• Why is the liturgy a top priority for St. Mary Church?
• Why does St. Mary Church have the Traditional Latin Mass?
• Why does St. Mary Church offer the Mass facing east?
• Why does St. Mary's reserve altar serving to boys alone?
• Why should I consider receiving Communion on the tongue?
• Why do we use Incense in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?
• How can St. Padre Pio help us better understand the Mass?
• How should you dress for Mass in the summer?
• Cardinal George and Liturgical Reform
• Why don't we use extraordinary (Eucharistic) ministers very often here at St. Mary's?

• What does the Church have to say about the current immigration discussion?
• Why does God allow all the recent terrorism and natural disasters?
• How should Catholics approach the political process and voting?
• What about all these Marian Apparitions?
• What about the women who recently claimed to have been ordained priests?
• Is living together before marriage good for my future?
• Is Jesus Christ the only savior of the world?
• Did the Catholic Church recently eliminate limbo?

For answers to common questions regarding Catholicism in general, rather than St. Mary Parish in particular, see sites such as Catholic Answers and Catholic Pages.

Why is the liturgy a top priority for St. Mary Church?

Part I: 
            Many parishes during the post-Vatican II era fell into irregular liturgical practices to such an extent that Pope John Paul II needed to commission a juridical document in 2004 for the universal Church in order to address the issue: “It is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the liturgy and the sacraments as well as the tradition and authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another.  In some places the perpetuation of liturgical abuses has become habitual” (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 4).
            Habitual abuse means that neither the clergy nor the laity at Mass even realizes that the Sacred Mass, that which offers true worship to God and forms Catholic identity like no other act, is being deformed.  Such ignorance of the nature of the liturgy prompted Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, to write in 2000: “Liturgical education today, of both priests and laity, is deficient to a deplorable extent.  Much remains to be done here.”  Sadly these attempts by Rome to correct liturgical abuse seem to have been virtually ignored by much of the Church at the parish level.
             Since I arrived here at St. Mary Church in 2003 I have tried to address these issues and as everyone knows, I have made the renewal of the liturgy a priority for the parish. The first thing I did as pastor was to simply bring St. Mary Church into conformity with the norms of the Church.  In the following years, I introduced singing the Latin Mass parts into all of the Masses, depending on the Mass and the occasion, as the documents require: “...steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 54).  Thirdly I reserved altar serving to boys alone in order promote vocations to the priesthood.   Finally, I have tried to imbue the liturgy here with a sacred spirit, avoiding profane greetings and actions, and I sought to build a sacred music program that would truly reflect our rich and ancient heritage.
            Most importantly, I have attempted to educate everyone about why I was doing all of this.  I have held numerous evening classes on the liturgy over the years, given homilies and written bulletin columns, trying to explain the proper spirit of the liturgy, and the authentic liturgical norms of the Church.
            Many Catholics, who have been rightly offended by the profanation of the sacred over the years, joyfully embraced these changes.  Some while not familiar with liturgical theology, have grown to understand better why a reverent liturgy is a more prayerful experience, and have also supported the changes. 
            Nonetheless the decisions I have made have been hard for others, and there have been not a few complaints.  I am sometimes saddened by the brazen words of people who come to me and criticize a St. Mary’s priest for actually prayerfully offering the Mass according to the liturgical norms.   To me, the person’s comment is symbolic of the current liturgical crisis: many years of a more casual liturgy, and even habitual liturgical abuse, are hard to overcome.  Furthermore, the fact that so few parishes are implementing what the Magisterium is asking us to do makes the changes at St. Mary Church appear even more strange.  
            Yet how many Catholics truly understand what the Mass is: the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ’s crucifixion to God the Father? (Catechism #1367) Some people are still coming to Sunday Mass expecting liturgical abuses or to be entertained by the priest, rather than the real reason we come – to worship God, offering this perfect sacrifice according to the means handed down to us by Mother Church. 
            If only more people understood that novelties and priestly creativity in the Mass take away from this transcendent reality, and suddenly the sacred act is profaned, taking on the mere personality of the priest.  No!  As Padre Pio says, at Mass we are to humbly pray like St. John and Our Lady at the foot of the cross.  Would that more people’s comments to me about the Mass reflected this understanding.

            Part II: Yet beyond the lack of fidelity to the Vatican II liturgical norms there is still a deeper question which has only now begun to be addressed by Pope Benedict XVI: whether the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council that we have today was what the Fathers of the Council intended.  Addressing the discontinuity between the Council’s idea of liturgical renewal and the final form of the Vatican II Mass, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote: “(I)n the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.  We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it –as in a manufacturing process- with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”
            For example, today much of what Catholics think is the Second Vatican Council liturgical reform did not in fact come from the Council: “To the ordinary churchgoer,” wrote Cardinal Ratzinger, “the two most obvious effects of the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council seem to be the disappearance of Latin and the turning of the altars towards the people.  Those who read the relevant texts will be astonished to learn that neither is in fact found in the decrees of the Council.”   There is a long list of other changes as well that are simply not in the Vatican II documents either: removing altar rails, Communion in the hand, altar girls, etc.   
             For this reason Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to liberalize the Traditional Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form) is essential to reconnecting us with our lost tradition, and understanding what authentic worship of God is all about.  This Mass was the Mass of our forefathers, of countless saints, and which in its essence dates back to the earliest Church. 
            Inspired by the Holy Father, I began the Extraordinary Form at the parish every Sunday over a year ago.  As your Pastor I wish more people in the parish would understand that we have been given a treasure here at St. Mary’s with this Extraordinary Form, and while the Mass is definitely growing, it is still a disappointment that more people do not recognize what this is all about.   
            If we look at the full array of Masses here at St. Mary’s, we see that there is a progressive solemnity to each of the liturgies on Sunday, with the 9:30 am Extraordinary Form representing the fullness of our liturgical patrimony.   The Ordinary Form at 4:00 pm, and the 8:00 am are done reverently, and has the fixed parts of the Mass (Kyrie, Sanctus, Agnus Dei...) sung in Latin during Advent and Lent.  The Spanish 7:00 P.M. and 1:15 Mass have a beautiful choir which sings the Latin Mass parts all year round.  The 11:30 am Ordinary Form of the Mass has the largest volunteer choir, with the Gloria, Credo, and Pater chanted in Latin every Sunday.  Finally, once again as the fullness of our liturgical patrimony, we have the Solemn High Extraordinary Form of the Mass, with a professional schola singing the Mass parts in Gregorian chant and renaissance polyphony, and a full set of servers.  
            I encourage people to come and attend the 9:30 am Extraordinary Form so that they will experience what is in my opinion is the fullness of Catholic worship, and which communicates the Sacred to a higher degree than the other forms.  The Ordinary Mass is a simpler version of this more ancient form, yet points to this fuller expression of worship.
            I ask you to attend a few times because it sometimes takes a little while to appreciate its subtly, beauty and order.  Even if you prefer the Ordinary Form of the Mass, your attendance at the Extraordinary Form will at least help you understand our history and the Ordinary Form better. 
            The Mass is the heart and source of our faith.  If is the Mass is deformed and weak, then so is the rest of the body.  As Pope Benedict XVI has written, “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” 
            In conclusion, nothing will affect a renewal in the Church and in the culture more than a renewal in the liturgy.   The Mass not only expresses what we believe, it shapes what we believe.  Come, open yourself to what the Holy Spirit is doing at this point in history, and worship our Lord in the coming year in spirit and truth.

Why does St. Mary Church have the Traditional Latin Mass?

