Report from Rome

Sorry I've been tied up, all manner of things. I'm not sure anyone still reads this, but in case anyone wanders by, here goes.

In June, I went off to Rome for ten days with several other priests, we had a great time. We visited a bunch of sights--I can't say "all" of course--and we had Mass at many wonderful places, including with the Holy Father (along with about 10,000 other priests) in St. Peter Piazza.

A brother priest, along for the trip, snapped some pics; let's see if I can upload and caption them for you...

Newly ordained Father Tim Ralston and Father Barry Stechshulte at lunch with the whole group after having Mass in the catacombs. Father Ralston had the privilege of being celebrant; as he was newly ordained, we gave him his pick.

This was several days into our trip, and I realized I hadn't eaten much fruit or vegetables. So for the antipasto, I tried ordering fruit. The waiter looked at me with a mixture of horror and pity, but he did bring me a bowl with several pieces of fresh fruit.

Here we are just outside the walls of the old city, on our way to--or from--the catacombs. From left: Fathers Stechschulte, Ryan Ruiz, Ralston--yours truly--and Father James Reutter.

Here is the chapel down beneath the church and monastery in Norcia, the birthplace of Saints Scholastica and Benedict. Out of sight, to the left of this view, is an area identified as the actual site for the house where the saints were born.

Vesting for Mass the sacristy of St. Peter's Basilica, around 7:15 am, before we had Mass on on the many side altars. There were many, many priests lined up to get their turn; we ended up with about nine or ten priests: a couple of friends of Father Stechshulte showed up, and another priest or two glommed onto our group, which was fine. I was the principal celebrant.

The Mass for the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart, concelebrated by ten-to-fifteen thousand priests, with Pope Benedict as the principal celebrant, of course. The three figures--backs to you--in the foreground are, from left, a priest-friend of Father Andrew Umberg, who is in the center, and me. The sun was extremely intense, the Mass--which began at 10 am (and we were in our seats before that)--lasted about 3 hours, and at several points I wondered if I'd have to walk over to one side in search of shade. I persevered, however, thanks to a hat I bought from a street vendor. I didn't like wearing a hat at all during Mass, but I did remove it during the canon.

With Brother Michael, a son of Saint Boniface Parish, in Piqua, now a Benedictine brother in Norcia, the birthplace of Saints Benedict and Scholastica. Pray for Brother Michael, who plans for final--i.e., perpetual--vows in two years. If possible, I'll return for that. He is preparing for ordination as a deacon, and then a priest, after that. He would, however, remain in the monastic community, which he loves.

Here we are at dinner after the Holy Father led a Prayer Vigil for the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart. It began at 8:30 pm, and we foolishly imagined we'd be finished by 10 pm. In fact, we arrived here between 11:30 and midnight, and this Chinese restaurant kindly stayed open for us. One memory of that vigil for me will be the Holy Father leading us in Eucharistic adoration; many thousands, including me, knelt on the cobblestones (I used the booklet they gave us to cushion my knee), and the plaza was absolutely silent. It was one of those scenes you can easily imagine someone describing from the history of the great popes; only it happened in 2010 and we were there.
Here we are, along with other pilgrims, again in the Piazza of Saint Peter, waiting for the audience. Lots of folks rushed to take seats, so they got a good view; but those chairs were in the blazing sun. I didn't care about a good seat, but I stayed in the shade till the last minute.

As you can see, I only showed you pics with us in clerical attire. I confess that several of us did, occasionally, wear a golf shirt, as these were cooler. Our reasoning was that whenever the group went out, most of us were in clerical attire, so anyone needing a priest could easily identify one of us. There was one dinner where the waiter would say, going around the table, "padre...padre...padre..." and when he came to me--wearing a madras shirt--"Signore." At one point, one of the other priests said, "oh, he's a padre too"; no matter, he kept calling me "Signore."

What's new

Well, for the last reader, here's what's new:

> School finished Friday; St. Mary Festival opened Friday. We usually plan for school to end a couple of days earlier, so rides and so forth can be set up, without conflict with school activities and the morning and afternoon drop-offs and pick-ups. Remember all that snow we had? Those snow days had to be made up. When one of the children was moping about extra days of school in June, I smiled and said, "this is your fault! you prayed for snow!" He grinned.

> Graduations. I had a couple of parties I visited last weekend, one today, and several in two weeks.

> Wedding today. In a bit I'll go over and get things set up. The lights--and, importantly, the air conditioning--are on in church already.

> Today is St. Boniface Day! A group from the parish is having a picnic, but I can't go, it will be over by the time the wedding is finished.

> Did I mention St. Mary Festival? That goes from 1 pm today till 11, and tomorrow as well. I promised to work a booth (selling ride tickets), plus I try to walk around and talk with folks. I'll wear my blacks and be in solidarity with the asphalt.

> Corpus Christi this weekend. This is why we had our 40 Hours and Procession on Pentecost. But I do have to prepare a homily. Pray for me, I'm stumped and it's Noon. I have two Masses tonight, one at 4, and another around 11:15 pm for the festival workers.

> Traveling to Rome. On Monday afternoon, four other priests and I are heading to Rome for ten days. I have laundry to do and to pack.

Week of surprises

Sunday I took off for parts east, being rather cryptic with everyone where I was headed. In fact, I was headed to D.C., planning to surprise the Piqua Catholic 8th graders during their trip to the nation's capital. Indeed, they were surprised when I walked up to them at the Basilica Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, to join them on their tour. One of the teachers asked me if I could offer Mass for the group, and I happily went off to set that up, joining the children for part of the tour around the shrine. We had Mass in one of the larger side chapels--we had about 50 total folks, including the teachers and parent-chaperones. Then the kids just that fast had to board the bus for the next stop; their itinerary was pretty tight. But it was fun seeing their looks of surprise and wonderful being with them.

I arrived in D.C. on Monday evening, having stopped in West Virginia on the way; the trip straight through isn't that difficult, but as I left Piqua on Sunday afternoon, I didn't want to arrive in D.C. after midnight. Monday night I got to see some friends over Vietnamese food and beer. Tuesday night, I had dinner with some friends, including my godson, and his younger brothers and sisters.

