth: that creatures should be silent in order to achieve the silence within which God can speak. This is true even in our time. At times, we seem to fear silence, meditation, thinking about our own actions, about the profound sense of our life. Often we prefer to live every fleeting moment, deluding ourselves that they bring lasting happiness.

We fear searching for the Truth. Or, perhaps, we fear that Truth will find us, take us in its grip, and change our life, as it had happened with St. Augustine.

Dear brothers and sisters, I wish to tell everyone, even those who are in present difficulty in their journey of faith, and those who take little part in the life of the Church or who live "as though God does not exist" --

Do not fear the Truth, never interrupt the journey towards it, never stop searching for the profound truth about yourself and about things with the interior eyes of the heart. God will not fail to give us light to see and warmth to make our heart feel that He loves us and that He too wants to be loved.

May the intercession of the Virgin Mary, St. Augustine and St. Monica be with us on this journey.
.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

God Awaits Us and Upon Passing to the Other World, We Will Find the Mother’s Goodness

Homily of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
August 15, 2012
Dear brothers and sisters,

On November 1, 1950, the Venerable Pope Pius XII proclaimed as dogma that the Virgin Mary “having ended the course of earthly life, was assumed into heavenly glory in soul and body.” (Munificentissimus Deus)

This truth of faith was known by the Tradition, affirmed by the Fathers of the Church, and it was above all a manifestation of the veneration that the Church offered the Mother of Christ. Precisely this element of veneration was the moving force, so to speak, that determined the formulation of this dogma: the dogma appears as act of praise and exaltation with respect to the Holy Virgin. This also emerges from the text of the apostolic constitution itself, where it is stated that the dogma is proclaimed “to honor the Son, for the glorification of the Mother and to the joy of the whole Church.”

In this way, what was already celebrated in the worship and devotion of the People of God as the highest and most stable glorification of Mary was expressed in dogmatic form: the act of the proclamation of her Assumption was presented almost as a liturgy of faith. And in the Gospel that we heard, Mary herself prophetically speaks some words that point in this direction: “From this day forth, all generations shall call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). It is a prophecy for the whole history of the Church.

The “Magnificat,” which we find in Luke’s Gospel, indicates that the praise of the Holy Virgin, the Mother of God, intimately united to Christ her son, regards the Church of all times and places. The evangelist’s report of these words presupposes that the glorification of Mary was already present at that time and that he saw it as a duty and task of the Christian community for all generations. Mary’s words tell us that it is a duty of the Church to recall Our Lady’s greatness in faith. This solemnity is, then, an invitation to praise God and to look to Our Lady’s greatness since we know who God is by gazing about the faces of those who are His.

But why is Mary glorified by the Assumption into heaven? St. Luke, as we have heard, sees the root of Mary’s exaltation and praise in Elizabeth’s words: “Blessed is she who believed” (Luke 1:45). And the “Magnificat,” this song to the living God who acts in history, is a hymn of faith and love that flows from the heart of the Virgin. She lived with exemplary fidelity and treasured in the depths of her heart God’s words to His people, the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, making them the content of her prayer. In the “Magnificat,” God’s Word becomes Mary’s word, the light of her path, making her open even to receiving the Word of God made flesh in her womb.

Today’s Gospel passage recalls this presence of God in history and in the very unfolding of events; in particular it is a reference to the second Book of Samuel, chapter 6 (6:1-5), in which David transports the Ark of the Holy Covenant. The parallel that the evangelist makes is clear: Mary awaiting the birth of the Son, Jesus, is the Holy Ark. Mary is God’s “visit” that brings joy.

Zachariah, in his song of praise, will say this explicitly: “Blessed be the Lord, God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people” (Luke 1:68). Zachariah’s house had experienced God’s visit with the birth of John the Baptist, but above all with the presence of Mary, who bears the Son of God in her womb.

But we now ask ourselves: what does Mary’s Assumption do for our journey, our life?

The first answer is: in the Assumption, we see that in God, there is space for man, God Himself is the mansion with many rooms of which Jesus speaks (cf. John 14:2); God is the house of man; in God there is the space of God. And Mary, uniting herself, and united to God, does not distance herself from us, she does not enter an unknown galaxy, but those who go to God comes near to us because God is near to us, and Mary, united to God, participates in God’s presence, very near to us, to each one of us.

There is a beautiful line that St. Gregory the Great says of St. Benedict but that we can also apply to Mary: St. Gregory the Great says that heart of St. Benedict became so large that whole of creation was able to enter into his heart. This is even more true of Mary: Mary, completely united to God, has a heart that is so immense that the whole of creation can enter into her heart, and the ex-votos (votive offerings) that are in every part of the world show this. Mary is near, she can hear, she can help, she is near to all of us. There is space for man in God, and God is near, and Mary, united to God, is very near, she has a heart that is great like the heart of God.

But there is another aspect: not only is there space for man in God; in man there is space for God. We also see this in Mary, the Holy Ark that bears the presence of God. In us, there is space for God and this presence of God in us – so important for bringing light to the world’s sadness, its problems – this presence is realized in faith: in faith, we open the gates of our being so that God may enter into us, so that God can be the power that gives a light and a path to our being.

There is space in us, let us open ourselves us as Mary did, saying: “Thy will be done, I am the Lord’s servant.” Opening up to God, we lose nothing. On the contrary: our life becomes rich and great.

And thus, faith and hope and love combine. Today there are many things said about a better world in the future: it would be our hope. Whether and when this better world will come, we do not know, I do not know. It is certain that a world that distances itself from God does not become better, but worse. Only the presence of God can guarantee a good world too. But let us take this aside. One thing, one hope is certain: God awaits us, He attends to us, we are not headed for a void, we are expected. God awaits us and upon passing to the other world, we will find the Mother’s goodness, we will find our loved ones, we will find Eternal Love. God awaits us: this is our great joy and our great hope that is born precisely from this feast. Mary visits us, and she is the joy of our life and joy is hope.