              One of the issues that has perhaps defined Pope Benedict XVI ’s papacy more than any other up to this point is his 2007 motu propio Summorum Pontificum.   Pope Benedict made the Traditional Latin Mass (what he calls the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite) acceptable in the main stream Catholic Church practically overnight in one of the few dramatic papal initiatives since the Second Vatican Council.  Pope Benedict has become convinced of the Extraordinary Form’s enduring beauty as well as the necessity of restoring authentic Catholic worship.  As he wrote, “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.”            
            We are very blessed to have the Solemn High Traditional Latin Mass here at St. Mary Church every Sunday at 9:30 am.   We offer the Low Mass every Wednesday night at 7:00 P.M. and Saturday at 9:00 A.M.  Personally, I would like to say that one of the greatest graces I have received from the Lord since my ordination was to learn the Extraordinary Form.  To me it expresses both the mystery and fullness of the Catholic Faith like nothing else, and I would like to share this grace with as many people as possible. 
            In order to help people understand the Mass I have included a stuffer in the bulletin on the Extraordinary Form.  (You can see a copy of it here.)  Please take some time to read it.  Like many treasures in life, this Mass takes time to appreciate and understand, but is well worth the effort.  Furthermore I recommend a recently published book on the topic as a good introduction: Sacred Then and Sacred Now by Thomas Woods. 
            As a follow on to Summorum Pontificum, on May 13, 2011 (Our Lady of Fatima), the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei released the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae (To the Universal Church), "on the application of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum."  Summorum Pontificum was Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 motu proprio which, as the Instruction states, “made the richness of the Roman Liturgy more accessible to the Universal Church” (1). 
            The heart of the Instruction states: “The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church. On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honor” (6).   
            Where is this liturgical vision being carried out in the Catholic Church today? There are many parishes that will avoid any positive reference to the extraordinary form.  There are also a small number of parishes, most of which are run by religious orders, that will do the extraordinary form exclusively, without the ordinary form.  There are parishes that do both the ordinary and extraordinary forms, but where the extraordinary form is a fringe element, handled by an external group of priests at odd Mass times.  Who, then, is going to bring the extraordinary form and ordinary form together in one parish, “alongside one another”?  By the grace of God, St. Mary Church in Norwalk is doing just this. 
            The Instruction goes on to say that the extraordinary form is to be “considered a treasure to be preserved” (8, a) and that the bishop is “to ensure respect for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite” (13).  Therefore, those who feel a certain hostility toward the Traditional Latin Mass need to examine their consciences as to whether they are thinking with the mind and heart of the Church, or whether more secular models of Catholicism have seeped into their thinking.
            On the other hand Universae Ecclesiae wants to avoid the other extreme as well: “The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria” (19).  While some of the faithful may have a preference for the extraordinary form, groups which attack on the legitimacy of the ordinary form are not part of the Holy Father’s vision of the liturgy.            
            Nonetheless, the implementation of the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which ultimately became the ordinary form of the Mass, is not above criticism.   Speaking at an international conference on the liturgy earlier this month, Pope Benedict XVI stated that the purpose of the reform, “was not mainly to change the rites and texts” but to “renew the mentality” of worshipers.  But he acknowledged that the implementation fell short of this goal.  “Unfortunately,” the Holy Father stated, “the liturgy has perhaps been seen – even by us, pastors and experts – more as an object to reform, than a subject capable of renewing Christian life.”
            While there have always been numerous liturgical rites within the history of the Catholic Church, it is a unique and even confusing historical development to have two official forms of the one Roman Rite.  How are the two forms and their respective calendars to be reconciled?  As a pastor who has been actively promoting a reverent celebration of both forms for almost four years now, there have been no shortage of strong opinions directed at me from across the liturgical spectrum trying to answer this question. 
            I think it must be said that the people have a right to come to church and to have the same holy Mass, performed with the same rituals every week so that through the repeated gestures and symbols, the Sacred mysteries are properly communicated.  However, with so many changes, and so many liturgical abuses since Vatican II, the faithful have become the arbiters of good liturgy; a position that they have historically never possessed.  Perhaps, as Martin Mosebach has written, this is one of the greatest tragedies of the post-Vatican II era of liturgy: rather than coming to worship the Triune God and humbling accepting the liturgy as a gift from heaven, the people in the pews have become self-proclaimed liturgical experts.  As Mosebach writes, “I go to church to see God and come away like a theatre critic.”
            Liturgical abuses became so bad after the Council that even the Congregation for Divine Worship’s instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, advises the faithful to do, “(A)ll that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism” (183).   Therefore, it is not surprising that so many of the laity have strong opinions, even if some of these opinions are uninformed.  
            As a priest, I have to be honest in saying that it is a challenge to offer the Roman Rite well here at the parish, with so many legitimate options: one Holy Mass I am offering the Sacrifice ad orientem, the next Mass I am offering It versus populum; one Mass is in Spanish, the next is in Latin; One Mass we are chanting the Latin Mass parts, the next we are reciting them in English; one Mass I am reciting the Canon out loud, the next the Canon is silent.  This is the historical period that we are living in, and this is part of being a faithful Catholic in the year 2011. 
            For the future, Pope Benedict XVI has written that “the two forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching.”  There is much speculation as to what this mutual enrichment will look like.  Currently, I think the common element in both forms is what the Pope calls the ars celebrandi, or the art of proper liturgical celebration.  More specifically, the ars celebrandi is the “faithful adherence to the liturgical norms” (Sacramentum Caritatis, 37), and a manner of offering which fosters “a sense of the sacred” (40) and “awe for the mystery of God” (41). 
            I think all of the clergy here at St. Mary Church practice this ars celebrandi well, and while we have many liturgical options here at St. Mary Church, I think this common ars celebrandi is evident.  I am often told when parishioners have visited other parishes on vacation, or for various Sacramental celebrations, how they miss the reverence and devotion that goes on here during our Masses.  Even our children have told me that they have been surprised by the lack of reverence when they have visited certain other parishes.  I have also been told when parishioners notice this ars celebrandi in other parishes, with hope in their voice. Therefore for now, the ars celebrandi is the common bond of the two forms.
            Where will this “mutual enrichment” of the two forms of the Roman Rite lead?  Perhaps only the Holy Spirit knows but after the release of Universae Ecclesiae this past week, Cardinal Kurt Koch stated that the pope’s ultimate goal is not simply to allow the old and new forms to coexist, but to move toward a “common rite.” 
            For this to be done the Church’s liturgy must be offered in continuity with the Church’s tradition, as the Pope has made clear, and not seen as a break, where people make a distinction between a pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II liturgy.  This will be difficult because there are not a small number of Catholics who seem to be embedded in the liturgical manner and music of the 1970’s and 1980’s, and unable to view the liturgy outside of this period.  There are even those who have a curious self-hatred for things Catholic, like any use of Latin in the Mass.  Obstacles like this must be overcome.
            We here at St. Mary Church are seeking to implement the liturgical vision of Pope Benedict XVI, with the two forms “alongside one another.”  No doubt there will be criticism of this liturgical vision as being “too conservative” or even “self-righteous,” yet our response must be in imitation of the Pascal Lamb, who “when reviled did not revile in return” (1 Peter 2:23).  If we are attempting to root ourselves in the truth, we must be equally rooted in charity.       
           It is my conviction that the introduction of the extraordinary form will be a major force for renewal in the Church. When Pope Benedict XVI came to the United States in April 2008, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released some telling statistics about the state of Catholicism in the United States which in many ways reflects the demographic changes within Norwalk.  "No other major faith in the U.S. has experienced greater net losses over the last few decades as a result of changes in religious affiliation than the Catholic Church," the Pew report notes. Citing the extensive survey the Pew Forum explains that "roughly one-third of those who were raised Catholic have left the church, and approximately one-in-ten American adults are former Catholics." May the extraordinary form, through the intercession of Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception, help bring a much needed liturgical renewal in the Church, and through the renewal of the liturgy, a renewal in the faith.
          
