REFLECTIONS ON OUR FAITH AND ITS PRACTICES

How to raise priests and nuns

5/7/2006
National Catholic Register

It’s easy to find people to blame for the vocations crisis. Whole books have been written about institutional failures of the church on the part of bishops, priests, cardinals and even popes and councils. These books stop just short of blaming God himself for setting up the Church the way he did.

But the most important group, the one whose influence is absolutely decisive to the question, is often spared the blame for the crisis. It’s this institution that deserves the most praise for the current upswing in vocations, too.

That institution, of course, is the family.

For Vocations Awareness Week, here are some tips on what families can and should be doing to help increase the number of vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life. Mostly, these things are the parents’ responsibilities. But godparents and grandparents can follow these, too.

1. Speak often of Christ in terms that endear your children to him. Let his name, spoken with respect, be part of the family vocabulary.

2. Help them grow, according to their age, in their relationship with God and knowledge of their faith. The lives of the saints are a great source of inspiration for children — and adults. They should also be able to receive the sacrament of reconciliation frequently and have access to spiritual direction.

3. Pray for your children and for whatever vocation God is calling them to, and teach them to do the same. The greatest and deepest wish of every parent for a child should be that he or she discovers and does God’s will for his life. Finding this will deliver your child his or her greatest guarantee of happiness. But no matter what that vocation is, the child will have difficulties and temptations to overcome, with the help of your prayers.

4. Each morning, place the vocation of each of your children under the protection of Jesus through the hands of Mary. Be courageous and ask for the blessing that they may be called to a consecrated or priestly life.

5. Teach your children to be open to God by your example. Try to imitate Mary in the way you deal with your children. Love them (through service and sacrifice) as you teach them to love Christ. They are going to absorb your priorities from the thousand ways you reflect them during your day and, if your example is consistent, they will almost certainly adopt them.

6. Do not push the religious life on them but do not be silent, either. Answer questions — at times bring them up yourself — and raise possibilities, but do so always with a sense of freedom and love.

7. Enable them to participate in outreach, service or missionary work.

It is in serving the poor that your children will see how much Christ and the Church need them, and begin to understand how much they have received and how much they have to give.

8. Demonstrate a healthy and beautiful married and family life.

Most vocations come from Catholic homes where the faith is practiced fully by the mom and dad, where the children can grow up experiencing in their own homes the beauty and dignity of the married vocation, the fidelity and depth of true love. The importance of this cannot be exaggerated. You needn’t be perfect — but you need to strive to be holy, and settle for nothing less than the Church’s authentic teachings.

9. Introduce them to priests and nuns. Seek contact with priests and consecrated persons who can serve as role models. Always speak positively about bishops, priests and consecrated persons. Your respect will give your children the interior freedom to consider a possible vocation.

10. Develop your child’s mind, memory, sense of beauty and joy. This includes — but is not limited to — knowledge of the Catechism. Help children develop their critical sense, awareness of objective truth, and appreciation for music and the arts. Pay special attention to their use of the media. It is especially important to monitor children’s access to the Internet, giving them reasons for limitations, and teaching them responsible use of this medium.

MARRIED PRIESTS

Does anybody have a married priest in their parish? If so, how are things going with him? In our diocese, we actually have two priests who were married for quite some time and got divorced before becoming priests. The grown children of one of them attended their father's ordination. And recently a former Episcopal priest, his wife, and two teenage children all converted to Catholicism. He then went through training to become a Catholic priest and now he is our associate pastor. His wife and kids seem to be keeping a low profile but he is getting on very well with our congregation. He is very reverent in saying Mass, gives interesting homilies, and has a singing voice that would rival Josh Groban. The first time he sang at Mass, my son and I nearly fell off our chairs. He definitely got everyone's attention. We are all used to priests who tend to be somewhat tone deaf. I guess his musical acumen must be left over from his days as an Episcopalian.

I have a married priest in my parish. I'm not sure, but I think he is the only married priest in Norway so far. He was a Lutheran pastor and converted to Catholicism about twelve years ago. He lives with his wife in an apartment downtown.
Well, he is not a very good singer or preacher, but he is really devoted to parish.
Nevertheless I must admit that this situation is very often a little shock for people who are new in our parish. Of course they get used to it after a while. He is a really nice guy and a good priest after all!

I notice that our married priest never mentions his wife and family. People look shocked whenever he says something about having been Episcopalian. In general, he has been well accepted by the congregation but I think if he were to flaunt the wife and kids, there might be some uneasiness. I can see where a married priesthood would really be a difficult situation. The priest's loyalty and focus would be so split between family and vocation that it would be very hard to do well at both, especially if the family included young children. I wonder if the Catholic Church would even let a man with a young family become a priest. All the ones I've heard of have had kids who are in their late teens or older. Anyhow, when you see a married priest's situation in real life, a celibate priesthood seems much less complicated and more sensible considering the kind of work involved.

HI Benefan, I see you think a married priest may be hindered in his work by kids etc. It's usually the other way round in the case of protestant ministers. My father was a pastor. The kids didn't come first, let me tell you. My dad was constantly working, almost as in day and night. And he had what was called "home visits" nearly every evening and returned home when the two kids were fast asleep already. A good pastor/priest is somehow married to the church. I almost hated the congregation....

Mag6, that's kind of what I mean. You can't serve two masters (to get biblical). One of them gets ignored a lot. If a priest is celibate, he serves the church. If he's married, he either serves the church or he serves his family. Trying to serve both equally or in rotation would be a huge and difficult trial, that could just end up hurting everybody.

you're right. But still, I had a most loving father and the little time we could spend together was "quality" time, so I shouldn't complain. Anyhow, we should give priests as much support as possible. They need it. In the smaller towns in my country the priests sometimes flee to the reformed parsonages, confessing their deep need for a bit of family life and warmth, expressing their human loneliness to the Protestant parson and his wife, something they feel they can't acknowledge too much, if at all, to their Catholic flock. They need our love, that's for sure.

Maybe it's because I lived in a small town (by Western standards) of about 100,000 in the Philippines, but the priests of the parish generally had both the pleasures of visiting with their own families (huge extended families in the Asian sense, including second cousins and great-aunts and uncles,) as well as their parishioners. And their parishioners' families tend to treat them as their own, 'spoiling" their priest every chance they get. "Father" is usually the most popular friend of the family.

It was not unusual - and it still was the practice when I was last home two years ago - that each priest develops a circle of devoted parishioners with whom he says daily or weekly prayers and who invite him to every social event their families have - birthdays, graduations, celebrating when someone passes the professional boards or gets a promotion or a new job, and of course the milestones that involve Church rites like baptisms, confirmations, First Communion, weddings and funerals.

So when I was home for the funeral of an uncle, my aunt's priest and their circle pretty much helped out with all the religious and social amenities involved when there is a death in a Catholic family. In our case, three days of a wake, the funeral itself , nine days of a novena for the dead starting the day of the funeral, a Mass and get-together on the nine days, then another 31 days of daily prayers till the "cuarentena" or 40th day, capped by yet another Mass and get-together.

All this involves feeding everyone who comes for the daily prayers (usually held in the evenings) and preparing brunch or dinner for the 9th-day and 40th-day marks. (We had to set up a marquee in the yard to accommodate everyone.) So the 'parish circle' helps the family out in preparing the food, talking to the guests (making sure no one feels left out), sending thank-you notes to everyone who sent condolences, etc.

It's a very communal spirit that I always took for granted, until I moved to the big city where there isn't quite the same interaction, although there is a similar tendency for groups to form around a certain priest, sort of like adopting him so he feels loved and appreciated.