So, what, then, should be said? Great heart, presence of God in the world, space of God in us and space of God for us, hope, being awaited: this is the symphony of this feast, the instruction that we are given by meditating on this solemnity.

Mary is the dawn and splendor of the Church triumphant; she is the consolation and hope of the people still on pilgrimage, says today’s preface. Let us entrust ourselves to her maternal intercession, so that she obtain from the Lord the strengthening of our faith in eternal life; may she help us to live well and with hope the time offered to us by God. A Christian hope, that is not only a nostalgia for heaven, but a living and active desire of God here in the world, desire of God that makes us pilgrims who are unwearied, nourishing in courage in us and the power of faith, which at the same time is the courage and power of love. Amen.

Thursday, August 02, 2012

The Pope has been busy while on vacation

From Vatican Radio --
Pope Benedict XVI has finished the third volume of Jesus of Nazareth, dedicated to the stories of Jesus’ infancy. A statement from the Press Office of the Holy See explains that this third volume, which is the completion of the previous two, is at present being translated from the original German into several languages – including English.

The statement goes on to express the hope that the new book will be translated contemporaneously into the most-spoken languages. The statement further reports the expectation that all appropriate time will be taken to complete the work of making accurate translations of the Pope’s important and highly anticipated work.

Meanwhile speaking in Introd, Northern Italy, where he is passing a period of rest, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said that there may be a new encyclical from the Holy Father in the near future.

It would be the fourth encyclical by Benedict XVI following Deus caritas est in 2005, Spe salvi in 2007 and Caritas in veritate in 2009.
A new encyclical? Hmm. Following encyclicals on Love and Hope, could this be an encyclical on Faith (especially with the upcoming Year of Faith)?

Sunday, July 29, 2012

A Lesson in Biblical Interpretation

The Gospel reading for today (Jn 6:1-15) says --
Jesus went across the Sea of Galilee. A large crowd followed him, because they saw the signs he was performing on the sick. Jesus went up on the mountain, and there he sat down with his disciples. The Jewish feast of Passover was near.
When Jesus raised his eyes and saw that a large crowd was coming to him, he said to Philip, "Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?"
He said this to test him, because he himself knew what he was going to do.
Philip answered him, "Two hundred days?' wages worth of food would not be enough for each of them to have a little.'"
One of his disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, said to him, "There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what good are these for so many?"
Jesus said, "Have the people recline."
Now there was a great deal of grass in that place. So the men reclined, about five thousand in number. Then Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed them to those who were reclining, and also as much of the fish as they wanted. When they had had their fill, he said to his disciples, "Gather the fragments left over, so that nothing will be wasted." . . .
Let's focus on two things in this passage --

(1) First consider when Jesus asks Philip, "Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?" One major error in reading scripture is to read it in an overly literal fashion and, thus, a similar, but more serious error is to think that God is always speaking in literal terms. In fact, when revealing various truths to us in Salvation History, God uses a variety of teaching methods, what is called the "Divine Pedagogy."

Here, Jesus is not really thinking about buying food for the people despite the question to Philip. He already knows that He is going to provide the bread. The question he poses is a rhetorical question, it is asked by Jesus to make a point, to actually prove the opposite of what Jesus appears to be saying, to point out that there is no place where they can buy enough food. Even if they had the money, the 200 days wages, still the neighboring shops had certainly not baked enough loaves for more than 5,000 that day.

This is a good example of an important point to learn when reading about God saying something that really seems to be contrary to the God of Love and Truth. Perhaps the prime example, one of the most troubling incidents that people grapple with in trying to reconcile Love and Truth with God is when we read about God asking Abraham to offer Isaac in sacrifice. How could a loving God want such a horrific thing? The answer, of course, is that God does not want human sacrifice, and He did not want Isaac sacrificed. Rather, He was trying to teach Abraham and us something, like Jesus with Philip, He was utilizing the teaching method of proving the opposite of what He appeared to be asking.

(2) Now let's consider another part of the passage, "Then Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed them to those who were reclining, and also as much of the fish as they wanted. When they had had their fill . . ."

As written, the passage says that Jesus took the five loaves and two fishes, gave thanks, and distributed five loaves and two fishes, such that the people divided amongst themselves five loaves and two fishes. Nowhere in this particular text does it explicitly say that the loaves and fishes were multiplied. Rather, it is implied that that is what happened. We also know that the five loaves and two fishes were multiplied to a countless number of loaves and fishes because such has been passed down to us through Tradition, the oral teaching and understanding of the Church.

So what is to be learned here? That the Bible does not record each and every tiny little fact of events. Rather, some things are implied, and it is presumed that you already have some pre-existing knowledge of the events.

To be sure, with respect to the latter point, in evangelization, in spreading the Gospel to others, we typically do not simply hand a non-believer a Bible and say "read this." Instead, people first come to know about Jesus Christ because someone has orally told them about Him. That is as it has always been, and the Gospels presuppose that the reader already has some familiarity with Him and with the history of the time.

So, again, we cannot simply take a highly literal approach to reading scripture. We need to go beyond a passive reading, go beyond the superficial plain text, and instead actively engage scripture, actively have a relationship with the Word of God.
_________________________

ADDED:
I just read Pope Benedict's remarks at today's Angelus. He noticed a seemingly insignifcant point that most everyone probably overlooks -- the boy.
In the scene of the multiplication, the presence of a boy is noticed. Given the difficulty of feeding so many people, he offered to share the little he had - five loaves and two fish (cf Jn, 6:8).

The miracle did not come from nothing but from an ordinary boy's desire to share what he had. Jesus does not ask us what we do not have, but shows us that if each of us offers what little we have, a miracle can always take place again. God is able to multiply every one of our small deeds of love and make us share in his gift.
Reading scripture, the Word of God, is often like this event - within what seems to be only a few points of importance there is a multiplicity of significance and meaning to be reaped and learned.