           

Why does St. Mary Church offer the Mass facing east (ad orientem)?

            Offering the Mass versus populum, or facing the people, is only a recent development in Church history.  In fact, offering the Mass ad orientem was the common liturgical practice for the entire Church’s history only up until our generation.  Experiments were done with the versus populum position prior to Second Vatican Council (1962-65), but it became more popular when the Ordinary Form, the Missal of Pope Paul VI, was introduced in 1970.  While most Catholics who lived through this period think that this change in orientation was mandated by the Second Vatican Council, there is actually nothing in the documents of Vatican II (Sacrosancum Concilium) that asked for a reversal in the altar direction. 
            Today, offering the Mass ad orientem and versus populum are both acceptable options in the Missal of Paul VI.  However, the official rubrical guide of Paul VI’s Mass, The General Introduction of the Roman Missal, assumes that there is a common direction between the priest and the people: that everyone is facing the altar.  For example, at the Orate fratres (Pray brethren that your and my sacrifice...) the Pax Domini (The Peace of the Lord be with you), and Ecce, Agnus Dei (Behold the Lamb of God), and the Ritus conclusionis (Concluding Rite), the rubrics specifically state that the priest should now turn to the people.
            Liturgical scholars like Louis Bouyer and Klaus Gamber have recently shown that offering the Mass with the priest and the people facing in a common direction goes all the way back to the Last Supper.  Jesus and His apostles sat around a “C” shaped table, with all of them sitting around the outside.  Da Vinci’s famous painting of the Last Supper with everyone sitting on one side helps one to visualize the idea of all of these first priests facing the same direction for prayer. 
            Msgr. Klaus Gamber (1919–1987) was a German liturgist who enthusiastically supported the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, but then later became one of the chief critics of how it was implemented.   Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote the introduction to Gamber’s famous book on this topic, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, and called Gamber, “the one scholar who, among the army of pseudo-liturgists, truly represents the liturgical thinking at the center of the Church.”
            Gamber argues that this new altar arrangement, facing the people, is an aberration in the organic development of the liturgy.  He explains that scholars have shown that, “...the custom of praying in the direction of sunrise is an ancient one, practiced by Jews and pagans alike.  The custom was adopted early on by the Christians.  For example, to face east in prayer was a common practice for Tertullian, as early as 197.  In his Apologeticum he speaks about Christians ‘praying in the direction of the rising sun’.  The sun served as a symbol for the Lord having ascended to heaven and of His return from there.”
            When the Lord ascended into heaven (Acts 1:10), He was fulfilling the messianic prophecies in Psalm 67.  For example, “Sing ye to God, who mounteth above the heaven of heavens, to the east (ad orientem)” (verses 33-34).  As the apostles looked upon this mystery, angels then appeared to them further prophesying, “This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way you saw him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).  In other words, at the second coming of Jesus, He will come from the east.  Therefore, the Mass throughout the centuries was offered facing east, in joyful anticipation of His second coming. 
            Gamber explains, “We can say and convincingly demonstrate that neither in the Eastern nor the Western Church was there ever a celebration versum populum – rather, there was only the practice of turning towards the east while praying.  Martin Luther was the first person to demand that the priest at the altar face the people.”
            Furthermore, the ad orientem position represents an opening up of the faithful toward God, with an active and forward movement toward heaven.  In the book of Genesis, the Lord “planted the Garden of Eden in the east” (2:8), and when Adam and Eve sinned, they were driven out from this garden (3:24).  With the priest facing the east, he is leading the people in procession back toward their original paradise.  As Gamber wrote, “Facing the east was to indicate the direction and destination of this procession: the lost paradise to be found in the east.  The celebrant and his assistants formed the vanguard of the procession to the east...When we expect the arrival of an important person, the group of waiting people will form into the shape of a semi-circle to receive the expected person into their midst.”
             Traditionally, Catholic churches fulfilled this reality by having the sanctuary built facing east, but over time churches were built facing “liturgical east”, meaning that even if the sanctuary did not literally face east, the priest and the people were all united in a common direction, facing the Lord together. 
            Some today negatively explain the ad orientem position as the “the priest with his back to the people”.  Nonetheless, the person in the front pew also has his back to the people behind him, and we know that he is not being rude.  It should be remembered that when the priest faces the people, he actually has his back to Christ in the tabernacle. The reality is that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is being offered to God, not the people, and the symbolism of the ad orientem position is a fuller representation of this reality.  Notice how the prayers of the Eucharistic Sacrifice are all offered to the Father.  When the priest offers the Mass facing the people, it gives the false and confusing impression that the Mass is being offered to the people.
            Finally, offering the Mass ad orientem helps the priest to better fulfill his role in persona Christi, in the person of Christ.  By his sacred ordination, the priest offers the Mass in the person of Jesus Christ.  The priest’s personality should disappear when he offers the Mass so that Christ can offer His own perfect Sacrifice.  When the priest offers the Mass versus populum, it is more difficult for his personality to disappear.  However, when he offers the Mass ad orientem, and the intimacy that exists between Christ and Father can now become actualized, free from the curious eyes of the crowds, in imitation of Christ who “withdrew to the wilderness to pray” (Luke 5:16).  
            As stated earlier, both positions, ad orientem and versum populum, are permitted by the law of the Church for the Ordinary Form of the Mass.  The Congregation for Divine Worship stated on April 10, 2000:  “Both positions are in accord with liturgical law; both are to be considered correct...a priest’s choice of position to offer Holy Mass, whether facing the apse or facing the people may never be used to call into question his adherence to Catholic Doctrine.”  Furthermore, later that year, on September 25, 2000, the Congregation for Divine Worship rejected the position that there is a general obligation in the Ordinary Form of the Mass for the priest to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass versum populum.
            Prior to becoming the Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger promoted the value of once again offering Mass ad orientem.  In 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his book, Spirit of the Liturgy, “A common turning to the east during the Eucharist Prayer remains essential.  This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential.  Looking at the priest has no importance.  What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue but of common worship, of setting off toward the One who is to come.  What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle, but the common movement forward, expressed in a common direction for prayer.” 
            Now as the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI has begun to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ordinary Form ad orientem at times.  Evidently he sees our current atmosphere as the proper time to reorient ourselves with this common practice of our 2000 year history:  “Historical research has made the controversy less partisan, and among the faithful there is an increasing sense of the problems inherent in an arrangement that hardly shows the liturgy to be open to the things that are above and to the world to come.”  
            We are unfortunately living through a historical period of great liturgical confusion.  However, here at St. Mary Church I try to do what is correct, making sure that we are “free to worship Him without fear” (Luke 1:73), according to the teachings and Traditions of the Church.  I think most people in the parish understand why we have the oriented altar position, but if you still struggle with it, remind yourself that in Mass we are processing toward the Garden of Eden, and awaiting the second coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ who will come from the east.  Please pray for the Holy Father, that he would lead us in an authentic liturgical renewal, as he often writes, in “continuity” with the Traditions that we have receive from the saints who have gone before us.

