Ecclesia Semper Reformanda

The Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter

2012-01-01T09:00:00.005-05:00

Father Jeffrey Steenson,

today named the first Ordinary,

celebrating an Anglican Use Mass

at the Newark Cathedral in June 2010.

In accordance with the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has today erected for the United States a Personal Ordinariate for Anglicans who desire to be received into full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving their Anglican patrimony. This new pastoral structure is titled after the symbol of the authority of the Bishop of Rome to teach, sanctify and govern as pastor of the universal Church: the Chair of St. Peter.

The first Ordinary is Father Jeffrey Steenson. Until his reception into the Catholic Church in 2007, Father Steenson was a bishop in the Episcopal Church and had previously served as rector of several traditional parishes in the Episcopal Church, including the Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, PA where Father George Rutler has once served.

This is but another step in the long process of trying to gather together small groups of Anglicans, both clergy and laity, who desire to become Catholics while retaining their corporate identity as parishes in this new Ordinariate -- essentially a non-territorial diocese. Anglicans anywhere in the United States who desire to be received into full communion with the Catholic Church and preserve their corporate identity should now be in touch with Father Steenson.

The new Ordinariate website is at www.usordinariate.org.

Father Conrad Kimbrough, RIP

2011-07-08T18:31:00.005-04:00

Father Kimbrough and friends.

Born 10 May 1927

Ordained 11 February 1978

Died 5 July 2011

Here is the text of my homily for the Mass of Christian Burial

celebrated on 8 July 2011

at Sacred Heart Church, Salisbury.

In the Temple at Jerusalem, a veil of cloth separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the sacred precincts; this was a token of the distance between the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man. This is the veil that was torn in two at the death of the Lord Jesus (Luke 23:45), signaling that the types and figures of the Old Covenant had given way to the reality of the New Covenant. But even in these last days, sinful man is still separated from the holiness of the living God, and to glimpse his glory, the veil must be drawn back. The task of a priest, Father Kimbrough used to say, is to draw back the veil between God and man and then hide himself in the folds. And so he did, first as an ordained minister of the Episcopal Church and then as a priest of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church; for decade after decade, Father Kimbrough drew back the veil for us and then hid himself in the folds.

One of the many reasons he found it so easy to rest content hidden in the folds is that he lived his entire life against the horizon of his death. In fact, it is arguable that no man ever thought so much about the day and manner of his death and with as much tranquility as did Father Kimbrough, with the possible exception of St. Paul, who wrote to the Church at Philippi that “… to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Philippians 1:21)

Conrad Lewis Kimbrough was born right here is Salisbury on 10 May 1927 -- or, as he loved to point out, on Confederate Memorial Day, and he wasn’t just born here, he was born again here by water and the Holy Spirit at the First United Methodist Church of Salisbury when he was eleven years old. He began to attend Methodist Sunday School when he was just three, and from his teachers, his mother, and above all from the Sacred Scriptures, he learned the truth of the Gospel and never departed from the life changing conviction that Jesus Christ is Lord.

When he was in high school, young Conrad suggested that the sanctuary of the Methodist Church seemed a little bit bare and that it should be adorned with a picture of the Lord Jesus, before which he thought should stand a table with two candles on it. Years later he would recall that day as the first of many times someone said to him, “You should be a Catholic.”

During the first year of his undergraduate studies, Conrad made a decision that changed his life. On 8 April 1945, one month before his 18th birthday and the end of the Second World War in Europe, he was confirmed in the Episcopal Church, and in so doing, Conrad was convinced that he was fulfilling the counsel of his Methodist classmate to become a Catholic -- albeit, as he would have put it then, in the English, rather than the Italian, branch of the Church. This conviction would sustain his faith, his life, and his work in the Episcopal Church for over thirty years, almost all of which was in Wisconsin, near the seminary he loved, Nashotah House, in what was then called the Biretta Belt of the Episcopal Church -- a swath of Anglican dioceses and parishes that were, both in creed and ritual form, self-consciously catholic.

During those three decades in Wisconsin, Father Kimbrough mastered the art of drawing back the veil between God and man through the celebration of the sacred liturgy, the preaching of the Gospel, and the guidance of the lost. Father Kimbrough was heir to the renovation of Anglicanism initiated by the 19th century Oxford Movement, led by the brilliant English scholar and Anglican priest Blessed John Henry Newman, but like Newman, who later left the Church of England and became a Catholic priest, Conrad Kimbrough was increasingly beset by doubts about the reality of the ancient Church, of Catholic faith and order, in a Christian community formed by schism during the 16th century Protestant Reformation.

The resolution of these doubts took many years for Father Kimbrough to work out, and while he was still living in Wisconsin, he was invited by friends in Stevens Point to a large gathering of Catholics who were joining a cardinal visiting from Europe for a Mass in a gym. Father Kimbrough’s Catholic friends introduced him to the foreign cardinal, with whom he had a conversation about Anglicanism and his doubts, and Father Kimbrough was delighted that this Catholic bishop from a far country knew so much about Anglicanism and was so sympathetic to his situation. Although he could not receive Holy Communion at the cardinal’s Mass, Father Kimbrough stayed until the end, and to avoid being in anyone’s way, he sat high up on the last bleacher of the gymnasium. As the procession passed by far beneath on the gym floor, the visiting cardinal stopped and gestured for Father Kimbrough to come down. He was deeply moved and ever after said that he felt like sinful Zacchaeus being called down from the sycamore tree. He knelt down to receive the cardinal’s blessing, and that very night Conrad Kimbrough decided to be received into the Catholic Church. Less than one year later, the entire world was introduced to that same cardinal from a far country as Pope John Paul II.

Having become a Catholic in Wisconsin, Conrad Kimbrough returned to the land of his birth in the hope of being able to serve the Catholic Church as a priest in North Carolina. Bishop Michael Begley of Charlotte received Father Kimbrough with great generosity and respect for his twenty-five years of service as an Anglican minister, and on 11 February 1978, the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, Conrad Kimbrough was ordained to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. He was 50 years old and just beginning the work of his life in the Catholic Church.

Over the next twenty-five years, Father Kimbrough served as pastor of five parishes in the Diocese of Charlotte, and in not one of those assignments was he ever accused of being a superlative administrator. Papers were scattered throughout his rectory on every horizontal surface, mail was left unopened for days, even weeks -- especially mail from the chancery, and when the mail finally was opened, it was then dropped wherever Father Kimbrough happened to be standing or sitting, usually never to be thought of again. But despite the administrative chaos, there was something going on in and through this priest that changed lives.

First as a Methodist, then as an Episcopalian, and finally as a Catholic, Conrad Kimbrough knew more surely than he knew his own existence that God exists; he knew that the one, only, living and true God has revealed himself to man through the Covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David; he knew that God has revealed himself through the Law and the Prophets of Israel; and he knew that God has revealed himself -- unveiled himself -- finally and fully through the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. With a combination of childlike trust in the truth of the Gospel and the simplicity of faith that is found only on the far side of decades of complexity and struggle, Father Kimbrough served as a powerful instrument of grace for those struggling to live the Catholic Faith, for those lost in doubt and sin, and for those searching for something or Someone they knew only that they did not yet know. This was true throughout his ministry as a Catholic priest, but it was perhaps nowhere more pellucidly clear than during his service as pastor of St. Benedict’s, Greensboro.

It was there that I first met him in 1985. I was a callow seminarian, and he was a crusty, cantankerous curmudgeon who had no patience for ecclesiastical fools. We were an instant pair: the Old Coot and the Young Coot. As I listened to him preach week after week, I heard the Fathers of the Church speaking down the ages. As I watched him spend hours in the confessional and in gentle conversation with the lost and broken souls who came to his door, I understood the Lord’s insistence that what we do for the least of his brethren, we do for him. As I served his Mass day after day, I saw the veil drawn back and watched the priest hide himself in the folds so that we could behold the glory of the Word made flesh, now made present on the Church’s altar. And I was not alone in seeing these things. The flowering of vocations to the priesthood and religious life which came forth from that small congregation is an enduring and remarkable sign of grace. Another powerful sign of grace were the many marriages formed and strengthened by this celibate priest’s faithful witness to God’s eternal plan for married love.

Besides seeking to strengthen marriages and to encourage vocations to the priesthood and religious life, Father Kimbrough’s twin passions were proclaiming the Gospel of Life and bringing souls into the Catholic Church. When he was arrested for praying in front of an abortion chamber, he started making converts behind bars. On one occasion he asked me to accompany him to the county jail with a Mass kit and the holy oils. In a glass room about five feet square, he baptized and confirmed a trembling young man who was accused of and later convicted for murder, and then Father Kimbrough celebrated Mass on a tiny table so that this new Christian -- now repentant and radiant in the certainty of God’s mercy -- could receive for the first and perhaps last time the flesh and blood of the Savior. In that dreadful place we chanted the Missa de Angelis while guards and inmates alike looked on in wonder.

Everyone who knew Father Kimbrough has a story like that: absolutely uncompromising faith expressed in always surprising tenderness. It was an irresistible combination, and the lives of countless souls were shaped for the better by the witness of a priest who sought always to hide himself in the folds of the veil drawn back and who spoke most often not of his ordination, but of his baptism, the sacrament in which he was made -- as he loved to say -- a member of Christ, a child of God, and an heir of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Beyond his passion for the Church, the Gospel, the sacraments, and the life of grace, Conrad loved the place of his birth and loved everyone to whom he was related, which, if you give credence to his tales, was pretty much everyone he ever met. “Sure is good to be back here in Rowan County,” he would say every time he came home, and he meant it. He intended to lie here in this earth until the Last Day, when he would be restored to his parents and siblings and nieces and nephews and first cousins, and second cousins, and third cousins, and all his cousins from the first generation of Man to the last. Betsy, Frank, and Norman, your brother loved you and your families because you are his flesh and blood, but he also loved you and all of us because he lived and loved in Christ Jesus.

In these last years, his health faltered and his body failed, but his faith never wavered. Let St. Paul speak for Conrad Kimbrough: “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.” (Romans 8: 18-19) Another word for revealing is unveiling.

After he returned to Maryfield from the hospital, Father Kimbrough knew that he was dying. He asked for the photographs of his spiritual sons and daughters in the priesthood and religious life to be moved to his little room, and family and friends came to speak to him of love and gratitude and grace. On the morning I saw him last, I arrived just after Father Benjamin Roberts finished saying Mass, and we sat together at the bedside. It was Eastertide, so we sang a hymn of the Resurrection:

Christ the Lord is risen today;

Christians, haste your vows to pay;

Offer ye your praises meet

At the Paschal Victim’s feet;

For the sheep the Lamb hath bled,

Sinless in the sinner’s stead,

Christ the Lord is ris’n on high:

Now he lives no more to die.

When we finished the hymn, I said to him, “Father, soon you will be at the wedding feast of the Lamb. The veil will be drawn back for the final time. There will be no signs, and no more sacraments. Just the reality of the Lamb once slain who dies no more.” He asked me to repeat those words to you today.

Now let’s return to St. Paul’s description of creation’s eager longing for the unveiling of the glory that makes us the free children of God. The Apostle writes that “creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now, and not only creation, but we ourselves who have the first fruits of the Spirit groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” (Romans 8: 21-23)

St. Paul’s vision of our present suffering surpassed by future glory through our adoption by grace and the redemption of our bodies in Jesus Christ is why Conrad Kimbrough lived his entire life in joyful expectation of this day. And now that we are here to commit his body to the ground, earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, Father Kimbrough would be the first to remind us that we are here to pray for God’s mercy on his soul, to pray for the forgiveness of his sins, and to pray for the hastening of that bright vision in which Conrad Lewis Kimbrough will no longer need signs or sacraments because the veil has been drawn back once and forever so that this faithful priest, who will no longer need to hide in the folds, can see his Lord even as he is seen and be changed from glory into glory.

Thanks be to God for the life of his servant Conrad Lewis Kimbrough. May Christ Jesus the merciful Savior acknowledge him now as a sheep of his own fold, a lamb of his own flock, a sinner of his own redeeming, a preacher of his own Gospel, and a steward of his own Mysteries.

Grant rest, we pray O Lord, to your priest Conrad with all your saints in light, where sorrow and pain are no more, but perfect peace and everlasting life. Amen.

Anglicans and Invalid Sacraments

2011-02-07T09:09:00.001-05:00

When Catholics speak of Anglicans and sacramental invalidity, most people would assume that we're speaking of Holy Orders. But there is another kind of sacramental invalidity which will make it impossible for many Anglicans, both lay and ordained, to be received into the Catholic Church through Anglicanorum coetibus or any other means, and that invalidity is in the Sacrament of Marriage.

The Catholic Church believes that only Catholics are bound to marry in the Catholic Church (according to canonical form) and, therefore, that any two baptized Christians who consent to marry each other are by their exchange of consent creating between themselves the bond of sacramental marriage. (N.B. And this is despite the fact that Protestants generally do not count marriage as a sacrament, but there it is.) So, for example, if two Anglicans get married by any means (a judge, an Anglican minister, an Elvis chaplain at a Vegas wedding chapel), then they are bound to each other by the lifelong sacrament of matrimony. If that marriage ends in divorce, however, and one or both them marry again, then in the second relationship they are married only in civil law and do not have the sacrament of marriage because the existing prior bond is presumed by the law of the Church to continue to exist in the sacrament, even after the civil divorce.

The only way to determine with moral certitude whether or not the first marriage was or was not a true sacrament of Christ and the Church is to allow an ecclesiastical court, or tribunal, to do a thorough investigation of the former marriage, which enjoys in law the presumption of validity. If sufficient evidence can be adduced to prove to moral certitude that the presumed sacrament never came into being, then the tribunal can declare that the former marriage was a civil contract only and not a sacrament, leaving the former partners free to marry in the Church as though for the first time.

Significant numbers of Anglicans are now in their second or third marriage (or more), and until and unless each of their prior marriages is investigated by a tribunal of the Catholic Church, it is not possible to receive them into the Catholic Church. Because this matter is so little understood, it often comes as a great surprise to people who want to become Catholics but find the way is closed to them by living in an invalid marriage, and given how sensitive this matter is, the persons involved will often give many reasons other than the real reason for their decision not to become Catholics. Look for this to happen with great frequency in the coming days as the personal Ordinariate comes closer and closer in the United States. The reasons given for remaining Anglicans may very well not be the real reasons.

Sturm und Drang Over the New Roman Missal

2011-02-05T12:53:00.000-05:00

Unless you've been living in a tent for the past year, you should be aware that this fall on the First Sunday of Advent (27 November 2011), the Catholic Church in the United States will begin using a new translation of the Roman Missal, the book which contains all of the prayers needed to say Mass.

The new translation, the work of nearly a decade, is certainly not perfect, and the process used to reach the final product was perhaps not the best that could have been devised. Nevertheless, the new translation is certainly a great improvement over the "Sacramentary" that we've been using for forty years, a book that is not so much a translation of the Missale Romanum as it is an adaptation.

Now that we're in the home stretch of the process and parishes are beginning to study and practice the new texts, a few of the people who have been involved in preparing the new Missal but who did not get everything they wanted are beginning to hold their breath until they turn blue and fall down. That, at any rate, is how an open letter from Father Anthony Ruff, OSB to the bishops of the United States reads to me. This is simply petulant narcissism dressed up as noble protest of injustice. I regret that Father Anthony has chosen this forum to express these sentiments, not least because he has contributed in many ways over recent years to improving the celebration of the sacred liturgy in our country. But, I suspect that this sort of tantrum is to be expected in the final run-up to the new Missal, given the number of people who wanted a say in the work and didn't get what they wanted.

As for me and my house, we look forward to the new translation, even with all its imperfections, and I hope that in due course everyone will remember the purpose of the entire exercise: to celebrate more faithfully the sacred mysteries of our redemption in Jesus Christ.

Calling All Anglicans!