I am happy to report that I have not heard the slightest rumor of scandal or misbehavior on the part of any priest in my hometown (nor in the parish where my home is in Metro Manila, where my parish church is 6 houses away).

Teresa, thank you for this lovely post with all the real-life glimpses of the life of a Catholic and of priests in your native country and Manila. I wish you could tell us more stories like this one and those that explained what happened around and during the main feasts in your country. I love learning more about other places and traditions and just reading about the customs around funerals in the Filipines makes one realise how psychologically healthy this 40 days period can be for those in mourning.

In The Thorn Bird- TV series one could also see how Father Ralph was an integral part of the Australian parish life and social life. Incidentally, is it true that Thorn Birds was the most popular series in the history of Television?

About the priest situation in rural South Africa, I think I now know the answer to their loneliness-problem. But I will speak about it to you in a private communication.

I thought this would be a timely and appropriate posting to place in this thread, since it is a frequent complaint I see brought up in many of the Catholic blogs and comments. And I myself see the same infractions committed in my church every Sunday as well. I saw the link for this posted in a thread in Gerald Augustinus' new forum, The Closed Cafeteria Forum, which he just opened today, if you're interested: www.closedcafeteria.com/forum/

---------------------------------
Here's the piece, from CERC--

Appropriate Behavior in Church
FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS

I am a senior citizen. Lately, I have been appalled at the way people act in Church, how they dress and how they pay attention to the Mass. It certainly is not the way it was when I grew up. Maybe you could write a column on how people should act at Church?

Actually, I have received several letters over the past few weeks concerning poor manners at church, even one from a new immigrant to our country. In one sense, we should not be surprised at the lack of proper manners and dress at church. After all, we live in a society where people pierce their various body parts — eyebrows, noses and tongues — just like the farmers do with their animals (although even they were spared tongue piercing). Many companies now have “casual Friday” where male employees no longer have to wear suits and ties and women employees, suits or dresses; however, The Wall Street Journal recently noted that many employees are now looking more like slobs on “casual Friday” and consequently approaching their work like slobs. More and more, I see casual attire at weddings and funerals, which were always considered “dress-up” events. Many people have lost all sense of basic politeness, like holding the door open for someone, especially a lady, or offering a seat on the Metro for a lady, especially an expectant mother or an elderly person. (I was raised to be a gentleman, so call me a chauvinist or old fashioned if you like.) Seldom do the words please and thank you echo in our ears. Yes, we should not be surprised if such a lack of manners overflows into our churches.

While we may not be surprised at such a state of affairs, we should not condone it or lower ourselves to it. In regard to church, each of us should strive for good “Mass Manners,” and parents especially should make sure they are teaching their children good Mass Manners.

Therefore, as a priest and one who was raised by good, diligent parents who remembered the days when men always wore a coat and tie to church and ladies were expected to wear a hat and gloves, I will present what I consider good Mass Manners.

First, let us start at how we prepare for Mass. People should dress appropriately. In our society, we still consider coat and tie for men and dresses or suits for women appropriate attire for weddings, for special parties (even Christmas parties) and certainly for meeting dignitaries, like the pope or the president. We should then dress in the same way to meet our Lord, present in the holy Eucharist. Granted, perhaps in the summer we could be a little more casual, but we can still be neat, clean, and properly clothed. Frankly, shorts should be worn only by very young children; T-shirts should be kept for picnics; spandex pants and tights should be reserved for exercise; and halter tops should be burned. In deciding what to wear, we should be thinking, “I am dressing to meet my Lord and to participate in the mystery of my salvation.”

Before leaving home, parents should make sure the children go to the bathroom. People going in and out of the pews during Mass for the bathroom is distracting. Granted, there are legitimate reasons for having to use the bathroom during Mass. However, I think that some children have just gotten into a routine: during the homily, go to the bathroom; during Communion, get the drink of water. Frankly, when I was growing-up, I did not even know St. Bernadette’s had a bathroom, because unless I was ready to vomit, I did not leave that pew except to receive holy Communion.

Next, leave home with time to arrive at church before Mass begins, preferably about five or 10 minutes. Doing so allows everyone to have a few moments for prayer and to be ready to participate in the Mass. Granted, circumstances arise which will delay a family. Such a situation is different from the perpetually late parishioners.

When arriving at church, discard any gum in a proper container. There must be a special place in purgatory for those who stick gum underneath the pew. (Actually, no one should even be chewing gum in observance of the fasting law.) Those who leave their cigarette butts everywhere will probably end up in the same place.

When entering the church, be sure to make the sign of the cross with the holy water; this gesture reminds us of our baptism and does dispel evil. Before entering the pew, be sure to genuflect, an important act of reverence to the presence of our Lord in the holy Eucharist in the tabernacle. Also, please turn off the cell phones and the beepers; everyone not only can give some undivided attention to God, but also spare everyone else the distraction of a phone ringing or a beeper sounding during Mass.

In worshiping, participate in the songs and prayers, follow the readings and listen attentively to the homily. I am always surprised at those “pillars of salt” who never open their mouths to sing or pray, or the pew potatoes who read the bulletin during the homily. Parents should help their children: last Sunday, I saw a mother following the readings with her finger so her two young sons could more easily and attentively read. In all, everyone should joyfully and reverently participate in the Mass.

Parents need to supervise their children. Jesus loves and welcomes children, but they do need our help. If a child is fussy, then the parent should quickly take the child to the vestibule or outside and let the child calm down before returning. Children should not be allowed to rattle keys, drop toys, kick the pews or run in the aisles. These behaviors are distracting to the other people and especially to a priest who is trying to give a homily. Parents simply need to be parents, using good judgment and discipline with the little ones.

When receiving holy Communion, always do so reverently. We should be very conscious that we are receiving our Lord. If receiving on the hand, the hands must be clean and held like a throne for the Lord. After receiving, one should consume the Sacred Host before turning around to go back to the pew. Holy Communion must not be reminiscent of a cafeteria line experience, but rather of an encounter with the Lord.

After Communion, each person must give thanks for the precious gift received and allow the grace to fill our souls. How tragic it is to see people leave Mass right after Communion, not because of an emergency, but because they want to get out of the parking lot first. I can only think of Judas, who was the first person ever to leave Mass early. To give the Lord one hour — and usually less — for the holy sacrifice of the Mass is really not much of a sacrifice. I wonder how these same people would feel if someone left their own home in the middle of the meal without even saying thank you.

Finally, after the Mass is concluded with the blessing, wait until the priest has proceeded down the aisle before leaving the pew. The congregation should disperse only after the recessional hymn has concluded. However, before leaving the pew, be sure to put the hymnal back in its holder and pick up used tissues, bulletins, or other items; otherwise, someone else has to attend to them. (Once my mom, who used to help clean St. Bernadette’s Church, found a used diaper left in the pew.)

While I am sure that this list is not exhaustive, I have witnessed all of these actions as a priest. I also do not want to seem cynical or condescending, but only teach proper respect for the Mass I love to offer. Yes, we live in a very casual world where many people have forgotten proper manners and discipline. Archbishop Fulton Sheen said that courtesy “is the homage of the heart to the sacredness of human worth” (Thoughts for Daily Living, p. 50). Manners, whether at Mass or in other situations, reveal the value we place on each other and God.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Saunders, Rev. William. "Appropriate Behavior in Church." Arlington Catholic Herald.

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0065.html

Wow, Imladris, that is an excellent article. I think it should be syndicated throughout the land, and certainly published over here in the UK too.