But another surprise--well, not exactly a surprise, but a twist; a funeral back home that I took a chance wouldn't happen until the end of the week. In fact, it was scheduled for Wednesday morning, and I decided that I would regret missing it more than I would regret making the trip. So, after a nice dinner--no wine or beer!--I drove back from northern Virginia on Tuesday evening, arriving home around 5:30 am. After a bit of sleep, I was at the funeral, then spent yesterday afternoon in a semi-vegetative state. A good night's sleep and I'm back to good energy.

Insofar as they weren't expecting me in the office today, I decided to leave it as planned.

Comments Easier

I was recently advised that making comments was very difficult, and it reminded me that some time back, I made that change deliberately. I did so because of a boorish commenter who simply would not either be less boorish or go elsewhere. That was some time back, and we can hope he won't find his way back. Till then, comments are easier again.

Still alive

Sorry I've been absent; this time of year is the very busiest in a parish. I have been preaching homilies the past few weeks, but with no texts, so nothing to post. We've had First Communion and Confirmation in recent weeks, as well as wrapping up various things for the year. Working on budgets for the school, and for each parish. Next weekend we will have 40 Hours at St. Mary in Piqua, followed by a procession--from St. Mary to St. Boniface--on Sunday, May 23, leaving around 1 pm.

I don't mind saying I've been tired, and I'm actually travelling today. Heading to see some friends up east. I will be back by the weekend. But I may actually find it easier to post! We'll see!

True Worship (Sunday homily)

The second reading, from the Book of Revelation,
shows us the saints in heaven, worshipping.
Actually, if you go through the entire Book of Revelation,
you’ll see a series of scenes: some on earth, then some in heaven.
On earth you see conflict, persecution and distress.

But what you see in heaven is always the same:
the angels and the saints, peacefully, and very intensely,
worshipping the Lamb of God.

Is worship an afterthought? Or is it the center of our lives?
God is letting us know that you and I, and the whole human race,
can only find our true selves, and true justice, true happiness,
with true worship of God.

So for example, people who say they don’t have time to worship God,
Or they can “worship God in their own way”—
Can end up worshipping Money or Getting Ahead;
Or they worship a God who coincidentally
agrees with all their own ideas!

In short, there is always the danger
that our focus will shift, gradually,
from being centered on God, to being about ourselves.

I’ll begin with myself. One of the grave temptations
many priests experience
is to inject too much of ourselves into Mass.

If I were a shy, retiring sort of person—hah!—
maybe that wouldn’t be an issue.
But for me, and for many priests, it is a constant temptation:
add a comment or a joke or an explanation here…
and here…and here…

Now, there’s a place for some of that.
But it’s like red pepper: a little can go a long way;
and those who like it, always put in way too much!

A lot of folks want the priest to do that.
Mass is “boring,” we like it when Father livens it up.
What’s wrong with that?

The Mass is not about me.
My purpose is to be as transparent as possible—
which, given how thick I am, is no easy miracle for God!

It’s kind of a paradox.
Worship is “for us”—in the sense that it benefits us;
God doesn’t need it.
Yet in order for worship to be “good for us”—
it cannot be about us—
we have to fight every temptation to make it us-centered.

And if I can tell you how tempting that is for me,
isn’t that true for all of us?

So we often ask, what should we do to draw people in?
What makes us feel good when we walk out of church?
What do folks like?

I’m not saying those aren’t fair questions;
but you see the danger?


The Mass is what Revelation describes:
God’s people intensely centering their worship
on the Lamb of God;
Jesus who is both Priest and the Lamb slain,
offering himself to wash away our sins
and to plead for us to the Father.

We often say, “Mass is a celebration.”
Again, that’s true to a point.
But we can’t celebrate our being saved,
without also facing the fact of our being lost—and needing it.

In Revelation, we see our future—we are saved!
But we come to Mass in our present,
in a world where we face pressure to keep our Faith to ourselves;
where like Peter, will both want to serve him,
but are tempted to deny him.
Every day we face 100 choices: His way—or my own?

In this world, we take part in the Mass
needing Christ to pour his grace down on us and on the world.
That’s why our focus, our everything, is on the Lamb of God.

Getting the facts right about the pope

(This is more or less what I plan to put in the church bulletin this coming weekend. I may change it based on feedback I receive, here or elsewhere)

No doubt you’ve read stories criticizing Pope Benedict, saying he was negligent or blocked action regarding abusive priests.

Of course this is delicate, because too many people suffered terribly at the hands of a few priests who did horrible things. Too many, especially bishops, were passive, or protected the offenders. These are valid criticisms of the Church. Still there is a question of fairness. No one wants to lump the innocent with the guilty.

So are these claims about the pope “fair and balanced”?

The Vatican is fairly faulted for being slow-moving, including in responding to the media frenzy. However, many are expecting the Vatican to do what local bishops are supposed to do, such as removing an offending priest from active ministry.

This whole mess exploded in this country around 2002, and we’ve taken steps to deal with it. Now much of the world is catching up. Europe is going through what we went through in 2002. And so in the media, it all comes back up as if it’s new.

It may yet be the case that Pope Benedict deserves criticism, what I’ve learned so far leads me more to fault the media for being sloppy and looking for the big “score.” For example, the New York Times relied on an online translation program to convert a document from Latin* to English, without having anyone check it for accuracy!

One story accused Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict), as Archbishop of Munich, of putting an abusive priest back into service. It is true the priest was returned to service; but it was not Ratzinger’s decision. While in the U.S., a bishop would make that call, in Europe another official, the vicar general, makes that decision. That was all too common in the 1980s, but it doesn’t happen now, thankfully.

You heard about a case from Milwaukee, where a priest was facing a church trial to be “laicized”; and you heard about something similar from California. The claim is made that then-Cardinal Ratzinger slowed things down.

To unravel this, I have to clarify some terms many use interchangeably.

1. We refer to a cleric being “removed from ministry.” The local bishop does this—not the pope; and he can do it immediately. It can be temporary, while something is investigated, or it can be permanent. Not taking this step is probably the single-biggest harm many bishops caused in this whole mess.