2011-02-04T11:42:00.000-05:00

Any Anglican in the United States who wants to be received into full communion with the Catholic Church under the provisions of the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum coetibus should be in direct contact with Donald Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington.

If not now, when? If not you, who? It's time. It's past time. Just do it.

An Extreme Need for Silence

2011-01-23T14:05:00.010-05:00

Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.

Yad Vashem is Israel’s official memorial to the martyrs of the Nazi Holocaust, or as it is called by the Jews, the Shoah. The Hebrew words Yad Vashem, taken from the Prophet Isaiah, mean “a place and a name.” At Yad Vashem the millions of Jews who were exterminated like vermin have both a place of final rest and a name to be remembered. During the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, Pope John Paul the Great made a pilgrimage to Yad Vashem, and there in the powerfully stark Hall of Remembrance he spoke of the horror inflicted upon the Jews by a dehumanizing ideology of hatred. In part, the pope said:

“In this place of memories, the mind and heart and soul feel an extreme need for silence. Silence in which to remember … Silence because there are no words strong enough to deplore the terrible tragedy of the Shoah … I have come to Yad Vashem to pay homage to the millions of Jewish people who, stripped of everything, especially of human dignity, were murdered in the Holocaust.”

Over six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, and they were murdered in the most degrading of all possible conditions. The ideology of National Socialism had declared that they were subhuman and therefore unworthy even of the right to exist, and so by the millions they were murdered. But make no mistake; this was not the sudden violence of a rioting and lawless mob. No, the extermination of the Jews was carefully planned and methodically carried out over many years by well-educated professional men who loved their families, and were kind to their pets, and served their nation with skill and determination. These men went to concerts and plays; they went to fine dinners and took vacations with friends; they read poetry and classical literature and taught their children to play Bach and Beethoven. And they coldly, systematically murdered human beings by the millions with a clear conscience, because they found a way to convince themselves that those who were dying were beasts rather than men.

At Yad Vashem, John Paul asked: “How could man have such utter contempt for man?" Then the pope answered: "Because he had reached the point of contempt for God.”

But my friends, we do not have to look back to Nazi Germany and the death camps to find such contempt for God. No, we can find it right here among us, in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. On 22 January 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States, by a 7 to 2 vote, announced that it had discovered in the Constitution of the United States a previously unknown right of mothers to murder their children, and in the thirty-eight years since that national disgrace, we Americans have murdered more than 50 million human beings in the womb, with some estimates placing the butcher’s bill closer to 60 million. In other words, in the name of personal liberty and freedom of choice, we Americans have now exterminated more human beings than presently live in Spain and Ireland combined.

How could man, how would we, have such utter contempt for man? Because we have reached the point of contempt for God.

For decades before the infamous decision in Roe v. Wade, men and women of the radical and secular American Left -- taking their lead from the revolutionaries of the often violent European Left -- had been building a case to demonstrate that Biblical religion and the God revealed in the Bible are the enemies of human freedom. The default setting of the Mandarins of our high culture -- in our universities, in journalism, in entertainment and the arts, and in politics of the Left -- is that the human person is an autonomous individual free of all obligations to others, who must provide for himself the meaning of life and who has only the duty to pursue pleasure and self-realization wherever they may be found. Moreover, the secular mind holds that there is no universal moral truth, and even if there were, we could not know it; therefore, each person must find his own truth. This perverse philosophy was aptly described by Professor Allan Bloom (in The Closing of the American Mind) as debonair nihilism, and supported by the sexual revolution and the counter-cultural movements of the ’60’s, this vision of human life declares that unborn children are simply lumps of tissue that may be surgically removed from the mother’s body for any reason she may have. In fact, unquestionable commitment to this hateful ideology is now so deeply entrenched in the mind of the Left that we may call support for unrestricted abortion on demand the sacrament of secularism.

Think back to Nazi Germany: the atrocities committed against Jews were planned and executed by law-abiding and seemingly civilized men, and now we are doing exactly the same thing. Supported by unjust laws, our cultural and political elites are almost wholly captive to a hateful ideology that declares certain classes of human beings not to be human, and in the name of that ideology we are engaged in bloodletting of unimaginable proportions. Worse still, this abattoir of human misery is aided and abetted by false preachers in much of what remains of liberal Protestantism, who seek to excuse abortion as a private and tragic choice that is sometimes sadly necessary in difficult circumstances. But, friends, murdering innocent children is never necessary. And after nearly 60 million such murders, we’re no longer talking about private tragedies; in fact, after four decades of judicial murder, we’re facing a civilizational crisis.

Last week in Philadelphia, the depraved consequences of a generation of genocide were finally exposed to public view. We learned that a licensed medical doctor named Kermit Gosnell ran a chamber of horrors worthy of Dr. Mengele’s obscene experiments at Auschwitz, and this he did with impunity for decades because public officials looked the other way year after year after year. And this they did because abortion is considered absolutely sacrosanct by those who make and enforce the laws in too many parts of our country. Now, you might be tempted to think that the slaughterhouse of Kermit Gosnell is an extreme example that we may dismiss because it is so grotesque, but the only difference between what happened in Gosnell’s death chamber for decades and what is happening every day in every so-called clinic where abortions are performed is a difference of degree, not a difference of kind.

How could man, how could we, have such utter contempt for man? Because we have reached the point of contempt for God.

My friends, the United States of America is drowning in the blood of tens of millions of murdered babies who are martyrs to a loathsome ideology which dehumanizes us by allowing us to dehumanize them. And the first step away from this abomination is for each and every one of us to refuse to consent to or cooperate with in any way the lies on which the ideology of abortion stands.

Let’s start with language. Abortion is not about the freedom to choose; it is about the license to kill. Abortion is murder. It is murder most foul, and it must stop. In the Name of God, it must stop. In the name of Man, it must stop. In the name of all that is holy and good and true and beautiful, it must stop. And so I beg you: never consent to abortion. Never cooperate with abortion. Never excuse abortion. Never vote for a politician who will support abortion. Never remain silent when your family and friends and neighbors and colleagues consent to abortion or decide to vote for a politician who will support abortion. Never accept the lie about human nature and human life which is required to imagine that a human child is a lump of tissue. Never be seduced by the seemingly civilized men and women who fill the air waves and the lecture halls and the court rooms and the political chambers and even, sometimes, the pulpits of this land with the lie that we can murder our children in the name of human freedom without becoming the same kind of monsters who marched millions of Jews into the gas chambers of the Holocaust.

Next, let’s think about what we can do to promote a culture of life. We can support every effort by the Church and by pro-life groups to bear witness to the truth of the Gospel of Life. We can support programs that provide practical assistance to women with unwanted or crisis pregnancies. We can support adoption programs, chastity education, and a new counter-cultural movement informed this time by the Gospel which sets us free from slavery to sin. We can give pastoral care to those wounded by abortion, starting with the mothers who killed their children. We can bear witness to anyone who will listen that children, even in the womb, are human persons with inalienable rights, starting with the right to live and be nurtured rather than to be murdered, dismembered, and cast away as medical waste.

To paraphrase John Paul the Great: In the face of more than 50 million murdered children, the mind and heart and soul feel an extreme need for silence. Silence in which to remember. Silence because there are no words strong enough to deplore the terrible tragedy of abortion.

Let us dare to hope that one day, a day sooner rather than later, a great national monument will be raised in memory of the tens of millions of Americans who have died and are continuing to die in the holocaust of abortion. Let us hope that Americans of every creed and color, of every party and persuasion, will one day come to such a place of silence and remembrance to honor those who lives were taken from them by others who denied their humanity.

But until the murder of the unborn is ended and until such a shrine of silence and remembrance exists, we can hasten its coming by never being silent about abortion, never allowing our fellow Americans to forget that a holocaust is going on among us right now, every day. And even as we speak out about abortion in private conversation, in the public square, and in political action, let us now, in this holy place of remembrance, keep watchful silence in memory of the millions of martyred children and beg for the mercy of God upon our nation for this crime against God and man that cries out to heaven for His justice.

The culture of death and its secular sacrament, abortion, are indeed a great darkness. But “the people who sit in darkness have seen a great light, and on those dwelling in a land overshadowed by death, light has arisen” (Matthew 4:16). That light is the Lord Jesus Christ, and to Him we pray:

Kyrie eleison. Christe eleison. Kyrie eleison.

The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham

2011-01-15T10:12:00.002-05:00

Today in Rome and in England, something momentous occurred. In accordance with the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, the Holy See created a new canonical structure in England and Wales for Anglicans who want to be Catholics. It is called a Personal Ordinariate, and it is essentially a non-territorial diocese which allows Anglicans who become Catholics to preserve their Anglican parochial, liturgical, and devotional identity in the Catholic Church. The Ordinariate is named for the Mother of God as she is venerated at the ancient English shrine of Walsingham, and it has been placed under the heavenly patronage of Blessed John Henry Newman, the Anglican priest who became a Catholic and then a priest and a Cardinal of the Catholic Church in the mid 19th century.

This is a bold move on the part of Pope Benedict XVI. In a single stroke, Benedict has broken the logjam of official ecumenical conversations which began with such promise in the 1960's but which had lately become a moribund joke of official niceties being exchanged to no end except continuing the never-ending conversation. Moreover, if Anglican Christianity ever had a genuine claim (and it is doubtful that it ever did) to being something other than simple Protestantism in Catholic drag, that claim has long since been abandoned by almost every Anglican everywhere, starting with the hierarchy of the Church of England. The apostasy from Christian faith and life which is making shipwreck of Anglicanism throughout the First World is yet another reason for serious Christians within the Anglican Communion to find their true and lasting home in the Church from which their ancestors were separated in the 16th century. And now Pope Benedict XVI has provided the means for them to do so. Look for other ordinariates to be established in the United States, Canada, Australia and perhaps elsewhere in the coming months.

What Makes a Hospital or College Catholic?

2010-12-21T19:33:00.001-05:00

It is relatively easy when speaking of a human person to say who is Catholic and who is not. Only a validly baptized person who is in communion with the local Catholic bishop and through the local bishop with the Bishop of Rome and the whole College of Bishops is a Catholic. But how does one know whether an institution is Catholic or not?

For example, lots of Catholics own businesses, but that doesn't make their businesses Catholic. So, what does it mean to speak of a hospital or a college as Catholic? Is it a matter of ownership? Of the religious identity of the patients, students, or customers? Or is it something deeper.

For the better part of a millenium, the Church has understood that associations of Catholic persons can be so closely bound to the Church's mission to the nations that by extension the institution sponsored by an association of Catholics can itself be called Catholic. And the two classic examples of this are in education and health care, because of their obvious connection to the ministry of the Lord Jesus and the law of love which binds his disciples.

But what happens when the identity of an association and its institutions begins to change? How is one to know when a once-Catholic hospital or college is no longer truly Catholic? This is a bit easier with an individual person: If Uncle Joe becomes an Episcopalian or an atheist, he is no longer Catholic. But who is to say when a hospital has so far departed from the mission of the Church that it no longer is and therefore no longer can be called Catholic? The question of identity may be a complex one, but the question of who decides is actually quite simple: the local bishop.

The Bishop of Phoenix declared today that a once Catholic hospital in his diocese is now no longer in truth a Catholic institution and therefore may no longer be called Catholic. This will bring howls of outrage from professional dissidents who long ago ceased to believe what the Catholic Church believes about the usual controverted questions of the day, but faithful Catholics everywhere should be encouraged by the bold leadership of Bishop Olmsted. A hospital in which babies are murdered cannot be a Catholic hospital. A hospital in which men and women are sterilized is not a Catholic hospital. A hospital in which the irreformable teaching of the Catholic Church about the intrinsic dignity of human life is not respected is not a Catholic hospital, no matter how many nuns may be on the board of trustees. This is a massive problem in the United States, and examples of this sort of infidelity can be found in most of our dioceses. Let us hope that Bishop Olmsted's example will lead to other instances of bold leadership from our shepherds. The time for excuses and equivocations is past. It is time to take a stand.

What the Pope Did and Did Not Say About Condoms

2010-12-17T08:36:00.001-05:00

Over at First Things, George Weigel explains what Benedict XVI did -- and more to the point -- did not say about condoms in his new book, Light of the World. As ever, the world press (once the Fourth Estate, now primarily the Fifth Column) misrepresented the pope's remarks in so tendentious a manner that it beggars belief for their reporting not to be deliberate deception. And whether or not the AP reporters and those who followed their lead knowingly lied about the pope's remarks, it remains true that their headlines and stories effectively turned Benedict XVI's entire point on its head. So, have a look at The Pope, the Church, and the Condom: Clarifying the State of the Question.

A Courageous Bishop

2010-12-16T08:58:00.003-05:00

Thomas Olmsted is the Bishop of Phoenix, and since learning several months ago that an abortion was performed in a "Catholic" hospital in his diocese, he has been engaged in an effort to be certain that such a thing will never happen again. The hospital is owned by a congregation of women religious who evidently do not want the local bishop looking into the ways in which ethical decisions are made at the hospital. After a prolonged effort to reach an understanding, Bishop Olmsted has now informed them that if they do not accept the instructions he has already given, he will declare -- as it is his canonical power to do -- that the hospital in question is no longer a Catholic institution. You can read about the bishop's effort to call this hospital to account in USA Today.

BIshop Olmsted is a courageous reformer of the Church and is a model of how the office of overseer should be exercised. Pray for this good shepherd of Christ's flock.

UPDATE: A few more details from the backstory of this disgrace.

Doesn't Play Well With Others

2010-09-30T08:39:00.000-04:00

Though most lay Catholics are unaware of it, the discipline of secular psychology has been a powerful force in almost every seminary and religious community in the Western Church since the early 1970's. During the naive enthusiasm of the years just after the Second Vatican Council, secular psychology was imported, usually uncritically, into the life the Church in her seminaries and religious communities, and we are still tallying the cost in vocations lost or destroyed and communities cut loose from their foundations.

I think of that today because the Church keeps the feast of St. Jerome, Priest and Doctor of the Church, who -- among the many accomplishments of his long life -- rendered the Holy Scriptures from Hebrew and Greek into Latin. He was also famously (or, depending upon your point of view, infamously) cantankerous, and I suspect that in most seminaries today, such a man would be sent away because he doesn't play well with others.

I am not suggesting that we should make a point of ordaining men who have grave psychological illnesses, but the sort of direct and honest toughness which makes a man an outstanding soldier or corporate executive is badly needed in the priesthood today. The problem is that even now, men with such qualities are subjected in our seminaries to constant criticism and ceaseless efforts at re-education. Being "nice" is too often prized above being honest and taking initiative, and a man who will not submit to this sort of "sensitivity training" will quickly be shown to the door of the seminary. And then we wonder why so few priests will stand in the breach against the toxic waste dump of our degenerate culture.

St. Jerome, pray for us!

Time to Put Up or Shut Up

2010-09-28T08:55:00.008-04:00

With whom are you in ecclesial communion?

Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC has been appointed by the Holy See to direct the implementation in the United States of Anglicanorum Coetibus. Any Anglican parish, association, religious community or other group which desires to be restored to full, visible communion with the Catholic Church should write to him immediately:

The Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl

Archbishop of Washington

Post Office BOx 29260

Washington, DC 20017

It has been eleven months since Benedict XVI responded to the request from groups of Anglicans around the world for a way to come into full communion with the Catholic Church while at the same time preserving all of their Anglican patrimony that is in harmony with the Catholic Faith. So, you've had a year to think and pray and talk and argue and pray some more. Enough. The time for excuses, evasions, rationalizations, dithering, and delaying is over. It's time to become Catholic or decide once and for all that you are really Protestants with cassocks and surplices. You simply can't have it both ways. The choice is yours. With whom will you stand?

Lead, Kindly Light

2010-09-13T10:34:00.001-04:00

Here's a splendid introduction to the life and work of John Henry Newman, who will be beatified by Pope Benedict XVI on Sunday 19 September during the pope's pastoral visit to Britain. My own journey to the Catholic Church almost thirty years ago was guided by this man's writing.

Baptist Bishops?

