On Mission Statements

I am now retired, but I spent over 30 years working in a large US corporation.  In the course of my career, my company went through all of the corporate management fads that swept American businesses, one of which was the infatuation with "mission statements" that began not too long after I came on board in 1983.  This is not the forum in which to discuss the pros and cons of the mission statement culture; like most corporate fads, it has its good and (mostly) bad points, and is only as effective as the people who use it.  I only bring it up because...believe it or not, my parish has a "Mission Statement." I won't repeat it here, but it's somewhat verbose, running fifty-five words, and is stated as the "mission" of "we, the members of St. XYZ parish."  That seems a bit exaggerated, since like most "modern" parishes, all the work not done by the priests and deacons and paid staff is done by about five or six percent of the registered parishioners.  Another fifteen to twenty percent actually show up for Mass at least once a week, and the rest are phantoms except possibly at Christmas or Easter, when they roll in with their guilt offerings (much appreciated, but where were you the rest of the year?) and clog up the church and the parking lot for the rest of us.  :)  In any event, the idea of "we, the members" issuing the mission statement is, in my view, just silly, and is one of the regrettable results of the attempt by the Second Vatican Council to de-emphasize the Church hierarchy.  As far as I can tell from studying the history of the past fifty years, (admittedly just the blink of an eye in the overall 2,000-year history of the Church), we likely would have been a lot better off if they had left the hierarchy alone and concentrated more on evangelizing and saving souls than on trying to make lay people feel more important.  Which leads me back to my real point.

The notion that a Catholic parish needs a spiffy "mission statement" at all simply bewilders me.  This is not a business.  It is not a public service organization, despite all the charitable and community works we do--those are some results of what we do, not the essence.  Every parish is simply a place where we gather to worship the God of the universe and to thank him for sending his Son to die for us, that we might have the chance to spend eternity with him in Heaven, and where we can receive the Sacraments established by Christ as channels of sanctifying grace to help us along the way.  So the "mission statement" ought to be very simple: "To bring souls to Jesus Christ and thus to eternal salvation."  There you have it, in eleven words that probably could be shortened even more.  Anything else is redundant.

Laudator Jesus Christus!

These Are Disturbing Times

The Catholic blogs I regularly read (see "Recommended" over to the right for my list), especially the more traditionally-oriented ones, have been taking on a decidedly dark and foreboding tone in the past couple of years, and the foreboding has deepened in recent months. I can't say I blame them, as recent events in this country and in Europe, Africa and the Middle East have not been particularly kind to followers of our Lord Jesus Christ.  I have been silent on this blog all summer long thus far, while viewing events with a sense of growing discomfort myself.  I finally decided the best way to step back, take a hard look at the present situation and organize my thoughts would be to write a post, so here it is.  It's long and somewhat rambling, so please forgive both defects. 

Chief among my concerns are the systematic slaughter by Islamic jihadists of Christians in Africa, Iraq, Syria, etc.; the desecration and destruction of holy sites throughout the lands where Christianity has existed since literally the time of Christ, also by Islamic jihadists; the social and legal attacks on Christians in Europe and Canada, often based on the application of the noxious idea of "hate crimes"  to statements defending traditional marriage; and the growing pattern of anti-Christian behavior right here in the good old U.S.A., from the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court right on down the line to local governments and both social and commercial media. 

In case you missed it, for example, the U.S. health care reform law has resulted in the Federal government (through an administrative agency, not directly by the Congress itself) dictating to Christian businesses and institutions that they must pay for contraceptive and abortifacient drugs for their employees regardless of their religious beliefs, on pain of fines so large they would mean the literal death of the business or institution in most cases. (The so-called accommodation given by the Obama Administration in the wake of many, many protests and legal actions does not really change anything; it merely makes the mandated payment indirect rather than direct. It still amounts to a violation of conscience for those who adhere to Christian doctrine that holds abortion and contraception are inherently and gravely sinful.) The Administration argues in both words and effect that the First Amendment only protects freedom of worship, not the fully free exercise  of religion promised by the text. (Note to the White House and HHS: they had "freedom of worship" in the old Soviet Union. Is that your model?)  Not incidentally, the same law, which its supporters assured us would not result in more taxpayer funding of abortions, has in fact increased such funding significantly.  To the extent existing law purports to prohibit Federal funding of abortion, the current Administration simply ignores it.  So much for the system of Constitutional checks and balances, eh? 

