'Consubstantial' in the Creed

This is a post for Sarah, who asked a really good question about what "consubstantial" means in the Creed.

A disclaimer--I'm writing this fast, so please don't mistake this post for a heavily researched or edited article. Such things can be found on the Internet with a few clicks. I would love to write something like that, but time won't allow it. I do feel confident I won't give you anything false or misleading, but it's not necessarily scholarly.

OK--what's up with the term "consubstantial"? Why, in translating the Creed into English, did the translators settle on that word as opposed to any other expression--including what was there before: "one in being"?

The short answer, I think, is that the Creed--because of the sort of document it is--absolutely must be both exact in what it says, and also brief. And, because it is a statement about some very sublime truths about God, that ends up meaning that the Creed is also a very "compact" and thus "dense" theological statement. So, given that, the translators opted for "consubstantial" because they judged no other term would do.

To recall, the phrase we're looking at--in the original Latin--is:

Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri: Per quem ómnia facta sunt.

In the outgoing English translation, this is rendered:

"Begotten, not made, one in being with the Father: through him all things were made."

And in the new, improved translation:

"Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made.

In other words, that means they found "in one being" wanting. Why wanting? Is it false? No, it's not false. But it isn't very precise. While it can be understood as correctly conveying the right meaning about how the Father and Son are "one"--it can also be understood incorrectly. Remember, the Creed--by its nature--is supposed to be a very precise, very exacting, and very compact, statement of what we believe.

The Creed is more than merely one of our prayers at Mass. Outside the Bible, I would dare to say that it is the single most important statement in the Christian Faith. It is an infallible statement of Faith. I repeat--infallible--as it was the painstaking result of the first Ecumenical Council, and it was very carefully revised, somewhat, at subsequent councils. The less familiar term for the Creed is "Symbol of Faith"--a "symbolon" (in Greek) being a token that was broken in half, given to two people, and then when they met, they put the pieces together and recognized each other by the matching pieces. I.e., for the early Church, the Creed unites us; it is what we believe together.

So, the leadership of the Latin Rite--or "wing"--of the Catholic Church (which includes Greek and other sorts of Catholics) must not--and in a true sense, cannot--tamper or tinker with this statement. While the leadership of the Church can, to some degree at least, revise the prayers of the Mass--this one prayer the leadership of the Church must treat with great respect. (Let us set aside for another day the theological question of whether a pope "can" change the Creed. The important point here is that the pope, and his predecessors, are not going to do any such thing cavalierly.)

So all this is important to explain, or else we might wonder why the translators didn't take a different approach to translating the Creed.

Now, my guess is that a lot of folks, who are puzzled by, or don't like, the choice of "consubstantial," would say, "why can't they translate the Latin word (consubstantialem) into something more familiar?" And the answer, I think, is that they would if they could.

Their choices are:

a) easier terms that are not precise and careful--thus open to erroneous interpretation
b) harder terms that are precise and careful--which the Creed must be.

And they chose "b."

Of course, you might ask, wait--what about "c": easier terms that are still precise and careful--which the Creed must be?

And--if I may speak for the translators--they would answer, there is no option c. That's the point.

Now, folks are saying, "consubstantial is too hard a word." Well, it's not that it's so "hard"--it's unfamiliar. We use other words such as immaterial and consequential without folks saying those are "too hard"--because they are familiar.

The challenge isn't the word--is the reality that the word is attempting to convey. Once again, it's important to know how the Council of Nicea, in AD 325, came to choose consubstantialem for the Latin text of the Creed--to correspond to the Greek term, homoousios. The bishops of the whole Church had gathered, beckoned by the Emperor, to settle a dispute that threatened to shipwreck the Faith: who is Jesus? Is he truly God? Sort-of God? Semi-divine? Merely human?

The answer, of course, is that Jesus is "true God from true God...consubstantial with the Father"--"consubstantial" being chosen, from all alternatives, to express the fullest and most intimate unity with the Father--yet without denying the Three Persons of the Trinity are--in some sense--really distinct. If the point is stressed too much: the reality of the Trinity collapses, and we're saying that "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" are merely different "names" or "masks" of the one Person of God; go the other way, and we are tending toward not one God, but two or three. Tricky, tricky!

(All of this, by the way, arising from what our Lord told us about God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. So the notion that we might have avoided this sort of difficulty is incorrect. Jesus revealed the Trinity; the Church ultimately had to resolve questions arising from what he told us.)