2010-07-21T06:04:00.001-04:00

According to a report in the Boston Globe, increasing numbers of Baptist pastors -- particularly Black Baptists -- are retrieving the signs of the episcopate from the long-locked treasure chest of Church history and beginning to talk about the importance of the apostolic succession. So, just as Anglicans around the world are trashing the episcopate after 450 years of trying to preserve it, Baptists are dusting it off again. Curiouser and curiouser.

Weirder and Weirder, But It Makes Sense in a Twisted Anglican Way

2010-07-20T05:47:00.003-04:00

From Damian Thompson in the Daily Telegraph

I thought this was a spoof at first, but it seems not: a General Synod working party is exploring whether the Church of England’s male bishops can join religious orders previously reserved for women. In other words, become Anglican nuns.
As usual, the Synod’s topsy-turvy ecclesiology is a mystery to me, but I gather that the idea is that bishops would be entitled to take vows in orders of nuns so that they can provide special episcopal oversight to the sisters. It’s a typically ingenious Anglican response to the forthcoming ordination of women bishops. “There will be jokes about bishops in wimples, but having bishop-nuns would introduce a degree of mutual cooperation that could make the introduction of women bishops much smoother,” says my Synod source.
And just when I thought things couldn’t get any weirder, I learn the identity of the bishop who is rumoured to have volunteered to take nun’s vows: the Rt Rev Nick Baines, Bishop of Croydon, often spoken of as a successor to Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury. Says my informant: “Nick is a big fan of Sister Act, and we knew he was keen to ‘get ahead,’ as it were, so he was the obvious person to ask. And apparently he was delighted, because he’s all about challenging gender stereotypes.”

Thinking About Immigration

2010-05-08T09:53:00.002-04:00

The debate over the reform of immigration laws has come to South Carolina with great urgency, and most of the Republican candidates for governor support an approach similar to that taken in Arizona. In the service of suggesting a way to hold in creative tension the various principles that are in competition with each other in this debate, I offered a column to the Greenville News which they published on 8 May 2010. Here is the text of that column:

What should we do about the millions of people who live and work in the United States illegally? This is a vexing question with political and moral dimensions, but to sort through these questions, we first need to think clearly about the principles at stake in our ongoing debate. In the service of thinking clearly about immigration reform, I suggest these principles.

First, every sovereign nation has the right and duty to secure its borders and regulate entry of those who are not its citizens. This is a fundamental principle of natural law, and the government of the United States has failed in this responsibility along our border with Mexico. At the present moment, the federal government does not have effective control of our southern border, and into the breach created by this failure others are now leaping, starting with the state of Arizona. For the sake of our national security and the rule of law, this must change as quickly as possible, and voters should hold the president and Congress accountable for this fundamental function of the national government.

Second, every human person has the natural right and duty to provide for himself and his family the means to live a life in keeping with human dignity. From this right and duty proceeds a corollary principle: every human person has a natural right to move to a place where he can provide a decent living for his family in safety and security. Most of the millions of immigrants from Central and South America who have come to the United States are here for this reason, and they are working with great energy and diligence to make a better life for themselves and their children. We cannot blame them for doing what anyone of us would do, namely -- to find every possible way of improving the lives of those we love. If there are true criminals among them, then let’s find them and punish them according to law--including with deportation, but we should not treat as criminals those who are only trying to provide a decent life for themselves and their families and who are now here because of our own failure to secure our borders.

Third, the forced repatriation of immigrants by the millions is the sort of injustice against which Americans naturally rise up in righteous indignation when it happens in the Middle East or on the steppes of Eastern Europe or Asia. Despite the fact that several million people now living in the United States entered our nation illegally, there is no possible way for us to consider forcing them to leave now that they are here. A sensible, practical way must be found to allow these people to become legal residents and continue to live productive lives in the United States without fear of deportation and separation from their families. This does not mean that present illegal aliens should become American citizens, and perhaps a practical compromise would be to stipulate that no one who entered the country illegally could ever become a citizen. But they are here, and we must acknowledge the fact of their presence and their natural human right to choose where to live and work by making possible a transition to legal residence.

Finally, nothing in this discussion should be influenced by the fact that most of those who are now here illegally speak Spanish and have dark brown skin. The ugly specter of racism is a barely concealed part of too much rhetoric in our public debates, and that is unworthy of the free people of the United States. If you doubt that racism is at work in how we think about this matter, consider how the present immigration debate would be different if it involved 15 million English-speaking, blond-haired, blue-eyed Canadians streaming over our northern border. Everyone now living in North and South America who is not descended from the many indigenous tribes of Native Americans is here because their ancestors immigrated from somewhere else. Let us keep that fact ever in mind along with the principles of natural law and equity as we decide how to secure our borders and regulate the presence among us of those who were born somewhere else but who want to make their home and provide for their children in the Land of the Free.

Whither the Legion of Christ?

2010-05-05T06:53:00.004-04:00

One of the strangest and saddest stories in the Catholic Church in the past century is the rise and fall of the Legion of Christ, a community of priests, and its associated lay movement, Regnum Christi, both founded in Mexico by a charismatic con man named Marcial Maciel. For many years there were scattered stories of Maciel's degenerate life: drug abuse, sexual abuse of his own seminarians, misuse of funds given to the communities he founded, etc. As it turns out, the truth is far worse than anyone imagined, and it is now clear that this man was an evil sociopath who for decades deceived nearly everyone he ever met, including Pope John Paul II. Maciel died in 2008 (apparently without repentance or remorse for his vicious crimes), but the communities he founded endure. And now the question arises, Whither the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi? Over at First Things, George Weigel (a longtime friend of many fine priests in the Legion) takes on that question: Next Acts in the Legionary Drama.

Why The World Hates the Catholic Church

2010-05-02T08:39:00.002-04:00

Jody Bottum, peerless essayist and editor of the indispensable First Things, has a brilliant exploration of anti-Catholicism in the Weekly Standard. It is a long piece of work but well worth reading every word: Anti-Catholicism, Again

Disobedient Priests

2010-04-17T10:10:00.008-04:00

At Mass this morning, the first lesson is taken from Chapter 6 of the Acts of the Apostles; it tells of the apostolic origins of the diaconate and the selection of the first seven deacons. The passage ends with these words:

"The word of God continued to spread, and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly; even a large group of priests were becoming obedient to the faith." (Acts 6:7)

The priests being referred to here are, of course, the descendants of Aaron -- priests of the Old Covenant who offered sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple. But one cannot help but think also of priests of the New Covenant who, despite their Baptism and Ordination, are disobedient to the faith, and when I heard those words at Mass this morning, I thought immediately of Father Michael Pfleger.

Pfleger, for those of you fortunate enough not to know anything about him, is an egregious fool in the Archdiocese of Chicago who has spent decades playing the bad boy. I imagine that he thinks of himself as being filled with a prophetic spirit, when in fact it seems he is filled merely with himself. Pfleger is a longtime pal of Jeremiah Wright, the Bolshevik preacher who was for many years the pastor of Barack Obama, and much like Wright, Pfleger's "rebel with a cause" pose has made him the darling of the secular media and of the Catholic lunatic left.

Only last week, Pfleger received a lifetime achievement award for "promoting racial justice," but while presenting the award to Pfleger, Francis Cardinal George also tacitly acknowledged that Pfleger is a massive pain in the tuckus. Then, just days after receiving this award, Pfleger made the news again by saying in a homily that he thought women should become priests, bishops, and cardinals.

Not to put too fine a point on it: This man is a disgrace to the Catholic Church and to the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and it is well past the time for the Archbishop of Chicago to take action against this false teacher.

The doctrine of the Catholic Church on the impossibility of women being ordained to the priesthood is clear, constant, and irreformable, and this teaching must be held definitively by all Catholics. Moreover, because Pfleger has taken the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity (these were first required of him to be ordained and then again to hold the office of parish pastor), he is bound by a public oath to accept the truth of this doctrine. For Pfleger now, and in a public act of sacred teaching, to repudiate this doctrine is an ipso facto disqualification for his office as parish pastor, and it is up to his bishop to help Father Pfleger face and accept the consequences of his public position by removing him from office.

In my estimation, disobedient and faithless priests constitute the principal obstacle to the work of the New Evangelization throughout the world. They cannot preach the Gospel with conviction because they no longer believe the Gospel is true. It is time for Michael Pfleger to admit to himself, his bishop, his congregation, and everyone who follows his misadventures in the media what has evidently been true for a very long time: He is not a Catholic Christian, and he should not hold an office in the Catholic Church.

The word of God continued to spread, and the number of the disciples in Chicago increased greatly; even a large group of priests were becoming obedient to the faith. Would that it were so.

Another Long Lent

2010-04-12T09:45:00.001-04:00

I intended to write this morning about several dimensions of the present maelstrom swirling around Benedict XVI, but I find that the always perceptive George Weigel has already said what needs to be said over at First Things in: Another Long Lent. Go have a look at this brilliant analysis of our present situation and future possibilities.

Pray for Benedict XVI

2010-04-09T10:29:00.003-04:00

The estimable Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus, has organized a nationwide campaign of prayer to support Pope Benedict XVI in the days leading up to the 5th anniversary of his election to the Chair of St. Peter, Monday 19 April.

Lord, source of eternal life and truth, give to your shepherd, Benedict, a spirit of courage and right judgment, a spirit of knowledge and love. By governing with fidelity those entrusted to his care, may he, as successor to the Apostle Peter and Vicar of Christ, build your Church into a sacrament of unity, love, and peace for all the world. Amen.

V. Let us pray for Benedict, the pope.
R. May the Lord preserve him, give him a long life, make blessed on the earth, and not hand him over to his enemies.

V. May your hand be upon your holy servant, O Lord.
R. And upon your son, whom you have anointed.

One Our Father, one Hail Mary, one Glory Be.

The Pope and the New York Times

2010-04-06T08:08:00.002-04:00

Three days before Palm Sunday, ironically enough on the Solemnity of the Annunciation -- March 25th --the New York Times unleashed a barrage of Catholic bashing and baiting that has not yet subsided. The primary point made in the first article is that Pope Benedict XVI is not only not the reformer who can lead the Church out of the crisis caused by failing to deal honestly and responsibly with priests who sexually abuse children but that he is actually by his own personal failings a central part of the problem. The second point of the story was to lay the foundation for the general argument taking shape in all the other stories published since March 25th -- namely, that the Catholic Church is an international criminal conspiracy for protecting child molesters.

Well, the Wall Street Journal has been looking carefully at the very first story in this fusillade, and it turns out that the Times didn't publish all the news that's fit to print after all. Have a look at William McGurn's analysis of The Pope and the New York Times

Take Up the Sword

2010-04-05T13:38:00.002-04:00

My friend and colleague Father Dwight Longenecker has a splendid post on the media firestorm raging around the Catholic Church these days. It's over at his blog, Standing on My Head, which is always worth a visit. His take on the present battle is here:

Take Up the Sword

Easter Sunday

2010-04-04T19:35:00.002-04:00

At the beginning of the great Vigil of Easter, the Paschal Candle is prepared with words that confess our faith in the Lamb once slain and remind us that even the Risen Christ bears the signs of His Passion:

Christ yesterday and today,

the beginning and the end,

Alpha and Omega.

All time belongs to Him and all the ages.

To Him be glory and power

through every age forever. Amen.

By His holy and glorious wounds,

may Christ our Lord guard us and keep us. Amen.

And as the Paschal Candle is lit from the new fire, the priest says:

May the light of Christ, rising in glory, dispel the darkness of our hearts and mind.

Christos Anesti! Alithos Anesti!

Christ is risen! Truly He is Risen!

Alleluia! Alleluia!

Holy Saturday

2010-04-03T09:43:00.006-04:00

Much attention has been given recently in the secular press to the moral failures of bishops and priests in Ireland and Germany, and the outrage in normal people at the grotesque sin of sexual abuse by priests, compounded by the malfeasance of cowardly bishops, is completely appropriate. What is not appropriate, however, is for this outrage to cause a Catholic to question his faith in Jesus Christ or his confidence that Christ’s Church is the universal sacrament of salvation for all mankind.

The Lord Jesus chose twelve men from among his thousands of disciples to be his apostles, the men who would be his witnesses and emissaries to the world. For three years they traveled with him, listened to his teaching and preaching, and witnessed his miracles -- the signs of his divine glory. And in the night on which Christ gave us the Holy Eucharist and the sacramental priesthood, what did these chosen Twelve do? When the hour for which the Word became flesh finally arrived, Judas betrayed Him, Peter, James, and John went to sleep, the lot of them ran away in terror, and Peter lied through his teeth to save his skin. In other words, infidelity, sloth, cowardice, and mendacity were part of the apostolic office from the very beginning. Should we be surprised, therefore, to find these qualities among bishops and priests of every time and place?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill: governance of the Church by bishops is the worst possible means of organizing Christian faith and life except for all the others. The sacred authority entrusted by the Lord Jesus to his apostles and to those who succeed them is a gift of grace given through the sacrament of Holy Orders, meaning that the authority of bishops and priests to teach, sanctify, and govern the Church comes not from their personal holiness, intelligence, or learning; it comes, rather, from their ordination. In other words, the authority of bishops and priests to teach the Gospel and celebrate the sacred mysteries of our redemption comes from a sacramental gift of grace given to them by Christ the Lord, not from any human quality or accomplishment of their own.

We are right to hope for pastors who are holy, courageous, learned, and wise, and while we should always be disappointed when our bishops and priests do not have those qualities, we should never be surprised. I am not suggesting that we should ever be content with injustice or incompetence in the Church; we should not. But when the human frailties and failures of our pastors are exposed to public view, we must recall that our faith is placed not in the apostles or their successors, but in Jesus Christ and him crucified and risen.

Good Friday

2010-04-02T09:03:00.006-04:00

How did it come to this? The conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit was announced by an angel to his virgin mother, the woman full of grace. His growth in the womb brought confessions of faith from his unborn kinsmen John and John’s mother Elizabeth. His birth was greeted with joyful song by the choir of angels and with puzzled wonder by simple shepherds and philosopher kings. His hidden years, living in obedience to his virgin mother and his foster father, were filled with growth as he was filled with wisdom. At length he came forth from Galilee, preaching a Gospel of love, forgiveness, and peace. He healed the sick, made the blind to see and the dumb to speak; he restored palsied limbs and raised the dead to life. How did it come to this?

The birth of Jesus, while greeted with joy by some, was also greeted with fear by others. Innocent children in Bethlehem were slaughtered just so he might not live. His parents had to flee with him through the desert to safety in Egypt and live there in hiding until the murderous pagan king died. Once Jesus began his public ministry, he called all people to conversion from their sins and condemned false religion as an offense to God Most High. How did it come to this?

It was foretold by Simeon, the righteous and devout man who greeted the Holy Family in the Temple at Jerusalem: “Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted.” How did it come to this? It came to this because he came for this: to suffer and to die and to rise again that our age-old captivity to sin and death might be destroyed forever.

When Jesus first announced this strange and awful truth to the Twelve, they could not bear it. No sooner had Simon Peter confessed his faith that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God than Jesus began to teach the Twelve that “he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.” This was too much for Peter: “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.” On hearing Peter’s protest, the Lord Jesus, who had just named Simon the Rock on which his Church would be built, exclaimed: “Get behind me Satan! You are a hindrance to me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

To set our minds on the things of God requires that we accept several disruptive and startling truths: that we are sinners in need of redemption, that our redemption was accomplished by the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that our acceptance of that redemption demands that we join Jesus in the thing Peter feared most: the Way of the Cross.

How did it come to this? It had to come to this if we are to live not as slaves to our own sins but as children of our heavenly Father, children adopted by grace and restored to the evangelical freedom for which we were created. And here we learn the deepest truth of how it came to this: not by the hatred of those who rejected Jesus and who sought to murder him; instead, it came to this by the love of Jesus who gave himself for us freely, so that we could share his glory forever, the glory of the only Son of the Father. That is how it came to this: Jesus came to us to suffer, to die, and to rise and so to restore us to life.