2. We also refer to “laicizing” a priest. Remember, we believe that the sacrament of holy orders imparts an indelible change—“once a priest, always a priest.” But “laicizing” means he no longer has the obligations of a priest and can no longer function as a priest.

3. Often, a priest himself will ask to be “laicized” for various reasons; he feels he can no longer carry out his ministry, he wishes to marry, has had a crisis of faith, etc. The pope is not obliged to grant the request, and usually does not.

4. Then, there are cases of “involuntary” laicization, what the media calls “defrocking.” When a priest has committed grave offenses, his bishop will seek this action. The priest has the right to contest it, so there is a long process, in a “church court,” just like a secular court of law. Rome has the final say.

The problem is, the media are mixing all these together. Many have faulted Rome for taking time on laicization, failing to note that this doesn’t prevent a bishop from removing a priest from all active ministry. They are independent.

Yes, it is true that laicization takes time, and many of the stories highlight how long it took in the ’80s and ’90s. What they don’t tell you is that it has been streamlined since 2001. And who spearheaded this change? Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict.

An AP story really muffs this. A California priest wrote to Rome asking for voluntary dismissal. Ratzinger wrote back, saying slow down “for the good of the church.” Turns out, the same priest was also an abuser (which he obviously didn’t say in his own letter to Ratzinger); and in time, the bishop sought to have him laicized. But the AP doesn’t make clear just what request the letter they’ve quoted was responding to.

A New York Times story about a priest from Milwaukee claimed Ratzinger stopped a church trial of a dying priest. But the judge in the case—who said the Times never even talked to him—tells a different story: yes, Ratzinger was asked to stop the trial, because the priest was ill. But before Ratzinger even responded, the priest died.

Now, it may yet be that we’ll learn something deserving criticism. But the whole story should be told. If you go online to http://www.vatican.va/resources/index_en.htm, you can read about how Rome deals with these things. You can also read the tough letter Pope Benedict addressed to the Irish Church, in light of terrible events there.

Also, a lot of people see this through the lens of some mistaken assumptions.

Many assume the Vatican is a massive bureaucracy. Not so. Many assume the pope can do whatever he wants, such as firing a bishop. In theory, yes; but in practice, no. Many claim that if only the priesthood were open to women, or priests were married, this would all be different; yet we know these crimes happen in other religious settings, in schools, sports teams and elsewhere, where celibacy and Catholic theology have nothing to do with it.

I thought these were points you would like to consider as you read these things. My conclusion is the pope, and our Church, are being treated unfairly—Father Martin.

* Correction: it was a translation from Italian to English. See link in comments.

Update, April 19, AD 2010: This article in the UK Catholic Herald is very good. Biretta-tip to Rich Leonardi at Ten Reasons

'Power to change us...we can change the world' (Divine Mercy homily)

There are two things I’d like to highlight in the Gospel.

The first is the authority
that Jesus Christ shares and gives over to the Apostles.
He said: “As the Father sent me, so I send you.”

If I had a billion dollars and gave you my checkbook and said,
“As I can sign checks from this checkbook, so can you”—
what would that mean?
Maybe the last time I saw you—or the checkbook!

When Christ says that to the Apostles,
he’s really communicating his divine power and authority to them.

In an age when everything seems tattered and suspect—
Our Congress doesn’t look much like the Founding Fathers;
Our sports and entertainment heroes don’t inspire;
Our financial institutions aren’t trustworthy;
And our church leaders come under attack;
We might wonder if we can really believe this idea
that the Church is Christ’s true presence and authority on earth.

Well it depends on what we expect before we will believe that.
If we expect those of us who make up the Church to be immune
from temptation, from weakness of judgment and character…

Then, no, we can’t believe the Church is divine.
And that is how a lot of folks approach it.
We profess that the Church speaks with the authority of Christ;
and then someone looks for a flaw—and they find plenty.

But that misunderstands what we believe.
We never claimed the Church is made up of only perfect people;
How weak Christ would be
if he could only be effective through perfect people!

When Jesus came, he chose flawed people as his messengers.
That’s who he was looking at when he said,
“As the Father sent me, so I send you.

It is despite this that the Church has been, and is,
His Ambassador to the world—acting with his authority.
One good thing is that no one can ever misled
about what makes it work.
If you walk into a structure built solidly,
there’s nothing remarkable about it staying upright.

But if you walk into a building made of dodgy materials,
put together haphazardly, and then you were told
“this building has withstood winds and storms and earthquakes—for two thousand years!”
You would say: “this is a miracle—only God’s power can explain it.”

And that is the Church. It’s built of us, and with our help.
The Architect must shake his head;
and yet the Risen Lord cannot and will not be constrained by our weakness.
When we profess the Church is his divine instrument,
it’s an act of Faith in him—not us!

I said there was something else worth noticing—
and it has to do with why this first thing is important.

Notice what else the Lord gives his Apostles—notice the purpose:
“Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you forgive,
are forgiven them;
whose sins you retain, are retained.”
The world needs the Church to be Christ’s Teacher:
a sure light amidst so much uncertainty.
But that only cause for hope if the Church is also a Healer:
Giving Christ’s mercy and power to change.
What good is it to show people the way to heaven,
if we are unable to help anyone actually get there?

These truths confront us as they did Thomas: Do we believe this?
If we don’t have the conviction
that there’s something unique about our Catholic Faith;
if we are not convinced
that true mercy and conversion is in our midst;
then what will impel us to share our Faith with others?

And this is a challenge in another way:
if you tell me I have the power to change,
what excuse, then, do I have, for remaining as I am?

People flocked to the Apostles not because they were perfect,
but because Someone Perfect was at work through them.

And yet the Apostles had to be willing:
to be set afire by the Holy Spirit, to be a beacon of hope.
The Lord appeals to us as he did to Thomas:
Doubt no longer, but believe.
Christ can change us; and we can change the world.

Not dead, not missing!

Hi gang, sorry to be AWOL.