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

Catholic Moral Teaching on July 4

The people asked, "Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or should we not pay?" . . . Jesus replied, "Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar." (see Mark 12:14-17)
Catholic teaching has long held that, while one has an obligation in good conscience to resist if government seeks to compel you to do evil, one nevertheless has an obligation to pay taxes.
"Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country: 'Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.' (Rom 13:7)" CCC 2240
That being so, would it be moral if government were to impose a tax on being homeless as a remedy for ending homelessness? How about a tax on being hungry? Would it be moral to "eliminate" unemployment merely by mandating that everyone get a job and impose a tax on those who remain unemployed?

Is it within a government's rightful authority to not only to tax a person's goods and activities, but to tax his inactivity, to tax his liberty to be left alone? Is it within a government's rightful authority to go so far as to tax a person's misfortune, to tax the hungry for not buying food, to tax the homeless for not buying or renting a home, to tax the unemployed for not getting a job?

Before you object that such questions are completely absurd, let us add another example. It is said by some that there is a moral right to healthcare and that the large numbers of uninsured persons is a problem of moral dimensions. Setting aside the question of conflating in this way the provision of health care and treatment with the holding of a medical insurance policy, is it morally licit to address the problem of people lacking insurance by imposing a tax on them for that very lack of insurance?? Is it moral, under Catholic teaching, to impose a tax on the uninsured for merely being without insurance?

Again, before you object that such is a completely absurd proposition, know this -- the United States Supreme Court, per Chief Justice John Roberts, has just ruled that, whether it is moral or not, it is entirely permissible under the taxing power of the United States Constitution to impose a tax on the uninsured merely for being uninsured.

To be continued, i.e. application of the sophistry and exercise in relativism that is the Roberts Rule to the now "no contraceptive coverage tax," formerly known as the contraceptive mandate, and even worse things.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

"He will be called John"

When the time arrived for Elizabeth to have her child she gave birth to a son.
Her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown his great mercy toward her, and they rejoiced with her. When they came on the eighth day to circumcise the child, they were going to call him Zechariah after his father, but his mother said in reply, "No. He will be called John."
But they answered her, "There is no one among your relatives who has this name."
So they made signs, asking his father what he wished him to be called. He asked for a tablet and wrote, "John is his name," and all were amazed.
(Lk 1:57-63)
In insisting that he be named "John," Elizabeth was following the directive of the angel Gabriel, who had appeared to Zechariah (Lk 1:13). Why? Why this insistence on his name being John? What does it matter if he was John the Baptist or Zechariah the Baptist?

In biblical interpretation, one generally should understand that whatever is recorded in the Bible is likely included for a reason. Likewise, it is reasonable to conclude that the Lord, through Gabriel and Elizabeth, had a good reason for insisting that he be named "John" and not something else. It is not an irrelevant or superfluous point. There is meaning to be found here.

So, what is that meaning? What are we to learn here?

Remember, in the biblical tradition, names have particular meaning, they are more than arbitrary, nice-sounding labels. Rather, the name itself signifies the person; the name is the person. So, for example, the Name of God is not merely something to call Him other than "God," His Name YHWH tells us Who and What He is -- I am. The name "Jesus," which in Hebrew is Joshua or Yeshua, tells us who He is -- God saves.

There was good reason for the Baptist to be named as he was. His name "John," in Hebrew Yôḥanan, tells us who he is -- graced by YHWH. And so he was, from the moment he "leapt for joy" in his mother's womb, being filled with the Holy Spirit, upon the visitation of Jesus, also in His mother's womb. John is the forerunner to the New Covenant, the covenant of the Holy Spirit, of God filling all the faithful with His grace to make us holy too, a sanctification that begins with Baptism and leads us to Jesus the Christ.

Monday, June 04, 2012

Bon Jour de Montreal


The first chapel for St. Joseph, built at the prompting of St. Br. Andre Bessett.



The much larger St. Joseph's Oratory, picture taken from the steps of the first chapel.

Thursday, May 31, 2012

On the Necessity of Making a Good Confession

Previously, we discussed the necessity of making a sacramental confession of one's sins. But it is not merely any sacramental confession that is necessary, rather, one must make a "good confession." We have pretty much already answered that in the course of our prior posts, but let us confront the question directly: What constitutes a "good confession"? A good confession is one that is sincere and contrite and full and complete.

What does that mean? A common understanding of "the rules," that is to say, canon law, is that the requirement is that one only needs to confess mortal sins. Specifically, canon 988 states that
"a member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience. It is recommended to the Christian faithful that they also confess venial sins."
Unfortunately, the apparent distinction that is drawn here can lead to some confusion as to what constitutes a full and complete confession, and it prompted one non-Catholic to ask --

It’s my understanding that it’s only necessary to go to confession in the event of a mortal (serious) sin, but that a venial (less serious) sin can be confessed directly to God. Isn’t this a little inconsistent? It seems that if sacramental confession is important, then it ought to apply in all cases. Or conversely, if God will forgive a sin confessed directly to Him, then why isn’t sacramental confession merely optional? I have never understood this differentiation, and don’t see the logic behind it.

First, it is helpful to keep in mind the different approaches to the theology of sin and confession as discussed in the academic and teaching setting, and then as they apply in practice. The Magisterium and theologians do make a distinction between “mortal” sin and “venial” sin (see below), but that really is not helpful in everyday life.

Why? Because our ability to judge accurately is necessarily impaired by being in that very state of sin, often with the consequence of our wanting to minimize our culpability. For these reasons, the Baltimore Catechism wisely counseled that we cannot always distinguish between mortal and venial sin in our own lives. Moreover, we are not the judges of our own sin. Beyond the inherent conflict of interest were we to judge our own case, Jesus Christ is the judge, not us, and if He says that a given sin is a “mortal” sin, it does not matter if we insist that it is only a venial sin. Making the mortal/venial sin distinction in our everyday life could have disastrous consequences if we judge wrong.

However, let's leave aside that distinction between mortal/venial sin for the moment. So that one is sure to make a full and complete confession — a “good confession” — the better practice is to sacramentally confess all of the sins that you are aware of and can remember.