The other day half way through Sunday mass a couple climbed over me to get to an empty pew - the Liturgy of the Word had finished already. A neighbouring parish starts Mass half an hour later, so why didn't they go there? Natch, they went to Communion. Now there may have been a valid reason for such lateness but my mind turned over the idea, what if a £1000 bonus was given to all people who arrived for Mass on time? Would these people still have been so extremely late?

I thought that if the Gospel was missed, then the Sunday obligation wasn't fulfilled, let alone fitness for going to Communion? I am not sure about this however, and wouldn't presume to judge them beyond the rather sniffy vibes I must have been sending out.

My friend Bernie said the other day that some people behind her at Mass talked throughout the whole thing, ruining her concentration on our Lord. She felt like saying something but didn't have the nerve.

Another thing that bugs me, really really bugs me, is the way that once the priest has left the altar after Mass, people start talking immediately. Even when they've been to Communion. My understanding is that the Sacred Species remain in the digestive tract for up to 15 minutes after receiving, yet one sees very devout people just chit chatting away. It's like going to someone's house for dinner and ignoring them. I like to spend some moments after the Mass in giving thanks, and I taught my kids to do this (I probably didn't teach them enough things, but they did learn this). Now my children are all at college, I attend daily Mass when I can - which is most days - and the daily communicants do this talking as well. I feel uncomfortable as it is about having a conversation about very ordinary things right infront of the tabernacle. Our church is eighty years old and still has its tabernacle in the middle, behind the altar (DG!!!).

The neighbouring parish has a lot of young families, and there the kids run amok, use the pews as gym equipment and at times almost upturn the votive candles. It can be very dangerous to behave like this in church, as well as disrespectful. I think today the priests are just glad to see people at Mass that they don't like to deter them by suggesting a code of behaviour. Of course it's great that people do go, but do they know what they are really attending?

First, many thanks to Imladris and Wulfrune for the posts above on appropriate behavior in Church, especially during Mass. One would think that everyone would wish to be on best behavior when visiting the house of God, but perhaps laxity results because to many people, churchgoing is simply another social activity.

And so, it is very heartening to read something like this entry by Fr. Guy Selvester on his blog shoutsinthepiazza.blogspot.com/
(don't you love the clever takeoff?) about the palpable action of the Holy Spirit in a church in New Jersey.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Veni Creator Spiritus

Tonight we had the celebration of the sacrament of Confirmation in my parish. The bishop was not here, however. In fact, no bishop was here. Due to scheduling constraints in the diocese my bishop delegated our pastor to administer the sacrament in his place... (B)y and large, people were OK with it. In fact, there was not a negative comment made at all tonight because people, as usual, were just happy to see 70 young people receive the Holy Spirit and complete their initiation in the Church.

What I was struck by was not the lack of a problem from the grown-ups. Rather, it was the maturity and preparedness displayed by our teens. In this diocese the children are confirmed in the 8th grade.

But all these young people, described by the pastor in his homily as "neither adult nor child, neither here nor there" showed a depth of understanding that really boggled the mind. In these days when it is so easy to dismiss the young as brain-dead, computer addicted, apathetic wastes of space, time and effort these "kids" put the lie to all that.

The pastor decided to read from their letters to him in preparation for receiving the sacrament. They were gorgeous. They were heart-felt. They were real. Listening to them restored my faith in them and also nudged my faith in God.

As they came forward to be anointed with chrism it was easy to feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. And THAT was certainly unexpected and wonderful. I was doing my usual thing and functioning as Master of Ceremonies instead of concelebrating (especially because this was the first time my pastor, ordained just one year longer than me, was presiding at a liturgy of Confirmation and he was rather nervous about getting it right) and I really didn't think this evening would hold a profound experience of God's presence.

Yet, right here in New Jersey on a Wednesday night the Holy Spirit filled the place where we were praying. This was no mere formality and no one was just "going through the motions". Instead the Lord made himself truly present and the young people who were receiving the sacrament truly understood that this was a moment when God was being made present in their lives.

So many ceremonies in church are just that: ceremonies...rather hollow and often devoid of true spiritual significance. This was anything but...and it wasn't the presider, the music, the decorations, the D.R.E., the M.C. (Lord knows!) or any other thing that made it so. Rather, it was the young people themselves and their disposition to this sacrament that made it a moment that was truly holy.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/05/2006 3.17]

I don’t know if this is the correct place to post this but… here it comes.

The morning of Saturday May 20 I got dressed and drove 3 hours to a family celebration - a party to celebrate my niece’s graduation from high school. To my surprise a small group from my hometown arrived too. 1 lady in particular surprised me, she was my former Sunday School teacher. She spotted me and came over. She looked around the room and placed a hand on my arm. Her facial expression made me think of a mouse that is about to leave the safety of it’s home to go out into a room full of sleeping cats - knowing that at any moment a cat could wake up. She whispered, “Is it true… … … did you take a trip to Rome?”. Her voice was almost shaking. I smiled and said yes, it is true. Then she asked, “Is it true that… you… have… become… … Catholic?”. I looked into her eyes. She was looking at me - hoping to recognize the girl she had given so much (false) information to in Sunday School. “Yes, it is true.” She removed her hand from my arm, her eyes changes. She was looking at “the enemy”. She addressed 3 “concerns” she had:
“I don’t understand how you can worship idols… saints and pray to them”: When she said “you” it was equivalent to “you people” - you as in Catholics as opposed to I as in Protestants. Hearing the separation with hostility for the 1st time was rather unsettling. I explained that we worship God. We venerate saints… big difference. Prayer our method of communicating with God. When asked how we should pray to God correctly, Jesus gave us the Lord’s Prayer - the perfect prayer all by itself. But we can also use it as a template for our own prayers to God. The arch angel, Our Lady and her cousin Elizabeth gave us the Hail Mary also a perfect prayer all by itself which we can use as a template for prayers to saints. We call them by name, acknowledge who they are and ASK THEM TO PRAY FOR US. We don’t ask them to do a miracle, we ask them to pray to God for us.
“Confession - a priest can’t forgive sins - only God can”: “And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”. We believe that sin is not just between a person and God but rather that it affects the whole community. So for the 1st few centuries a person would confess his/her sins to the whole congregation. The whole congregation had a say in his/her penance which could be very long and drawn out. By the 4th century very few people were making confession. So the priests began listening to private confessions. The priest would then forgive the person in the name of the congregation. A good parent wants their child to admit when they have done something wrong and truly say they are sorry for their actions… Our awesome God wants nothing less from his children! By confessing we are telling someone else a secret. God knows what we have done, but so does Satan who then uses our guilt against us. By verbally telling someone else, we are breaking the power of that secret and Satan looses his grip.
“I don’t see how you could switch religions like this”: And just when did I switch religions? I was Christian - a Methodist and I converted to Catholic - the original Christian. From a daughter denomination to the mother Church. She was about to argue with me when I politely told her that this was not the proper time to be getting into a theological debate. We will be discussing more I’m sure when I go home for another niece’s wedding in June.

@Nan
Congratulations. Fantastic replies. You can defend Rome better than many born and bred Catholics

Nan, well done. your answers were anointed by the Holy Spirit, no doubt about that.

I was edified by your answers too - the analogy of a child owning up to wrong-doing with sacramental confession is a very good one, and I had never seen it before. A gentle word turneth away wrath, indeed.

I hope that this lady comes to understand you, and what the Catholic church really believes. There is a lot of misinformation out there.