In addition, a pattern of vicious public condemnation of anyone who dares to speak out or act against the agenda of the increasingly powerful and well-funded homosexual lobby in the U.S. has been underway for some time--just ask Brendan Eich and the owners of "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" how their First Amendment rights are doing.  Talk about the tail wagging the dog...all of this fuss is over a tiny minority of no more than two or three percent of the population, by any credible measure, yet the rest of us are told we must bow down and affirm them in their way of life, regardless of our deeply held religious beliefs.  And make no mistake, the situation for faithful Christians will only become more serious and widespread in the wake of the unbelievably arrogant and legally fatuous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges.  There, a 5-4 Court majority led by putative Catholic Anthony Kennedy discovered a heretofore unimagined right in the Constitution for same-sex couples to be "married" nationwide.  In stark contrast to Justice Kennedy's bizarre New Age reasoning, faithful Christians and Jews know that marriage is a sacrament instituted by God between one man and one woman, and no human person or institution has the slightest power to change that, period.  If the Church in the United States were not so thoroughly infected with Modernism, Justice Kennedy would be at risk of formal excommunication.  Fat chance of that happening today, especially in the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., where the reaction to the decision by Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the reigning Ordinary, was "The law of the land is the law of the land."  No word on where the law of God might fit into the picture.  With all due respect, Your Eminence, you sound more like a politician than a Cardinal Archbishop of the Catholic Church.

To be clear, I don't doubt that two people of the same sex can really love each other, at least in the somewhat truncated manner in which this culture understands the nature of love.  We as Christians are called to love them as well, as brothers and sisters made in the image and likeness of God, and since true Christian love means willing the ultimate good of the other as other,  that means we must sincerely desire the other's eternal salvation.  But whatever a same-sex living relationship is, it can never be marriage as instituted by God because it is not naturally ordered to procreation.  As for their physical relationships, despite the attempts of homosexual apologists to find support for same-sex unions in Sacred Scripture, the truth is that homosexual acts are strongly condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, as are fornication and adultery--in short, any sexual activity outside the bounds of sacramental marriage constitutes serious sin.  And faithful Christians cannot affirm any such way of life, for to do so is to be at serious risk of committing the grave sin of scandal. See Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2284-2285 (emphasis added):

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."⁸⁶ Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.⁸⁷

 86 Mt 18:6; cf. 1 Cor 8:10-13. 87 Cf. Mt 7:15

Let it not be forgotten in this regard that as Christians we all are obliged by nature to teach and educate others--it's called evangelization.  Jesus left no doubt that he expects his followers to evangelize, to bring his Gospel to the whole world, and the Church has always taught that three of the spiritual works of mercy required of all Christians are to instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful and admonish sinners.  Thus, we cannot evade the sin of scandal by claiming "it's not my job to say anything about this."

If memory serves, it was St. Augustine of Hippo who originally said “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”  The idea of same-sex marriage is simply and eternally wrong, and ultimately it will not stand, although the journey back to truth will be painful for all concerned.  In the meantime, the Obergefell ruling, this travesty of Constitutional law which has no rational connection to anything actually written or implied in the Constitution, will be the launching pad for serious persecutions in this country of anyone who stands for the truth about marriage and human sexuality.  Well, such is the lot of the true follower of Christ, for which our Lord offers this consolation in the Sermon on the Mount:

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:10-12.

And as long as we're on the subject of perpetrating and affirming grave sin, how about Planned Parenthood?  (One excellent Catholic blogger refers to them as "Planned Barrenhood."  Zing!)  The series of undercover videos released in the past few weeks has been eye-opening, to say the least, and has generated predictable hyperventilation from the secular Left in the U.S. (excepting the Administration, who yawningly inform us they haven't watched the videos and have no plans to do so), along with, one hopes and prays, a fair amount of soul-searching among people of good will on all points of the secular political spectrum.  Putting aside the issues of secular legality, the words and actions shown in the videos speak for themselves, and the reality of the evil that is abortion is finally sinking in for a lot of people.  The souls of the tens of millions of aborted children cry out to Heaven, as the hearts of medical practitioners (!) who perpetrate not only the acts of abortion, but also engage in trafficking in the body parts of the aborted, are revealed as cold and hard as the stone of a tomb. We must pray for their conversion and repentance, of course, and engage in prayer and penance for ourselves and the world for allowing these evils to occur.  It must also be said that the reaction of the Catholic Bishops in the United States has been underwhelming, to say the least.  Many have spoken clearly and forcefully in condemnation of this egregious evil, but many others have issued weak-kneed statements that should embarrass any committed Christian, and this shameful list includes the Archbishops of Boston, Washington, D.C., and Chicago, to name just three.  On the other hand, one of the better statements, in my humble estimation, came from Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, who hasn't always been so clear recently on other matters of faith and morals, so bravo to him!  You can see his statement here.