Perhaps the most serious practical problem facing the Catholic Church in the United States today is the lack of priestly vocations. Without priests we do not have the Sacraments, and without the Sacraments, our salvation is in jeopardy.
           It is God who mysteriously calls young men to be priests, and then the surrounding culture, most specifically good Catholic families, bring that seed to fruition. Outside of the family, one of the most important cultural influences that promotes priestly vocations is to serve as an altar boy.
           For thousands of years serving as an altar boy has been an apprenticeship for priesthood, even before the Church had seminaries. Boys were taught the details of the Mass, why the priest does what he does, and a fraternal bond of trust grew between the boys and the priest. The result was that many a priest discovered his calling while serving as an altar boy.
           In 1994 Rome allowed girls to serve as altar servers for the first time. The document states that priests are not compelled to have altar girls, but may have them "for specific local reasons." As we know most parishes here in the U.S. decided to have altar girls in order to get them involved, or to show the Church's openness to "equal opportunity."
           Nonetheless there were some unforeseen results to this permission that have caused many priests to now question the wisdom of this decision. While equal opportunity is a noble sentiment, the bond between priest and the boys has now been lessened. A strong fraternity of altar boys in close association with the priest is indispensable in inviting young men to meaningful consideration of a priestly vocation. There is also a certain awkwardness in teaching girls to take pride in a job that will never come to fruition, since they will never be able to become priests.
           When I went back and read the document I noticed that it also made numerous statements supporting the continued use of altar boys: "At the same time, however, the Holy See wishes to recall that it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. As is well known, this has led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue."
           Pope John Paul II in 2004 accordingly encouraged priests to show a special concern for altar boys, saying that they "represent a kind of 'garden' of priestly vocations. and that their service at the altar can be "a valuable experience of Christian education and become a kind of pre-seminary."
           Therefore after much prayer, reading and discussion, I have decided that in the future I will only be inviting boys to serve as altar servers for my Masses, for the primary reason of promoting priestly vocations.   The other priests have also agreed to the same policy.  Those girls who are currently serving are welcome to continue serving as long as they like. Finally, so as to encourage the participation of the girls in the parish, I will be starting a group called the Handmaids of the Altar, who will help with the flowers, the linens, and the sacristy. As Sister Eileen and Sr. Rita pointed out, both of them discerned their vocations to the sisterhood by belonging to this type of club.
           For some this is a decision which will be difficult to understand. Certainly the spirit of the society in which we live will not accept this. Yet this has nothing to do with equal rights. Men and women are equal in the eyes of God, and each has different gifts which should be allowed to develop in their proper environment.
           Experience has shown that women generally do not need as much encouragement to be involved in the Church. All you have to do is look at Sunday Mass attendance, the religious education teachers, or parish volunteers, and one will easily notice that the majority of people active in parish life are women.
           However, I think that boys and men need special encouragement to help them develop a lifelong relationship with Jesus Christ and the Church. Therefore having a group of boys set apart will help develop that bond with the Church, preparing them for their vocation, whatever it may be.
           If anyone has difficulty with this decision I ask you to reflect on what I have written here and to pray about it. You are welcome to write or visit me to voice your concerns. You can also contact Deacon Steve Genovese who is in charge of the altar servers. My motivation here is to try to do what is right for the Church.
           May our Lady, whose son is the eternal high priest, pray for the boys of St. Mary Church, that we may all be here one day to witness of the first Mass of one of our altar boys.

Q: Why Should I consider receiving Communion on the tongue?

            The beginning of each year is often a time of “New Year Resolutions”, and a wonderful resolution for 2009 would be to start exercising the option of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue in Mass.  Let me explain why.
            This past summer Catholics were horrified when a professor at the University of
Minnesota willfully desecrated the Eucharist.  On the internet Professor Paul Zachary Myers invited anyone to obtain for him a consecrated Host from a Catholic Church so that he could desecrate It.   Another man read about the request and took a Host from the London Oratory, videotaping Himself taking It from the Mass.  He then sent the Host to Professor Myers and posted the video on the internet.   Professor Myer then proceeded to drive a rusty nail through the Host in order to show the “absurdity” of the Catholic belief in the True Presence, and posted photos of the event on his website.   Unfortunately the event set off a series of copycat crimes, and these desecrations are all over the internet.    What can be behind so much hatred?  Even a child understands that it is not right to mock what others hold to be sacred.  I have offered Mass in reparation for this sacrilege, and I know that many good Catholics have also done forms of prayer and penance in order to console the wounded heart of Our Lord.
            Do you remember last year here at St. Mary’s when we found a Host under one of the pews in the church?  I know from other priests that this happens every once in a while in other parishes as well.  These incidents remind us that it would certainly be more difficult for people to take the Host improperly if everyone were receiving Holy Communion on the tongue.   As the Catholic Church teaches, “If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful” (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 92).  
            Many people born prior to the Second Vatican Council will remember when everyone received Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling.  This has been the long held practice for thousands of years (although during certain periods of the early Church it did allow Communion in the hand). While many think that it was Vatican II that called for this change, it is important to note: Vatican II never called for Communion in the hand.   Communion in the hand was the result of disobedience which forced the hand of the Church (no pun intended!).
            After the Second Vatican Council some dioceses in the world started to make their own rules about receiving the Communion in the hand, disobeying the laws of the universal Church.  Witnessing this practice without approval, the Vatican stated that it feared that this disobedience would lead to “...both the possibility of a lessening of reverence toward the august sacrament of the altar, its profanation, and the watering down of the true doctrine of the Eucharist” (Memoriale Domini).  
            Therefore in 1968 Pope Paul VI graciously sent out a questionnaire to all the bishops of the world asking if there should be a prudent change in the Church’s practice on how Communion would be distributed.  The poll numbers came back overwhelming against Communion in the hand.  Hence the Vatican concluded: “The answers given show that by far the greater number of bishops think that the discipline currently in force should not be changed.  And if it were to be changed, it would be an offense to the sensibilities and spiritual outlook of these bishops and a great many of the faithful” (Memoriale Domini).
            Nonetheless the disobedience continued and some of these dioceses petitioned Rome to officially permit Communion in the hand.  A year later, in 1969, Pope Paul VI gave an indult to the French bishops permitting each bishop to decide the question in his own diocese (En réponse a la Demande).  An indult is a special permission for a particular situation, rather than a universal norm.  Nonetheless eventually the majority of dioceses in the world took advantage of the indult and simply permitted the practice.
            Why did the Pope allow it?  Perhaps it can be best summed up by the words of Our Lord about why divorce was allowed in the Old Testament: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives” (Matthew 19:8).  Their disobedience had reached such a point that it would have been difficult to have them return to the traditional practice.
            Nonetheless some countries like Sri Lanka did not use the indult, and maintained the long held tradition of receiving only on the tongue.  Recently there have also been dioceses around the world such San Luis, Argentina and Lima, Peru that have returned to the traditional practice and no longer permit Communion in the hand.   This is an option fully supported by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. 
            Furthermore, if one does receive Communion on the hand, there is always the danger that particles may be remain in the hand.  The Council of Trent infallibly teaches that Our Blessed Lord is truly present even in the particles as well: “If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each form and under every part of each form when separated, let him be anathema” (Chapter VIII, Canon 3).   For this reason the priest always purifies his hands of particles at the end of Mass, and uses a corporal (a small white cloth meant to catch the corpus, or body, of Our Lord).
            Finally another major event occurred this past year when Pope Benedict XVI asked that from now on, all who receive Holy Communion from him must receive It on the tongue and kneeling.    I am sure that by insisting on this ancient practice the Pope is trying to foster a deeper respect for the Eucharist as well.
             When Rome did give the indult to the French bishops in 1969 it stated, “The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice.”  Therefore Communion is on the tongue is still the common practice for the universal Church. While both practices are permitted in most dioceses, I encourage parishioners to give prayerful consideration to following Pope Benedict XVI’s lead by receiving Holy Communion on the tongue in the new year. 