This time of year is busy for more reasons than you might think:

> Lent with more penance services and preparations for Easter
> Budget season for school (finished) and parish (still ahead)
> End of school year, as activity level rises to a crescendo

Not to mention several projects that I've been working on:

> Hiring a new maintenance person for one parish
> Working with a committee of parishioners for some major improvements to the interior of that parish church
> Making some summer plans

I have been preaching Sunday homilies, of course, but the last several involved no text, and no notes other than in my head. So I'm sorry I haven't posted them.

Good things going on, just too busy, and in some cases too tired, to post about them. It should get a little better soon.

Q&A: What’s wrong with the present translation—why not keep it?

(Another Q&A about the new translation of the Mass...)

To be clear, no one is claiming that the translation is so problematic that the Mass isn’t a valid Mass. But there are some unintentional ways it gives a wrong impression about what we believe. Some are more concerning than others, but surely we want our Mass prayers to be translated so our Faith is expressed the right way.

A larger question is whether the current translation conveys the full meaning of the prayers of the Mass. This is a more common problem.

An even broader question is one of “fidelity” to the text.

When the current translation was put together, quickly, the approach was to translate more loosely. The new translation follows the Latin prayers more closely. There is a case to be made for both approaches, but in 1998, at the behest of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican issued a document called Liturgicam Authenticam that gave direction on how prayer texts for the liturgy were to be translated—and it called for following the Latin texts more closely, rather than a looser approach that was used earlier.

(FYI, also realize these are intended for use in the parish, so they are not as in-depth as they might be. But that's not to say they shouldn't go further...feel free to offer suggestions.)

Q&A on the new translation of the Mass: part 2

As mentioned in my prior post, I'm working on some Q&A about the new translation of the Mass.

Here some of what I've come up with, please feel free to offer constructive critique.

Please continue to suggest questions to answer--I've written answers to about 12 questions I could think of, and I can think of more still to work on.

(FYI, if your question is, "please say more about the points raised here--I will; that's what comes later, stay tuned...)

1. Why is the translation of the Mass changing?

Because the translation we currently use is not as good as it can and should be. And this is not a matter of minor tinkering. There are a number of ways the current translation significantly falls short of conveying the full meaning of the Mass prayers, or, worse, unintentionally distorts what we believe.

This is not to find fault. A lot of things changed very rapidly after the Second Vatican Council, and translating the Mass from Latin to all the languages of the world was a big job. They did their best; and that was 40 years ago. It’s reasonable that sooner or later, the job would be revisited. In the judgment of the pope and bishops, that time has come.

Q&A on the new translation of the Mass

One of the things I am working on today is a handout with "frequently asked questions" about the new and improved English translation of the Mass that is forthcoming in the next year or two.

I am aware of many questions people have, and also items of confusion or concern: "what does 'and with your spirit' mean?" and "why will the words of consecration be 'for you and for many' instead of 'for all' as we're used to?"

That last change, I predict, will generate a lot of questions, because the contrast of "many" and "all" leads to disturbing thoughts. But it occurred to me that wouldn't even arise--at least, not with the same intensity--if the translation had been "for many" from the get-go. Then, without any reference to "all," we might instead think of other contrasts...such as, "many" v. "few."

I'm not ready to publish it, but I've gotten started on it and just the exercise helps sharpen my own thoughts.

Perhaps you would care to help?

You can help two ways:

1) Suggest questions you think would be on the minds of ordinary folks, that it would be helpful for someone to answer, and

2) If you know of an article somewhere that provides some scholarly background on these issues--such as "and with your spirit" and "for many," etc., don't assume I know about them. I'd be eager to cite some scholarship, because I'm not in a position to do it myself as a pastor.

An (unexpected) break in the action...

Until two minutes ago, I thought I was driving up to McCartyville for a penance service, and just as I was about to head out, a logic-check hit me: parishes never have their Lenten penance services this early! Did I write down the correct date?

Sure enough, it's March 23...so I have--in the words of the great Marty Brennaman, announcer for the Reds, "a break in the action" (or was that the late, beloved Joe Nuxhall?).

I am sorry I didn't post Sunday's homily; I had but sketchy mental notes, so it'll be hard to recreate; but I emphasized the idea of "taking a stand"--because in each of the three readings, that what we see. The faithful Israelite "takes a stand" in the temple, and acknowledges who his ancestors were, how God delivered them from slavery in Egypt, and now he stands before God, with the fruits of his labor, which God made possible. In the second reading, Paul describes taking a stand in professing faith in Jesus; and in the Gospel, Jesus stands between us and the devil.

I pointed out how this happens in baptism--when an adult comes forward, s/he stands up and declares the same faith Paul talks about--and then is baptized. (At 9 am Mass, we had a catechumen preparing for baptism at Easter, so I addressed some of my comments to her specifically, about standing up for Christ.) I talked about what is expected of the godparents and parents, in standing up instead of the child being baptized.

As you might expect, I gave examples of how we must take a stand for our values in the face of our culture, how we may face criticism or ridicule for doing so; and in other places in the world, we would face jail and death. I talked about how we can say something similar to what the first reading said, insofar as the Faith was shared with us, and now we are born again in Christ!

Sorry I cannot recall the rest.

You might find my Sunday schedule interesting.

After I had 7 am Mass, I picked up some coffee and something to eat from my friend Tim (Horton); then I had 9 am Mass at the other parish. I was able to cool my heels--a break in the action--till around 1 pm, when I had a baptism. During that time, I looked up some texts of baptism in Latin, because the family said they'd like that.

We had the baptism following Noon Mass; and four boys from the family wanted to serve, so I had them vest, and they preceded me to the font. I sang several parts of the baptism--the litany and the blessing over the water (I would have sung the Alleluia, but not in Lent of course) and then I administered the baptism per se in Latin: "____, ego te baptizo..."

After that, the family had a gathering the cafeteria, and I attended that for a bit--only to realize I had to get down to Dayton for the Rite of Election. That's a liturgy, usually led by the archbishop if he can come (there are four such liturgies that day, he does two), at which he greets those preparing to enter the Church at Easter and declares them "Elect of God." Most pastors don't seem to go, but I go if I can; I haven't missed yet.