Now, in practice, this does not mean you will spend hours in the confessional. Usually we can remember the big sins, so those obviously should be specifically confessed. But there are countless tiny little sins that we commit all the time and often we cannot recall each and every instance of such sins. Nevertheless, those too should be confessed.

How can you confess them if you can’t remember what they are? Very simply by openly admitting that you are sure that there were other sins you committed, but can’t remember them, and for those too you are sorry. To truly make a good confession, after stating all the sins that you recall, you should end with such a catch-all confession. And to make a good confession, you must be truly contrite, you must be truly and authentically sorry for having committed those sins.

Thus, in the practice of making a good confession, with this “catch-all” admission that there were many other sins you committed, even if you can’t remember them so as to specifically mention them, you necessarily do confess to venial sins, as well as the mortal sins which you did specifically mention.

Now, back to the mortal-venial distinction — even though in practice, because we are not our own judges, it is something we should be careful about — it is “necessary” to make a sacramental confession and absolution of a “mortal” sin, and not “necessary” to confess a “venial” sin, because of the nature of the two types of sin.

A mortal sin is indeed a “serious” sin, but it is a serious sin, not in the human or worldly understanding of “serious,” but in the effect of such a sin. It is a serious sin because it is a mortal sin, that is, it is a sin which is “mortal,” from the Latin morte, meaning “death.” A mortal sin is a sin which leads to eternal death, i.e. damnation. Sometimes that can be a sin which is serious or grave in the worldly understanding, like murder or theft, sometimes it can be serious in the Biblical sense, like a purposeful violation of one of the Commandments.

But it is not necessarily so that a mortal sin is serious in our typical understanding. Sometimes a mortal sin can be something fairly innocuous. Remember, the greatest and most mortal sin in all of human history consisted of eating a piece of fruit. By Adam and Eve eating that fruit, all of humanity was made subject to death. Such a tiny, seemingly insignificant act was a mortal sin because, by that act, humanity severed the bond between mankind and God, who is Life Himself.

That Original Sin, like all mortal sin, was a rejection of God, a statement that we did not want God and we did not need God. Formal confession and formal forgiveness of such sin is necessary to restore that bond and to reconcile the human person to God. Just as in human relations when you injure someone it is necessary to formally apologize to effect a reconciliation, so to is it appropriate to do so with God.

Denying that you have done anything wrong when you have, refusing to formally say that you are sorry to the One whom you should love, refusing to seek God’s forgiveness for going against Him and thereafter refusing to accept His forgiveness is the only unforgivable sin — it is the sin mentioned in the Gospels as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit — and it is, by its very nature, unforgivable because in order for the gift of forgiveness to be effective, it must be accepted. If one refuses to seek forgiveness or accept it, one cannot be forgiven. Not because God refuses to forgive, but because we refuse.

Very simply, it is “necessary” to confess and receive absolution for such a sin because it would be mortal, it would cause death, if it were so not confessed and forgiven. And it is not “necessary” to confess and receive absolution for a venial sin because such a sin is non-mortal, that is, although it strains the relationship between us and God, it does not break that relationship, it does not cause eternal death. That is, what makes confession of mortal sin “necessary” is that, without it, you suffer damnation. Such confession is necessary for eternal life, i.e. heaven.

Thus, venial sin, because it does not cause eternal death, is not necessary to attain eternal life to be so formally confessed. However, it is necessary to be contrite and repentant about such sin. Venial sin can easily become mortal if you are not sorry that you committed it.

Moreover, that does not mean that you can walk into heaven with all that stain of venial sin on you. You cannot. Only those in a state of perfect grace — heaven being a place of perfect grace — can enter heaven. Hence the need for purification, i.e. having those imperfections purged from your being. But we'll leave purgatory for another time.

_______________________________


I disagree with your statement that venial sin only strains our relationship with God, but doesn’t break it. The Bible says that the wages for sin is death, and that we are all dead in our sin. When Jesus died on the cross, He died for all our sins, big and small. So while I understand that there are certainly degrees of sin, all it takes is one tiny sin to separate us from the holiness of God. So, again, I find it a little inconsistent to have two different rules regarding confession, depending on the type of sin involved. Additionally, I find the Catholic doctrine as you’ve explained it highly legalistic.

The Catholic Church does indeed recognize that a sin is a sin is a sin, and that “all it takes is one tiny sin to separate us from the holiness of God.” However, the Church also recognizes that “there are certainly degrees of sin.” In all of this, we are in agreement.

The mortal/venial distinction is an attempt by the theologians and Magisterium of the Church to further explore those “degrees” of sin. Indeed, to say that there are “degrees” of sin is to say that not all sin is mortal, so long as there is contrition for that non-mortal sin as well. (A non-mortal sin can effectively become a mortal sin merely by being obstinent and refusing to be sorry about it, thereby being an additional sin of rejecting the whole idea of God’s forgiveness.)

This might seem overly legalistic, but once one starts trying to expand upon the idea of degrees of sin, then such complexities are inevitable. In any event, with respect to being overly legalistic, again, it is helpful to maintain a distinction between (a) the theologians, whose role is to further explore and understand and define all of the finer points of theology, doctrine and dogma (and, hence, are more apt to give the appearance of legalisms), and (b) the individual in his everyday life.

The everyday person generally is not going to be engaging in such in-depth analysis in his or her examination of conscience, that is, determination of what sins were committed. There are some who do put form over substance, but most people in their everyday life do not.

For most, it is —
"A sin is a sin, and these are the sins I’ve committed, these are the things I’ve done that I shouldn’t have done, and these are the things I did not do that I should have, these are all the ways that I have fallen short. Some are more serious than others: these are the more 'serious' and these are the not-as-serious, but sinner that I am, it would be impossible to list each and every tiny little transgression that I am guilty of; nevertheless, I am sorry for all of these."
There really is not all that much “legalism” for the everyday person. And for the person going to Confession, the “rules” are pretty straightforward — to be a good confession, you must totally come clean and not foolishly try to hide your imperfections from the Lord. The requirement as to confessing "in kind and number" is construed to mean a full and complete confession to the best of a person's recollection. The Lord already knows what you have done and what you have not done, so it is not necessary to go into minute detail, but as a matter of truth and honesty, for your own sake, you need to outwardly own up to it all in some way.