We adore you, O Christ, and we praise you. Because by your holy Cross you have redeemed the world.

Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper

2010-04-01T09:24:00.004-04:00

Why is this night unlike any other night? This is the Passover the Lord.

From before the foundation of the world, the Ancient of Days knew this Hour and by types and figures prepared the world to understand its meaning. In the garden our first parents fell, and we were promised a woman whose seed would crush the serpent. The fruit of their disobedience was not freedom, but murder, and the blood of Abel cried out for justice. Abram was called out of Ur of the Chaldees to become Abraham, our father in faith, and Melchisedech, the king of righteousness, offered a sacrifice of bread and wine on Mt. Zion. Through Isaac human sacrifice was ended, even as our loving Father prepared us for the sacrificial death of his only Son. Jacob was given twelve sons whose twelve tribes would fill the land of promise. By the blood of a lamb, the children of Israel were freed from slavery in Egypt, and by the flesh of that lamb they were nourished for their journey. This is the Passover of the Lord.

By a pillar of fire they were led through the waters to the holy mountain, and there Moses was given the Law of God to keep the people from returning to slavery – the slavery of sin. In the desert they were fed with the bread of angels, and their thirst was quenched by living water from a rock. In the meeting tent, the tabernacle, the glory of the Lord dwelt in an ark, and the sons of Aaron offered sacrifice for the sins of the people. Elijah and the prophets proclaimed the saving word of the Lord, and revealed the Holy One of Israel as the one, only, living, and true God. David was anointed the shepherd king of God’s people, and Solomon the wise built the Temple in Jerusalem to be the dwelling place on earth of God Most High. Finally, in the fullness of time, John the Baptist, greatest man born of woman, announced the divine glory of the Son of Mary while both men were still babes in the womb and then proclaimed him on Jordan’s bank to be the true Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. This is the Passover of the Lord.

During the three years of his public ministry, the Lord Jesus by signs and wonders revealed himself to be the fulfillment and perfection of all the types and figures which came before him. And when the Hour arrived for which he had come into the world, he gathered with the Twelve in the upper room to celebrate the Passover of the Lord. Now instead of shadows, we have the truth; now in place of images, we have the reality. This is the Passover of the Lord.

In that upper room, the eternal Word gave us his flesh and blood as the medicine of immortality and an everlasting covenant, and to the Twelve he entrusted the sacred power to “do this in memory of me … so that sins may be forgiven.” And along with the Holy Eucharist and the ministerial priesthood, he gave us a new commandment: Love one another, as I have loved you. This is the Passover of the Lord.

These three holy gifts, the Eucharist, the Priesthood, and the Law of Love, are what we celebrate this night, the night he was betrayed, the night for which he came into the world. This is the Passover of the Lord.

Imagine that night. See the upper room. Look into the faces of the Twelve. Behold the nearly unendurable mixture of love and fear, of faith and doubt, of awe and confusion. What were they thinking? How did they feel? Did they comprehend the mysteries being unveiled before them? We are so like them. This is the Passover of the Lord.

Now look at Jesus; see him reclining at table and stooping to wash Peter’s feet. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and Last, the One who is, who was, and who is to come. He is the Son of Mary, and the Son of God. He is the Ancient of Days who called Abraham, and he is the one who gave his Name to Moses: I AM. He is the Word made flesh and the true Lamb of God. This is the Passover of the Lord.

On that night, in that Hour, even as his Passion was at hand, what instructions did he give us through the Twelve? “Love one another, as I have loved you … I have given you an example, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.” This is the Law of Love, and through it the Lord Jesus is restoring in us what was obscured by sin; he is making us a new creation and giving us the means of grace: the Word of God and the sacraments of the new and everlasting covenant. He is lifting us up from the degradation of slavery -- slavery to sin -- to the freedom and dignity of the children of God. This is the Passover of the Lord.

Tomorrow we will walk with Jesus in the Way of the Cross and weep for our sins, the sins for which he laid down his life. Tonight, though, we should glory in the cross, for Jesus is our salvation, our life, and our resurrection; through him we are saved and set free.

Why is this night unlike any other night? This is the Passover of the Lord, and Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. Therefore, let us keep the feast.

Spy Wednesday

2010-03-31T09:18:00.013-04:00

The Gospel at Mass on the Wednesday of Holy Week tells of an event that yields the curious alternate name for this day: Spy Wednesday.

All three synoptic Gospels (Matthew 26:14-16, Mark 14:10-12, Luke 22:3-6) give an account of the same event. On the day before the Lord Jesus celebrated His last supper in the upper room, Judas Iscariot went in secret to the chief priests to find out what they would give him if he handed Jesus over to them. They promised him thirty pieces of silver, and the deal was done.

What led Judas, one of the Twelve Apostles, to betray Jesus? We know that he was a thief and that he stole from the common purse which Jesus had entrusted to his care. Perhaps one of the others found him out and was prepared to expose him.

Perhaps Judas expected Jesus to raise an army, throw off the yoke of Roman occupation, and rule a newly unified Israel from the Throne of David in Jerusalem. When it became clear that nothing like this would happen, perhaps Judas grew angry at having wasted three years of his life with this itinerant rabbi and decided to get even.

Perhaps he was jealous of not being in the inner circle of the Twelve, all of whom argued with each other over their importance and precedence. Peter, James, and John were singled out by Jesus for special instruction and responsibility; perhaps in a rage of envy Judas decided to show them who had power.

Though we do not know the motivation of Judas because Holy Scripture does not tell us, all of the above are plausible, if partial, explanations. But there is one thing further revealed about the matter in Scripture, and this we must always bear in mind: Luke and John both assert that Satan entered into Judas, and so his interior freedom would have been either deeply compromised or even destroyed. Luke (22:3) places the demonic oppression or possession on Spy Wednesday, while John (13:27) describes it happening at the Last Supper. In either case, both Evangelists attribute some part of Judas's betrayal to the direct action of the Enemy.

Judas Iscariot. Even 2,000 years after he betrayed the Lord Jesus, his very name is a curse. But whatever moved him to turn traitor, we must also acknowledge that Judas was not the only apostle who betrayed the Lord that night; they all did. Peter, who boldly exclaimed that he would go to prison and die rather than betray Jesus, found himself within hours of that boast lying to a scullery maid about even knowing Jesus, so afraid was he of sharing the same fate as his Master. Prince of the Apostles, indeed. And all of the apostles ran away from the garden in fear-- the first act of apostolic collegiality.

We know that as soon as Jesus was arrested, Judas regretted his betrayal and tried to return the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests. They wouldn't take the silver back because it was blood money -- tainted by the perfidy of the treasonous apostle. Then in desolation and despair Judas hanged himself and died alone.

Or did he die alone? Even as the good thief turned to the Lord Jesus for mercy at the moment of his death, is it possible that Judas Iscariot in the instant before the rope ended his life might have cried out to Jesus for mercy? Is it possible that even on the Cross the Lord might have heard and answered the cry of Judas?

I believe that we can and must dare to hope that on the Last Day we will find that even Judas Iscariot has been gathered into the Kingdom of God. After all, Spy Wednesday leads to the Friday we call Good, because on that day the Author of Life died for our sins to destroy death. As the temple veil was rent down the middle, and the earth shook, and the sky was darkened, and hell was harrowed, perhaps the Enemy who had entered into Judas was cast out and cast down by the Lamb once slain so that the first of His Twelve to die could be united at last to his Lord and Savior. It is devoutly to be hoped.

Fight the Real Enemy

2010-03-29T14:04:00.003-04:00

On Palm Sunday, Sinead O'Connor (who was allegedly once a singer when not ripping up photos of the pope on television) had an egregious piece of nonsense in the Washington Post, and at the heart of her essay was an oft repeated lie about an arcane bit of canon law from 1962 which the Church's enemies would like the world to believe is evidence of an international criminal conspiracy to protect child molesters.

George Weigel and I take issue with Ms. O'Connor at National Review Online.

Time for Reckoning Rightly

2010-03-29T07:24:00.002-04:00

Since the Solemnity of the Annunciation last week, the "prestige" press on both sides of the Atlantic have been in high dudgeon at the Catholic Church for ... well, for being the Catholic Church. But since it is still not possible simply to say that in public (though probably not for much longer), the assault on the Church being led by the New York Times has been an outraged protest against the sexual abuse of minors by priests and the absurd response to that abuse by bishops.

Now comes some clear thinking from George Weigel, biographer of John Paul II and arguably the dean of Catholic thinkers in the United States. Please take time to read slowly and carefully what he has to say about this latest campaign against the Church:

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/03/scoundrel-times

Palm Sunday

2010-03-28T07:24:00.005-04:00

Though he was in the form of God,
Jesus did not deem equality with God
something to be grasped at.

Rather, he emptied himself
and took the form of a slave,
being born in the likeness of men.

He was known to be of human estate,
and it was thus that he humbled himself,
obediently accepting even death,
death on a cross.

Because of this,
God highly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name
above every other name,

So that at the name of Jesus
every knee must bend
in the heavens, on the earth,
and under the earth,
and every tongue proclaim
to the glory of God the Father:

JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!

(Philippians 2:6-11)

The Path of Purification

2010-03-27T11:02:00.006-04:00

My blog is just a few days old, but given the attention in recent days to the sins of priests and bishops, it seems worth recalling my very first post, entitled "The Church is Always in Need of Being Reformed". In part, I wrote:

"Why is the Church always in need of being reformed? Because I am always in need of being reformed.

"Yes, the Church is holy because she is the spotless Bride of Christ, vivified and sanctified by God the Holy Spirit. But she is also an assembly of human persons, each of whom is a sinner in need of redemption, and for this reason, the Second Vatican Council likened the Church to the Incarnate Word, who is a single Person with two natures: one divine and one human. Because the Church is 'at once holy and always in need of purification, (she) follows constantly the path of penance and renewal.' (Lumen Gentium 8)"

This path of penance and renewal is the Way of the Cross, and we are called by the Lord Jesus to follow Him in that Way each day of our lives. But during Holy Week, our need for constant conversion is brought home to us with great force by the sacred liturgy, the source and summit of the Church's life. To help the people of my parish enter fully into the sacred mysteries we celebrate during these days of Holy Week, I wrote to the people of my parish:

We should glory in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, for He is our salvation, our life and our resurrection; through Him we are saved and made free.

These are the words of the Entrance Antiphon for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper which we will celebrate this week on Holy Thursday, and by these words, taken from Chapter Six of St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, we are reminded of several essential truths of the Christian faith:

✠ only by Jesus Christ are we made free
✠ only by Jesus Christ are we saved from sin and death
✠ only by our share in the Cross of Christ do we find our salvation, our life, and our resurrection

Because our lives are so full of noise and distraction, so full of anxieties and disappointments, so full of struggle and grief, we risk losing sight of these saving truths and the evangelical freedom that they can bring to our hearts. The strain we have all experienced in this Great Recession, the normal struggles of family life, the challenges of raising children and remaining faithful to the promises of our Baptism -- all of these things can impede us from hearing and heeding St. Paul’s exhortation:

We should glory in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ! But how do we do that? How do we glory in the Cross of Christ?

The first and most important way is that we take up our own crosses each day and follow Christ in the obedience of faith. Living in fidelity to the promises of marriage, ordination, or religious profession, living as faithful witnesses to the Gospel, living by grace the life of the new creation -- these are the practical ways we glory in the Cross of Christ. And given the complexity of these tasks, a quick reference guide to Christian faith and life would be most useful and is included with this letter. On the back of the Holy Week Schedule, you’ll find the Ten Commandments, the Precepts of the Church, and the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy, along with a brief Act of Contrition for the times when we do not live according to these precepts. Please read and ponder these simple measures of the authenticity of our lives, and where needed, resolve to take your failures to the Lord in the Sacrament of Penance and to begin again the daily work of following Christ in the Way of the Cross.

The schedule for each day of Holy Week is included, and each of us is called by Christ to accompany Him to His Passover:

✠ On Palm Sunday we go with Jesus to Jerusalem where He will arrive at the Hour for which He came into the world.

✠ On Holy Thursday we gather with Jesus in the Upper Room to receive the New Commandment of love and the inestimable gifts of the Priesthood and the Eucharist.

✠ On Good Friday we stand with Jesus in the Praetorium and walk with Him to Calvary, even as we acknowledge that we also stand in the howling mob that shouts: Crucify him!

✠ On Holy Saturday we keep vigil with the holy women who kept watch at the tomb, and in the night we worship the Lamb once slain who reveals His Resurrection in the New Fire and the Paschal Candle.

✠ Finally, on Easter Sunday we rejoice and exclaim: Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us; therefore, let us keep the feast!

The Passover of the Lord, which only English-speaking Christians call Easter, is usually known by some form of the Hebrew word for the lamb sacrificed at the Jewish remembrance of Passover, pesach. From this term we get our words pasch and paschal, so that the passion, death, and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus is called the Paschal Mystery. This is what we celebrate at every Mass, on each Sunday of the year, and most especially in the sacred days of Holy Week and the Paschal Triduum: Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, and He alone is our life, our salvation, and our resurrection.

Keeping the Record Straight

2010-03-26T14:42:00.003-04:00

The National Catholic Reporter is a weekly news and opinion journal of the far Left, and they are no friends of the theological project of Pope Benedict XVI, which makes all the more remarkable the very fine essay today from their Vatican specialist John Allen.

Allen is a thoughtful reporter and an experienced hand at interpreting for English-speaking readers the sometimes arcane language and customs of those who work for the Holy See. Here is his take on the real story behind Joseph Ratzinger's involvement in the Church's effort to respond effectively to the crimes of sexually predatory priests:
Keeping the Record Straight

A Bone in the Throat

2010-03-26T10:10:00.006-04:00

Continuing yesterday’s attack on Benedict XVI, the New York Times today alleges that then Joseph Ratzinger, while serving as Archbishop of Munich and Freising did know, contrary to earlier assertions, about the transfer of a priest who had been credibly accused of molesting adolescent boys to a new post for pastoral ministry. The story refers without citing a source to two documents (a memo and the minutes of a meeting) which theoretically establish the point the Times is trying to prove: that Joseph Ratzinger once did as a diocesan bishop the very thing he now condemns other diocesan bishops for doing in Ireland, the United States, and other places.

It will take some time to untangle the facts of this case from the sensationalist charges aimed at the pope by the Times and other newspaper of the cultural Left, but when the sifting is done, I am confident that one thing will be demonstrated beyond all cavil: Joseph Ratzinger is not and never has been a liar or a man who fails to call sin by its name. But even if that be proved beyond any reasonable doubt, the Times and the high salons of the Left will not be satisfied because of the point I made yesterday: They hate the Catholic Church with a perfect hatred and will do anything to discredit the pastors of the Church so that the Gospel they preach will itself seem to be discredited.

The Catholic Church is like a sharp bone caught in the throat of the secular West, and until it is coughed up and spit out, there can be no peace for those who have come to believe that the Bible, the God of the Bible, and the Church which preaches that God and His Scriptures are the chief obstacles to human freedom and flourishing left in the world.

Tragic mistakes were made by Catholic bishops, both the good and the bad ones, during the last four decades in deciding how to respond to priests who violated their promise of celibacy, the norms of human nature, and the eternal law of God by having sex with children and adolescents, but these mistakes were usually made despite and not because of what the Catholic Church teaches about human sexuality and priestly discipline. The Times, however, is trying to convince the world that the Church is little more than an international criminal conspiracy to protect child molesters.

Finally, it is worth noting that the stories of the past two days (and the ones which are no doubt waiting to be published in the coming days) have arrived at the threshold of Holy Week. Much like the annual appearance of the apostate priest John Dominic Crossan who flickers on our TV screens each year sometime around Easter to “expose” yet another myth about the rabbi from Nazareth, the arrival of these stories seems perfectly timed to throw the Church off balance as we prepare to celebrate the Passover of the Lord.