All in all, I'd say that's plenty to be dark and foreboding about.  But it's by no means all that is worrisome today. We have another whole set of serious concerns within the hierarchy of the Church.

Standing at the top of this list is the highly public campaign being led by Cardinal Walter Kasper and some other Catholic prelates in Germany, France and Switzerland to change the practice of the Church with respect to Catholics who have undergone civil divorce and been remarried, without a declaration of invalidity of the previous marriage by the Church.  According to the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, these people are living in a state of open adultery, violating the Sixth Commandment every time they engage in the conjugal act, not to mention giving scandal every day of their lives simply by living together.  (Cf., Mt 5:31-32; Lk 16:18). This is every bit as inherently sinful as the same-sex relationships discussed above.  But Kasper, et al. are suggesting in all seriousness that there can be some "pastoral" way to permit such persons to receive the Holy Eucharist without true repentance, i.e., contrition and a firm purpose of amendment.

The Church has taught for as long as anyone can remember that it is necessary for civilly re-married couples whose prior marriages remain canonically valid to commit to living as brother and sister, and better yet, to separate completely from their adulterous union, before they can obtain valid absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and be properly disposed to receive Holy Communion.  And yet, under the guise of mercy, we are being told by Cardinals and Bishops that it should be possible for these Catholics, living in mortal sin, to be admitted to Communion without taking either of these steps. We are also assured by the same group that this would not really be a change in Church doctrine.  Not to put too fine a point on it, this contention is facially absurd.  Many other Cardinals and Bishops have responded by reminding all concerned of the words of our Lord in the Gospels, of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians, and the millennia-old Church practice, based on Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture, concerning reception of the Eucharist.

But the outcome of this issue in the upcoming Synod remains in doubt at this writing, primarily because the Holy Father has mostly remained silent through all the public campaigning of the Kasperite group and the responses by the more orthodox prelates. And the logical mind must conclude that if this Synod indeed endorses a practice of permitting reception of the Eucharist by civilly remarried persons in a non-repentant state of grave sin, the extension of the practice to persons actively and unrepentantly practicing homosexual acts will follow in short order.  Could this happen? Yes. Christ's promise that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church does not preclude the human beings who occupy positions of ecclesial authority from becoming heretics or apostates; this has happened before and can happen again.  The Synod will not be an "ex cathedra" proclamation of dogma, so the charism of papal infallibility will not be in play.  Nevertheless, the results of such a Synodal declaration would be devastating, and would lead many souls to perdition.  Scandal, anyone?  Perpetrated by Cardinals and Bishops, and possibly even with the support of the Pope himself?  I pray daily that this will not be permitted, but only God knows.

If one were of an apocalyptic frame of mind, one might view this simmering dispute as a very ominous sign, indeed.  In one of a series of apparitions in Japan in 1973, (and approved by the local Bishop as worthy of belief, although not yet definitively approved by the Holy See), Our Lady of Akita gave the following message on October 13 of that year (emphasis added):

"As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never [have] seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests."

"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres...churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord."

Given that this was a private revelation, all are free to make of it whatever they will.  But I wouldn't call it very comforting, and it sure does appear timely.  On the other hand, it's only been 42 years since this message, which is a mere eyeblink in God's eternity, so maybe we still have some time to make things right.  For "the rest of the story" as related by EWTN, go here.

And this brings us to Pope Francis himself.  In Francis we have a Pope who says and does many uplifting, inspirational things, most prominently in leading by example in the application of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the poor, the marginalized, the downtrodden...all the people Jesus made it his business, and ours, to love and care for as we love ourselves.  His installation of rest rooms and showers for the homeless in the immediate vicinity of St. Peter's Square is a good example, although it has not thrilled some of the business owners in the area.  Francis also is one who takes pains to show personal humility, and to speak directly to people, even if it means going "over the heads" of his advisors and schedulers.  He professes to be a "Son of the Church" and says the "right" things about matters of faith and morals with some regularity in his prepared homilies and remarks.  These traits have made him quite popular among Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and a darling of the mass media, (the latter, so far at least.)