[Modificato da Wulfrune 21/05/2006 13.23]

---

Scritto da: Yvonne44 21/05/2006 10.21
@Nan
Congratulations. Fantastic replies. You can defend Rome better than many born and bred Catholics

---

Agreed!!
This is a typical example of protestant ignorance. Nan, why don’t you invite her to join the Papa Ratzinger Forum? .....huh??
With love, Lutheranguest, Prefect of the Congregation for the Fight against Protestant Ignorance. (CPI)

[Modificato da lutheranguest 21/05/2006 13.56]

LOL... not yet.
But I think I will challenge her to read the Catechism... just like someone dared me to last year. Let the Church's teachings speak for themselves. If they could draw me in... who knows. But then I have to realize that some people are happily Protestant and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. But if she contuinues to verbalize disrespect for Mother Rome, I won't be able to continue the conversation. I know also that I won't have to face her alone for in Christ we are never alone!

---

With love, Lutheranguest, Prefect of the Congregation for the Fight against Protestant Ignorance. (CPI)

---

BTW I like the title!!! I would like to join that Congregation too please.
Love ~ Nan

Gerald Augustinus at The Cafeteria is Closed has been on this story for some time, and today the Los Angeles Times puts it all together on
www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-kneel28may28,0,7235402.story?coll=la-home-h...

I must confess I snorted in disbelief when I first read that a bishop no less had refused to give communion to a lady who knelt before him to receive the Host. Not only that - but he even tried to pull her up to a standing position while reprimanding her verbally for kneeling. And yes, the center of this controversy is Orange County, California. Stimmt! as the Germans would say- it figures!

Now why would anyone, least of all a priest, prohibit anyone from kneeling in Church who feels like doing so? Apparently, because the post-Conciliar Mass does not call for any kneeling at all! How would I know? I never looked at the rules, and I have always just knelt in Church when I felt like doing so, like during Consecration or after Communion. In old churches (or side chapels that still have Communion rails) when there's only me and a couple of others present, I still kneel at the Communion rail to take Communion.

The 'liberal' rationale for being against kneeling is absurd - that kneeling is feudal and that standing even when receiving Communion means only that man was made "in the likeness of God" therefore there is no call to kneel as if someone were a subject! Excuse me? Isn't this almost tantamount to repeating the original sin of arrogance - when Adam thought himself equal to God (and therefore entitled to break His law)?

So let those who want to stand stand, but why keep us who want to kneel from kneeling?

Watching the Mass at Blonie Park in Cracow today, I was impressed all over with the deep reverence Benedict XVI unfailingly shows - in all ways possible - for God in whose honor Mass is celebrated, including the way he genuflects and bows deeply at appropriate moments.

I wonder, do the OC liberal priests never kneel or genuflect at all?

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 28/05/2006 20.53]

On www.jimmyakin.org/2006/05/totally_absolut.html
Jimmy Akin has a thorough response to the LA Times article about kneeling and the issue itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------

The story in question is about a parish in the Diocese of Orange where the new priest has--among other things--forbidden people to kneel following the Agnus Dei, and a huge controversy has errupted.

IT'S A STORY THAT I'VE COMMENTED ON BEFORE.
www.jimmyakin.org/2006/03/unusual_canon_l_1.html

But I've only commented on certain aspects of it, and the L.A. Times piece gives me the confirmation I need to go further into the issue.

First, though, I'd mention that there are notable flaws in the L.A. Times piece. They don't get their history of recent liturgical law right, there is a bizarro attempt to link the kneeling issue to The Da Vinci Code (I'm not making that up), and they notably fail to document other aspects of the story that are important, such as the fact that the parishioners weren't just disinvited from attending Mass because they insisted on kneeling after the Agnus Dei.

They are also accused of handing out literature making false allegations against the diocese and the priest, which is a much more serious and canonically actionable offense than refusing to stand at the Agnus Dei. See my prior commentary for more info on this.

They also talk to an expert at the Georgetown liturgy center who is off in liturgical la-la land, but I can't hold the stupid things he says against the Times. (At least not in a direct way.)

What I find particularly interesting here is a particular assertion that was made by the priest of the parish (he apparently hasn't been appointed its pastor, just its administrator) in a bulletin. I had seen this statement reported before in material from the distressed parishioners, but I didn't have confirmation of it. Now the L.A. Times confirms it:

Kneeling "is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin," Father Martin Tran, pastor at St. Mary's by the Sea, told his flock in a recent church bulletin. The Diocese of Orange backs Tran's anti-kneeling edict.

Actually, the L.A. Times again has it slightly wrong. You'll notice that the word "kneeling" isn't included in the quotation. Here's what Fr. Tran actually said in context:

As I said before, Liturgy is the "public worship" of the Church whose authority belongs only to Rome, the National Conference of the Catholic Bishops and the local Bishop, and not a private worship or business which belongs to any person(s) or group that can take it into their own hands by intentionally setting their own norms, disregarding the permission from the local Bishop or despising the authority of the local Bishop, the National Conference of one's country. That is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin, separating oneself from the Church.

The highlighted part is the apparent antecedent for "that," which is what Fr. Tran says is mortally sinful.

And there's an element of truth in what he says. There are things that one can do in violation of the Church's norms that would be mortally sinful--for example, if one decided that something other than wheat bread is to be used for confecting the host. That kind of violation of the Church's norms would be mortally sinful if done with adequate knowledge and intent.

But not all violations of the Church's norms are created equal. This is a fact that is expressly recognized in the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, which recognizes at least three different levels of gravity in liturgical offenses, one of which is clearly non-grave matter.

This means that it is pastorally irresponsible in the extreme to wave the threat of mortal sin in parishioners' faces unless an actually grave offense is in question, and that does not appear to be the case here. Fr. Tran goes on--immediately after the paragraph quoted above--to state:

The reason for this is that all the current liturgical norms of the Diocese and of the U.S. are officially recognized and allowed by Rome. Furthermore, Fr. Johnson was allowed only to have the Tridentine Mass here at St. Mary's with its own norms: communion by tongue, with one species, no sign of peace, kneeling after "Agnus Dei' Lamb of God... that some parishioners here name that "traditions" of St. Mary's.

Besides, Fr. Johnson allowed other liturgical practice/norms belonging to the Tridentine Mass to be applied to other Masses of Vatican II, including the Novus Ordo Mass: that is not correct. For it was out of line with the current liturgical norms of the Diocese. These have to be changed.

Fr. Sy and I were appointed by the Bishop, working together with the Bishop to re-establish the liturgical norms at St. Mary's to be in line with the current liturgical norms of the Church in America and of the Diocese (allowed by Rome). And this binds all with total obedience.

As one family, all of us have the responsibility to correct our disobedient brothers and sisters. If they do not listen, that is their serious problem!

Now, it is apparent that Fr. Tran is not the clearest writer in the world. It is also clear that he is not the most pastoral priest in the world. In fact, he comes across as a Grade-A Jerk in this text (particularly toward the end), although allowance must be made for the previous history of the situation, which may have caused tempers to flare on both sides.

Still, it seems that the nut of the issue is that Fr. Tran is trying to bring the parish into line with the Diocese of Orange's liturgical norms for the current rite of Mass after his predecessor allowed practices from the Tridentine Mass to be applied to the current rite of Mass.

What these are, Fr. Tran isn't clear on, but the most likely friction points are the ones he names as aspects of the Tridentine rite of Mass: Communion on the tongue, Communion under one species, not having an individual exchange of peace, and kneeling after the Agnus Dei.

Communion on the tongue is a protected right of the faithful, so he can't (validly) accuse parishioners of being disobedient to liturgical law if they want to receive on the tongue. Neither is there any requirement for people to receive under both species if both are being offered to the faithful, so there's no grounds for valid charges of disobedience there, either.