This  article can be obtained in a pamphlet format in bulk by contacting the parish office

I. Introduction

          When incense is used in the Sunday Mass at the local parish, few realize how there is a rich tradition in Scripture for using incense. For example, St. Zechariah was offering incense in the temple when the Archangel Gabriel told him about the birth of St. John the Baptist (Luke 1:9), and the baby Jesus received incense from the Magi in the stable at Bethlehem (Matthew 2:11). By examining a few of the important passages in Scripture on incense, the rising cloud of sweet fragrance during the Mass takes on a new and more profound meaning.

II. Prayers of the faithful - rising up to God

        The most commonly understood meaning of incense in Mass is that it represents the prayers of the faithful rising up to God. "and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Revelation 8:4). This dates back to the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament, when the Lord gave specific directions for the priest on how to make the incense (Exodus 30: 34 - 36), and then when to burn it. "And Aaron shall burn fragrant incense on (the lamp); every morning when he dresses the lamps he shall burn it, and when Aaron sets up the lamps in the evening, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations" (Exodus 30:7-8).
        In addition, it was important for the Levitical priests to have "burnt offerings" of grains or animals as part of their sacrifice, so as to produce "..a burnt offering, an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord" (Leviticus 1: 9-10). King David also echoed this idea in his own prayers. "I call upon thee, O Lord; make haste to help me! Give ear to my voice, when I call to thee! Let my prayer be counted as incense before thee, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice" (Psalm 140: 1- 2).

III. The smoke filling the sanctuary symbolizes the glory of God:

         The notion that the glory of God is represented by a cloud of smoke also dates back to the book of Exodus, when Moses and the Israelites were trying to flee from Egypt. Right after they crossed the Red Sea, a mysterious presence was seen by the Israelites: "Then the angel of God who went before the host of Israel moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them" (Exodus 14:19). Although the Israelites did not understand at first, this "cloud" was glory of the Lord guiding them through the desert. "And as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the people of Israel, they looked and behold, the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud" (Exodus 16:10).
         The Lord made it very clear to Moses that this cloud was his presence, "And the Lord said to Moses, "Lo, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you for ever" (Exodus 19:9). Rabbis would later call this cloud the shekinah. Furthermore, at crucial moments in the development of the holy covenant, the Lord's "glory" appeared in a cloud. For example, before giving Moses the two tablets of the Covenant, the Lord called him up on Mt. Sinai, where, "the cloud covered the mountain. The glory of the Lord filled Mt. Sinai" (Exodus 24:15).
         Another case was when Solomon finished building the Temple in Jerusalem. When the priests brought the Ark of the Covenant, and placed it in the Holy of Holies, "a cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord" (1 Kings 8:10).
         Even in the time of Christ the glory of the Lord appeared in a cloud. At the Transfiguration, the Jesus took Sts. Peter, John and James up on Mt. Tabor. "A cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. And a voice came out of the cloud saying, "This is my Son, my Chosen, listen to him!" (Luke 9:34 - 35). All this shows that the Heavenly Father reveals His glory in a cloud. Finally, in the eternal banquet of God's throne in heaven, all the faithful will see His Temple "filled with the glory of God" (Revelation 15:8).

IV. Incense as a form of exorcism

         Although not commonly understood this way, incense can also be used as a way to drive out evil spirits. In the book of Tobit, the Archangel Raphael catches a fish, and has young Tobias burn a mixture of incense made from the fish in order to drive out a demon that has haunted Sarah. Before having relations with his new wife, Tobias, "took the live ashes of incense and put the heart and liver of the fish upon them and made a smoke. And when the demon smelled the odor he fled to the remotest parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him" (Tobit 8:2-3).
         The smoke which help free the Isrealites during the Exodus is also a sign of the exorcising power of incense. "And in the morning watch, the Lord in the pillar of fire and of the cloud, looked down upon the host of Egyptians, and discomfited the host of the Egyptians, clogging their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily; and the Egyptians said, "Let us flee from before Israel; for the Lord fights for them against the Egyptians" (Exodus 14:24 - 25).

V. Conclusion

         The cloud of fragrant incense represents the prayers of the faithful rising to God, the glory of the Lord guiding His people, and of form of protection against the devil. It is therefore easy to understand the importance of using incense in Mass, why the Scriptures say: "They cried to the Lord, and he answered them. He spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud." (Psalm 99:6-7)

This article first appeared in Homiletics and Pastoral Review, October 2003.

         With every saint that is canonized, the Lord gives the Church another charism of holiness to understand and imitate. The canonization of St. Padre Pio last year could not have come at a better time in the Church's history, because of what his life can teach the Church concerning the liturgical crisis that it is currently facing. The Catholic Mass is set apart from any other form of Christian worship by its sacrificial nature. The Mass is a re-presentation of the Son of God at Calvary - bloody, bruised and beaten - to God the Father, for the conversion of the sinners, and the salvation of souls. This sacrificial reality of the Mass was never so clear in the 20th Century as in the Mass of St. Padre Pio.
         As many know, St. Pio was the first priest in the history of the Church to bear the stigmata, the five wounds of Christ. As awesome as this may sound, whenever this friar offered the Mass, he mystically re-enacted the passion of Christ on the cross, making his participation in the Mass powerfully different than any other priests. A fascinating little book written by Fr. Tarcisio of Cervinara entitled, Padre Pio's Mass, has a series of interviews with St. Padre Pio, revealing his understanding of what is actually happening during the Mass. In this age of liturgical innovations, with scholars struggling to understand what "good liturgy" is, this book provides invaluable insight into the reality of the Mass.
        When Padre speaks of the Mass, he says, "I should like to shed, not a few tears, but torrents of tears when faced with the mystery of a God Victim. We priests are the butchers of Jesus during the Mass, while all of Paradise reverently descends on the altar. (p. 45). In a revealing interview with the author, Padre Pio also explains the nature of his own suffering when he offers this diving sacrifice:

Fr. Tarcisio: At what hour of the day, Padre, do you suffer most?
St. Pio: During the celebration of the Mass.
Fr. Tarcisio: At what moment of the divine Sacrifice do you suffer most?
St. Pio: Always and increasingly.
Fr. Tarcisio: During the celebration of Mass, at what moment do you suffer most?
St. Pio: From the Consecration to Communion.
Fr. Tarcisio: At what part of the Mass are you scourged?
St. Pio: From beginning to end, but more intensely after the Consecration.
Fr. Tarcisio: During Mass are the pricks of the crown of thorns and the wounds of the scourging real?
St. Pio: What do you mean? The results are the same.

        The book is filled with blunt anecdotes such as this, giving a detailed view of just how the Mass is truly a mystical re-presentation of the brutal sacrifice of Christ offered to the Father. When one meditates on this, it becomes evermore clear how the Mass could never be anything less than a solemn and sacred event. It is hard to imagine liturgical dance, waving of hands, or cheering going at one of Padre Pio's Masses. Reverent silence and prayer seem to be the only proper response at his Mass, and therefore at every Mass.
         Some liturgists will make the claim that Vatican II called for these more enthusiastic and entertaining Masses as a means of "celebrating community". However, Sacrosanctum Concilium mentions the sacrificial nature of the Mass six times, including here: "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the ages until he should come again." (#47)
         It is also worth noting that Sacrosanctum Concilium supports the beautiful doctrinal teachings of the Council of Trent, which articulated the Mass as sacrifice: "The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent (remain) intact." (#55) The most common argument for a more active role by the laity in the Mass is the famous passage advocating "full and active participation" by all the people in the liturgy. Although St. Padre Pio died in 1968, and therefore never offered the Novus Ordo Mass, it is interesting how he would understand this teaching of Vatican II:

Fr. Tarcisio: What should we do during Mass?
St. Pio: Repent and love.
Fr. Tarcisio: Padre, how should we hear Mass?
St. Pio: In the same way that the Most Holy Virgin and the holy women assisted. In the same way St. John assisted at the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sanguinary one of the Cross.
Fr. Tarcisio: What benefits do we receive on hearing it?
St. Pio: It is not possible to number them. You will see them in Paradise.