Every office in Rome is soon to be closed for the observances of Holy Week, and so the response of the Holy See to the charges being made by the Times will seem tepid and slow and therefore unconvincing. This, in turn, will only feed the frenzy of those who want us to believe that Benedict XVI is personally complicit in the evil of clerical sexual crimes he has spent four decades fighting. Accordingly, everyone who believes that the Catholic Church is the universal sacrament of salvation for all mankind needs to calm down and remain focused on the one thing necessary: the Lord Jesus Christ, and Him crucified and risen. The New York Times and CNN may operate on 24 hour news cycles, but our 2,000 year old Church does not. Let’s take the time to get this right, while always remembering that only the truth will make us free.

All the News That's Fit to Print

2010-03-25T08:45:00.006-04:00

In this morning’s New York Times, there is a story about a wretched priest in Milwaukee who allegedly molested over 200 boys committed to his care in a home for the deaf to which he was assigned from 1950 to 1974, but the story is less about this depraved degenerate than about the alleged cover-up perpetrated by none other than Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. The Times makes every effort to place the full responsibility for this monster not being punished on Ratzinger, but as is always the case, there is more to the story than is published by the rag that brags it has “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” In response to this naked effort by the Times to paint Benedict XVI as a man who gave aid and comfort to child molesters, the Holy See issued this statement:

“The tragic case of Father Lawrence Murphy, a priest of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, involved particularly vulnerable victims who suffered terribly from what he did. By sexually abusing children who were hearing-impaired, Father Murphy violated the law and, more importantly, the sacred trust that his victims had placed in him.

“During the mid-1970s, some of Father Murphy's victims reported his abuse to civil authorities, who investigated him at that time; however, according to news reports, that investigation was dropped. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was not informed of the matter until some twenty years later.

“It has been suggested that a relationship exists between the application of Crimen sollicitationis and the non-reporting of child abuse to civil authorities in this case. In fact, there is no such relationship. Indeed, contrary to some statements that have circulated in the press, neither Crimen nor the Code of Canon Law ever prohibited the reporting of child abuse to law enforcement authorities.

“In the late 1990s, after over two decades had passed since the abuse had been reported to diocesan officials and the police, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was presented for the first time with the question of how to treat the Murphy case canonically. The Congregation was informed of the matter because it involved solicitation in the confessional, which is a violation of the Sacrament of Penance. It is important to note that the canonical question presented to the Congregation was unrelated to any potential civil or criminal proceedings against Father Murphy.

“In such cases, the Code of Canon Law does not envision automatic penalties, but recommends that a judgment be made not excluding even the greatest ecclesiastical penalty of dismissal from the clerical state (cf. Canon 1395, no. 2). In light of the facts that Father Murphy was elderly and in very poor health, and that he was living in seclusion and no allegations of abuse had been reported in over 20 years, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith suggested that the Archbishop of Milwaukee give consideration to addressing the situation by, for example, restricting Father Murphy's public ministry and requiring that Father Murphy accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts. Father Murphy died approximately four months later, without further incident.”

The molestation of boys and young men by a priest is a grotesque crime and a mortal sin that endangers the immortal soul of the molester, and the failure of bishops and other superiors to remove these criminals from priestly ministry is an even worse and more outrageous abdication of responsibility. But the New York Times is not attempting to find justice for the poor boys who were so injured by this one sordid reprobate; instead, the New York Times is today attempting to make Joseph Ratzinger the story because it hates the Catholic Church and everything she stands for.

Sadly, the priests who molested minors and the bishops who did nothing about their crimes handed to those who hate the Church the club with which we are all now being beaten, but let us not accept the lie that the beating is for the sake of children and teens who were injured. The Catholic Church is the last voice in the world raised loudly and clearly in defense of the traditional understanding of human sexuality and the right to life of unborn children, and this the self-important mandarins of our culture, starting with the inky wretches of the New York Times, cannot abide.

The Dangers of False Religion

2010-03-23T07:50:00.006-04:00

On 30 August 2009, the Twenty-Second Sunday of the Year, I preached about the danger of the false religion which arises from belonging to the tribe rather than believing the Word. Given the complicity of so many nominal Catholics in the various catastrophes now unfolding in the nation's political life, it seems timely to recall what I said following the funeral of Senator Ted Kennedy:

In the first lesson from Deuteronomy, Moses instructs the children of Israel: “In your observance of the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin upon you, you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it.”

In the second lesson from the Letter of St. James, the Apostle urges the disciples of the Lord Jesus: “Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves.”

And in the Gospel from Mark, the Lord Jesus excoriates the Pharisees: “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

In each case, Sacred Scripture warns us today against the danger of false religion. Here we must first note a problem for modern man: If all religion is merely a private matter of taste, how can there be true religion and false religion? This is one of the many reasons why neither a Christian nor a Jew before us may ever consent to the assertion that religion is a private matter of personal taste. Now in Christian thought, there are two kinds of false religion: worshipping false gods is the first, and worshipping the true God in a false way is the second. There are many religions in the world, but only three of them claim to be revealed by God: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Jews and Christians believe that Muslims worship the true God but in a way invented by man, and that very possibility reminds Christians of the danger posed to us by the second kind of false religion: replacing divine revelation with human wisdom and calling it faith. In the teaching of Moses and the Lord Jesus, this very simply constitutes false religion.

For the past two months, we have been reviewing the Eight Principles of Evangelical Catholicism to help us understand the challenges posed by false religion in our day, and perhaps the most dangerous false religion we face is what I call cultural Catholicism, which begins by belonging to the tribe rather than by believing the Word. “Of course I’m Catholic,” the cultural Catholic exclaims, “my great-grandmother was from Sicily.” This is false religion. Fill in the blank to account for your own tribe, but if ethnic identity is the only source of one’s religion, then that religion is false. No one is born a Christian; each man is born only a child of Adam and a child of wrath and must be born again a child of God by water and the Holy Spirit. The sacrament of Baptism, like all the sacraments of the New Covenant, is a sacrament of faith: faith in the Word of God, the Word of God made flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary. And it is belief in that Word, not the place on the map in which one’s ancestors were born, that makes one a disciple of the Lord Jesus.

The false religion of cultural Catholicism is crumbling fast before our eyes: today one in ten Americans is an ex-Catholic. This is what happens when membership in the tribe, rather than faith in the Word, is the foundation of one’s religion: once the bonds of tribal loyalty are loosened, religious identity is the first thing to be cast off. But there was once a time when cultural Catholicism, whatever its flaws, was a powerful force in American life, shaping our great cities and raising up vast networks of parishes, hospitals, school, colleges and universities, announcing the arrival on these new shores of the ancient Church. And perhaps no family in American history better embodies this sort of cultural Catholicism than the storied Kennedy clan of Boston.

This was brought to mind yesterday by the funeral of Ted Kennedy, who spent his entire adult life in the United States Senate, being known since the murder of his two brothers as the most visible Catholic in the nation’s public life. Ted Kennedy was, by all accounts, a man of rare charm and numerous gifts; he was loved by his family and friends, respected by his colleagues, and trusted by the voters of Massachusetts who faithfully returned him to the Senate no matter how scandalous or numerous his personal flaws. But whatever his political or legislative accomplishments, we must reckon with this fact: the most visible Catholic in the nation’s public life spent the past four decades defending, promoting, excusing, and seeking to pay for by your taxes the wholesale slaughter of babies in the womb.

The mind reels at this contradiction and seeks for a plausible explanation of the fact that the unrestricted abortion license which has exterminated over fifty million American children was devised and constructed, promulgated and defended very largely by men and women who call themselves Catholic. And I believe that the primary explanation of this abomination is simple: the self-identified Catholics who stoutly defend the murder of unborn children are cultural Catholics only; they belong to the false religion of the tribe, rather than the living faith of the Word, and so like the Pharisees condemned by the Lord Jesus, they do not hesitate to replace the Word of God with human wisdom, in this case replacing worship of the true God with the worship of a false god named “freedom to choose.”

But how did we come to this sorry pass? While legions of cultural Catholic politicians have collaborated in building the culture of death, it is not the work of the laity alone. In 1964, a groups of six priests (including the notorious pro-abortion Jesuit Robert Drinan) met with the Kennedy’s at their home in Hyannisport, and during a long day of debate, the six priests worked out the false theological logic used to justify the support of abortion by Catholic politicians. The details of that meeting were later revealed in a book written by one of the six priests, long after he left the priesthood and the Catholic Church, and this sorry tale is sad confirmation of the terrible fact that the false religion of cultural Catholicism includes among its adherents too many priests and religious, too many theologians and professors.

So, what are we do? In the face of such treachery and collusion with the culture of death, what can we do? Let us heed the Letter of St. James:

“Put away all filth and evil excess and humbly welcome the word that has been planted in you and is able to save your souls. Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror. He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he looked like. But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed in what he does. If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, his religion is in vain. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” (James 1: 21-27)

My friends, this is evangelical Catholicism, and once we have surrendered our minds, our wills, our bodies, our entire selves to the Word of God in the obedience of faith, then we find the perfect freedom, the evangelical freedom, of the children of God. The remedy for the false religion of cultural Catholicism is the true religion of evangelical Catholicism. We are Catholics not because we belong to the tribe but because we believe the Word, and we have work to do. The eighth Principle of Evangelical Catholicism puts it this way:

All the baptized are sent in the Great Commission to be witnesses of Christ to others and must be equipped by the Church to teach the Gospel in word and deed. An essential dimension of true discipleship is the willingness to invite others to follow the Lord Jesus and the readiness to explain his Gospel.

That is our task: to be doers of the Word and not hearers only, lest we delude ourselves and make our religion in vain. And how do we accomplish this mission?

At our Baptism, the Lord Jesus called each of us by name to follow Him in the Way of the Cross. Let us heed that call by living as Evangelical Catholics who bear witness to the Savior through radical conversion, deep fidelity, joyful discipleship, and courageous evangelism. This is how we welcome the Word that has been planted in us and is able to save our souls. This is religion pure and undefiled. This is true Catholicism. Praised be Jesus Christ! Now and forever!

Jesus Christ yesterday and today,

the beginning and the end, Alpha and Omega,

all time belongs to Him and all the ages,

to Him be all glory and power through every age for ever. Amen.

The Folly of Appeasement

2010-03-21T17:39:00.000-04:00

Neville Chamberlain declares: Peace for Our Time!

The Gospel of Life and Health Care Reform

2010-03-21T14:22:00.005-04:00

Here is the homily I preached at St. Mary's, Greenville on 21 March 2010, the Fifth Sunday of Lent:

On 25 March 1995, the Solemnity of the Annunciation, Pope John Paul II promulgated the encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, on the value and inviolability of human life. Today, four days before the fifteenth anniversary of that glorious defense of the Gospel of Life, the Congress of the United States, led to this moment by the President of the United States, is poised to enshrine in American law a savage assault on human life and the freedom of conscience of those pledged to help heal the sick. Make no mistake: This is a dark hour in the history of our Republic, and the tyranny of abortion is about to be enshrined under the guise of health care reform as a public entitlement which will be paid for by public funds collected from every tax payer and from which, in due course, no doctor, nurse, hospital, or clinic will be permitted to withdraw on a conscientious objection. This is a dark hour in the history of our Republic, and we have been led to this hour by self-described Catholics.

It must be said that the general effort to change the ways in which we Americans pay for our health care is a prudential matter about which reasonable people are free to disagree in good conscience. Passionate arguments have been advanced in this debate by partisans of every viewpoint, and in most of these arguments no absolute moral truths have been at stake. But there is one absolute moral truth at stake now, and it is this: Abortion is a crime against God and man which no human law can legitimize. And as John Paul the Great taught us in Evangelium Vitae, not only is there no obligation to obey such laws; there is, instead, a grave and clear obligation to oppose such laws by conscientious objection and, when necessary, civil disobedience.

In these last days of this national debate, some voices have been raised by those who identity themselves as Catholic to say that the bill which will be voted on today does not provide funds for abortion, but that is simply false. Our Bishop Robert wrote to every priest of the diocese on Friday to say that “It is evident the current health care legislation before the House of Representatives violates the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church in several areas. As pastors of souls we have an obligation to form our people to understand the end can never justify the means. The lives of the innocent unborn cannot be sacrificed so that health insurance can be extended to some who do not have it.” Then in a companion letter addressed to all the faithful of the Diocese of Charleston, Bishop Guglielmone asks all of us to oppose this legislation “because it will allow for federal funding of abortion and will not provide conscience protection for health care professionals and health care institutions.” The bishop then adds that “Unfortunately, some organizations and individuals have decided that it is better to pass something to help a few. We can never allow evil to be done for own personal gain or for the benefit of some. Abortion should not be a part of health care reform, nor financed with tax dollars.”

Sadly, despite the clear and constant teaching on this point by our bishop and the entire United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, there have been declarations in support of the present legislation by organizations calling themselves Catholic. The Catholic Health Association supported the bill, as did a left wing lobbying group of nuns called Network. And perhaps most disappointing for us locally, so did the Bon Secours Health System which owns and operates St. Francis Hospital here in Greenville.

The approach advocated by these groups, namely, to accept an evil that good may come of it, is the devil’s bargain, and it will inevitably ensnare everyone who accepts that bargain in material cooperation with evil. This means that even those who do not endorse abortion will be bound up with the actual performance of abortions in some way, and now the entire nation will be bound by law to pay for abortions. But my friends, abortion is not health care; it is murder most foul. And for us to look away from this abomination would entail our own cooperation with evil.

At the risk of raising eyebrows or worse, I must pause here to say that no one in this congregation should be surprised by these developments. In November 2008 I wrote to you that the election of Barack Obama ended “a political process that started two years ago and revealed deep and bitter divisions within the United States and also within the Catholic Church in the United States. This division is sometimes called a ‘Culture War,’ by which is meant a heated clash between two radically different and incompatible conceptions of how we should order our common life together, the public life that constitutes civil society. And the chief battleground in this culture war for the past 30 years has been abortion, which one side regards as a murderous abomination that cries out to Heaven for vengeance and the other side regards as a fundamental human right that must be protected in laws enforced by the authority of the state. Between these two visions of the use of lethal violence against the unborn there can be no negotiation or conciliation, and now our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president.”

At the time I wrote that column, my words were regarded by many as extreme, but here we are, a year and half later, poised at the brink of tyranny. Now even those who oppose abortion may say, Tyranny? Really, Father, isn’t that a bit over the top? No; not in the least. When moral relativism is made a legal absolute even by a legal and democratic process, then basic human rights will be violated by the state in the name of tolerance. We have seen this in recent years in Massachusetts where the Catholic Church was forced out of coordinating the adoption of children because we will not place them with homosexual couples and in Washington, DC where Catholic Charities can no longer offer health insurance to spouses of its employees because we would otherwise be forced to do the same for domestic partners living in what we know to be a state of sin. These are examples of what Joseph Ratzinger called the dictatorship of relativism in the homily he preached just before the conclave that elected him to be Benedict XVI, and now this dictatorship has come to the Republic founded on the self-evident truth that the Creator has endowed every man with the natural right to life as the ground of living in liberty and pursuing happiness. Make no mistake: This is a dark hour in the history of our Republic, and we have been led to this hour by Catholics. Or, to put the matter more sharply, by those who call themselves Catholics.

So, what are we to do?

First, we must resist unjust laws and fight the dictatorship of relativism with every means at our disposal. If you have ever considered a politician’s position on abortion to be a minor matter in deciding on how to vote, I hope you now understand the folly of that position. Direct political action, constant vigilance against the growth of the dictatorship of relativism, civil disobedience, and a valiant defense of the Gospel of Life are all required of us now that a grave injustice will be enshrined in law.