After that, the catechumen and the candidates for full communion (i.e., Christians who aren't Catholic, but wish to become Catholic and will--in our case--do so at the Easter Vigil) went out for dinner together. I got back around 8 pm I think. Finished for the day.

Oops, times awasting! I have a meeting I thought I couldn't attend--now I can. Back to the action!

Question: Saints' images in church

I'm trying to track down an answer to a question: can someone who is a "venerable"* or a "blessed"--but not a "saint"--be honored with an image in a church? Last night, I went looking through the General Instruction on the Roman Missal and Built of Living Stones, the document the U.S. bishops put together several years ago on church architecture, but didn't find the answer there; nor was an Internet search helpful.

Any suggestions?

Update: I may have found my answer...I read an article at the Catholic Encyclopedia about the distinction between beatification--declaring someone "blessed"--and "canonization," after which one it termed "saint." It made the point that once one is beatified, s/he can be venerated as a saint, but not universally; canonization makes the permission--or mandate--universal. Hence, depending on the locality--and perhaps with ecclesiastical approbation, I'm guessing a Blessed can have an image put on display for veneration; once canonized, no permission would be needed.

I'm not saying this is right; if anyone can shed light on it, I'd be grateful.

* I realize not everyone is familiar with the distinctions the Church makes about someone being "venerable," "blessed" or a "saint." This is not a subject I can address in detail, but here's a quick summary: the Church has a formal process for declaring someone a saint--i.e., "canonizing" a saint. It involves initially recognizing someone as a "servant of God," which is the very beginning step, after which "the cause" has begun.

Part of the process is to investigate fully the individual's life and writings, if any. The faithful are invited to ask the Servant of God to pray for various things, and then the Church waits to see if anyone can show a miracle happened as a result. Proof is demanded, and insofar as it involves a healing, medical experts are consulted. The idea being that if we ask the late Pope John Paul II to pray for a miracle, and God grants it, that is evidence of the late pope's sanctity and being in heaven--and thus, a saint. But the Church requires more than one round of that, hence the steps of being declared "venerable," then "blessed," and then "saint." The reason for it being deliberate is, of course, to try to get it right. I probably got some detail wrong in describing this--this is a very quick, "not ready for wikipedia" version of the process!

Ash Wednesday starts early...

Starting last year, I began having a 6:15 am Mass on Ash Wednesday. The origin of the idea was my desire to have Mass periodically for the hardy souls who show up each morning at that hour for a communion service. Given that the folks who come for that early communion service are on their way to work, Mass must be quick.

It may be I'm not skilled in the art of a "quick" Mass because as it was, with no homily, Mass took about 25 minutes. But we had a nice crowd of about 25 at that early hour, not bad considering it is something new. We'll have many more later, especially at 7 pm.

After having my morning "collation"--i.e., on a day of fasting, one has but a single full meal, but one can have two "collations" (snacks) that together do not equal a full meal--of coffee and a bagel (I had a coupon for a free one) from Tim Hortons, I'm thinking about my homily for Sunday, which is my usual Wednesday morning ritual, but which has fallen into desuetude lately.

Later, we'll have extra time for confessions--from 5-6:30 (or longer if needed), prior to Mass at 7 pm. Then while our retired priest has the evening Mass, I'll be having our Bible study, beginning the Gospel of John. We meet in the Caserta Center next to St. Boniface Church every Wednesday evening.

We did have Mass planned for the schoolchildren at 9:15 am; however, school is delayed two hours, meaning they can't come to Mass at that hour. So we're going to have the younger children come to 12:10 pm Mass--which happens at St. Boniface, where their classes are--and we'll have a prayer service this afternoon for the older children, who attend classes at St. Mary, at which they can receive ashes.

Some events in the life of a priest...

Some recent commenters have suggested I must not be busy about parish business because I've offered teaching and comments on the true nature of marriage here in recent days.

Well, anything is possible, and a parish priest's work is never done; but here are some things I've been busy about lately, for those who enjoy an insight into the life of a parish priest...

> With others' help, I've been conducting job interviews for a position for one of the parishes. We're not finished; but soon I'll have a decision to make about hiring someone.

> I've been able to help--at a critical time--the same family as it experienced the death someone special. Two deaths in a matter of weeks. Twice recently I've been at the bedside, at the hospital, offering the final sacraments and prayers of commendation in Espanol. I am very sorry to have butchered the pronunciation, but it was the best I could do.

We had a funeral Mass last week, offered by a visiting priest, who is fluent in Spanish; and I just got off the phone, having made arrangements for a funeral service later this week for the second person in that family who died.

As it happens, I was called to the man's bedside around 1 am this morning--I had gotten back from a holy hour a little after midnight, and was about to head to bed when the call came. When the nurse rushed us to his bedside, she said, "hurry, hurry"; I was momentarily thrown off--I was going to do the prayers all in Spanish, but I couldn't find them quickly in the book, so I just said the words of absolution, the apostolic blessing and the prayer of anointing in English, and we prayed the final litany in Spanish. He breathed his last a few moments later.

> I also got called to the cemetery for a graveside service on Saturday morning, before some of the job interviews I mentioned. But for the family's privacy I'll say no more. As you might imagine, I have lots of conversations and encounters with parishioners that I never say a word about here, because its private.

> After Mass last night, the parochial vicar and I went out to dinner at a local eatery; as often happens, I saw many of our parishioners, some couples and families out for St. Valentine's Day.

> I have a parishioner to visit at the hospital this afternoon, I'll head there shortly. I came back home to have a bite to eat, post my homily, and then had the phone message about the funeral service (which I expected), and some calls to make.

> This evening, we'll have an "XLT" with the High School group. "XLT" is high-school-speak for "exalt"; we'll have time of praise and worship of the Lord before the Most Blessed Sacrament on the altar of St. Mary. Which meant that I had to remember to consecrate a host for exposition. I was going to do it at 5 pm Mass last night; I forgot, so I left a note for the vicar to do it at 9 am Mass, which he did. I've been thinking a bit about the talk I'll give as part of that.