Accordingly, you cannot simply say, "I'm sorry" and leave it at that, rather, you must then answer the inevitable next question, "Sorry for what?" If you do not specify what it is that you are sorry for, in some fashion, then you cannot really be sure that you are sorry for anything. Thus, to be a good confession, you must be completely open and honest without withholding anything, giving as much information as is necessary to reasonably yet fully describe the sin, you must be contrite and repentant for ALL of your sins, you must confess ALL those sins, and you must do the penance assigned to you (some small gesture to make amends for the sins you have committed, some small way to show your thanks and gratitude to God, typically prayer). As is apparent, these are not really “rules” but are merely what is required in order to fully reconcile with someone you love.

But if you fail to do this, if you try to minimize your responsibility, if you knowingly try to hide the truth, if you purposely try to conceal some wrong that you done, if you say "I have done X," but you knowingly fail to say that you have also done Y - if you essentially lie to the Lord - then by engaging in such dishonesty, even if you are doing so out of embarrassment rather than out of some deceitful motive, you are committing another sin. That is not a good confession, it is a bad confession, and since you are not repentant of all your sins, since you do not fully seek to be reconciled with God, you are not and cannot be forgiven. To be a good and honest confession, you must come out from hiding in the bushes and stand naked before the Lord, bearing all, you must show him your wounds if you want to be healed.

These considerations are not all that legalistic. For the everyday faithful Catholic, notwithstanding the language of canon 988, there really are not “two different rules regarding confession,” there is only one rule: Be sorry for all your sins and confess all your sins.

The mortal/venial distinction favored by theologians comes into play only in the manner of confessing “all your sins.” The sins that you are aware of and are more serious (and thus have greater potential to be mortal) you should specifically mention, with sufficient detail to give the priest some idea of what happened and how often or how many times you might have done it (e.g. “I stole $100 from my employer’s cash register”). Those that are not-so-serious are still confessed, but in a more general way if you can recall them (e.g. “I often get angry at other drivers in traffic”). And all of your other sins in a “catch-all” way if you cannot recall them but you are sure that you are guilty of them (e.g. “for those sins I have mentioned and for all the other sins in my life that do not readily come to mind, I am sorry”).

In this way, all sin is confessed – “venial” sin is still confessed, but generally, rather than specifically. Given that there are so many more venial sins we commit on a daily basis, so many ways that we fall short of the perfection to which we are called, even if we could remember them all, or spent all our time throughout the day writing them down, to confess each of them individually and specifically would require you to spend hours confessing. Hence the dispensation to confess them in a more general fashion.

If you are having trouble remembering anything specific, yet it has been a while since you have gone to confession, such that it is highly likely that you have done something sinful, you might even confess that you are sorry that you have been so neglectful of your faith as to not be able to make a better examination of conscience so as to remember those things. And if you find that you are confessing the same things over and over each time, you might also confess the failure to seek the grace to avoid these these.

To understand that a good confession really does entail confessing all sins, including those that might be "merely" venial, it might be helpful to see some of the prayers that are involved in Confession. As part of the process, after verbalizing the various sins committed, the person confessing will also say something to the effect of:
“My God, I am sorry for my sins with all my heart. In choosing to do wrong and failing to do good, I have sinned against you whom I should love above all things. I firmly intend, with your help, to do penance, to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin.”
or something like,
“O, my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you. I detest all my sins because of your just punishment, but most of all because they offend you, my God, who are all-good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Your grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin.”
From these “acts of contrition,” we can see that, in addition to the specific confession of non-recalled and minor sins, there is an overall confession of guilt for all of one’s sins.

Furthermore, if we look at one of the prayers said publicly at Mass, we again see a general confession of guilt:
“I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. . .”
This public confession necessarily includes venial sins. And inasmuch as it is said in the Mass, which includes the Sacrament of the Eucharist (Holy Communion), while this is not technically sacramental confession, the reception of Holy Communion does effect a forgiveness of those venial sins. (One guilty of mortal sin should not receive Communion, which would itself be a sin, but should first receive the Sacrament of Confession/Penance.)

Again, there is really only one “rule” regarding confession of sin, only different manners of confessing different degrees of it. To be a good confession, it must be full and complete, opening your soul and confessing all with sincere contrition, with sorrow and a firm resolve to be true to the person that God made us to be, to love Him and others in truth, to do good and avoid further sin.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Mortal and Venial Sin

In leading up to our discussion on the necessity of making a good confession of sins, we previously turned to Blessed Pope John Paul II to answer the fundamental question of "What is sin?" We also noted that the Catechism (CCC 1849-69) states that sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor, that is, the nature of sin is a privation or distortion or perversion of love and/or truth.

Now, in order to make a good confession, we need to not only know what sin per se is, it is proper to also understand distinctions between different sins. Theologians in the Church and the Magisterium have recognized that some sins are more serious than others with respect to the consequences they incur. Some sin is so grave, so contrary to love and/or truth that it essentially severs the person's relationship with God, while other sin, while a deviation from love and/or truth, weakens the person's relationship with God. We call these mortal sins and venial sins.

Reconciliatio et Paenitentia
Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on Reconciliation and Penance
Blessed Pope John Paul II
December 2, 1984
17. Why and to what degree is sin a serious matter in the offense it commits against God and in its effects on man?

The Church has a teaching on this matter which she reaffirms in its essential elements, while recognizing that it is not always easy in concrete situations to define clear and exact limits.