          For Padre Pio, "full and active participation" means imitating the example the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. John at the foot of the cross. Is it possible to imagine Our Lady and St. John doing anything but weeping and mourning, as they meditated on the immense love of their Savior? St. Padre Pio is saying that people should participate in the Mass through prayer and meditation, rather than random forms of self-expression, or having a role to play.
          Still, opponents of a more solemn Mass try to emphasize the horizontal aspect of the Mass (one's relationship with the community), rather than the vertical aspect (one's relationship with God). Sacrosanctum Concilium clearly states, however, that the vertical aspect takes precedence over the horizontal: In the Mass, "the human is directed toward, and subordinated to, the divine, the visible to the invisible, action to contemplation, and this present world to that city yet to come, the object of our quest." (#2, emphasis added)
          Pope John Paul II has also stated that in our own time, the horizontal aspect of the faith has been overemphasized: "The temptation today is to reduce Christianity to merely human wisdom, a pseudo-science of well being. In our heavily secularized world a "gradual secularization of salvation has taken place, so that people strive for the good of man, but man who is truncated, reduced to his merely horizontal dimension. We know however, that Jesus came to bring integral salvation, one which embraces the whole person and all mankind, and opens up the wondrous prospect of divine filiation." (Redemptoris Missio, #11) Certainly this reduction, as the Pope calls it, has been felt in the liturgy of the modern Church, making it more difficult for the average Catholic to find reverence and solemnity in their Sunday Mass.
           God has given the Church a miraculous glimpse into the solemn and sacrificial nature of the Mass in the example of St. Padre Pio. May this new holy man of God intercede for the Church and help bring about an authentic renewal in the liturgy. (Padre Pio's Mass, by Fr. Tarcisio of Cervinara, can be purchased from the National Center for Padre Pio in Barto, PA at (610) 845-3000)

How Should you dress for Mass in the Summer?

           With the hot weather it is a good time to remember the importance of dressing appropriately for church.  Sometimes during the summer people forget that they are going to the Lord’s house for worship, and confuse it with a trip to the beach.  Therefore I would like to remind everyone about the virtue of modesty.
            Modesty is part of the virtue of purity.  Modesty may vary from one culture to another, but there is nonetheless a universal intuition which seeks to respect the dignity proper to every person.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of it this way: “Modesty protects the intimate center of the person.  It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden...It inspires one’s choice of clothing.”
            Every person is made in the image and likeness of God, and the human body reflects this mystery.  Although there is not much cultural support for this view, parents need to teach their children that their body is not something to be exposed for the world’s voyeuristic explorations.  As the Catechism states, “Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.”  And if parents fail to teach their children how to dress with dignity, it is highly unlikely that anyone else will.
            I read that Muhammad Ali explained it to his daughter this way: “Where do you find diamonds? Deep down in the ground, covered and protected.  Where do you find pearls? Deep down at he bottom of the ocean, covered up and protected in a beautiful shell.  Where do you find gold?  Way down in the mine, covered over with layers and layers of rock.  You’ve got to work hard to get to them...Your body is sacred.  You’re far more precious than diamonds and pearls, and you should be covered too.”
            While mothers need to teach their daughters the art of being attractive without compromising their dignity, fathers need to teach their sons how to be gentlemen.  Gentlemen do not wear shorts to church, or hats inside church.  Furthermore fathers need to speak to their sons about how to appreciate the gift of a woman without reducing her to a mere object of pleasure.  For example if a woman fails to dress appropriately the necessity of practicing custody of the eyes.  Our Lord has warned us, “Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).
            All of this makes clear that dressing immodestly is offensive to God.  It is a sin.  In one of his homilies St. John Vianney warned mothers who fostered their daughter’s vanity and failed to teach their daughter’s how to dress properly:  “Soon the girl’s one aim will be to attract.  Her extravagant and indecent dress proclaims her to be a tool by means of which hell seeks the ruin of souls.  Only at the judgment seat of God will such a one know the number of crimes of which she has been the cause.” 
            Fr. Albert Dolan, founder of the Little Flower Society of the United States had an interview in 1926 with St. Therese’s older sister Pauline, Mother Agnes.  It was the year after St. Therese’s canonization.  Mother Agnes was the “second mother” to St. Therese and had the greatest influence in her formation.  Fr. Dolan asked her for a message for the people of the United States and after some thought Mother Agnes replied, “Tell the ladies of the Little Flower Society of America that if they would please the Little Flower and win her favor, they must not follow the fashion when the fashion demands immodest or indecent dress.”
            Much more could be said on all of this, but the most important point is that if we wish to be pleasing to God we must dress with dignity and teach our children to do the same.   Not only will this affect our earthly happiness, but it will affect our eternal happiness as well.

Cardinal George and Liturgical Reform

This article first appeared in Homiletics and Pastoral Review, February 2006, accompanied by numerous footnotes.

         In honor of the 40th anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium, Francis Cardinal George spoke at a Vatican conference sponsored by the Congregation for Divine Worship evaluating the reforms of the Mass of Pope Paul VI. While discussing certain cultural and philosophical influences on the liturgical structure, he called for further study into the epistemology of the Mass: "How does man, who believes, know divine realities as communicated in the Liturgy?" He stated that this investigation is "urgently needed in order to be in a better position to address contemporary questions of liturgical reform."
         Cardinal George's question is very important here in the United States because there are many reasons to believe that the divine realities in the Mass are simply not being communicated to the people in the pews. For example, statistics show that a large percentage of Catholics do no believe in the True Presence, and there is a general lack of reverence in the churches (arriving late, leaving early, casual and immodest dress, etc). Does this have to do with the way that the holy sacrifice of the Mass is currently being offered?
          Some basic epistemological points from St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross about how man comes to know divine realities are useful in answering Cardinal George's question.
          For example, St. Thomas Aquinas makes an important point right at the beginning of the Summa about man's capacity to know God: knowing that God exists is different than saying that man can know God's essence. St. Thomas' five proofs at the beginning of the Summa only demonstrate the truth of the proposition "God exists", and do not prove that man can know God's essence. In fact, after the five proofs he immediately states: "We cannot know what God is".
         This is certainly true of the Mass. The essential reality of the Mass, its sacrificial nature and Christ's sacramental presence, is not immediately apparent to the person watching it. These truths are hidden, as if under a veil. St. Thomas' devotion, Adoro te Devote, beautifully describes this mystery: "Devoutly I adore You, hidden Deity, Under these appearances concealed Sight and touch and taste here fail. Hearing only can be believed."
          So how does man come to penetrate these divine mysteries of the Mass? It comes through God's grace in a process which is traditionally called infused contemplation. Infused contemplation does not necessarily involve mystical experiences, but instead a process by which a person becomes docile to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. St. John of the Cross defines it as "nothing else than a secret and peaceful and loving inflow of God, which if not hampered, fires the soul in the spirit of love." Through infused contemplation the Holy Spirit helps the believer grow in virtue, and reveals to him the central mysteries of the faith, such as a belief and understanding of the inner life of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and in particular, the holy sacrifice of the Mass.
          The premise of this article is that the rubrics of the Mass should reflect St. Thomas' epistemological principle: the essence of the divine mysteries in the Mass will not be immediately grasped by the faithful simply by presenting them in a clear manner. Rather, the atmosphere of the Mass must be one in which infused contemplation can become possible so that the truths of the faith will be comprehended by the power of the Holy Spirit.