Second, we must call things by their true and proper names. For example, where abortion is concerned, there is no such thing as being pro-choice. When the thing being chosen is murder, there is only pro-life and pro-death. I set before you today life and death. Choose life! that you and your children may live. And to take another example, the Bon Secours Health System has now laid bare the terrible truth that St. Francis Hospital is a Catholic institution in name only. You may continue to need their services for medical reasons, but please do not make the mistake of supporting that institution simply because there is a crucifix on the wall. There is no essential difference between a secular hospital and a theoretically Catholic hospital when the latter does what the Bon Secours System has done: namely, accept and endorse material cooperation with evil against the teaching of the Bishops of the Catholic Church.

Third, we must commit ourselves with new energy and fervor to living as evangelical Catholics through radical conversion, deep fidelity, joyful discipleship, and courageous evangelism. This is the only way to expose the false catholicisms which are helping to destroy our nation by building lies into laws. A good way to begin the long campaign which has now been forced upon us is to read John Paul’s masterful encyclical, Evangelium Vitae or the Gospel of Life. You can find the English text in five seconds on the internet, and it is well worth a careful study. John Paul the Great, a man who saw with his own eyes the terrible consequences of a tyranny which denies the essential humanity of an entire class of persons, opens his letter with these words:

“The Gospel of Life is at the heart of the message of Jesus. Lovingly received day after day by the Church, it is to be preached with dauntless fidelity as ‘good news’ to the people of every age and culture.

“At the dawn of salvation, it is the Birth of a Child which is proclaimed as joyful news: ‘I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord’ (Luke 2:10-11). The source of this ‘great joy’ is the Birth of the Savior; but Christmas also reveals the full meaning of every human birth, and the joy which accompanies the Birth of the Messiah is thus seen to be the foundation and fulfillment of joy at every child born into the world (cf. John 16:21).

“The Church knows that this Gospel of Life, which she has received from her Lord, has a profound and persuasive echo in the heart of every person -- believer and non-believer alike -- because it marvelously fulfills all the heart’s expectations while infinitely surpassing them. Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the human heart (cf. Romans 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded.” (EV 1).

Listen again to that last sentence: Upon the recognition of this right, the right to life, every human and political community is founded. And now the Congress and President of the United States of America are preparing, in the name of extending health care in our nation, to embrace a refutation of the very right to exist of unborn children. My friends, this cannot stand, and while it stands we cannot cooperate in any way with the slaughter of the innocents. Such resistance may cost us dearly, but this is not the first time in the history of the world that following the Lord Jesus has been costly. Hear the Apostle Paul, Teacher of the Nations, in this morning’s Second Lesson:

“I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus as my Lord. For his sake, I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith, that I may know him and the power of resurrection and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” (Philippians 3:8-11)

Praised be Jesus Christ! Now and forever!

Turning Together Towards the Lord

2010-03-20T09:56:00.006-04:00

During Lent 2008, I dedicated five bulletin columns at my parish to an explanation of the history and purpose of the priest standing on the same side of the altar with the congregation during the Eucharistic Prayer. Those five columns and a brief post script follow:

Mass celebrated versus populum

I. From Christian antiquity, priests and people have celebrated the Holy Eucharist by facing together towards the Lord. This simple and obvious theological precept has been somewhat obscured in the last generation by the novel practice of the priest standing across the altar from the people during the Eucharistic Prayer, a custom almost never before found in the sacred liturgy except for rare instances of architectural necessity, and in the last few years, theologians and pastors have begun to review this novelty in light of the best scholarship and the experience of the past 40 years.

Before he became Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger was one of most thoughtful and respected critics of the unintended consequences which flow from the priest and people facing each other across the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer. Ratzinger argued that this arrangement, in addition to being a radical novelty in Christian practice, has the effect of creating a circle of congregation and celebrant closed in upon itself rather than allowing the congregation and celebrant to be a pilgrim people together turned towards the Lord. And this closed circle, in turn, too easily renders the Eucharist more of a horizontal celebration of the congregation gathered than a vertical offering of the sacrifice of Christ to the Father. This flattening of divine worship into a self-referential celebration is, in part, what leads many Catholics to experience Mass as much less than the source and summit of the Church’s life, and the remedy for this malady is to open the closed circle and experience the power of turning together towards the Lord.

This can be done primarily in two ways: 1) return to the ancient and universal practice of the priest standing with the people on one side of the altar as they together face liturgical East, the place from which the glory of the Lord shines upon us, or 2) even when the priest and people remain separated on opposite sides of the altar, place a cross at the center of the altar to allow both celebrant and congregation to face the Lord. Pope Benedict, through his writing and by his example, is encouraging priests everywhere to work towards these goals to enrich the experience of divine worship and free us from the danger of solipsism which is contained in self-referential ways of praying.

This is why you see today in the sanctuary a new crucifix standing at the center of the altar. In the weeks ahead, as we grow accustomed to this gentle modification of the way we pray together, I will review with you the meaning and practical consequences of the priest and people turning together towards the Lord. For those of you who would like to read about these matters in some depth, I recommend two books. The Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Ratzinger and Turning Towards the Lord by Uwe Michael Lang are both excellent places to learn about the nature and purpose of divine worship and the ways in which the Church’s ritual must reflect the reality of the sacred in liturgical prayer.

The Benedictine arrangement for versus populum celebration

II. The ritual forms of Catholic worship have changed and evolved many times throughout the centuries, and the architectural arrangements for the celebration of these ritual forms have likewise changed. Ordinarily, this process of change is slow, deliberate, and incremental, but in the 1960’s the Church experienced an intense burst of change which dramatically altered both the ritual forms of our worship and the architectural arrangements of our churches. Because there were so many changes in such a short span of time, all of the alterations were considered by most people to be essentially connected to each other, but that is not the case. A good example is the use of Latin in the liturgical texts promulgated after the Second Vatican Council. Many people falsely believe that because Vatican II permitted the use of the vernacular languages in worship, the Council banished Latin from the modern Roman Rite. In fact, however, the same Council which permitted the use of the vernacular also insisted that all Catholics should be able to say and sing their parts of the new Mass in Latin. Celebrating the modern Roman Missal in Latin, therefore, is not in any way a rejection of the Second Vatican Council; rather, the regular use of Latin in modern worship is precisely what the Council Fathers called for.

A similar confusion exists with respect to the location of the altar and the place of the priest at the altar. From Christian antiquity, most churches had only one altar, and it was freestanding, meaning that the priest could walk completely around it during the celebration of the liturgy. This custom was retained in the Christian East by Orthodox and Catholics alike, but in the West the altar was gradually pushed back from the center to the rear wall of the sanctuary, in large measure to allow it to merge architecturally with the tabernacle. This change was later accompanied by adding additional altars to most churches, eventually yielding the custom of having three altars in each church. Even before the Second Vatican Council, pastors and theologians began to argue for a return to our own tradition of having but one altar in each church and insisting that it once again be freestanding. This was, in part, the fruit of the Liturgical Movement of the 19th and 20th centuries which reminded the Church, among other things, that the altar is the preeminent symbol of Christ in the liturgy. Accordingly, throughout the Western Church the old “high altars” found at the rear of the sanctuary were abandoned, changed, or replaced to allow the ancient and new custom of a freestanding altar. But just as this was happening, a novelty was introduced and attached to the newly detached altar: the custom of the priest and people facing each other across the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer. How and why this novelty spread so far and so fast is a tale for another time and place; for now I want only to make this point: there is no essential connection between the liturgy of Vatican II, the freestanding altar, and the priest facing the people at the altar. In fact, even now the rubrics in the modern Roman Missal are written with the assumption that the priest and people are together facing liturgical East during the Mass, and as I explained last week, Pope Benedict XVI wants Catholics everywhere to understand that to be faithful to our own tradition, we must live in continuity with the Church’s worship in every age.

III. Praying in a “sacred direction” is a feature common in many religions (Think of Muslims who pray facing Mecca—a practice instituted by Mohammed, who initially had his followers pray facing Jerusalem.), and following similar customs in Judaism, the idea of a “sacred direction” has been a part of Christianity since the beginning. Only since the 1960’s has this concept been neglected in the Western Church, but now Pope Benedict XVI is teaching the whole Church to retrieve the babies that were thrown out with the bathwater during the confusing days of liturgical change over 40 years ago. The first Christians expected the return of Christ in glory to occur at the Mount of Olives, from where He ascended to His Father, and so it was a common practice for them during prayer to turn towards the Mount of Olives. This practice later evolved into the general custom of preferring to face Jerusalem during prayer, and as the Church spread through the Mediterranean world, this notion further changed into a connection between the light of the rising sun and the glory of the returning Son. The seeds of this idea are planted throughout Scripture (Wisdom 16:28, Zechariah 14:4, Malachi 3:2, Matthew 24:27 and 30, Luke 1:78, and Revelation 7:2), and the early Church placed great emphasis on this point. In the second century, St Justin Martyr wrote “For the word of His truth and wisdom is more ardent and more light-giving than the rays of the sun, and sinks down into the depths of heart and mind. Hence also the Scripture said, ‘His name shall rise up above the sun.’ And again, Zechariah says, ‘His name is the East.’” And St. Clement of Alexandria was even more emphatic: “In correspondence with the manner of the sun’s rising, prayers are made toward the sunrise in the East.” (For a much fuller explanation of this theme, I again recommend the splendid little book Turning Towards the Lord by Uwe Michael Lang, published in 2004 by Ignatius Press and introduced with a forward by Joseph Ratzinger.)

For these reasons, since the building of Christian churches began on a large scale in the fourth century, they have literally been “oriented” to the East wherever local geography permitted this, and even when the building could not run on an east-west axis, the apse of the church and the altar within it have been understood as “liturgical East”, the symbolic place of the glory of the Lord. Moreover, because the Eucharistic Prayer is addressed to God the Father and not to the congregation, the normal posture of the priest has always been to face the East with his congregation and offer the sacrifice of the Mass with and for them to the Father. Accordingly, it is a simple mistake to think of the priest as “having his back to the people” when they stand together on the same side of the altar; rather, the priest and people by their common “orientation” show that they are turning towards the Lord, a physical metaphor for the interior work of conversion which can thought of as the “reorientation” of our lives. This is why in nearly every place and for almost all of Christian history, the priest has stood with his people on the same side of the altar so that, together facing the East of the sacred liturgy, they could offer their lives while pleading the sacrifice of Christ, and it is this deep dimension of our common prayer which Pope Benedict wants us to retrieve from our own tradition.

The Benedictine arrangement for ad orientem celebration

IV. One objective of the liturgical reforms of the 1960’s was to encourage the active participation of the Catholic people in the celebration of the sacred liturgy, in part by reminding them that they are participants in, not spectators of, offering the sacrifice of praise at the heart of all Christian worship. Unfortunately, in the years following the Second Vatican Council, the Church’s desire that all the faithful participate fully in the sacred liturgy was too often rendered a caricature of the Council’s teaching, and misconceptions about the true nature of active participation multiplied. This led to the frenzied expansion of “ministries” among the people and turned worship into a team sport. But it is possible to participate in the liturgy fully, consciously, and actively without ever leaving one’s pew, and it is likewise possible to serve busily as a musician or lector at Mass without truly participating in the sacred liturgy. Both of these are true because the primary meaning of active participation in the liturgy is worshipping the living God in Spirit and truth, and that in turn is an interior disposition of faith, hope, and love which cannot be measured by the presence or absence of physical activity. But this confusion about the role of the laity in the Church’s worship was not the only misconception to follow the liturgical reforms; similar mistakes were made about the part of the priest.

Because of the mistaken idea that the whole congregation had to be “in motion” during the liturgy to be truly participating, the priest was gradually changed in the popular imagination from the celebrant of the Sacred Mysteries of salvation into the coordinator of the liturgical ministries of others. And this false understanding of the ministerial priesthood produced the ever-expanding role of the “priest presider,” whose primary task was to make the congregation feel welcome and constantly engage them with eye contact and the embrace of his warm personality. Once these falsehoods were accepted, then the service of the priest in the liturgy became grotesquely misshapen, and instead of a humble steward of the mysteries whose only task was to draw back the veil between God and man and then hide himself in the folds, the priest became a ring-master or entertainer whose task was thought of as making the congregation feel good about itself. But, whatever that is, it is not Christian worship, and in the last two decades the Church has been gently finding a way back towards the right ordering of her public prayer. In February 2007 Pope Benedict XVI published an Apostolic Exhortation on the Most Holy Eucharist entitled Sacramentum Caritatis in which he discusses the need for priests to cultivate a proper ars celebrandi or art of celebrating the liturgy. In that document, the pope teaches that “the primary way to foster the participation of the People of God in the sacred rite is the proper celebration of the rite itself,” and an essential part of that work is removing the celebrant from the center of attention so that priest and people together can turn towards the LORD. Accomplishing this task of restoring God-centered liturgy is one of the main reasons for returning to the ancient and universal practice of priest and people standing together on the same side of the altar as they offer in Christ, each in their own way, the sacrifice of Calvary as true worship of the Father. In other words, the custom of ad orientem celebration enhances, rather than diminishes, the possibility of the people participating fully, consciously, and actively in the celebration of the sacred liturgy.

V. In the last four bulletin columns, we’ve seen that:

+ until the 1960’s the vast majority of Christians in every time and place offered the sacrifice of the Most Holy Eucharist with the priest and people standing together on the same side of the altar

+ this ancient and universal practice of offering the Eucharistic Prayer ad orientem, or facing East (whether geographical or liturgical East), is rooted in Judaism and the practice of the first Christians and emphasizes the vertical dimension of worship by opening the circle of priest and people to the presence of God among us in the sacred liturgy. For this reason, the custom of facing East is also described as praying ad Deum or towards God.

+ when properly understood and celebrated, this form of prayer not only does not constitute an impediment to the full, conscious, and active participation of the people in the sacred liturgy, it actually enhances that possibility by removing the priest from the center of the action and allows him to be once again merely a steward of the Sacred Mysteries rather than a host charged with entertaining his guests

+ the Second Vatican Council said not one word about the direction in which the priest should face at the altar, and even now the rubrics of the modern Roman Missal are written with the assumption that the priest is facing East at the altar. Moreover, the Congregation for Divine Worship has clarified that facing East and facing the congregation are both equally lawful and that no special permission is needed for the priest to face the East, a fact underscored recently by Pope Benedict’s public celebration ad orientem, something he does everyday in his chapel.

Mass celebrated ad orientem

For all of these reasons, we will begin to celebrate Mass ad Deum at St. Mary’s sometime between Easter and Pentecost, after all the clergy and servers have been prepared for the logistical changes which will attend this development. This return to our own tradition is not an exercise of change for the sake of change; it is, rather, an effort to respond to the leadership of our Holy Father, who reminds us that what has been held sacred by all generations of Christians is to be held sacred by us. Let’s work together in this retrieval of an ancient and noble part of Christian prayer to see how it might strengthen our union with the Lord Jesus and deepen our capacity to worship the Father in Spirit and truth.

Post Script. During Eastertide 2008 we made the move to ad orientem worship after weeks of careful catechesis and preparation, and since then almost every Mass celebrated at St. Mary’s has been celebrated ad orientem. The results have overwhelming positive, and now it is both both priests and people the most natural thing for us to face the same direction as we plead the Holy Sacrifice.

Every priest who celebrates Mass in our church is free to choose his posture at the altar, and so visiting clergy often choose to celebrate versus populum, which requires only moving the crucifix and candle sticks to the other side of the mensa. In this way, the people of the parish see and learn that both postures are legitimate ways of celebrating the sacred mysteries and that no ideological statements are necessarily connected to the direction in which the priest faces at the altar.

Worship the Lord in the Beauty of Holiness

2010-03-19T13:50:00.008-04:00

In November 2005, I wrote this essay on how to re-enchant the liturgy for my friend Father Alvin Kimel who was then writing his splendid blog, Pontifications, and in the years since my essay was first published by Father Kimel, I have received many requests for the text. So here it is again. But first an explanatory note.