If he's calling for an individual exchange of the sign of peace and parishioners are utterly refusing to do it (e.g., not even nodding and smiling at those around them) then he'd have some grounds for criticism, but that doesn't seem to be the big issue here.

The L.A. Times--and those on the other side of the issue--seem to understand kneeling after the Agnus Dei to be what's causing all the ruckus.

So (in the absence of further evidence) let's go with that: Fr. Tran seems to be threatening people who are kneeling after the Lamb of God with mortal sin. That's certainly what they're understanding him to be doing, and--despite the lack of precision with which he writes--he's definitely waving charges of mortal sin in their faces over lack of compliance with the norms of the diocese, and kneeling seems to be what is at issue.

If that is what he's doing then he is totally, absolutely, 100% crazy . . . speaking from the point of view of liturgical law.

The Church simply has not invested the question of the posture of the laity with the gravity needed to result in mortal sin. Indeed, Rome has shown significant sympathy and indulgence toward those who wish to kneel at traditional moments.

Here's a nice test case: Kneeling for Communion. The current norms for the United States establish a posture of standing to receive Communion and--because of the gravity of the moment itself (you're receiving God Incarnate in Holy Communion) and because of the public nature of the moment (you're up in front of everybody where you can be easily seen)--kneeling at this moment would be more disruptive by way of example to others than at any other moment in the Mass. So if any moment of kneeling praeter legem would be a grave offense, this one would.

So what does liturgical law say regarding people who insist on kneeling for Communion?

Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm [GIRM (2002, U.S. ed.) 160].

Now, canon law requires ministers of the Eucharist to deny Communion to anyone who is "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" (can. 915), so if a person insisted on kneeling in spite of admonitions then you'd have to deny him Holy Communion if this were a grave sin (since it's obviously manifest). Since the text says that Communicants are not to be denied Holy Communion, the only conclusion is that kneeling for Communion is not a grave sin and thus not capable of being a mortal sin.

And if kneeling for Communion is not a mortal sin then--a fortiori--kneeling after the Agnus Dei is not a mortal sin.

The claim that it would be is just crazy and shows a profound lack of awareness of the mechanics of liturgical law and the way Rome handles these things.

Indeed, the actions of Posture Nazis (of liberal or conservative bent--and there are conservative Posture Nazis) are simply not consonant with the attitude Rome takes toward the regulation of posture at Mass. That attitude is expressed in a recent Responsum issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments regarding kneeling after Communion:

Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after having individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, to forbid this practice?

Responsum: Negative, et ad mensum [and for this reason]. The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43 [i.e., the main section dealing with posture], is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free [June 5, 2003 (Prot. N. 855/03/L); printed in BCL Newsletter, July 2003].

So whether one would insist that it is mortally sinful to kneel or not to kneel at particular points in Mass, one would be misreading liturgical law. The Church simply has not invested the regulation of posture with grave matter and it intends only to establish "a certain uniformity" that has "broad limits" and it does not intend to "regulate posture rigidly."

This makes troubling a reported comment by a diocesan spokesman. According to the L.A. Times:

Father Joe Fenton, spokesman for the Diocese of Orange, said the diocese supports Tran's view that disobeying the anti-kneeling edict is a mortal sin. "That's Father Tran's interpretation, and he's the pastor," he said. "We stand behind Father Tran."

You'll note that once again the L.A. Times has not gotten the word "kneeling" into the quote, so we're not entirely sure what Fr. Fenton said (assuming he was even quoted accurately). Given the number of other sloppy, problematic points in the article, I can't be sure if he was quoted accurately or if the question he was responding to involved the issue the Times represents or, if he was and if it did, whether he was speaking after mature deliberation or just reflexively trying to support a diocesan priest in the face of criticism.

But I can tell you this: If this matter goes up to Rome the mortal sin interpretation of the parishioners' actions will not be sustained.

Instead, we're likely to get back something that sounds very much like the Responsum on the question of whether you can kneel after Communion.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 31/05/2006 17.22]

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 31/05/2006 17.22]

Memories… time… love
Today I spent time with an incredible woman. Ruth will turn 96 in October. She was born in 1910 near Hamburg Germany. She is Jewish. Ruth, her husband and their 3 - soon to be 4 children immigrated to the USA in 1935. They left behind an extended family of approximately 100 with whom she kept in contact. She read in these letters of relatives and friends that were taken away at night… some were never seen again… others were brought back… until the next time there was a knock on the door. The last letter she received from family was in 1938... Her letters for about a year went unanswered.
I grew up in a small town. My friends and I would ride our bikes all over. One of our favorite places to play was the city cemetery. A section, on the western side had stones that had strange symbols and a star… a star with 6 points. I had my own parents, but there were other people who helped raise me. But there were 2 women who stand out… 2 women who taught me how to make bread. Grandma Alice, we lived back yard to back yard with her. She was a widow with 2 grown children and grandchildren of her own but she always made me feel special. Grandma Anna also had grandchildren of her own. She taught me how to make challah. She had a table cloth with the same 6 pointed star. She told me that my little town had once had a thriving Jewish community.
In October 2000 a friend of mine took me to his grandmother’s 90th birthday party. I had met his mother and sisters so I was not a complete stranger. He introduced me to her as Nan - no last name was given. She asked what synagogue I attended. I answered that I went with her grandson on special occasions. She asked why I didn’t attend regularly. I answered that I was Christian not Jewish. I heard her breath catch as if she was in pain. The expression on her face changed… resembling someone who had been stabbed and was just realizing the fact. But her eyes… her eyes changed… not to hatred. What I saw in those beautiful eyes was terror. Her daughter, my friends mother, placed her hand on my arm and told me a brief family history. I knelt down beside Ruth, placed my hand on her arm and told her that those men… those monsters were in no way shape or form Christian. For 30 minutes I knelt, asked her questions, listened to her answers, answered her questions, cried with her. Before my friend and I left she patted my cheeks tenderly with her hands and gave me permission to call her “Grandma”.
Today, my friend and I went to see Grandma. She lives in a senior apartment, is still able to walk around, cook, clean and does not have a single senile cell in her brain. We had been asked by her to be at her apartment at 10:00 even though the birthday party of her oldest daughter didn’t start till 12:30. She wanted us to watch something together. She clicked on the VCR and we watched Papa in Auschwitz-Birkenau. We sat silently, watched and listened. Her hand reached for mine and mine squeezed it. At the end of the program we dried our eyes and went to her daughters house for lunch and to spend the early afternoon with her current extended family. Someone from the synagogue asked why I was there, Grandma just smiled and said, “She’s here because she is a part of this family”. My eyes filled with tears at these words.
When I told her that I was converting to Catholicism she smiled. The Catholic Church was built on the Jewish faith. So many of our traditions come directly from Judaism. Christ Himself - the Lamb of God - allowed Himself to be the sacrifice for all. When the Jews sacrificed lambs, it had to be done in a precise method. The lamb had to be perfect, with no defects, prayers were said over the lamb and the lamb bled to death with it’s blood pouring out over the person’s hand. The body was burned, the smoke carried the person’s sins away. Christ was the perfect sacrifice… the perfect sacrificial Lamb.
I don’t know how much longer I will have Grandma here on Earth but I do thank God for her… and others like her.

Gerald Augustinus at closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/
today gives his overview of and reflections on Dominus Iesus, the most controversial doctrinal document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Gerald says teh document was most useful during his recent conversion to Catholicism.
---------------------------------------------------------------

I know this is a long post, but don't let that scare you off ! It's about one of the most important Church documents of recent years.