We often say, loosely, that we are "one" with other people; we believe that a couple becomes "one" in marriage. We say that as Christians, we are "one in Christ." These are all true statements. But the sense in which the Father and Son are "one" is unique; this is a key reason why "one in being" is slippery--it just isn't nearly precise enough.

But we say, "one in being"--yes, that's better; but what do we mean by "being"? In terms of the Trinity, we mean that being, or self-existence, which is unique to God alone, and which they possess fully and completely together in the inner life of the Trinity. We mean not a union of two into one, but a oneness that is utterly, absolutely and eternally, and in every other way, one.

So what do you think? Would you prefer that something like the last paragraph--refined by theologians--be inserted into the Creed to translate consubstantialem? Would that be better?

I don't see that as any more helpful--and it may be, that after the theologians worked on my paragraph, it got quite a bit longer. Again, the Creed is meant to be exact--but also brief. It presupposes that it will also be explained and taught, with many more words to draw out its meaning. Look at the Catechism--the section that draws out the meaning of the Creed is pretty long! Who wants to recite all that at Mass?

I said in my other post that using this less familiar word actually does us a service. In the Orthodox Christian liturgy, there are times when the deacon or priest (I believe) will address the people with the words, "Wisdom! Be attentive!" I.e., something special is happening next, don't miss it.

When the Creed uses such compact--and albeit less familiar words--such as "incarnate" or "consubstantial," that has the same effect: we are reminded that something profound is being referred to, not something we might mistakenly think is routine or easy to understand. We never claimed everything in our Faith is "easy to understand." God is way beyond us in his true, inner reality! That's not to say we can understand nothing about him--but that we should not be troubled that some of what we believe about him takes work and leaves us wondering. Rather, we should be troubled if we never found it a hard subject.

Fisking an AP article about the new Mass translation

Here's an AP article about the new and improved translation of the Mass, that appeared today at Washingtonpost.com. For my amusement and I hope your edification, I'll offer some interlinear commentary...

New US Catholic missal to debut in November 2011

By JOE MANDAK
The Associated Press
Friday, August 20, 2010; 8:46 PM

-- Catholics in the United States will begin using a long-awaited English translation of the Roman Missal on the first Sunday of Advent next year, a leading American cardinal announced Friday.

Setting the missal's debut for Nov. 27, 2011, gives publishers more than 15 months to prepare texts, and allows American dioceses and parishes to educate members in the meantime, said Cardinal Francis George, the archbishop of Chicago and president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The new text for the missal, which guides Catholics through the prayers of the Mass (yes, but to be a little clearer, it comprises the prayers of the Mass), was approved by the Vatican in June. In July, additional prayers were approved for certain rites, such as the renewal of baptismal promises on Easter, and celebrations specific to the United States including Thanksgiving, Independence Day and the feast of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton.

Pope John Paul II announced the new missal in 2000 and it was first published in Latin in 2002.

It's the first significant change in the English translation since the Mass was first celebrated in English after Vatican II in the 1960s, said the Rev. Thomas Reese of the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. (Start keeping mental notes on who is quoted saying what; and ask if this is balanced?)

"It will impact every Catholic in every parish because they will have to learn new responses in place of the ones they have been using since Vatican II," Reese said. "I believe that the new translations are a step backwards (howso?) and confusing to the people in the pews" (note the low opinion Father Reese seems to have of what "the people in the pew" can handle).

Proponents (note no one is named--only critics of the work will be named. Why is that?) of the new missal's translation into English have said its language is more poetic and true to the spirit (yes, but actually true to the text itself! Anyone--even someone who knows little of Latin--can easily see this, simply by laying the outgoing English translation, and the new English translation, beside the normative, Latin text of the Mass. You will see immediately in many places how much of the Latin disappears--nowhere translated! Where did it go? Would anyone accept a "translation" of the Declaration of Independence that dropped out whole phrases as legitimate?) of the original Latin. Critics contend the translation is too literal and includes too many theologically complex terms.

(Once again, notice the low opinion of what the faithful can handle. Aren't these the same folks who have said, over and over, that the hierarchy should "trust" the faithful, in particular because they are so well educated? Why don't these critics trust that the faithful can--and will want to--grapple with these things?

(It is quite true that our Faith uses "theologically complex" terms--because our Faith embraces "theologically complex" realities. The job of making them understandable belongs to teaching and preaching, not in rewriting the prayers themselves.