Already in the Old Testament, individuals guilty of several kinds of sins - sins committed deliberately,(75) the various forms of impurity,(76) idolatry,(77) the worship of false gods (78) - were ordered to be "taken away from the people," which could also mean to be condemned to death.(79) Contrasted with these, were other sins especially sins committed through ignorance, that were forgiven by means of a sacrificial offering.(80)

In reference also to these texts, the Church has for centuries spoken of mortal sin and venial sin. But it is above all the New Testament that sheds light on this distinction and these terms. Here there are many passages which enumerate and strongly reprove sins that are particularly deserving of condemnation.(81) There is also the confirmation of the Decalogue by Jesus Himself.(82) Here I wish to give special attention to two passages that are significant and impressive.

In a text of his First Letter, St. John speaks of a sin which leads to death (pros thanaton), as opposed to a sin which does not lead to death (me pros thanaton).(83)

Obviously, the concept of death here is a spiritual death. It is a question of the loss of the true life or "eternal life," which for John is knowledge of the Father and the Son,(84) and communion and intimacy with them. In that passage the sin that leads to death seems to be the denial of the Son(85) or the worship of false gods.(86) At any rate, by this distinction of concepts, John seems to wish to emphasize the incalculable seriousness of what constitutes the very essence of sin, namely the rejection of God. This is manifested above all in apostasy and idolatry: repudiating faith in revealed truth and making certain created realities equal to God, raising them to the status of idols or false gods.(87) But in this passage, the apostle's intention is also to underline the certainty that comes to the Christian from the fact of having been "born of God" through the coming of the Son: The Christian possesses a power that preserves him from falling into sin; God protects him, and "the evil one does not touch him." If he should sin through weakness or ignorance, he has confidence in being forgiven, also because he is supported by the joint prayer of the community.

In another passage of the New Testament, namely in St. Matthew's Gospel,(88) Jesus Himself speaks of a "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" that "will not be forgiven" by reason of the fact that in its manifestation, it is an obstinate refusal to be converted to the love of the Father of mercies.

Here, of course, it is a question of external radical manifestations: rejection of God, rejection of His grace and therefore opposition to the very source of salvation(89) - these are manifestations whereby a person seems to exclude himself voluntarily from the path of forgiveness. It is to be hoped that very few persist to the end in this attitude of rebellion or even defiance of God. Moreover, God in His merciful love is greater than our hearts, as St. John further teaches us,(90) and can overcome all our psychological and spiritual resistance. So that, as St. Thomas writes, "considering the omnipotence and mercy of God, no one should despair of the salvation of anyone in this life."(91)

But when we ponder the problem of a rebellious will meeting the infinitely just God, we cannot but experience feelings of salutary "fear and trembling," as St. Paul suggests.(92) Moreover, Jesus' warning about the sin "that will not be forgiven" confirms the existence of sins which can bring down on the sinner the punishment of "eternal death."

In the light of these and other passages of sacred Scripture, doctors and theologians, spiritual teachers and pastors have divided sins into mortal and venial. St. Augustine, among others, speaks of letalia or mortifera crimina, contrasting them with venialia, levia or quotidiana.(93) The meaning which he gives to these adjectives was to influence the successive Magisterium of the Church. After him, it was St. Thomas who was to formulate in the clearest possible terms the doctrine which became a constant in the Church.

In defining and distinguishing between mortal and venial sins, St. Thomas and the theology of sin that has its source in him could not be unaware of the biblical reference and therefore of the concept of spiritual death. According to St. Thomas, in order to live spiritually, man must remain in communion with the supreme principle of life, which is God, since God is the ultimate end of man's being and acting.

Now, sin is a disorder perpetrated by the human being against this life-principle. And when through sin, the soul commits a disorder that reaches the point of turning away from its ultimate end God, to which it is bound by charity, then the sin is mortal; on the other hand, whenever the disorder does not reach the point of a turning away from God, the sin is venial.(94) For this reason, venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and therefore eternal happiness, whereas just such a deprivation is precisely the consequence of mortal sin.

Furthermore, when sin is considered from the point of view of the punishment it merits, for St. Thomas and other doctors, mortal sin is the sin which, if unforgiven, leads to eternal punishment; whereas venial sin is the sin that merits merely temporal punishment (that is, a partial punishment which can be expiated on earth or in purgatory).

Considering sin from the point of view of its matter, the ideas of death, of radical rupture with God, the supreme good, of deviation from the path that leads to God or interruption of the journey toward Him (which are all ways of defining mortal sin) are linked with the idea of the gravity of sin's objective content. Hence, in the church's doctrine and pastoral action, grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin.

Here we have the core of the church's traditional teaching, which was reiterated frequently and vigorously during the recent synod. The synod in fact not only reaffirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent concerning the existence and nature of mortal and venial sins,(95) but it also recalled that mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. It must be added - as was likewise done at the synod - that some sins are intrinsically grave and mortal by reason of their matter. That is, there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object. These acts, if carried out with sufficient awareness and freedom, are always gravely sinful.(96)

This doctrine, based on the Decalogue and on the preaching of the Old Testament, and assimilated into the kerygma of the Apostles and belonging to the earliest teaching of the Church, and constantly reaffirmed by her to this day, is exactly verified in the experience of the men and women of all times. Man knows well by experience that along the road of faith and justice which leads to the knowledge and love of God in this life, and toward perfect union with Him in eternity, he can cease to go forward or can go astray without abandoning the way of God; and in this case there occurs venial sin. This, however, must never be underestimated, as though it were automatically something that can be ignored or regarded as "a sin of little importance."

For man also knows, through painful experience, that by a conscious and free act of his will, he can change course and go in a direction opposed to God's will, separating himself from God (aversio a Deo), rejecting loving communion with Him, detaching himself from the life principle which God is and consequently choosing death.

With the whole tradition of the church, we call mortal sin the act by which man freely and consciously rejects God, His law, the covenant of love that God offers, preferring to turn in on himself or to some created and finite reality, something contrary to the divine will (conversio ad creaturam). This can occur in a direct and formal way in the sins of idolatry, apostasy and atheism; or in an equivalent way, as in every act of disobedience to God's commandments in a grave matter. Man perceives that this disobedience to God destroys the bond that unites him with his life principle: It is a mortal sin, that is, an act which gravely offends God and ends in turning against man himself with a dark and powerful force of destruction. . . .