From the point of view of social anthropology, it is not self-evident that simplicity in ritual form is more effective than complexity. It is not clear that a sign which is immediately intelligible will be more effective than a multi-faceted symbol which reveals its meaning only over time. In short, simplifying the ritual action will not necessarily bring about the greater understanding and more active participation desired by the Council.

Although religious ritual needs to be intelligible to worshipers in at least its fundamental meanings and its major contours, too great concern with the intelligibility of the rites tends to be counterproductive....The "fallacy of explicitness" has been responsible for much liturgical impoverishment, since some liturgists (and some worshipers) appeared to assume that once the symbol has been "explained" there was no longer any need for them.

The use of the vernacular has certainly opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part but this does not mean that the Latin language, and especially the chants which are so superbly adapted to the genius of the Roman rite, should be wholly abandoned. If subconscious experience is ignored in worship an affective and devotional vacuum is created and liturgy can become not only too verbal but also too cerebral.

Do not be like the many foolish ones who in their lowly understanding of God, think that when they do not understand, taste, or experience him, he is far away and utterly concealed. The contrary belief would be truer. The less distinct is their understanding of him, the closer they approach him.

Authentic ritual functions according to disciplined patterns of habit and continuity. This kind of participation avoids spontaneity and on-the-spot adaptation in favor of the predictable and the familiar. The vehicle of expression includes words, but relies more heavily on symbols and symbolic actions. The more profound symbols have many levels of meaning, are "opaque" in that sense, are not susceptible to superficial and easy understanding.....The qualities of beauty and holiness are communicated by signs which are the product of the highest cultural achievements.

In all fairness it should be said that Sacrosanctum Concilium does not pretend to give an exhaustive treatment of liturgical epistemology, nor could the Council Fathers have possibly imagined the pastoral situations that would arise in subsequent years which would require a more nuanced and sophisticated treatment of the topic.

In a document called Faithful Citizenship:  A Catholic Call to Political Responsability, the Bishops of the United States encourage all Catholics to be involved in the political process. While Catholics cannot endorse politicians or political parties (doing so would endanger the Church's tax exempt status), Catholics have the right and responsibility to endorse issues. In fact they are morally obliged to do this by voting, and voting according to a well-formed Christian conscience.
          When considering the many issues present in elections, the Church teaches that they are not all equal. Pope John Paul II has clearly stated that the attack against innocent life is the pre-eminent issue of our day. In Christifideles Laici he writes: "Above all, the common outcry which is justly made on behalf of human rights for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with the maximum determination." This would include the legalization of abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and human cloning; and for Catholics, anyone who would deny the immorality of these acts would "no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church."
          It is certainly true that those running for election may have persuasive ideas on the pressing social issues of the day, such as health care, poverty, economics or education, but if they do not protect the basic right to life, they have already compromised the common good.
          Furthermore, the Church gives Catholics the freedom to disagree on these other social issues, as long as certain truths are respected: "For the Church does not propose economic and political systems or programs, nor does she show preference for one of the other, provided that human dignity is properly respected and promoted, and provided she herself is allowed the room she needs to exercise her ministry in the world."
         The Vatican is also calling Catholics to pay close attention to the legalization of same-sex unions. In 2003 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated, "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Under no circumstances can they be approved."
         More specifically, Catholics are placing their eternal salvation in jeopardy if they support such a law: "The Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."
         Therefore protecting the family should be a priority for Catholics. "A family policy," writes Pope John Paul II, "must be the basis of all social policies." In parish life there are other moral issues which parishioners raise as well, such as the war on terrorism, or the legalization of capital punishment, and whether they carry the same weight for the Catholic in the voting booth as these other family issues. The Church has stated that they do not.
         For example, the criteria for applying the Church's "just war" doctrine falls mainly on the civil leaders of the country because they are the only ones who bear the full responsibility to defend the nation, and only they are completely aware of all the intelligence and factors involved. The Catechism states: "The evaluation of these conditions for the moral legitimacy (of a "just war") belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." Certainly the Pope and the bishops have a role to play in promoting the common good in public policy, and Catholics should respect and strongly consider what their religious leaders have to say about the war on terror. Nonetheless Catholics are not obliged in conscience in the same way as they would for the life and marriage issues mentioned above. Finally, even if, for example, the Iraq war were intrinsically evil, which is still a debatable topic, it can not outweigh the millions of innocent babies killed each year in the United States through abortion.
         Similarly capital punishment is not an issue that is binding on the Catholic conscience in the same way as the other life issues are. The death penalty differs from abortion because the latter deals with innocent human life, whereas capital punishment deals with how the civil authority protects the common good of society. Traditionally the Church does not exclude the government's right to exercise capital punishment when "this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor." Nonetheless, as the Pope has indicated, these cases today "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." Therefore it falls to the civil authority to make that judgment. Hence, Cardinal Avery Dulles states that while the prudential judgment of the Pope and bishops against capital punishment is to be respected, "it is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching."
          Pope Benedict XVI summarizes these issues by stating, "While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." (emphasis added)
          The Church dutifully provides her children with these guidelines as a way of helping form their consciences. In this way each citizen is able to contribute in building a free and virtuous society.

What about all these Marian Apparitions?