> Amidst all that, we had a bulletin insert to prepare--for this weekend--that describes the many opportunities for prayer and confessions during Lent, as well as other opportunities such as my weekly Bible study (Wednesday at 7 pm at St. Boniface), which will be on the Gospel of John, starting this week; also we have Gospel reflection groups in folks' homes during the week, and so forth. We got a late change of another parish's penance service, so we had to throw out the copies we'd made and fix them.

> Oh, there were certainly many other things I could describe, but you get the idea.

Off to the hospital in a bit.

World values v. God's values (Sunday homily)

Here is my homily for this weekend; I worked from notes, so this is more or less a reconstruction of what I said at 5 pm and 10:30 am Masses this weekend...

Folks sometimes ask me how I come up with my homilies each week...
this Sunday I can give you some insight into that.
This week, I was talking to Father Tom about the readings--
he often gives me good ideas about homilies,
I don't know if he ever says that about any of my observations!--
and we were discussing what to draw out of them.
Later on, I was sitting, reflecting on the readings, and I took some paper--
here it is, you can see it was post-it notes!--
and I drew a line down the paper.
One one side, I wrote, "what the world values";
on the other, "what God values."

Now, if you don't take anything else away from this homily,
that right there wouldn't be a bad exercise for anyone to do on your own--
when you get home, try that: write each on a piece of paper, and see what you come up with.

Here's what I came up with.

What does the world value?
For one, how we dress, or the appearance we make.
When you show up for a job interview, or a party,
people will fault you if you're dressed the right way.
I was at a restaurant last night, and I saw someone and I thought,
"he's not dressed very well!"
Then I thought, maybe I should focus on eating my meal instead.

What does God value? I don't think our appearance matters to him.
But whether we walk humbly; whether we tell the truth with love;
and above all, is my heart and my life open and ready to receive God wants to give?
I think those are things God values.

Saint Augustine said that God has wonderful gifts for us,
but sometimes our hands our full--and he has to knock things from our hands,
so we can receive his gifts.

So when our Lord talks about being hungry...
being hungry means I'm ready and grateful for something more;
but if I'm full, I say, "no thank you."
If I have all I need or want, how ready am I for something more?

The Lord said, "woe to the rich"--what does that mean?
Does it mean they are going to hell? That God hates rich people?
I don't think so. What does it mean?

Perhaps it means this: if we find our meaning and purpose in stuff,
in what we have, that's a woe, not a blessing.

On the other hand, to be free of stuff, and its power over us,
to be free of worry these things, to be free of worry about what others think--
or what we have to lose for doing what is right...this freedom, that's a great blessing.

I remember when I left Washington, and drove back to Cincinnati to enter the seminary;
I'd sold my house, and I no longer had a mortgage, no more worries about that!
I missed it--yet it was very freeing.
Now I've come full circle, and I have all this (gesturing to the church) to care for!
But it's all yours, it's not mine; so I'm still free.

This was the insight of that great theologian, Janis Joplin, who had a great insight:
"freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."

Freedom...what does the world think about freedom?

The world's idea of freedom is, "let me do what I want, leave me alone,
even if I'm destroying myself, that's not your business."
There's something to that--we don't want to run anyone else's lives.
But I don't want to live in a society that sees other people on a path of destruction, and says, not my problem. How heartless! How soulless!

God's idea of freedom is different: true freedom is nothing has power over me.
Free of the power of appetite, free of the power of stuff;
free to give myself away, to God and to others. No fear.

Lent--which starts this week--is our time to grow freer in these ways.
We fast to be freer of appetite;
we pray more to be freer from from the urgency of this world's demands,
and be reminded of the eternal, which is always there, but not always so apparent;
we give ourselves away--our money or our time--so we are freer from the power of things.

We might look at the two sides (holding up the paper) and wonder where we are--
the world's values or God's values.
I wasn't all that happy with where I found myself, either.
But in six week's time, where will we be?

A primer on marriage, the state, the Church and gay rights--part 1

As I wait for the storm to settle--and having written my column for the bulletin--this seems as good a time as any to write this post.

It won't be as good or as carefully researched as it might be, but it will do till that happens. Perhaps a reader can provide a link to a resource somewhere that does a better job of what I'm going to attempt here.

But since my comments at a Washington Post blog, and then a subsequent post here, have generated many comments--including questions from (mostly anonymous) visitors who seem to be genuinely puzzled about what I'm saying about marriage, so-called "same-sex marriage," and what the state and the Church have to say about all this, I guess there are some things I'm taking for granted. So I'll outline some thoughts here.

1. What is marriage? Who says?

Marriage is an institution that arises out of human nature itself. It is not the creation of government, nor of religion. So--surprise!--marriage is not a religious institution at all! The proof of this can be seen so easily that I suppose it's so big we don't even see it at all, sort of like the sky: marriage--I mean between men and women--has existed everywhere, older than memory, in every culture, regardless of religion. The Christian Church did not present this idea to the pagan world; the Jewish People did not do so before Christianity. Men and women figured it out a really long time ago.

Now, it is true that monogamy does have a religious component: while marriage involving men and women is a universal practice, having it involve a single male and a single female is not universal. Since I am not an expert in world religions, I cannot say if other religions teach it; but it is clear enough that it existed at one time among Jews, and among pagans in the vicinity of the Jewish people, because the Bible bears witness to it.

It is also clear that monogamy emerged within Judaism, and Christianity has carried that forward. If I were doing exegesis on the Bible, I would explore here how the Jewish Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament) implicitly, if not explicitly, favor monogamy. That isn't directly on point here, but it is of interest, because sometimes folks will assert that the Bible "approves" of polygamy, and I think that's not really the case, but it is the sort of thing someone might think I was presupposing here.

So as a matter of history and universal human experience, marriage is heterosexual.

Those who favor so-called "same-sex marriage" would certainly have a powerful argument if they could point to examples of human societies that developed along different lines. And while there was a day that you could say, "oh the evidence exists, but we can't get our studies published"--but those days are long gone.