Yet at the same time, when a Pope is a media darling, is that really a good thing?  We are called to be in this world, but not of it, and pleasing the mass media in this day and age is by definition a very worldly pursuit.  As a relatively recent convert (2005) who believes that the authority of the Pope is one of the most important characteristics of the Church, which stands on Sacred Scripture as strong evidence that it is the one Church established by Jesus Christ (See Mt 16:13-19), I am reluctant to be critical of the occupant of the Chair of Peter.  But in Francis we have a Pope who has managed to confuse, insult and denigrate a large portion of his own flock with a long and continuing series of statements and actions that seem always to need explaining and clarification; who said early in his pontificate that we spend too much time "obsessing" about topics such as abortion and contraception, two of the gravest evils afflicting our culture, and who characterized attempts to convert non-Catholics to the one true Faith as "solemn nonsense"; who has taken actions against orthodox Cardinals and Bishops that are difficult not to perceive as exile or demotion; and who at the same time has appointed men to important positions in the Vatican and in dioceses and archdioceses around the world who seem to go out of their way to show disdain for orthodoxy and tradition (as well as orthodox clergy and lay faithful) in favor of a modernistic, almost secular approach to Church teaching. This is not to mention the inexplicable appointment to an influential Vatican post of an openly dissident priest who blasphemously calls the act of sodomy "Eucharistic", and his selection of a notorious atheist German politician, who has suggested that six billion people need to die to save the Earth, as one of the spokesmen for the release of the encyclical Laudato Si.

Ah, yes, Laudato Si.  Most puzzling of all, to me at least, in this, his first encyclical not partially inherited from his predecessor, the Holy Father jumped headlong into a secular political controversy, lecturing the world about "climate change" and environmentalism in a manner bordering on pantheism, while thousands of babies are murdered in the womb daily, Christians are being martyred and churches demolished in the Middle East and Africa, and Mass attendance in Europe, once the cultural heart of the Church, is in single-digit percentages and continues to fall, with Church buildings being converted into mosques at an alarming rate. Also worthy of note is the extreme paucity of references in the encyclical to Christ, or to sin and salvation, and what few clearly Catholic statements it contains are all but lost amidst thousands of words that could have been taken directly from a screed by those faithful Christians over at Greenpeace. (/sarc) As the redoubtable traditionalist Catholic writer Christopher Ferrara so eloquently put it:

"One must ask how it is possible to take seriously a call to respect God’s creation in an encyclical that mourns the loss of plants and animals as an offense against God we have no right to commit, but then, many pages later, weakly criticizes the mass murder of unborn children because it “compromises the very meaning of our struggle for the sake of the environment,” is inconsistent with “concern for other vulnerable beings,” and “everything is connected.”

Perhaps it would be enough to say that any encyclical in which a papal condemnation of excessive air-conditioning appears 62 paragraphs before the first muted mention of the legalized murder of “human embryos” is a mockery of the papal Magisterium. But the overall thematic way in which this “pro-embryo” encyclical treats the infinite value of even a single human life in comparison with plants and animals shocks the sensus catholicus. The abortion holocaust rages on while Francis eulogizes lost fish, mammals and flowers our children will never see, never mentioning the murdered children our children will never see. This is ridiculous."

For the full text of the article, which I recommend most highly, go here.

And the hits just keep on coming... within the past few months, there have been two more extremely confusing and disturbing events centering on the Holy Father.  First was his acceptance during the Apostolic visit to South America of a shockingly blasphemous crucifix in the shape of the "hammer and sickle" emblem of international Communism, the atheistic creed that has resulted in the deaths of scores of millions of people in the last century.  It is difficult to imagine a more anti-Christian belief system than Communism, whose leaders repeatedly expressed the intention to eradicate Christianity entirely.  Yet Francis not only smilingly accepted this "gift", but took it with him back to Rome, when it should have been tossed in the nearest dumpster.  At least it probably won't be displayed in the Papal apartments, where Francis ostentatiously declines to live.

Then there was the Pope's statement, in a homily given during the same South American visit, attributing the Gospel miracle of the loaves and fishes to people "sharing what was their own", a piece of modernistic historical-critical exegesis that flies in the face of the clear words of the Scriptural text.  This view also, it must be said, works to undercut the deeper meaning of the miracle as a type of the Eucharist, the reality of which is so clearly taught in St. John's Gospel later in the same chapter containing St. John's narrative of the miracle itself.  (John 6:35-69.) Let's also not forget that the miracle of the loaves and fishes is the only one of Christ's miracles which is related in all four Gospels.  Yes, it's that important...but apparently Christ's Vicar on Earth doesn't believe it really happened the way Scripture says it happened. 