The declaration Dominus Iesus, from 2000, written by then-Cardinal-Ratzinger, much hissed at by liberals ("insensitive! not inclusive!", "All ways lead to Heaven!", etc) - and by some fringe-dwellers/schismatics on the other end of the spectrum ("too sensitive! too inclusive!", "aww - all non-Catholics aren't going to Hell? bummer") , refutes the presumed equality of all religions, asserts the unique salvific role of Christ and the Catholic Church.

It starts out in heraldic fashion, quoting Matthew 28:18-20, in which Jesus commands His disciples to proclaim the Gospel. This makes clear the need to - in whatever way - give witness, so as to draw others to the Lord. Complacency with being Catholic while neglecting evangelization (ideally, of a subtle rather than in-your-face kind) attitude cannot be supported by these verses.

How anyone ever could claim the opposite - that evangelization is basically wrong, embrace diversity etc - given this Gospel text is beyond me. I have heard and read the "we don't like the term converts" bit many times and the whole "our faith tradition" shtick. Some people seem to be apologizing constantly for being Catholic ! There is a reason why some people are "our separated brothers and sisters" - it certainly wasn't us who separated.

Next, the Declaration quotes the Credo in full, part of which refers, of course, to the saving quality of the Incarnation and the existence of one apostolic Church. Thus one would deem this Declaration superfluous, but not so. In times of dissent, the obvious must be re-stated.

Nostra aetate is quoted:

The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions.
She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and teachings,
which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching,
nonetheless often reflect
a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.

Here, some “conservative” voices may dissent, while “liberal” ones still agree. In the next sentence however, certain liberal concepts are dismissed: “dialogue certainly does not replace, but rather accompanies the missio ad gentes” - All religions are not equally true; missionary activity is necessary. This of course goes against the liberal-secular current of relativism, multiculturalism and such.

Some Catholics were “infected” and therefore this Declaration became necessary, as it states itself, giving its own raison d’etre:
the present Declaration seeks to recall to Bishops, theologians, and all the
Catholic faithful, certain indispensable elements of Christian doctrine and, as
counter-point, to refute specific positions that are erroneous or ambiguous.
(DI, 3)

Dominus Iesus goes on to “name names”, citing fashionable errors such as relativism, situational ethics, syncretism and the rejection of the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church. It does not all concern "liberal" tendencies - as evidenced by the harsh criticism from the far (and in some cases, schismatic) Right.

These philosophical tendencies can result in Christian revelation and the
mystery of Jesus Christ and the Church los(ing) their character of absolute
truth and salvific universality, or at least shadows of doubt and uncertainty
are cast upon them. (DI, 4)

In such thinking, Christianity becomes just one proposition among many, no better, and often portrayed as worse. Many Catholics are engaging in syncretism - in a wishy-washy spirituality, anything goes, after all. After the sand mandala, on to "goddess worship" while - maybe - having a perfunctory cross or mentioning of Christ (if not "Christ-Sophia").

As a remedy against such blather, the Declaration mandates the firm belief that in the Incarnation the full divine revelation is given. All that can and needs to be said, was said. “For in Christ the whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9-10).

And, to “cast out” any “spirits of Vatican II”, Dominus Iesus lets the actual Vatican II documents speak:

By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man
shines forth in Christ, who is at the same time the mediator and the fullness of
all revelation. (Dei verbum, 2)

This refutes any notion of an incomplete or complementary character of the Incarnation. Therefore, the obedience of faith is owed, superseding any notions of academic freedom. Such obedience, however, has to come freely, similar to accepting a gift.

The Declaration then moves on to theological currents that try to diminish the role of Jesus of Nazareth, by making him “one among many” or by creating a separate “role” for the Holy Spirit “venturing out” on his own. Cardinal Ratzinger however leaves no room for such notions:

the doctrine of faith must be firmly believed which proclaims that Jesus of
Nazareth, son of Mary, and he alone, is the Son and the Word of the Father. (DI,10)
This is underlined by quoting the Council of Nicaea and the Second Vatican Council, emphasizing the continuity of this belief - what has been believed always, everywhere, by all.

Next, the Declaration takes on the idea that, well, it’s rather “rude” to claim unicity and universality for the salvific role of Jesus Christ. Someone may be offended. This of course neglects the fact that the unicity is the very thing that “opens wide the doors to Christ” - that make Him available to any - and everyone, any- and everywhere.

Part IV may be tough to stomach for some, since it emphasizes the unicity and unity of the Church. Since there is only one Christ, there is only one Church, with a historic continuity from St. Peter to the current day.

This caused wailing and gnashing of teeth, again on the (broadly speaking) Left and the Right, the Left thought it was “arrogant”, the Right deemed it not “arrogant” enough, since errant Christian denominations are not condemned in full.

Certainly, the act of schism is to be condemned, but as far as the teachings go, a church's teachings are true insofar as they correspond to the teachings of the Catholic Church, meaning other churches are not completely wrong.

Apart from the Catholic Church, there are churches (Orthodox) which retained a valid Episcopate and Eucharist as well as ecclesial communities, which lack those elements.

The Declaration draws strongly on Vatican II, quoting all its major documents repeatedly. But, the underpinnings of the Declaration stem from all 2000 years of Church history, quoting Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine, and various Councils, from Nicaea to Trent to Vatican I and II. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, the (main) author of the Declaration, was a peritus at Vatican II and thus highly familiar with its main themes and ideas.

Dominus Iesus, in my opinion, became necessary (as usually in Church history) when the obvious needed to be stated. Dissent came from two sides, for simplicity’s sake I shall call them conservative and liberal. The conservative critics of Vatican II [and, subsequently, Dominus Iesus], thought it was too “inclusive”. This resulted in a schism on the part of some people, most famously in the 1980s, under the leadership of Lefebvre. His organization, the St. Pius X. Society, issued scathing criticism of Dominus Iesus.

At the other end of the spectrum, many church-internal and -external liberals felt that Dominus Iesus was too “exclusive” and "divisive" and prone to offend non-Catholics and so forth. Those voices claimed that the “spirit of Vatican II” was grossly misrepresented by Dominus Iesus. They reject any claim of “superiority” on part of the Catholic Church.

The opposition of both extremes serves as a good indicator of the correctness of the Declaration, following the old Catholic saying “virtus est in media”. Not to mention the final authority of the Pope and the CDF.

A word on “Salvation only comes through the Catholic Church” - this is true, insofar as salvation only comes through Christ. Christ founded a Church that does His work on earth. Therefore, salvation only comes through the Church, even if one is not a member of Her. Comparable to some degree to collective bargaining agreements from which non-union-members also benefit.

Personally, during my time in RCIA, I thought about the reason for being Catholic - not so much for myself, but, say, someone asks me, “why should I be Catholic ?” There’s of course the good old “Join or Die” argument, that, e.g., the Jehovah’s Witnesses peddle. Certainly, if you can convince someone, a very strong argument. But, also a way of really ruining some people’s taste for religion.

Therefore, I looked for a positive motivation. Dominus Iesus comes in very handy in this line of reasoning. It gives credit to other denominations and religions, but still claims supremacy. One Lord, One Church. But, the supremacy lies not in “Join or Die” or "look at you infidels" but in a “shortcut to Heaven”.

The unique sacramental nature of the Catholic Church makes one’s salvation a lot easier. The fullness of truth saves many a detour. Sure, one can get to heaven on different ways, but it is, pardon the pun, a helluva lot harder. That said, this must not be mistaken for an "all ways lead to Heaven" approach. It just means that exceptions are possible - something entirely necessary for justice, given the wide range of human experience, culture and availability of Catholic teaching.