The question has to be asked: if this assertion that heterosexual marriage is a universal fact of history is wrong, why has no one disproved it? The best one gets is either citation of the ancient Greeks and Romans, or some other citation of an obscure culture where some sort of homosexual behavior seems to have been winked at or even encouraged to some degree.

But take the case of the Greeks and Romans: the fact remains that even in this example, where--we are told--there was open tolerance, if not encouragement of homosexual relationships...even here, marriage was heterosexual. And this is actually very telling, because if there were a place where you'd be likely to find the sort of history you'd want, if you favored same-sex marriage, this would be the place. Yet the gay-friendly Greeks and Romans (I'm sidestepping the argument about whether this is truly accurate) still didn't see any reason to create same-sex marriage.

Now, at some point, someone will say, why haven't I appealed to the Bible for what Jews and Christians believe about God's role in marriage?

The answer is because Christians do not believe they--or the Jews--"invented" marriage; another way to put it: heterosexual marriage (the only kind there is) pre-existed both Christianity and Judaism; if the Bible never existed, this would be just as true a statement. Christianity (I won't speak for the Jewish people) never asserts marriage to be an essentially religious institution, but rather a natural one that takes on religious meaning within our own faith.

Be aware that those who now seek to deconstruct marriage operate from the premise that this is a religious issue; and we are foolish--and factually wrong--to go along with that. It's like saying that because we use water for baptism, water was invented by Christianity; rather, Christianity takes a natural reality and invests it with a new meaning. And in the case of baptism, we invest the natural reality with rather more meaning than we do the natural institution of marriage.

Back to "what is marriage" and "who says." Some might say, my claims are arbitrary. How can this be? Marriage arises out of fundamental human nature--human sexuality and the need to procreate. Biblical religion asserts these are good things; does any society uninfluenced by the Bible believe otherwise?

Of course, reason would say that the burden does not lie with me to prove these things. I do not accept the burden of proving what is patently obvious and has always been held to be true, until the curious, recent phenomenon of folks acting as if this is all some thing that came out of the catechism. Those seeking to reinvent marriage are the ones who have the burden of justifying making a radical (i.e., to the root) change in a universal, old-as-humanity reality.

Update: when I dashed this off, it was one, very long post. I came back and broke it into three posts, and bolded the questions, and fixed one small error. Otherwise, same content.

A primer on marriage, the state, the Church and gay rights, part 2

Continuing from part one...

2. How can you say marriage is about procreation when not all marriages involve procreation. Does that mean that those who cannot conceive cannot marry? What about Mary and Joseph?

That many families exist without a father and a mother doesn't negate that a family, normally, includes a father and a mother. That some people's eyes and ears do not see or hear, does not call into question the truth of saying that eyes are meant for seeing, ears are meant for hearing.

Likewise, that when a man and a woman are drawn together by natural attraction, and enter into marriage, yet they cannot conceive--and maybe they know it, maybe they don't--doesn't negate the origin and natural reality of where marriage came from and what essential purpose it serves for the human race, to the moment I am finishing this sentence.

3. You say marriage arises out of human nature--but doesn't homosexual attraction also arise naturally? So why doesn't that justify same-sex marriage?

I'll answer the question, but it's not really a question that challenges defenders of marriage-as-heterosexual; it actually is a problem for "gay marriage" advocates. If, as you say, homosexual attraction is nothing new, then how is it that only in the late 20th century, in one part of the world, has it suddenly become "obvious" that marriage has always been arbitrarily, and too tightly, restricted to heterosexuals? Blaming the Bible for stigmatizing homosexual behavior only explains what cultures influenced by Biblical prohibitions have done. How does one explain why all other cultures, whom the Bible has only recently influenced, yet have never had such a thing as same-sex marriage?

Once again, we might look to the example--so frequently cited by the other side--of the supposedly gay-friendly ancient Greeks and Romans. The usual narrative goes like this: they didn't harbor the narrowness that Christians are blamed for introducing into western civilization, and which is only now being overcome. So then, how explain they still didn't develop same-sex marriage?

4. What is the role of government in this matter?

This is an important and interesting question, and to a great degree, it depends on your understanding of the role of government.

As an American, with conservative and some libertarian views, I hold that our government is one whose powers are neither arbitrary nor unconstrained. I didn't invent that view, of course, but there are some who seem to think this a novelty. They view government more expansively and practically: if something needs to be done, it might be just as well to have government do it.

I asked the question in the comments in another thread, who gave the city of Washington, D.C., the authority to create "same sex marriage"? The other commenter seemed to be puzzled--as if to say, something needs to be done, the city is as good a way to do it as any other.

A lot of wish to live in a society in which the powers of government are tightly restrained. The Constitution doesn't specify our rights; it presupposes them, and specifies what powers government may undertake in our name. Only to the extent specified, may government restrain or step upon our rights. We retain our natural rights, even if unenumerated in the Constitution. Interestingly--although I fundamentally disagree with it--the line of Supreme Court decisions leading to Roe v. Wade included this argument, in explicating an unenumerated "privacy" right in the Constitution.

A primer on marriage, the state, the Church and gay rights, part 3

Part 3 of my "primer" on same-sex marriage, the Church, the state, and gay rights...

5. What is the role of the Church in this--or any religious body?

The Church--any religious body--has the same rights under our Constitution as any individual or group of individuals. Because we are a church, we do not have fewer rights.

Our tax-exempt status constrains our actions to some degree, but far less than people think. That tax-exemption means some limitation on political involvement, but only some. In practice, it means the Church cannot endorse or oppose candidates. It certainly does not constrain freedom of speech; nor does it constrain the Church from petitioning government on legislation (protected by the First Amendment) that affects the Church directly.

It certainly does not constrain me--I can say whatever I feel like, I can be as political as I wish, without running afoul of tax law...provided I am acting as an individual and not in my role as a part of the corporate body. For example, my posts on this blog. No court would ever find that my blog is "official" in any sense, any more than if I sat at a table in a restaurant, and gave my political views, that that represented "the Church" taking a political position.