In the wake of all of this, Catholics who honestly try to live out all aspects of the Faith handed down to us from Christ and his Apostles over nearly two thousand years, and who think it improper to entangle the Church in secular politics and worldly disputes over matters of prudential judgment, have begun to wonder if our Holy Father really believes the same things we believe.  Whether or not these misgivings are well-founded, they exist, and a lot more people have them than I think anyone realizes.

What, then, is the faithful Catholic in the pews to do? Persecution is rampant abroad and looms here at home, our culture glorifies mortal sin and viciously attacks those who demur, millions of souls have left the Church if not abandoning faith altogether, and the highest levels of the Church hierarchy act as if none of this matters as much as giving communion to adulterers and sodomites and taking action against climate change.**  

Clearly we must remain faithful to the teachings of the Church, which after all are the teachings of Jesus Christ.  We must pray much, fast and do other forms of penance, and give alms to those in need. We must not be afraid to stand up and speak up for our Lord, his Church, and the eternal truths of natural law and divine revelation.  We must speak in charity to our family and friends who hold beliefs or are living lives inconsistent with these truths, and pray and offer Masses for them and the whole world.  And we must prepare for martyrdom, whether it be the "soft" martyrdom of economic and social loss, or the martyrdom of blood now being suffered by our brethren abroad. 

It is probably a good idea to find a parish where the priests and deacons are not afraid to tell the people what we need to hear, rather than just what we want to hear, and shift your financial support there along with your worship and participation in parish ministries. I also recommend serious study of Sacred Scripture and the writings of the great saints, especially the Doctors of the Church, such as Augustine, Aquinas, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross and Therese of Liseux, to name just a few. Follow their guidance in developing your prayer life and daily practices. All but Therese are rather difficult reading, but the rewards will be great.
 
In the end, we know who wins, but we also know that "...the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few." Mt 7:14. On that same note, recall the admonition of St. Paul in the letter to the Romans: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Rom 12:2. It's time to be devoting as much energy as we possibly can to discerning the will of God and finding that narrow gate, because regardless of when the End Times arrive, the day of individual judgment for each of us is nearer than we care to think about, and may even be hastened by the trials that lie ahead. And through it all, as we are reminded by that great saint of the 20th Century, Pio of Pietrelcina, "Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer."

So...go to Mass as often as possible. Pray the Rosary. Pray the Divine Office. Pray the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. Ask the saints to pray with you. Then pray in your own words, as well. Pray for the Church, for the Holy Father, for this Nation. Pray for all of our bishops and priests, our deacons and seminarians, our religious sisters and brothers, and those in formation or discernment. Pray for our secular leaders--the President, the Congress, administrators, judges, state governors and legislators, tax collectors, everyone! And one final quotation from St. Paul:

"Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. For he says, "At the acceptable time I have listened to you, and helped you on the day of salvation." Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation."  2 Cor. 6:1-2.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.

Laudator Jesus Christus!

**--As to climate change, by the way, contrary to the unquestioning acceptance by the Holy See of the full plate of alarmist rhetoric issuing from various governments, the U.N., and other non-governmental organizations, the science is by no means "settled"--science by definition is never "settled", and many reputable experts in the field of climatology and related disciplines do not accept the contentions either that carbon dioxide is a pollutant or that an increase of a few degrees or fractions of degrees in global temperatures, even if it were to occur, is principally caused by human activity.  Rather, such fluctuations as have been reliably measured, as opposed to being erroneously predicted by various "models", are more likely caused by natural climatic cycles.  For more information on this issue, which exceeds the scope of this post, go here.

Easter--An Under-Appreciated Feast

April 4, 2015

So, here we are.  The disciplines of the Lenten season are about to expire, and we Catholics began this evening, at Easter Vigils around the world, to celebrate the most important event in human history, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.  Alleluia, He is risen!  Just typing that phrase gives me little chills.  But how different that is from the way I looked at Easter (not to mention Good Friday) for most of my life.

Growing up, I don't recall ever being taught much about the absolute necessity for the Resurrection as the foundation of our faith.  We kids were much more interested in Christmas, for all the obvious reasons, and even in the late 1950's, where my earliest memories lie, our culture seems to have pretty much relegated Easter to a distant second place, with bunnies and candy and eggs, and like that.  Maybe my Catholic friends back then took it more seriously than we did, but if so, they never talked about it with us non-Catholics.  Sure, we got Good Friday and Easter Monday off from school, even in the public schools, and I'm sure our Protestant ministers gave nice sermons on the importance of the Crucifixion and Resurrection on Easter Sunday, but to my recollection we just didn't hear much about it otherwise, and everyone still acted as if Christmas was the really big feast. 