            God is a mystery.  Although we can know that there is a God by use of our reason, and observe the laws which He has written upon nature, His substance is nonetheless beyond our understanding.  The Lord therefore comes down to our level and reveals Himself in order to help us understand both His nature, and how we are to get to heaven.   The fullness of this self-communication came in the person of Jesus Christ.  “He is the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15).
            All of God’s self-communication to mankind is called “revelation”, God revealing Himself to us.  Revelation can be divided into “public” revelation, and “private” revelation.  Public revelation is the Bible, which the Church grasps gradually, over time, in order to understand its full significance.  We should expect no further public revelation until the second coming of Christ.
            Private revelation is made up of instances of God’s self-communication to a particular person, meant to spur people to greater holiness.  Although it is a rare occurrence a person may receive a specific message, a vision or locution, directly from God.   Some recent saints who have received these private revelations would include St. Faustina and Padre Pio.   Approved visions of Our Lady would include Our Lady of Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima.   
            In recent years there have been many claims about private revelations around the world.  The Church is always slow to make a judgment about such alleged apparitions, and sometimes it never does.  For example in May of this year 2008 the Vatican approved an apparition of Our Lady to a shepherdess in Laus, France from the 17th century.  With the decision coming over 300 years after the apparition we can see how the Church is very careful in these judgments.  In these approved apparitions the Vatican always states that while they are worthy of belief, they are not necessary for salvation.  Other times it will condemn apparitions as being contrary to the faith, and not worthy of belief.
            The Church is cautious with private revelation because it knows that these messages could be completely delusional and subjective, or if it is truly supernatural in origin, it could be from the devil.  As St. Paul writes, “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14).   If, for example, the private revelation contradicted any public revelation it would be a sure sign that it is not from God.  “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a Gospel contrary to that which we preached to you,” writes St. Paul, “let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).  Our Blessed Lord warned us that even the faithful could be fooled by these signs: “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24).
            For example, an alleged series of apparitions in Bayside, New York during the 1970’s and 80’s was officially condemned in 1986 by the then Bishop of Brooklyn, John Mugavero.  He stated that, “No credibility can be given to the so-called ‘apparitions’ reported by Veronica Lueken and her followers....The ‘messages’ and other related propaganda contain statements which, among other things, are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.”  This Bayside group continues today, however, and goes by the name, St. Michael’s World Apostolate. 
            There is also another alleged apparition occurring in Ohio called Holy Love Ministries.  The people associated with this ministry are no longer submitting to their local bishop in the Diocese of Cleveland and the diocese therefore recently issued this statement for the faithful: “We would caution anyone considering support of such a venture to realize that this organization has no approval or support from the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland.  In a meeting held with diocesan officials, leaders of ‘Holy Love Ministries’ made it clear that although they encourage Catholic practices, the ministry is ecumenical, and therefore not subject to the authority of the Catholic Church.  Recent publicity regarding reported apparitions and messages makes it necessary to urge extreme caution in giving credence to such claims.”   I think it best for parishioners to stay clear of Holy Love Ministries until they are able to work with their bishop once again.
            Because fliers from St. Michael’s World Apostolate and Holy Love Ministries sometimes show up here at St. Mary Church, perhaps with good intention, I need to clarify that I have not endorsed these papers, and I gently ask that they no longer be passed around the parish.  Thank you for respecting my wishes.
            One of the more popular apparitions today that still appears open to debate is Medjugorje.  In 1981 Our Lady allegedly began to appear to six children in this Croatian village, and since then there have been millions of people around the world who have visited the sight.  I too visited Medjugorje in 1993, just as I was entering seminary, and I had a very positive experience.  Although there are questionable aspects to these alleged apparitions, to the best of my knowledge the Church has yet to declare that they are false apparitions or contrary to the faith. However the Vatican did ask that pilgrimages should not be organized to Medjugorje on the parish or diocesan level. 
            The Vatican announced in June of 2008 that it will form a commission to investigate the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje.  The fact that the Vatican has become directly involved shows the influence of Medjugorje, and the Vatican’s final decision will surely be watched all over the world.  We should pray for wisdom to enlighten those are involved in this investigation, and of course we should humbly submit to their conclusions when they are finally released.  
            While private revelations can be inspiring and intriguing to read, the sure and safe path to heaven is the Scriptures, the authoritative teachings of Mother Church, and the lives of the saints.  The Lord has promised us that with these we will have all the necessary knowledge and means in order to get to heaven. 

• Couples who cohabitate have a 50% greater chance of divorce than those who do not¹
• Cohabitation weakens the commitment to marriage because it produces attitudes and values which increase the probability of divorce²
• Cohabitation is associated with reduced sexual exclusivity after marriage (adultery is more likely)³
• Those who cohabitate report lower quality marriages, poorer communication, wives with a more individualistic view of marriage, and a lower commitment to the institution of marriage than those who do not cohabitate.⁴

The evidence of these statistics clearly indicates that those who are looking forward to a long and healthy marriage should not live together prior to marriage. All of this information provides the reasons why the Catholic Church has always taught that cohabitation is a sin, and bad for a couple's marriage. Therefore a sincere and honest person will realize that cohabitation is not right for his or her future.
(1) P.A. Guarting-Gibbs, "The Institutionalization of Pre-Marital Cohabitation: Estimates from marriage license applications, 1970 - 1980," Journal of Marriage and the Family 48 (1986) : 423 - 433. (2) University of Chicago and University of Michigan 23 year study by socioligists William G. Axinn and Arnold Thorton. (3) R. Forste and K. Tanfer, "Sexual Exclusivity among Dating, Cohabitating and Married women," Journal of Marriage and the Family 58 (1996) : 33 - 47. (4) Elizabeth Thomson and Colella Thomson, "Cohabitation and Marriage Stability: Quality or Commitment?," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54 (1992) : 259 - 267.

Q: "Is Jesus Christ the only savior of the world?"

            The question regarding the absoluteness of Jesus Christ as the one true savior of the world is briefly laid out in the Catechism, sections 846 - 848, but for a fuller understanding, it is best to refer to the 2000 document from the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith entitled Dominus Jesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church.
          After discussing a few erroneous opinions about whether Jesus Christ is one savior among others, the document states: "One can and must say that Jesus Christ has a significance and a value for the human race and its history which are unique and singular, proper to him alone, exclusive, universal and absolute. Jesus is, in fact, the Word of God made man for the salvation of the all." (Dominus Jesus, 15)
          This exclusivity is based on the teachings from Sacred Scripture. For example, the passages "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12); "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6); "There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5); "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (Revelation 22:13).
           At the same time, there are people in other religions in the world, and God wants to save them as well (1 Timothy 2:4). They may have certain dignified practices, such as fasting and daily prayer, which are good as long as they do not fall into the evil of idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:20-21). As the Second Vatican Council stated, "The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions" (Nostra Aetate, 2).
           Yet at the same time these other religions, "acquire meaning and value only from Christ.s own mediation, and they cannot be understood as parallel or complimentary to his" (Dominus Jesus, 14). Members of other religions who sincerely pursue Truth may receive grace, and even be saved, but it is ultimately through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross that they receive it.
          Finally, the Church states, "If is true that the followers of other religions can receive grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking, they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation." (Dominus Jesus, 22) The Seven Sacraments and the teachings of the Catholic Church give us the fullness of the means of salvation which these other religions are lacking. For fear that we as Catholics should sin through pride, we should remember that we are Catholic by no merit of our own, but only by the grace of God, and that "Everyone to whom much is given, of him will much be required." (Luke 12:48)

Did the Catholic Church Recently Eliminate Limbo?

       In  April of 2007 the International Theological Commission (ITC), an advisory body to the Vatican, released a document called, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized about the issue of original sin, baptism, salvation, and limbo.  Following the release of the document there was considerable confusion in the press, much of which implied that the Church had done away with the idea of limbo. 
            The document was trying to discuss the difficult question of what happens to babies who die without Baptism, which is particularly relevant because of the deplorable practice of abortion.  The Catechism already teaches two important truths about this topic.  Firstly, “The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation ‘Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ (John 3:5)...The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude.”  (1257) 
            Secondly, “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them.  Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved...allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism.”  (1261)
            In the history of the Church saints, popes, and theologians have held the opinion that infants who die without being cleansed of original sin by Baptism are deprived of the beatific vision; while they suffer this loss of the beatific vision, it is not the torments of hell, and they now enjoy a "natural happiness."  This state of natural happiness is called limbo.   However, this opinion was never officially endorsed by the Church as a definitive teaching.
            The ITC document clarified why the Church feels it is possible to hope that a way of salvation is open for infants who die without Baptism.  However the document does not go so far as to declare that unbaptized infants are definitely saved.  It simply indicates that given our understanding of God’s mercy and the plan of salvation, we can dare to hope that these infants will be saved by some extra-sacramental gift of Christ.
            Summarizing its conclusion, the document states "...besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological option), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of faith outlined in Scripture."  Therefore, contrary to many of the press reports, the Church did not do away with limbo.   Catholic theologians are free to hold that limbo exists, but they are also free to argue for some other extra-sacramental means of salvation.  This is one of those mysteries in life that we will never know for sure. 
           Finally the ITC once again affirmed the Church’s teaching that because the ordinary means of salvation is Baptism, infants should be baptized.  Catholic parents therefore have a serious obligation to have their babies baptized within weeks after their birth in order to assure their children of God’s grace.   Any baby that does die after Baptism is assured of heaven, and that is something the Church can state with confidence.