Cradle Catholics born in or after the 1960’s often have great difficulty understanding why the sorry shape of worship in too many of our parishes is now an impediment to countless souls from entering into full communion with the Catholic Church ... particularly Anglicans and Lutherans who are accustomed to splendid music and reverent worship. This difficulty, I believe, comes from not grasping that the “living room liturgy” to which legions of Catholic have now grown attached is not the only way to pray; indeed, it is arguably not an appropriate way to pray at all. But this truth about the nature and purpose of the sacred liturgy has become very difficult for many people to understand; after all, people who live in old shacks still come to think of them as home. But the experience of sloppy worship so common in the past 40 years is an aberration in the long sweep of Christian history, and I believe that we are coming gradually to a recovery of rightly ordered prayer in keeping with our own ancient tradition and contemporary teaching. The principles and practical steps described below, all of which are solidly grounded in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and subsequent liturgical norms, are offered in the service of that recovery.

Finally, because this essay was written in 2005 it does not discuss the Benedictine altar arrangements or the return to ad orientem worship which are suggested and modeled by Pope Benedict XVI and which are gradually gaining attention throughout the Church, but these two omissions only suggest how much progress has been made in less than five years. Here is the original essay:

Worshiping the Lord in the Beauty of Holiness

I was baptized in the Episcopal Church, and there I learned to worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness. When I became a Catholic, one of the most difficult adjustments for me was learning to accept the generally wretched state of the sacred liturgy in most parishes: banal language, casual atmosphere, mediocre secular music, ugly buildings badly decorated. In all too many places, the result is simply unspeakable. But this need not be.

The Catholic Church gave us Chartres and Canterbury; she gave us plainchant and Palestrina. The Catholic Church saved the language of Cicero, and gave birth to the Christian poetry of the West. The cultural and artistic riches of the Western Church are still in our storehouse; we need only deploy them in a way adapted to the present structure of the Roman Rite.

I have been a priest for more than twelve years, and in that time I have served four parishes, one college chaplaincy, and one seminary. In all of those posts, the following characteristics were observed (mutatis mutandis), and the results were splendid. I offer these suggestions for those who seek to “re-enchant” the sacred liturgy for the purpose of leading those who worship more deeply into the Paschal Mystery.

For the building and its contents

1. The tabernacle must be on the rear wall of the chancel and on the central axis of the church. Putting the LORD anywhere else turns everything else on an angle, and no ideological justification will change the way in which this simple fact destabilizes the liturgy.

2. The priest’s chair should face the ambo, not the congregation, and it should ideally be located on the opposite side of the altar from the ambo. When he is seated, the celebrant (like the congregation) should be facing the proclamation of the Word of God; to have him face the people from his chair makes him the focus of attention and invites him to behave like a talk show host.

3. Right angles are preferable to oblique ones. The eye senses rest when it follows one line to a 90 degree angle with another line; it senses motion when any other angle is present. One of the reasons many of our churches do not feel like peaceful houses of prayer to most folk is that the entire building and all of its furnishings are constantly “in motion”.

4. The altar candles should rest on the mensa (the top surface), not on the floor around the altar. The passion for the “naked altar” is bizarre, pagan, and antiquarian for its own sake. Yes, the rubrics do allow for the candles to be on or near the altar, but I believe that placing them on the mensa has an immediate effect towards the re-enchantment of the liturgy.

5. Avoid kitsch in all its forms, including most especially the trendy and sentimental, in decorating the church. Most churches look like someone’s Italian or Irish grandmother has just finished sprucing up the place. Is it any wonder we have such trouble convincing our men that religion is not women’s work? The sanctuary is the home of the Son of Man; let’s make it look like a place in which most men would be comfortable spending a little time.

For the sacred music

1. Stop balkanizing the Mass schedule with different types of music. This trick comes from Protestant church growth strategies, and it teaches our people that divine worship is just a matter of personal taste. Yes, progressive solemnity can distinguish one Mass from another in a large parish (low Mass, sung Mass, solemn Mass, etc.), but the basic approach to matters musical should remain essentially the same.

2. If the choir is visible to the congregation, move them to a place where they will not be. This is absolutely essential to celebrating liturgy as worship rather than liturgy as entertainment. Yes, Anglicans more or less successfully replaced priests with lay choirs in the chancel, but for several different reasons, that simply does not work in the contemporary Roman Rite. The ideal place, of course, is a loft for organ and choir at the rear of the church. Failing that, at least move them to the back of the church.

3. Sing only sacred music. Much of what is now marketed as “liturgical music” is not sacred at all, and congregations addicted to that pablum are not capable of entering the liturgy as a participation in the worship of the Heavenly Jerusalem. Sacred music is a happy marriage of text and music, and both halves are necessary to re-enchant the liturgy.

4. If you sing hymns, sing the whole hymn. Stopping after the second verse because Father is at his chair makes as little sense as reciting half the Creed. And no “closing hymn” is needed. “The Mass is ended, go in peace” means what it says. Where possible, the priest and ministers should depart the sanctuary to an organ postlude or something comparable.

5. The Anglican, Methodist, and Lutheran traditions have given us an extraordinary treasury of hymnody, most of which can be used in the Catholic liturgy with little or no adaption. This music has proven itself to be durable, effective, and sacred. Do not be afraid of using hymns from this patrimony because they are “Protestant”. In truth, these texts are far more orthodox and “Catholic” than most of the tripe published by Catholics in the past two generations.

6. Plainchant was, is, and ever shall be the music best suited to the Roman Rite. Teach your musicians and your people some simple chants, and sing them well. Even those who struggle with Latin grammar will not need to be taught that this is sacred music.

For the congregation

1. Silence is indispensable. No talking before Mass. Teach the people to be comfortable with prolonged sacred silences during the liturgy by explaining that we’re not just waiting for the next thing to happen; we’re waiting together for the LORD.

2. Teach the people all the gestures proper to them, e.g. profound bow in the Creed, striking the breast at the Confiteor, kneeling at all appropriate times, etc. If the liturgy is just talking, talking, talking, then half the human person is left out of worship.

3. Emphasize coming early and stigmatize leaving early. Being casual about being on time renders the entire activity casual. Ditto for clothing. Same for the eucharistic fast.

4. Give constant, clear, and firm instruction about who should and who should not receive Holy Communion. Nothing desacralizes the sacred liturgy more than sacrilegious Communions, and the people need to be told this regularly. If you are not in full communion with the Church, if you are married outside of the Church, if you are in serious sin (including missing Mass on a Sunday or a Holy Day) and have not yet been to Confession: Do not eat and drink your own condemnation. Reasserting that the Most Holy Eucharist is the most sacred reality on earth and not to be profaned by unclean lips will go a long way towards sorting out the McChurch atmosphere that poisons our souls.

For the priest

1. Say Mass as though the people were not present. This means that the priest is thinking about, speaking to, and turned towards God Most High. Paradoxically, it is this benign neglect of the people that gets the person of the priest out of the way and invites the people into the most intimate participation in the sacred mysteries. This is now counter-intuitive to most priests, who were taught that their first, last and constant job is make the people “feel welcome”, but it is absolutely and unconditionally true: say Mass as though the people are not there, and they will start to say things like, “That’s the first time in 40 years I feel like I’ve been to Mass.” Guaranteed.

2. Naturally, when speaking to the people, the priest must look at them. But except when speaking directly to the people, the priest’s entire attention (shown by posture, direction of eyes, etc.) must be directed away from the people and towards the Throne of Grace. For example, the Collect is not addressed to the congregation. Why face the people when you are speaking to the great I AM? And in the Eucharistic Prayer, the words “Take this all of you..” are not directed to the congregation, so when you say those words, Father, DO NOT look at the people. The entire Anaphora is directed to God the Father, so do not look at your congregation when you are speaking to the Ancient of Days.

3. Eliminate the words of introduction in the entrance rite. Simply cut them out completely. This little interlude is one of the worst mistakes in the 1970 Missal; it’s like pulling the emergency brake on a train moving at 80 mph: the whole thing comes crashing to a disturbing halt. Give one homily, and give it when you should … in the homily. No off the cuff remarks, no improvisation after Holy Communion.

4. To the maximum extent possible, hide your personality under the chasuble. Who the celebrant is ought to be as nearly insignificant as possible. The priest’s job is to pull back the veil between God and man and hide himself in the folds, and this task is made nearly impossible by the ever expanding personality of “The Presider” who feels compelled to intrude his personality into every part of the sacred liturgy. The people aren’t there to see us, Father, and if they like our jokes, then we can let loose at cocktail parties. But not in the liturgy.

5. Sing the liturgy. Most parishes sing around the liturgy, but the liturgy is meant to be sung. Unless a priest is truly tone deaf (and even then he can learn to sing recto tono), he should sing, at least at Solemn Masses, nearly every word out of his mouth. From “In the Name of” to “The Mass is ended” and including most especially the Eucharistic Prayer (in whole or at least the words of the institution narrative), the priest should sing the liturgy. In the Christian East, it was once clear that a man who could not sing had no priestly vocation. I wouldn’t go that far, but singing the priestly prayers is an essential part of the sacred liturgy, and when it is done well, the re-enchantment of the liturgy is literally at hand.

6. Remember that every liturgy leaves chronological time and enters kairotic time. In chronos we say Good Morning; in liturgical kairos we say Dominus vobiscum. If we do not depart from the texts of the Church, then we stand a fair chance of taking the people with us into the never ending liturgy of the New Jerusalem. This is also why slow walking, talking and gestures are important. Same with hiding street clothes under sacred vesture. Ditto for the athletic shoes of the altar boys.

7. Yes, that’s altar boys, not androgynous altar servers. Want to encourage young men in the parish to think about the priesthood and all the men to take seriously their responsibilities for masculine headship? Then restrict the service of the altar to boys and young men.

What’s This About?

Remember that the cult of the ugly and the mundane was forced upon the Church in the service of an ideology. And if 40 years ago there was any doubt that this ideology is the enemy of the Gospel of Christ, there can be no doubt now. A bare ruined choir is all that is left in many corners of the vineyard, but even (and sometimes especially) in the ruins, God can make all things new. In the service of this renewal, or re-enchantment:

1. Take Cardinal Mahony’s pastoral letter on the celebration of parochial liturgy and throw it on the fire. Watch it burn. Now go take a hot shower.

2. Reject the ideology that got us here. Root and branch, cut it out of yourself. Empty seminaries, despoiled religious orders, plummeting Mass attendance, and wholesale immorality among clergy and laity alike are probably pretty good clues that the vocation to holiness which is our baptismal second birthright is getting obscured along the way.

3. Read good books that will help you understand the real nature and purpose of the sacred liturgy. Two excellent places to start are The Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Ratzinger (who now goes by a new nom de plume) and Looking at the Liturgy by Aidan Nichols, O.P. For the mechanics of celebration, start with Peter Elliott’s Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite and Ceremonies of the Liturgical Year.

4. Now approach the altar in spirit and truth, and worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.

Worth a Thousand Words

2010-03-18T19:00:00.007-04:00

Mary Glasspool, right, is shown in December with Diane M. Jardine Bruce and L.A. Bishop J. Jon Bruno after the two women were elected bishops in the Episcopal Church. Glasspool said Wednesday that she was "overjoyed" her ordination was approved. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

On 17 March 2010, the Feast of St. Patrick, the Episcopal Church took one more wretched step on the long and winding road of becoming a Gnostic sect when approval was announced for the "ordination" of Mary Glasspool as a bishop in the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles . Since I was baptized in the Episcopal Church, this is a particular sadness for me, and it is a catastrophe for the few credal Christians left squatting in that once noble but now bare, ruined choir.

Anglicanorum Coetibus, anyone?

A Not So Invisible Schism

2010-03-18T08:49:00.001-04:00

For severals decades, the Catholic Church has been rent by what might be called psychological schism, meaning that (the Lefebvrists aside) there has not been a visible, juridical schism in the Church in the years since the Second Vatican Council but there has been, usually just below the surface, a true and widening gap in the Church between those who confess that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe and those want the Catholic Church to become the Episcopal Church.

The latter group is loosely organized around various leftists causes, but it has clear leadership (e.g. the Leadership Conference of Women Religious or LCWR), and it has publications (Commonweal, the National Catholic Reporter, etc), and it has institutions (e.g. Notre Dame and every university "in the Jesuit tradition").

What this coalition has not had until now is the chutzpah to declare themselves openly in rebellion, but that has now changed. The first visible crack came last year when prominent members of the LCWR effectively refused to cooperate with an apostolic visitation of women religious in the United States ordered by the Holy See. And now in the national debate over Obamacare, we finally see the psychological schism becoming an institutional schism: the Catholic Health Association and the women religious associated with Network: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby have publicly repudiated the authority of the Bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States by encouraging the Congress to accept legislation that will force all Americans to pay for abortions. This, of course, is a direct challenge to the authority of bishops to teach, sanctify, and govern the Church, and until and unless that challenge is answered, the schism will only grow wider and more public, until finally the psychological schism is a juridic schism.

I'm not sure that this would be an entirely bad thing. Given that there are legions of baptized (and ordained and solemnly professed) Catholics who no longer "believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God," perhaps it is time for a reckoning to take place. Those who belong to the Church in truth can only be well served by calling to account all those who do not, particularly when they hold ecclesiastical office.

A Preview of Purgatory

2010-03-17T13:12:00.004-04:00

In the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) the Second Vatican Council teaches that

"In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, Minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle." (SC, 8)

Sadly, in all too many parishes, the sacred liturgy is a preview of purgatory rather than a foretaste of heaven, and in the months ahead, I will explore in these pages many of the reasons for the sorry state of our liturgical life. For now, I will draw attention to only one:

Too many priests are unfaithful to the promise they made at their presbyteral ordination to celebrate the sacred liturgy according to the mind of the Church rather than their own whims or the ignorant enthusiasms of the local liturgy committee. The ordaining bishop asks each candidate for priestly ordination:

"Do you resolve to celebrate faithfully and reverently, in accord with the Church's tradition, the mysteries of Christ, especially the sacrifice of the Eucharist and the sacrament of Reconciliation, for the glory of God and the sanctification of the Christian people?"

And only after answering "I do," can the candidate proceed to ordination.

Read the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, read Sacrosanctum Concilium, read Redemptionis Sacramentum, and then ask yourself this:

Are the priests of my parish celebrating the sacred liturgy "faithfully and reverently, in accord with the Church's tradition"? If not, then you might gently remind them of the promise they made on the day of their ordination to (in Father Z's fine phrase) Say the Black, and Do the Red!

I Believe and Profess

2010-03-16T14:42:00.002-04:00

When a man is ordained to the diaconate, presbyterate, or episcopate, he must make a Profession of Faith and take an Oath of Fidelity before his ordination. These must also be repeated each time a cleric is installed in most ecclesiastical offices such as parish pastor, seminary professor, diocesan vicar general, etc.

Here is the text of the Profession of Faith

I, N., with firm faith believe and profess everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith: namely:

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

And here is the Oath of Fidelity:

I, N., in assuming the office of __________, promise that in my words and in my actions I shall always preserve communion with the Catholic Church.

With great care and fidelity I shall carry out the duties incumbent on me toward the Church, both universal and particular, in which, according to the provisions of the law, I have been called to exercise my service. In fulfilling the charge entrusted to me in the name of the Church, I shall hold fast to the deposit of faith in its entirety; I shall faithfully hand it on and explain it, and I shall avoid any teachings contrary to it. I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall maintain the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.

With Christian obedience I shall follow what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish. I shall also faithfully assist the diocesan Bishops, so that the apostolic activity, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church, may be carried out in communion with the Church.

So help me God, and God's Holy Gospels on which I place my hand.

Since 1992 I have spoken these words several times, but the first time I pronounced them I stood at the altar of the Pontifical North American College in Rome, in the sight of my brother seminarians and with my hand on the Book of the Gospels. It was a very powerful moment.

How can I know if I am called?

2010-03-15T07:47:00.002-04:00

How does a man know if he is called to the priesthood? In the twenty-five years since I entered the seminary, I have heard a great deal of talk from bishops, priests, seminary formators, and seminarians themselves about a process called "discernment." This word is usually meant to signify a long, arduous, esoteric process of looking for signs of God's will in my life so that I can know whether or not I am called to the priesthood, and in the main, I have found that this entire approach to a priestly vocation, or anything else for that matter, is bunk.