Today, of course, we live in a post-Christian culture which is more and more willing to engage in outright persecution of anyone who takes Christianity seriously, (although, obviously, they haven't started killing us yet here in the good old U.S.A.; please pray for our persecuted brethren in the Middle East and Africa).  Most in public schools don't even dare mention Good Friday or Easter out of fear of "offending" someone, much less give kids a school holiday.  Instead, we have "spring break", which is just another week of vacation, or for many college students, something most resembling a pagan orgy. Religious significance is ignored or even actively suppressed.

So as I made my journey into the Roman Catholic Church ten years ago, I was for all practical purposes learning from scratch about the true importance, not only of Easter, but also the entire Paschal Mystery. As usual, the depth and breadth of Catholic Church teachings about the Resurrection bring marvelous rewards to those who plumb them.

As for the Resurrection itself, St. Paul makes the importance pretty clear in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, as follows:

[12] Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
[13] But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;
[14] if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
[15] We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
[16] For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.
[17] If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
[18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
[19] If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.

That does get the point across, I believe!  Catholic theology has taught me that all of Salvation History is bound together as a single piece, most especially the events of Holy Week, from the entry into Jerusalem to the Last Supper to the Passion and finally the Resurrection, but without that last one, the whole thing loses its meaning.  We would all be like the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke's Gospel, men without hope, sadly reflecting on what might have been (even though they had the "might have been" part wrong, as did most of Christ's followers, since they were looking for an earthly King who would open a can of you-know-what on the Romans and liberate the Jews.)  Without the Resurrection, the Crucifixion was just another Roman execution of a rabble-rouser.  Without the Resurrection, the Pharisees could have just gone back to being Pharisees, (which I guess they did anyway, but they wouldn't have had Christians to kick around), and the Sadducees would have gone on arguing with the Pharisees about whether there is an afterlife, instead of converting to Christianity in such large numbers that they basically ceased to exist as a major faction in Judaism.  Indeed, as Paul points out, absent the Resurrection, Christ Himself would be just another prophet, killed by the people to whom he was preaching. 

We Catholics, of course, get an added celebration every year at the Easter Vigil, when we welcome  all those who seek full communion with the Church that Christ founded, and who receive the Sacraments of Initiation:  Baptism (if not previously baptized using water and the Trinitarian formula set forth by Jesus in the last verses of the Gospel of Matthew), Confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist.  In these events, we celebrate souls receiving new life in Christ, the sealing of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the hope of eternal salvation, seeing in each of them the promise of the Resurrection itself.  It does help to keep the mind focused on the real-world impact of the central event, in addition to making us able to share the joy of these new Catholics and their families and friends as we all share in the joy of the Risen Lord's opening of the gates of Heaven.

And that, as St. Paul reminds us, is really the point.  The Resurrection of Christ in his glorified body gives us the hope of eternal life.  What else is there, really, to live for in this life?

As Catholics, it seems to me that we also bear in mind to a greater extent than most other Christians (except our Orthodox brethren, of course) that Good Friday always precedes Easter Sunday.  The burden of human sin had to be carried to the Cross and atoned for in our Lord's suffering sacrifice before the opening of Heaven could make any sense.  This is why we use the Crucifix, rather than an empty Cross, as a symbol of our faith: because we need to be reminded of the price of our redemption.  As St. Paul also said, "...but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles." 1 Cor 1:23.

One last point, which came as a great surprise to me upon my entry into the Church, is that the Catholic Church continues to celebrate Easter all the way to Pentecost, fifty days later.  Each day in the "Octave of Easter" is a liturgical Solemnity, and the equivalent, liturgically speaking, of Easter Sunday itself.

Yes, as I have learned, the Church takes Easter very, very seriously.  What a pity that so many Christians today, including many Catholics, no longer act as if they fully understand its true significance.

A happy and blessed Easter season to all!  Laudator Jesus Christus!

Communion In The Hand vs. On The Tongue--Does It Matter?