In the light of, especially, the Divine Mercy, one can see that man gets many a chance, up to the last moment, to accept God. Certainly, one should not begrudge that the way the workers in the vineyard did. After all, one should not be a Christian for fear of punishment or in order to be rewarded in the hereafter - in a calculating manner. Being a Christian is reward in itself.

Instead, one should try to be what the Pope Benedict said of himself upon his election - "Sono un semplice e umile lavoratore nella vigna del Signore" ("I am a simple and humble worker in the vineyard of the Lord")

Dominus Iesus is not about triumphalism, and it acknowledges the good in other beliefs. It does not betray, as some would want, 2000 years of Church teaching for convenience’s sake or to create “fuzzy feelings” of merely superficial unity. People whose second nature is to be offended, will find plenty of material. But, those people cannot claim to be Catholic. Dominus Iesus, liberal and conservative "flak" notwithstanding, says nothing new, nothing unexpected.

I found this text to be very useful in its positive affirmation of the role of the Church (as opposed to the “Join or Die” approach). When I first read it last year, I liked the even-handedness - giving credit to other beliefs without equating them with the Catholic Faith.

This has come in very useful in talks with non-Catholics. (“Yes, we think we are the One Church, no, we don’t think we automatically go to heaven, no, we don’t think everyone else is going to hell” or something the like).

It re-affirms the “birthright”, without leaving room for complacency (the mission is not accomplished), and also without dismissing everything else in its entirety. The thought that others are right inasmuch as they agree with the Catholic Church was new to me at the time. It’s a great first step for honest communication, without pretending that “we’re all the same”.

The continuity of the teaching, shown in the material the Declaration draws from, is very assuring. It shows how “steeped in history” the Catholic Church is and that “the Church” is not (just) a mystical idea but rather a historical phenomenon. It goes to show that, if one wants to be like the early Christians, the Catholic Church is “the place to be.” It makes clear that what was taught then is taught now. Therefore, it is the same Church, not simply externally but also internally.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 08/06/2006 14.00]

Angels, Our Best Friends

Interview With Angelologist Father M. Stanzione

ROME, JUNE 8, 2006 (Zenit.org).- There is a lack of education about angels, especially among young Christians, and other groups take advantage of this vacuum, warns an expert on angelology.

Father Marcello Stanzione, a priest at the Abbey of Santa Maria La Nova in Campagna, Italy, and author of numerous essays and books on angelology, spoke with ZENIT about the modern perception of angels.

In 2002, Father Stanzione refounded the Catholic association Militia of St. Michael the Archangel, which organizes an annual theological-pastoral meeting on angels. The second annual meeting was held June 1-2 with the theme "The Return of the Angels Today, Between Devotion and Mystification."

Q: What do angels represent for the Catholic faith and why are they the object of more attention by other groups and religious movements than by Christians?

Father Stanzione: Sadly, the catechesis on evangelization has been somewhat lacking on this point of the world's knowledge of angels. Others have taken advantage of the vacuum that has been created.

What is central in theology is the doctrine on God, the Holy Trinity, and Jesus Christ. But the angels are not useless or superfluous realities, because they are part of God's revelation.

Angels are creatures as we are, with an ontological difference. We are born and die; angels do not die and have been given to us by God to keep us company. The angels are an important complement in the creation of the body; they are human beings' best friends.

A theologian has written that the angels are servants of God, and they make themselves servants of those who make themselves God's servants.

Some maintain that Jesus Christ, being the only mediator, does not need angels. In fact, in the Acts of the Apostles, the history of the early Church makes evident the fundamental role of the angels. We can say that Jesus Christ is the only mediator and the angels collaborate in Jesus Christ's mediation.

The decline in attention and veneration of the angels in the last 50 years is due to a kind of secularization, influenced by a Protestant deviation, which criticizes veneration of the Virgin, saints and angels. There has been no clear evangelization on the nature and role of angels and there is some confusion even among Catholics.

I have written and published several texts of Christian prayers to angels to avoid catechists also believing and using ambiguous texts circulating in bookstores.

Several of these ambiguous texts are reviewed by Catholic magazines without making any critical observation. They are essays that are based on astrology, on the 365 degrees of the zodiac, and they hold that there is a protector angel every five degrees, so that those born in those five degrees have that protector angel.

It is a kind of white magic. I have met several Church people who confused Catholic devotion with these rites. However, it would be enough to enter a bookstore to find in the esoteric section some 30-40 titles on the angels. This indicates the great confusion that exists. There are few Catholic authors who write orthodox texts on the angels.

Q: Has the intercession of angels before the Lord been forgotten by Catholics?

Father Stanzione: The problem exists. For some people it is comfortable to use the angels to falsify the relationship with Jesus Christ and with ecclesiastical institutions.

In this way, the discourse of the Ten Commandments and of morality is also falsified. It is a religion a la carte, with angels who serve to help one find a fiancé or parking place.

In sum, a trivial, magic use is made of them. Instead, angels have great dignity; even the simplest angel is much more intelligent and powerful than a human being.

Evident is the lack of education of the new generations in devotion and relationship with the angels. I have been concerned with this question for 15 years, and in this endeavor of education I am appreciated and supported by my bishop.

Q: Were angels created before man? What happened with Lucifer?

Father Stanzione: There is an ongoing debate on the birth of the angels, in the sense that some hold that the angels were created before men, and others that they were created contemporaneously with men.

In regard to Lucifer, it is proof that God does not impose faith and does not want to be loved by force but allows freedom of choice.

It must be specified that there is no dualism, in the sense that Lucifer is not God's antagonist. Lucifer is the Archangel Michael's antagonist because God does not lower himself to combat Lucifer, but sends Michael.

Q: What is the purpose of the congress you organize annually?

Father Stanzione: Every year, at the beginning of June, we hold a meeting on the angels. Last year we reflected on the figure of St. Michael. This year we are discussing the angels today, between devotion and mystification. Next year we will reflect on the relationship between the angels and saints.

In this way we want to fill a gap and overcome the prejudice that a discussion about angels is not worthy of theological debate. We give our congresses a theological and above all a pastoral focus.

Q: Is it plausible and Christian to think that each one of us has a guardian angel?

Father Stanzione: Whoever does not believe in the existence of the guardian angel is outside the doctrine of the faith. Each person has an angel as a good pastor. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also says it.

One cannot say that one believes in God, in the Holy Spirit, in the Virgin, without believing in the angels.

We do not see angels except in the history of the Bible and the history of the Church. Many saints had frequent contacts with angels; they experienced a relationship. Different mystics speak about the relationship with angels.

I think the time is ripe for the creation of courses on angelology and demonology in theological faculties.

In www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/06/07/youth-when-the-church-wa...
Mike Aquilina who has written books about early Christianity and the Fathers of the Church, makes the following highly relevant observations.

Youth When the Church Was Young
The Church Fathers
had a distinctive approach
to youth ministry


Now, don’t jump to conclusions. I haven’t uncovered any evidence that St. Ambrose led teens on ski trips in the nearby Alps. Nor is there anything to suggest that St. Basil sponsored junior-high dances in Pontus. (There’s not even a hint of a pizza party.)

In fact, if you check all the documentary evidence from all the ancient patriarchates of the East and the West, you won’t find a single bulletin announcement for a single parish youth group.

Yet the Fathers had enormous success in youth and young-adult ministry. Many of the early martyrs were teens, as were many of the Christians who took to the desert for the solitary life. There’s ample evidence that a disproportionate number of conversions, too, came from the young and youngish age groups.