[The] essential and decisive distinction is between sin which destroys charity and sin which does not kill the supernatural life: There is no middle way between life and death.

Care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of "fundamental option" - as is commonly said today - against God, intending thereby an explicit and formal contempt for God or neighbor. For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God's love for humanity and the whole of creation; the person turns away from God and loses charity.

Thus, the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by individual acts. Clearly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner's subjective culpability. But from a consideration of the psychological sphere, one cannot proceed to the construction of a theological category, which is what the "fundamental option" precisely is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin.

While every sincere and prudent attempt to clarify the psychological and theological mystery of sin is to be valued, the Church nevertheless has a duty to remind all scholars in this field of the need to be faithful to the word of God that teaches us also about sin. She likewise has to remind them of the risk of contributing to a further weakening of the sense of sin in the modern world.
__________________

Footnotes:
75. Cf Nm 15:30.
76. Cf Lv 18:26-30.
77. Cf ibid., 19:4.
78. Cf ibid., 20:1-7.
79. Cf Ex 21:17.
80. Cf Lv 4:2ff; 5:1ff; Nm 15:22-29.
81. Cf Mt 5:28; 6:23; 12:31f; 15:19; Mk 3:28-30; Rom 1:29-31; 13:13; Jas 4.
82. Cf Mt 5:17; 15:1-10; Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20.
83. Cf 1 Jn 5:16f.
84. Cf 1 Jn 17:3.
85. Cf 1 Jn 2:22.
86. Cf 1 Jn 5:21.
87. Cf 1 Jn 5:16-21.
88. Cf Mt 12:31f.
89. Cf St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 14, aa. 1-8.
90. Cf 1 Jn 3:20.
91. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 14, a. 3, ad primum.
92. Cf Phil 2:12.
93. Cf St. Augustine, De Spintu et Littera, XXVIII: CSEL 60, 202f; Enarrat. in ps. 39, 22: CCL 38, 441; Enchiridion ad Laurentium de Fide et Spe et Cantate, XIX, 71: CCL 46, 88; In Ioannis Evangelium Tractatus, 12, 3,14: CCL 36, 129.
94. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 72, a. 5.
95. Cf Council of Trent, Session VI, De Iustificatione, Chap. 2 and Canons 23, 25, 27: Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Bologna 1973, 671 and 680f (DS 1573, 1575,1577).
96. Cf Council of Trent, Session IV De Iustificatione, Chapt. 15: Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, ed. dt. 677 (DS 1544).

Monday, May 28, 2012

The New Platform

Everything appears to have transferred OK, except for the links sidebar. A few of those were old and out-dated anyway. Unfortunately, to restore the ones I want to keep (and add some newer ones), I need to add them one at a time. So, I'll do a few here and a few there. Not a priority though.

(Added -- Another thing I want to do is go through and add labels to some posts that I couldn't fully do before because of the page issue.)

Meanwhile, I've been looking at the statistics page that indicates the number of visits to the site overall, as well as visits to individual posts. Interestingly, the individual post that has been viewed the most, and one that shows up frequently on the weekly numbers, is this one -- Lost: What Really Happened? As for showing up on the weekly numbers a couple of years after the show ended, my guess is that it is still having its first run in some international markets and people are wondering, "just what was that all about??"

Speaking about Lost, it was nice to see Claire and Charles Widmore make appearances on Once Upon a Time, another show co-written by Horwitz, Kitsis, et al., and it was also cool to see Charlotte and everyone's favorite, Desmond, on Fringe, by Abrams, Burk, et al. Meanwhile, taking a peak at IMDB, I noticed that the Evil Queen (Regina) was in a couple of episodes of Lost, when Charlie goes down to the underwater station.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Pentecost - the Baptism of the Church and the Call for Unity

Today is Pentecost. In the Sacrament of Confirmation, we receive the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as happened to the faithful at Pentecost (Acts 1:8-9, 2:1-33), and as has been promised by God the Father in the Old Testament (Jer. 31:31-34; Joel 3:1-5; Ez 36:25-28) and by Jesus in the Gospels (John 14:15-26, 15:26-27, 16:13-14). That said, most people do not understand Confirmation, and unless carefully read, the Catechism often only adds to the confusion.

The Catechism says that Confirmation completes what began in Baptism, bringing an increase and deepening of graces, and a fullness of the Holy Spirit. OK, what does that mean?

This description points us in the right direction, but it often only raises more questions. Don’t we already receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism? Is Confirmation merely more of the same? Is it basically Super-Baptism? What is the point of that? Why bother breaking up receiving the Holy Spirit into two parts?

The answer is that Baptism and Confirmation are separate sacraments because they serve different purposes. Whereas Baptism is more about personal redemption and entering the Church, about getting yourself into heaven, Confirmation is more about sanctification and joining in the Church's mission of going out into the world to be a witness for Christ, that is, loving Him and helping Him in the work of salvation to get all of God's people into heaven. The two sacraments are related, but one is more individual-oriented, the other is socially-oriented.

In today's Mass, Pope Benedict adds to our understanding here to see the connection and differences between the two. One involves baptism on the level of the individual person, the other involves "baptism" on the level of the community so that the human family, which was fractured and separated early in human history, might be reunited as one with God.

Homily of Pope Benedict XVI
Pentecost 2012
I am happy to celebrate this Holy Mass with you – a Mass animated by the Choir of the Academy of Santa Cecilia and by the Youth Orchestra, which I thank – on this Feast of Pentecost. This mystery constitutes the baptism of the Church, it is an event that gave the Church the initial shape and thrust of its mission, so to speak. This shape and thrust are always valid, always timely, and they are renewed through the actions of the liturgy, especially.