While I am anything but the World's Biggest Fan of the "Crux" blog run by John L. Allen, Jr. of the Boston Globe, occasionally a friend will send me something from that site, or I'll encounter an interesting piece on New Advent or some other aggregator site, and will give it a read.  Just today I received via email a link to an interesting commentary on Crux, by Mathew N. Schmalz, on the seemingly endless debate about what is the "better" way to receive our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament--on the tongue or in the hand?  It's worth reading and considering, and has a good brief review of the history of communion in the hand in the USA, as well as the author's experiences in other countries.  Mr. Schmalz concludes his reflection as follows:

"Debating Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue does raise important issues. But all too often, it has become a way, on both sides, of judging people we do not know. In doing so, we can distract ourselves not only from the miracle what is happening in front of us, but also from the miracle that is happening alongside of us.
And so what is it about Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue?
As always, the problem is with our own sinful selves."

Nothing to argue with there, really, although I might add that part of the problem is the choice itself, which the Church could take care of by revoking the indult given to the US Bishops years ago.  More on that below.

My friend also e-mailed this link, to a post from several years ago by one of my favorite Catholic bloggers, Father John Zuhlsdorf (a/k/a "Father Z.")  It raises what I think is a serious issue, that of the fragments or crumbs which tend to fall from the hosts used in most Catholic churches in the US (based on both personal experience and some research), even if all concerned are exercising due care.  Fr. Z demonstrates photographically that crumbs/fragments are likely to be present in one's hand merely by having the consecrated host placed there by the priest or Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.  I'd venture to say that darn near nobody ever licks or otherwise removes any fragments from the palm of their hand after consuming the Sacrament, so those fragments, each of which contains the whole and entire Presence of Christ, end up getting dropped somewhere between the place of reception and the communicant's pew.  That is with the exception, of course, of those communicants who bolt directly for the parking lot upon receiving.  Their fragments could even end up outside.  (More on my view of early departure from Mass in a subsequent post, perhaps!)

The friend who sent me these articles commented that he stopped receiving in the hand after seeing Fr. Z's photographs. I can understand that.

As for myself, I've floated back and forth on this practice since my entry into the Church (ten years ago next week!)  At my original parish, where I went through RCIA, we were not even told we had a choice; had it not been for my "auxiliary" education in the faith via EWTN, Catholic Answers and independent reading, I would not have known anyone received other than in the hand prior to actually seeing people do it at Mass.  (Remember, we Candidates were not there to watch the communion process until the Easter Vigil itself.)  I have read all sorts of commentary from both perspectives, including issues such as those raised by Fr. Z and by the writer on Crux, as well as hygiene, reverence, tradition vs. indult, the "throne" theory attributed to St. Cyril and endorsed in word, at least, by Pope Benedict XVI, in the book Light of the World, although he normally required receipt on the tongue when he celebrated Mass, and probably others.  I've also seen commentary such as appears in the comments on Fr. Z's post about the type of host used--the thin white kind vs. the larger and slightly darker colored ones like we use at my current parish.  Many say the small, white ones are less prone to leaving particles, but I wouldn't know about that; I do know they dissolve quickly and don't require chewing, which is another issue that seems to get folks excited.  

In any case, my thought process has always been centered on showing the reverence I believe we all should show to the Lord's Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.  Once I learned the teaching of the Church on the Real Presence, I was so captivated by it that showing great reverence just seemed like the only logical thing to do.  That doesn't mean I think I'm smarter than anyone else or have some special gift of discernment; on the contrary, one of the things that attracted me initially to the Church was the much greater sense of reverence I saw at a Catholic Mass as compared to the Protestant (mostly Methodist) services to which I was accustomed.  Some adherents of the TLM greatly disparage today's "Ordinary Form" as having very little reverence in comparison with the TLM, but the OF was all I knew when I started my journey, and it can be celebrated with great reverence, indeed. 

Deep down, I think showing proper reverence doesn't depend on whether one receives in the hand or on the tongue, although I appreciate the argument that says only ordained clergy or properly trained lay ministers should handle the consecrated host. I also am aware that a fair number of folks who might be called "traditionalists" believe that communion in the hand was an intentional effort on the part of "modernists" to strip the Church of belief in the Real Presence.  They maintain (and I have not researched the history here) that immediately after the Protestant separation, Luther and others adopted the practice of communion in the hand precisely as a means of demonstrating rejection of the Catholic doctrine.  But I'm not getting into all of that here.  The Church still teaches Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, so if communion in the hand was an attempt to change that, it has failed, at least so far.