Further, there is a very good argument to be made that the Church can, in fact, be as political as she wants, provided she is communicating internally to her own members. I.e., the government has no authority to regulate what is said within the organization; but it may place conditions--related to the tax status--on what the Church communicates to outsiders, i.e., society at large.

There are those who appeal either to the tax-status, or to an unspecified principle of "separation of church and state," as a basis for saying the Church should shut up about public policy. But there is a big difference between this unspecified principle and what the law--the Constitution, statute and their construal by courts over the years--actually says. And the actual state of the law is on the side of the freedom of action by religious bodies, constrained only to some degree by the tax status.

Periodically, politicians angered by the Church or other religious bodies winning on a point of public policy will issue threats to revoke that tax-exemption, but that comes to nothing. You can easily look this up: you will find that actual examples of tax-exemption being revoked came because of very specific and egregious violations. It is rare. I'm not saying the Church shouldn't obey the law; but the law is what the law says it is, not what people who don't like the Church's influence imagine it is.

6. What's the "harm" of allowing same-sex marriage? Why not go along with it?

Well, that's a good question. Someone said in another thread that he couldn't see how allowing "gay marriage" has hurt his marriage. (Shrug.) That doesn't really answer anything. Does that mean only a law becomes a bad law when it affects him? Does a law have to hurt everyone before we decide it was a bad idea? Silly argument.

Others may have other points to make, but I would offer these thoughts on this for now.

a) The "harm" comes in imposing on everyone a new definition of (part of) reality. It is an act of aggression.

"Marriage now means such-and-such." "Well, I don't agree with that." "Well, you're wrong--the city/state/courts voted. Once again, I ask--who gave any of these folks the right to change what marriage is? Instead of these these proposed laws and ballot measures, how about something like this: "I favor giving the state of Ohio the power to decide what marriage is, rather than merely regulate it for good order" or some verbiage like that. Government did not create marriage or family, these things pre-existed government. Government regulates these matters, as may be necessary. Personally, I prefer less such regulation than more.

After all, it is not true that two men or women cannot "marry" each other in an absolute sense. They can find a minister to perform a ritual of marriage, and they can deem themselves married to each other.

They can tell family, friends and neighbors that they deem themselves married, they can live as a married couple, and others can choose to treat them that way. They can even, to a great degree, create legal relationships to carry this out. (One argument used here for legalizing "same sex marriage" is to point to problems of access to hospital visitation, power of attorney, and other legal arrangements. I strongly suspect if these matters were tackled directly, it would be very easy to enact changes in state laws to eliminate these problems. I, for one, do not have much energy for preventing this.)

But what one cannot do in most states, and what is at issue, is to have the civil authority, i.e., society in a formal way, affirm that this is marriage.

If you want to call a sheep's tail a leg, and say a sheep has five legs, go ahead. I'm not going to make a thing about that. But when you pass a law saying I must agree, then I'm going to have a problem with that, as do most people, judging by the outcome of these legislative ventures in most states thus far.

b) The harm comes to the degree that it is even important that there be some social notion of marriage, as opposed to merely private notions. And this, I think, is the major harm: i.e., harm to the very cohesion of society.

What makes a society? What makes one society, one? One can give a lot of answers, but ours, in this country and in our western tradition, tends to be, a common set of values.

And really, those seeking approbation of "same sex marriage" seem to get this, because they either try to appeal to some other common value to justify this, or else they sense that in order for this to succeed, a new value has to displace an old one.

Hence, for example, when the District of Columbia created "same-sex marriage" in D.C., it also imposed obligations on others to go along--in this case, obligations on those accepting tax funds to carry out programs. Those programs had to go along with this new value; something the Archdiocese of Washington would not do, because it could not. And don't kid yourself--the further we go down this road, the expectations and compliance imposed on others will only increase. This is the narrow edge of the wedge.

c) So what is happening here is "radical" change in the truest sense: radical not meant as a pejorative, but meaning, change at the root. Marriage is at the root of society; it's primordial; it goes to basic human identity. What is at stake is redefining what these things are for all of us as a society, because if such fundamental things are "privatized," then the cohesion of society falls apart.

d) An additional harm lies in what comes through the door once opened. I.e., the law of (unintended) consequences.

This is a legal argument, for which I am not fully qualified, but I think I'm on good ground. As mentioned, marriage-as-heterosexual is not, as some claim, religious in origin. But monogamy is. So, supposing the campaign for "gay marriage" prevails, especially as a product of litigation, then one is left asking, why--if we liberalized marriage laws to allow what was forbidden--are polygamous marriages still not allowed.

This is not speculation; there are people who practice polygamy, at home and abroad. Unlike fictional "same-sex marriage," there is a real history and tradition to polygamy. And our laws against it do not rest on appeal to universal human experience. They rest on a claim that social order demands no polygamy; or else they rest on an attenuated relationship to Christian tradition. (And while we don't like to say it out loud, a lot of our laws, that's where they come from.)

Another "what's next" issue: once we sever any remaining essential connection between marriage and procreation, then why should we defend any essential connection between marriage and sex? I.e., why should the law prohibit any two people, any at all, from "marrying"? Two friends--with no sexual interest whatsoever--nonetheless wish to be married, to have the "benefits" of marriage (this is the argument we hear now)...who are they hurting by being recognized by our laws as "married"?

At some point, when marriage may be anything, then it is nothing. Then marriage has been successfully deconstructed. And it may be that we will find--if this is how it plays out--that it won't matter. Perhaps we really don't need marriage to be a certain thing as a fundamental feature of our society--or perhaps after all this experimentation, the truth of what marriage is will remain largely undimmed, or even triumphant.

But it strains credulity to suppose that all this experimentation will have no real-world effect on anyone. What effect have other social and legal changes--such as easing divorce laws--had on men, women, children, families and society? Don't know? Google it and find out.

It is quite true that I am unable to predict these matters. No matter. Instead of having to show the harm, or else the venture goes forward, I insist: why should we engage in this sort of wholesale restructuring of society? That's a lot to ask. The burden is on you to make the case--and given how much change you want to effect, I'd say the threshold should be set rather high.