This morning I want to reflect on an essential aspect of the mystery of Pentecost, which maintains all its importance in our own day as well. Pentecost is the feast of human unity, understanding and sharing. We can all see how in our world, despite us being closer to one another through developments in communications, with geographical distances seeming to disappear – understanding and sharing among people is often superfical and difficult. There are imbalances that frequently lead to conflicts; dialogue between generations is hard and differences sometimes prevail; we witness daily events where people appear to be growing more aggressive and belligerent; understanding one another takes too much effort and people prefer to remain inside their own sphere, cultivating their own interests. In this situation, can we really discover and experience the unity we so need?

The account of Pentecost in the Acts of the Apostles, which we heard in the first reading, is set against a background that contains one of the last great frescoes of the Old Testament: the ancient story of the construction of the Tower of Babel. But what is Babel? It is the description of a kingdom in which people have concentrated so much power they think they no longer need depend on a God who is far away. They believe they are so powerful they can build their own way to heaven in order to open the gates and put themselves in God's place. But it's precisely at this moment that something strange and unusual happens. While they are working to build the tower, they suddenly realise they are working against one another. While trying to be like God, they run the risk of not even being human – because they've lost an essential element of being human: the ability to agree, to understand one another and to work together.

This biblical story contains an eternal truth: we see this truth throughout history and in our own time as well. Progress and science have given us the power to dominate the forces of nature, to manipulate the elements, to reproduce living things, almost to the point of manufacturing humans themselves.

In this situation, praying to God appears outmoded, pointless, because we can build and create whatever we want. We don't realise we are reliving the same experience as Babel. It's true, we have multiplied the possibilities of communicating, of possessing information, of transmitting news – but can we say our ability to understand each other has increased? Or, paradoxically, do we understand each other even less? Doesn't it seem like feelings of mistrust, suspicion and mutual fear have insinuated themselves into human relationships to the point where one person can even pose a threat to another?

Let's go back to the initial question: can unity and harmony really exist? How?

The answer lies in Sacred Scripture: unity can only exist as a gift of God's Spirit, which will give us a new heart and a new tongue, a new ability to communicate. This is what happened at Pentecost. On that morning, fifty days after Easter, a powerful wind blew over Jerusalem and the flame of the Holy Spirit descended on the gathered disciples. It came to rest upon the head of each of them and ignited in them a divine fire, a fire of love, capable of transforming things. Their fear disappeared, their hearts were filled with new strength, their tongues were loosened and they began to speak freely, in such a way that everyone could understand the news that Jesus Christ had died and was risen. On Pentecost, where there was division and incomprehension, unity and understanding were born.

But let's look at today's Gospel in which Jesus affirms: “When he comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to the whole truth”. Speaking about the Holy Spirit, Jesus is explaining to us what the Church is and how she must live in order to be herself, to be the place of unity and comunion in Truth; he tells us that acting like Christians means not being closed inside our own spheres, but opening ourselves towards others; it means welcoming the whole Church within ourselves or, better still, allowing the Church to welcome us. So, when I speak, think and act like a Christian, I don't stay closed off within myself – but I do so in everything and starting from everything: thus the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of unity and truth, can continue to resonate in people's hearts and minds, encouraging them to meet and welcome one another.

Precisely because it acts in this way, the Spirit introduces us to the whole truth, who is Jesus, and guides us to examine and understand it. We do not grow in understanding by closing ourselves off inside ourselves, but only by becoming capable of listening and sharing, in the “ourselves” of the Church, with an attitude of deep personal humility.

Now it's clearer why Babel is Babel and Pentecost is Pentecost. Where people want to become God, they succeed only in pitting themselves against each other. Where they place themselves within the Lord's truth, on the other hand, they open themselves to the action of his Spirit which supports and unites them.

The contrast between Babel and Pentecost returns in the second reading, where the Apostle Paul says: “Walk according to the Spirit and you will not be brought to satisfy the desires of the flesh”. St Paul tells us that our personal life is marked by interior conflict and division, between impulses that come from the flesh and those that come from the Spirit: and we cannot follow all of them.

We cannot be both selfish and generous, we cannot follow the tendency to dominate others and experience the joy of disinterested service. We have to choose which impulse to follow and we can do so authentically only with the help of the Spirit of Christ. St Paul lists the works of the flesh: they are the sins of selfishness and violence, like hostility, discord, jealousy, dissent. These are thoughts and actions that do not allow us to live in a truly human and Christian way, in love. This direction leads to us losing our life. The Holy Spirit, though, guides us towards the heights of God, so that, on this earth, we can already experience the seed of divine life that is within us.

St Paul confirms: “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace”. We note how the Apostle uses the plural to describe the works of the flesh that provoke the loss of our humanity – while he uses the singular to define the action of the Spirit, speaking of “the fruit”, in the same way as the dispersion of Babel contrasts with the unity of Pentecost.

Dear friends, we must live according to the Spirit of unity and truth, and this is why we must pray for the Spirit to enlighten and guide us to overcome the temptation to follow our own truths, and to welcome the truth of Christ transmitted in the Church. Luke's account of Pentecost tells us that, before rising to heaven, Jesus asked the Apostles to stay together and to prepare themselves to receive the Holy Spirit. And they gathered together in prayer with Mary in the Upper Room and awaited the promised event.

Like when it was born, today the Church still gathers with Mary and prays: “Veni Sancte Spiritus! - Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fire of your love!”. Amen.

Prayer for Pentecost

Spirit of Life, which in the beginning hovered over the abyss,
Help humanity of our time to understand
That the exclusion of God leads to being lost in the desert of the world.
And that only where faith enters, do dignity and liberty flourish
And the whole society is built on justice.
Spirit of Pentecost, which makes of the Church one Body,
Restore in the baptized an authentic experience of communion;
Render yourself a living sign of the presence of the Risen One in the world,
Community of saints that lives in the service of charity.
Holy Spirit, which trains to the mission,
Make us recognize that, also in our time,
So many persons are in search of the truth about their existence and the world.
Make us collaborators of their joy with the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
Grain of the wheat of God, which renders good the terrain of life and assures the abundance of the harvest.
Amen.
.