How did the Fathers do it?

They made wild promises.

They promised young people great things, like persecution, lower social status, public ridicule, severely limited employment opportunities, frequent fasting, a high risk of jail and torture, and maybe, just maybe, an early, violent death at the hands of their pagan rulers.

The Fathers looked young people in the eye and called them to live purely in the midst of a pornographic culture. They looked at some young men and women and boldly told them they had a calling to virginity. And it worked. Even the pagans noticed how well it worked.

The brightest young man in the empire’s brightest city — a teenager named Origen of Alexandria — promised himself entirely to God in virginity. And, as he watched his father taken away to be killed, Origen would have gone along himself, turned himself in, if his mother hadn’t hidden all his clothes …

Search all the volumes on the ancient liturgies, and you’ll be hard pressed to find a scrap of a Mass we’d call “relevant” today. We know of no special Youth Masses. Yet there was an overwhelming eucharistic faith among the young people of the Church.

Tarcisius was a boy of third-century Rome. His virtue and devotion were so strong that the clergy trusted him to bring the Blessed Sacrament to the sick. Once, while carrying a pyx, he was recognized and set upon by a pagan mob. They flung themselves upon him, trying to pry the pyx from his hands. They wanted more than anything to profane the Sacrament. Tarcisius’ biographer, the fourth-century Pope Damasus, compared them to a pack of rabid dogs. Tarcisius “preferred to give up his life rather than yield up the Body of Christ.”

Even at such an early age, Tarcisius was aware of the stakes. Jesus had died for love of Tarcisius. Tarcisius did not hesitate to die for love of Jesus.

What made the Church attractive in the third century can make it just as attractive in the twenty-first. In the ancient world and in ours, young people want a challenge.

They want to love with their whole being. They’re willing to do things the hard way — if people they respect look them in the eye and make the big demands. These are distinguishing marks of youth. You don’t find too many middle-aged men petitioning the Marines for a long stay at Parris Island. It’s young men who beg for that kind of rigor.

No young man or woman really wants to give his life away cheaply. Tarcisius knew better. So do the kids in our parishes.

[If you’re interested in tracing the footsteps of St. Tarcisius and visiting the tomb of Damasus, consider joining me and my colleagues from the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology as we lead a pilgrimage to Rome in May of 2007. I’ll be there with Scott and Kimberly Hahn and others. We’ll have guided tours, classes and talks, daily Mass, and lots of slack-jawed, awestruck moments in the city of the martyrs and popes — a city of eternal youth. If you’re interested in joining us, drop me a note at mike@mikeaquilina.com with your contact information, and I’ll inform you as soon as our plans firm up.]

That's wonderful!!! My parish church is dedicated to St Tarcisius, and there is a stained glass window with him and the Blessed Mother adoring Christ on the cross, his youth and simplicity always move me.

I don't know of any other churches dedicated to him. I assume there are some!!

I have been wanting to start a discussion in this thread about relics and miracles, two aspects of faith which are particularly associated with the Catholic Church, although they certainly are features of other religions as well.

Thanks to Amy Welborn for the leads, here are two items published 6/9/06 on
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5063404.stm
and on
www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1794419,00.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

Relic renews Russians' faith
By James Rodgers
BBC News, Moscow




For the faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is a hugely significant event.

A relic which they believe to be the hand of John the Baptist is on public display in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow.

It is back in the Russian capital for the first time since the mother of the last tsar, Empress Maria Fyodorovna, fled with it in the aftermath of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.

After that it was cared for in Russian emigre communities, before finding a more permanent home in a monastery in Montenegro.

The queue to see the relic stretches for hundreds of metres.

It begins beneath the shining onion domes of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour and ends near the banks of the Moscow river, in the heart of the Russian capital.

The believers wait patiently. Some occasionally sing or pray.

"The relic is the right hand of St John the Baptist. The hand that actually baptised our Lord Jesus Christ," says Father Zacchaecus, the Orthodox Church in America's representative in Moscow.

"You see that the hand is intact, you see the skin, although it's dried and darkened, the skin is also intact. The only thing missing are two fingers."

The relic finally returned to Russia from Montenegro. The fact that there are so many people here shows how Russia has changed.

Until the collapse of communism in 1991, the country was officially atheist. Since then, its Orthodox Christian traditions have taken on a new life.

The cathedral itself is the most visible symbol of the transformation - it was completely demolished in the Soviet era, then rebuilt in the 1990s.

It now stands as unshakeable as the faith of those waiting to gaze on the relic.

Cynics might question whether the object in the case is really the hand of a man who lived 2000 years ago.

Those waiting here to see it have no such doubts. "We're here because we are Orthodox believers," one elderly Muscovite told me as she waited her turn to enter the cathedral.

And from The Guardian on 6/10/06:

By Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow

It was the only part of John the Baptist's body that Luke the Apostle could take away from the village where he was buried, and it has since been cited as the cause of miracles.

It was given to the Russian royal family in St Petersburg to protect it from Napoleon's advancing armies and then whisked away to central Europe when the Bolshevik revolution broke out.

Now, as part of the Kremlin's bid to forge a national identity, John the Baptist's right hand, which Christians think baptised Jesus Christ, has returned to Russia for the first time in 89 years.

The return has been hailed by the Russian Orthodox church with great pomp and reverence. The head of the church, Patriach Alexei II, welcomed it at a ceremony on Wednesday at the Church of Christ the Saviour in central Moscow. The hand will remain there until Friday, when it will be taken on a tour of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine before returning in July to Montenegro, its present home.

The Patriach called on Christians to pray before the hand, according to the state news agency RIA Novosti.

The relic's return to Moscow is part of an orchestrated revival of the church, which is playing a central role in giving Russians a sense of spiritual and national belonging.

The move was financed by a religious foundation chaired by Vladimir Yakunin, the head of Russia's vast state railways network who is frequently referred to as a potential successor to President Vladimir Putin.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 13/06/2006 15.44]

RELICS

Okay, I have a real PROBLEM with relics. I have never felt comfortable with body parts on display and, no, I'm not talking about exposed bellies or low-cut dresses. I mean dismembered fingers or feet or, in the case above, a hand. It just seems ghoulish to me, even if the dismembered limb belonged to a saint. I remember reading in the lives of saints about how, as soon as some of them died, people were just waiting with a hatchet or saw to hack them up. It just gives me the creeps. Why is that necessary? Don't their actions transmit the faith to us? What is accomplished by enshrining their toes or heart?

I am feeling even more repelled by this practice today after reading stories about a group of criminals in the US who have been harvesting body parts from corpses to sell as transplants for people in need of bones, organs, or skin. It is almost satanic.

Can some better Catholic than me explain the upside of relics please? I know about the miracles but a saint should be able to pull those off without having to donate a knuckle or joint to do so.

Discipula, I saw your post about relics a little while ago but, since I'm at work, I couldn't read it right away. I just went back to try to read the first part of it and it is gone! What happened? It really looked like a good explanation. After reading that post above it about John the Baptist's hand (with skin but minus 2 fingers--shudder), I really, really need to read your article. Help!

Benefan, I had to smile when I read your post earlier. As an ex Anglican, I was not at all familiar with this subject until last year. Maybe I should have been, maybe it never cropped up. Maybe I blanked it out, maybe it was sheer ignorance on my part. I always thought relics were pieces of 'things', like the True Cross. Only last year I found out that they could be people too!

However, since I read this earlier today, I can't get this out of my head - this hand TOUCHED Our Lord, this hand baptized OUR LORD....