To me, what is most important is a person's general demeanor.  In the Sacred Liturgy, every movement and posture of the priest, deacon(s), lay ministers and faithful is intended to be meaningful, because we are physical persons, and how we move and act is part and parcel of what is in our hearts--it both reflects what is there, and helps to form us into better disciples.  I remember reading a while back about one of our separated brethren saying that if he believed what the Catholic Church teaches about Jesus' presence in the Eucharist, he would crawl on his belly up to the foot of the altar to receive Him.  And, in principle, he's absolutely right.  Now, obviously, having everyone prostrate themselves to receive Holy Communion would make things a bit difficult logistically, but it's the same principle that underlies the practice of the communion rail in the TLM, and there are times when I wish we could go back at least to that manner of distributing Communion, even within the Ordinary Form rite.  

This next part I say somewhat reluctantly, in light of the passage I quoted above from the Crux article, so I'm trying not to be sinfully judgmental here, in the sense of inferring from exterior actions what is in someone's heart:  I especially tend to wish for a return to the communion rail when I see people at Sunday Mass bopping up the aisle as if they were in line for a burger and fries, casually receiving the Eucharist without even a minor bow of the head, and then walking away as if the whole thing were sort of boring, and gee, I'm glad THAT's over with, now what's for brunch?  It's entirely possible that these folks are solid believers who do all they can to live out the faith in their daily lives, but you'd never know it from the way they treat Holy Communion.  There is also a very good chance that the reason they don't show more reverence is that nobody ever taught them otherwise.  And that's really sad.

At the end of it all, it may well be that the loss of some particles of the Blessed Sacrament, and thus the Presence of the Lord, is unavoidable even when everyone is careful, regardless of whether communion is given in the hand or only on the tongue.  However, if I were Czar of the Universe (to quote my professor of contract law way back when),  I would prefer to see it standardized, even if for no other reason than to shut off the frequently uncharitable debate.  And going a bit further in the line of reasoning, it makes sense to me that the fewer people who touch the consecrated host, the more likely it will be that such loss can be avoided.  Again, as noted, I'm not convinced that it's in any way "bad" for us ordinary lay Catholics to touch the Blessed Sacrament with our grubby hands, as long as we treat it as what it is, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.  I just think it's a mathematical certainty that when we all receive in the hand, more little pieces which are the substance of the Lord Jesus will be dropped on floors or on the ground and walked on, unknowingly, by lots of other people than would be the case if everyone received on the tongue.

So, as Czar, I would opt for receipt on the tongue only, and require the use of patens. Also, to shut down another sometimes contentious discussion, this one about hygiene at Mass, if the Precious Blood is to be administered to the faithful, it should be by intinction only.  The USCCB could do this, simply by declining to follow the indult (exception) granted back in the oh-so-silly 1970's.  Maybe they could spend some time studying this instead of issuing all sorts of political statements on issues beyond their expertise.  Or the Holy See could revoke the indult, though I suspect that's not an issue very high on the Pope's radar at the moment.  Either way, I bet that after the usual period of wailing and grinding of teeth that erupts whenever a change in liturgical norms occurs, everyone would get used to it and life would go on.

Of course, if communion in the hand were to be abolished in the USA, priests and Ministers and communicants would all need remedial training on how to make receipt on the tongue work smoothly, as too many people don't really know how to, for lack of a better term, present a proper "target" so the priest or extraordinary minister can place the host on the tongue without actually touching the tongue with their fingers.  That's yucky, even if you don't have a communicable disease to spread around (and if you do, you should probably just stay home, anyway.) Also, I suspect that since in my experience about 95% of communicants receive in the hand, the EMHC's themselves are not very adept at placing the host, either.  Time to practice!  Pizza afterwards!

That's my little contribution to this discussion.  Thanks for reading.  Laudator Jesus Christus!

UPDATE--March 24, 2015:

A friend and RCIA colleague at my parish went and did some research on this issue and came up with the following:

Thomas Aquinas in ST 77:4 states:

“Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid corruptions; because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.”

This still needs to be reconciled with the practice of rinsing the ciboria on the altar to capture the particles left in the bottom of the vessel after Communion, as great care is required by the Church to be taken by the priests and deacons to ensure these are not lost.  I think that is fairly easy to do, since it is obvious that when particles reside in the sacred vessels, they are in fact part of the consecrated species.  However, once removed from the altar, if reduced to "fine particles", then Aquinas is saying it no longer remains the body and blood of Christ if it can no longer be recognized as bread.  

Makes sense to me.  

Laudator Jesus Christus!