When I first began to visit Father Peter Stravinskas to study the Faith, I told him at our second meeting that I felt called to the priesthood. I thought he would laugh at such foolishness from an inquirer, but instead he replied that if I had not mentioned it that week he would have brought it up the following week. Why? Because the desire was as clear on my face as a young man's love for his sweetheart. From Father Stravinskas I learned that discernment is not a matter of reading tea leaves, undergoing psychoanalysis, or examining the entrails of goats for signs of the divine pleasure; instead, genuine discernment (O, how I've grown to hate that word!) consists of answering four questions:

1. Do I desire to be priest?
2. Do I have the natural and supernatural gifts needed to be a priest?
3. Am I willing to sacrifice what must be sacrificed to be a priest?
4. Where do I want to serve as a priest?

Questions one and three can be answered only by the man himself. Either the desire is in the heart or it is not. No man needs to be told when he is in love; he either is or he is not. And once he knows that he's in love, then he must decide if he is willing to sacrifice what must be sacrificed to be with the one he loves. That part often requires a great deal of effort because we usually don't know our own hearts with clarity and aren't sure what we're prepared to sacrifice. But those are the two simple question the man himself must answer.

Question two can be answered only by the Church. From the moment a man offers himself for the priesthood, he will be evaluated for several years to determine if he does have the natural and supernatural gifts needed to be a priest. This process is imperfect, and like everything else in life, it is too often tainted with ideology and personal agendas. But in the main, now that the season of silliness in the Church is almost behind us, those responsible for making this determination take their responsibility seriously and their decisions are informed once again by the wisdom of the Church rather than by personal caprice.

Finally, question four can be simple or complex, depending upon the circumstances of the man's life. Most men who want to be diocesan priests grew up in one diocese, often in one parish, and they simply offer themselves to the service of that diocese. For those who, like me, come late to the party and far from home, there is usually no such clarity about place. And for those who are called to religious life rather than the secular priesthood, there is the added complexity of knowing which community to join. But answering that question is really just a variation on the theme of questions one and three.

This approach to knowing and answering a priestly vocation is, it seems to me, much closer than the tea leaf reading method to the divine calls about which we read in Sacred Scripture, and it relieves both the Church and the prospective priest of the impossible burden of trying to read the mind of God. As with all the sacraments, the grace of the priesthood is given in a way that corresponds to our nature, and answering the four questions above is truly more than enough for anyone to have moral certitude about his path in life and his place in the Church. Greater conceptual clarity about this could only serve to make it easier for young men to hear and answer the divine call to the altar.

What Could Possibly Come Next?

2010-03-14T09:13:00.004-04:00

That's the question I faced in November 1982 when I was received into full communion with the Catholic Church: What could possibly come next? See below for a brief account of my conversion in the post "Repent. And believe in the Gospel."

I was 20 years old and had just lost my path in life. From my early teens I thought I would make my life in the North, probably as a scientist, and certainly as an atheist. But when the Lord Jesus laid hold of my life in October 1981 all of that began to change, and the definitive end of the first part of my life came on the day of my Confirmation and first Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. On that same day, my mother's father died, and so my first step on the new path was to leave New Jersey and return to North Carolina for his funeral.

My grandfather was buried in the cemetery of the Mount Carmel Church of the Brethren near Scottville, North Carolina -- a spot high in the mountains of Alleghany County that resembles the hills of Scotland. I made it home just in time for his funeral, and from the cemetery I rode with my mother's brother and his family back down the mountain to the town where I was born, Elkin.

My Uncle Butch and Aunt Joanne have twin sons, Brandon and Chandler, who are nine years younger than I. At the time of our grandfather's death, they were eleven years old and filled with questions about this thing I had just done two days before. What is the Catholic Church? What are the sacraments? What is the strange book in your hand called a breviary? So the ride back to town just minutes after burying our grandfather was my first experience of evangelization: I began to explain to my young Baptist cousins the startling things I had discovered at Princeton, and it changed their lives as well. Father Brandon Jones is now a Catholic priest in the Diocese of Charlotte, and Father Chandler Jones is the rector of St. Barnabas Anglican Church in Dunwoody, Georgia, a congregation in the Anglican Province of America, a part of the "Continuing Anglican" movement.

What could possibly come next? I was beginning to suspect that I was called to be a priest. But where?

Heretics Can't be Theologians

2010-03-13T06:59:00.003-05:00

Why can't heretics be theologians? To think theologically is an exercise of reason reflecting on the data of divine Revelation for the purpose of understanding what is already believed by grace through faith. Heretics may be brilliant scholars, but because there is a defect in their faith, they cannot be true theologians. Here's why.

To Think

Sacred theology is a unique human science which proceeds from what is known by faith in divine Revelation rather than by what is discovered through investigation or experimentation, and for that reason, theological method is different from the method of any other science. But all human attempts to know and understand anything, including God, must proceed according to the nature and structure of human reason. Therefore, the laws which govern all reasoning must be rigorously maintained to ensure the intellectual integrity of theology. Laws of reason such as the Principle of Identity and the Principle of Non-Contradiction are indispensable for the operation of right reason (ratio recta) without which rational discourse on any subject is impossible. That theology is a science in which reason is not sovereign or autonomous does not mean that theology can proceed without reason. To think theologically it is first necessary to think and to think rigorously.

To Think Theologically

The science of sacred theology (as distinct from natural theology or metaphysics) began to emerge as an ordered body of knowledge in the first century after Christ, and the classical definition of the project was given in the eleventh century by St. Anselm of Canterbury: fides quaerens intellectum, faith seeking understanding. Sacred theology is, therefore, an attempt to understand what is first confessed as true because of the authority of God Who reveals Himself in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which together constitute the single divine Deposit of Faith entrusted by Christ to His Church. Sacred theology begins with the acceptance of the Gospel by faith and must be referred to the Gospel at every point in order to ensure that the activity of reason is faithful to the data of divine Revelation.

Sacred Theology is Not Religious Studies

That theology begins with obedience of faith to the Gospel means, among other things, that unbelievers or heretics cannot be true theologians; only faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus can be true theologians. The personal beliefs of a professor of religious studies are theoretically of no greater significance to his science than are those of a biologist studying paramecia. The beliefs of a theologian, however, are absolutely essential and intrinsic to the integrity of his science, which is truly a sacred science the practice of which requires the theological virtue of faith and fidelity to the inspired and infallible Word of God.

The Role of Authority in Sacred Theology

Because Christ entrusted His Apostles with the sacred power to teach, sanctify, and govern in His place, the apostolic authority of the bishops who succeed the Apostles is intrinsic to the science of sacred theology. It is bishops, not theologians, who insure that the Gospel is transmitted authentically and authoritatively from generation to generation. Only after receiving the Gospel from the College of Bishops and its head (the Bishop of Rome) can theologians begin their enterprise of reflecting upon the data of Revelation to understand revealed truth more completely. For this reason, the exercise of episcopal authority in guaranteeing the content of the Gospel is not hostile or alien to the work of theologians. Indeed, the exercise of episcopal authority is the sine qua non of the possibility of sacred theology as a science distinct from metaphysics, and theologians are called to the same liberating obedience of faith which is the vocation of every Christian.

Sentire Cum Ecclesia

To be a theologian, in sum, requires that one be both a faithful disciple of Christ and a scholar prepared to think with the Church. Neither piety nor learning is sufficient to make one a theologian, but no one can be a true theologian without both genuine piety and deep learning.

The Splendor of Truth

2010-03-12T08:28:00.002-05:00

On Wednesday 10 March 2010, I was privileged to speak in the morning to the students at Jesuit High School in Tampa, Florida and in the evening to a group of about 80 Catholics who attend an ongoing speakers' series called "The Splendor of Truth."

Jesuit High School is in the midst of an impressive renaissance because of the outstanding leadership of Father Richard Hermes, S.J., the school's president, and I spoke to Jesuit High's 700 boys about my own conversion story and the need for continuing conversion in the life of every disciple of the Lord Jesus.

Later that evening I spoke about the dictatorship of relativism, to borrow a phrase from Pope Benedict XVI, and the difficulties posed by relativism for Christians who are called by the Lord Jesus to find freedom in the obedience of faith.

The questions and comments offered by those at the "Splendor of Truth" event confirmed what I have found in many other places: the lay faithful are much too often not being fed with solid spiritual food in their parishes. Preaching and teaching in too many places is nothing more than story-telling, moralizing, and vague assurances that God loves us. Authentic preaching and teaching should start with the clear exposition of Sacred Scripture and include many dimensions: dogmatic, moral, liturgical, apologetic, historical, and missiological. But for that to happen, the preacher himself must first believe the Gospel and think with the Church, and one of the most poisonous effects of two generations of dissent and disorder in priestly life and ministry is that far too many priests are no longer certain what they believe and do not trust, let alone think with, the Church. Is it any wonder our people are not being fed?

Repent. And believe in the Gospel.

2010-03-08T20:57:00.030-05:00

The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the Gospel.

According to St. Mark, the Lord Jesus began his public ministry with this clarion call to conversion, and here we find the pattern of all authentic reformation: Repent, and believe in the Gospel. This summons of the Lord Jesus finally reached my ears when I was 19 years old, and as I begin a continuing discussion of ecclesial renewal, it seems fitting to describe briefly the beginning of my own conversion.

I was born in 1962 to a Protestant family in the small mountain town of Elkin, North Carolina. My father was a Southern Baptist, and my mother belonged to the Church of the Brethren, an Anabaptist movement begun in the 18th century by Alexander Mack. Because the churches of both of my parents practice only a baptism of believers, I was not baptized in infancy. In 1964, my family moved from Elkin to the city of High Point in the Piedmont Triad of North Carolina, and there I lived until I left home for college in 1980.

My maternal grandfather and his extended family were founding members of a small Brethren church high in the mountains of northwestern North Carolina, and my mother attended a college of the Brethren Church in the Shanadoah Valley of Virginia. Although we did not regularly attend church during my childhood, I do remember worshipping with family and friends in Brethren, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal churches, but I grew increasingly suspicious that Christianity was not a true account of the world and of my place in it.

From earliest years, I was fascinated by the natural sciences and eagerly read popular books and magazines about astronomy and physics. I was an able student and a natural raconteur, and this combination made me increasingly arrogant as a young adolescent. I began to hold in disdain my native culture and to dream of leaving behind the superstitions of (to borrow Flannery O’Connor’s fine phrase) the Christ-haunted South.

In the summer of 1976, when I was thirteen years old, I attended a residential junior high school program run by the State of North Carolina at a camp near one of the state universities. This two-week program for advanced students was designed to introduce us to a level of academic work not possible in the government schools, and professors from the state university system would give us lectures about their own disciplines. On the first day of the program, a philosophy professor spoke about the philosophy of religion. She announced at the beginning of her lecture that she was an atheist and then explained the nature of the truth claims of atheism. As she spoke to us on that flawless June morning, I understood in an instant what I long suspected: Of course there is no God! He is merely a phantom of human imagination conjured up to calm the nerves of pre-scientific man. From that moment, at about 11 am on 14 June 1976, I was a convinced atheist.

During my high school years, I learned as much as I could about the natural sciences and the philosophy of scientific materialism. I sought to understand the cosmos and everything in it by the light of natural reason and empirically verifiable explanations of all phenomena, which are–I then believed–reducible to measurable quantities of matter and energy. At the same time, I delighted in being the Village Atheist and went out of my way to taunt the Christians among my peers. In the summer of 1979, I attended another residential summer program, the Governor’s School of North Carolina, and there I joined the battle with Christians in what came to be known in school lore as “God Wars.” I took special delight in confounding the faith of my Christian classmates who believed quite sincerely but were ill prepared to defend their beliefs with reasoned argument.

In 1980 I fled the South like a burning building and matriculated at Princeton University. In the Fall Semester I enrolled in a course entitled “Christianity and Its Critics,” and my intention was to find ever more creative ways to expose Christian beliefs as absurd superstitions. Instead, I was exposed for the first time in my life to the writings of powerful Christian minds, and I discovered that the ideas of Augustine, Aquinas, and many others were compelling. During that year I also became friends with other undergraduates who were devout, orthodox Christians, a development which took me by surprise.

In order to reach the Princeton library, one must pass in front of the University Chapel, a magnificent Gothic church designed by the famed architect Ralph Adams Cram. During the winter of my freshman year, I found myself going into the building to admire the sublime beauty of the windows, the stone arches, and the wood.

One evening in the spring of 1981, as I sat alone in the roaring silence of the empty chapel, I said to myself, “I know You’re not here.” And in the instant of the thought I was aware of the paradox: If He isn't there, then to whom are you speaking? This was the first crack in the ironclad certitude of my atheism, and many others were to follow.

In the summer of 1981, one of the men who lived in my freshmen dorm died at age 19 of a sudden heart attack. His death forced me to confront the reality of my own mortality, and in that moment, two of my friends saw an opportunity to bear witness to me about their faith in Christ. Throughout the fall of 1981, they spoke regularly to me about the Lord Jesus and encouraged me to read the Bible.

In early October I began to read St. Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, and on the evening of 15 October 1981, one of my friends came to my room after supper to talk about St. Paul's glorious description of the eternal plan of salvation in the opening verses of Ephesians. I told him that I wanted to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God but that I did not know how. He asked me to kneel with him on the floor, and he began to pray. In a moment, my entire being was filled with fire -- a purifying, illuminating, transforming fire. I do not know if we prayed for twenty minutes or two hours, but I do know this: When I rose from my knees, I had an absolutely certain knowledge of the truth of the Gospel which has never left me. Jesus Christ laid hold of my life that night, and despite the length of years and the darkness of my sins, the memory of that experience remains undimmed.

My first question was, What’s next? I began to ask about Baptism and was confronted with the problem of many churches. Why aren’t Presbyterians Lutherans? And why aren’t Baptists Anglicans? And why is it that they only thing on which they all agree is that they aren’t Catholics? The classmate whose death had precipitated my conversion was an Episcopalian, and the Episcopal chaplain invited his friends to share in a memorial service. That experience of reverence and awe in liturgical prayer drew me powerfully, and so I was baptized in the Episcopal Church on 17 January 1982.

Even before my Baptism, however, I was filled with questions about the Church. My Catholic friends at the university began to suggest books to read, and with their help I discovered the Fathers of the Church, Cardinal Newman, and G.K. Chesterton. I spent six months reading and praying and only then asked a friend to introduce me to a priest. I was a 19-year-old student and a new convert to Christ, and I had never met a Catholic priest.

In July 1982 I was introduced to Father Peter Stravinskas, who was then living in nearby Trenton, New Jersey. He gave me a copy of Father John Hardon’s catechism, and we met once or twice each week through the summer and fall as he instructed me in the Faith. At last, on Friday 5 November 1982 (the same day on which my mother's father died) I made my first Confession, was received into full communion with the Catholic Church by a profession of faith, received the Sacrament of Confirmation, and then received Holy Communion for the first time in the Catholic Church. I was three months past my 20th birthday, and everything in my life had been turned upside down. What could possibly come next?

The Church is Always in Need of Being Reformed

2010-03-08T17:13:00.014-05:00

Why is the Church always in need of being reformed? Because I am always in need of being reformed.

Yes, the Church is holy because she is the spotless Bride of Christ, vivified and sanctified by God the Holy Spirit. But she is also an assembly of human persons, each of whom is a sinner in need of redemption, and for this reason, the Second Vatican Council likened the Church to the Incarnate Word, who is a single Person with two natures: one divine and one human. Because the Church is "at once holy and always in need of purification, (she) follows constantly the path of penance and renewal." (Lumen Gentium 8)

In these pages, I will give an account of the ongoing work of purification and reformation in my life and in the life of my little corner of the vineyard in the hope that others may find here some encouragement in their own journey.