(Example: there are various editions of the Bible that attempt to do this--greatly expanding on the texts of Scriptures in how they are "translated"--but because of this, they really aren't "translations" at all--they are very free paraphrases, that build into the "text" of the Bible, the interpretations of the editors, as they attempt to explain the Scriptures. Sounds good--except that in doing it this way, every appearance is given that the interpretation they supply--their "spin" if you will--is actually part of the inspired Word of God. Not so! Far better to translate the Word of God "straight"--and then provide the explanations, however copious, separately--that way the reader can easily see: "here's the Sacred Text--hmm, that's challenging...okay, here's the explanation, let me see if that helps..." In the same way, the texts of the prayers should be translated "straight"--and then explained or amplified as needed. While it's true folks don't react well to change, and there are folks who don't want to be "unsettled" or challenged too much; there are many of the faithful who are hungering for solid meat, and welcome a challenge.)

Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pa., who formerly ran the U.S. bishops liturgy committee, criticized the new translation as "slavishly literal" during a lecture last year at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

Those who have reviewed the translation say it requires new responses from church members in about a dozen places in the Mass. Generally, those responses are relatively simple, as when members will respond "And with your spirit" (oh no, so complex and confusing!) after the celebrant says, "The Lord be with you." The current response is, "And also with you."

Currently, priests dismisses the congregation by saying, "The Mass is ended; go in peace." Priests will now have four more specific options, including two suggested by Pope Benedict XVI: "Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord" and "Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life."

Prayers offered by the priest will include more complex terms such as "consubstantial," "inviolate," "oblation," "ignominy" and "suffused." (Oh no!)

Critics like Bishop Trautman argue that Jesus Christ taught in the language of the common man (note that: taught. No one is dictating what style of language the celebrant of Mass will use in preaching; or what will be used in other forms of teaching. But the primary purpose of the Mass isn't to teach, but to draw God's people into the heavenly worship. Note that Bishop Trautman did not make any assertions about our Lord worshipping in a "common" language. Wonder why he didn't make that claim?) and, further, that Vatican II reforms that first allowed the Mass to be translated from Latin to the vernacular are being unraveled by the more complicated words used in the new translation. (How do "more complicated words" "unravel" the reforms of Vatican II? Remember that Vatican II gave permission for using the vernacular--but did not intend the Latin itself to disappear. A Mass offered 100% in Latin in no way is contrary to Vatican II--because Vatican II did not mandate the vernacular, but it allowed it. Further, Vatican II set in motion a revision of the Latin texts--and then, following the Council, a revised Mass--in Latin--was issued by Pope Paul VI as, if you will, "the Mass of Vatican II." So...exactly how is it contrary to the Council, to be faithful to the work they produced?)

Those who favor the new version say the original translation to English brought about by Vatican II was rushed and that the new version merely restores some of the richness of the terms used in the original Latin.

The first Sunday of Advent marks the beginning of the liturgical year for Roman Catholic, and is always four Sundays before Christmas.

(FYI, I am obviously imitating the method of Father John Zuhlsdorf in commenting on this article. Biretta tip to him.)

New Mass Texts begin Advent, 2011

I read on Father Zuhlsdorf's enjoyable "What does the prayer really say?" blog that Cardinal George has made it official--the newly translated English texts of the Mass will begin being used with Advent, 2011.

As you may recall, some time back I began preparing a question-and-answer sheet on this subject; but it has been awhile since I posted anything. So, in honor of this good news, I'll post some more of what I worked up.

I'd be especially grateful for comments that help me improve these; and if you have a question you would like to have an answer for, I'll see what I can do.

3. Why did Pope John Paul II think it better to stay closer to the Latin texts?

We might see three values at work: “transparency,” “humility” and “dignity.”

A. Transparency. To translate is to interpret; what we hope for is that the one translating—when s/he chooses words and phrases—won’t overdo it. But this is the key problem; the looser the translation, the more subjective judgment the translator is applying. While you can’t eliminate it entirely, a stricter translation tends to minimize it.

Here’s an example: the newly translated Creed will use “consubstantial” to describe the unique—and hard to express—relationship between the Father and the Son. What we currently say is, “one in being.”

While the ideas seem similar, and “one in being” seems easier, that’s deceptive. This is a very subtle point about who God is, as a Trinity. The very fact that “one in being” uses such common words can “fool” us into misunderstanding the teaching its meant to convey. On the other hand, a less familiar term, consubstantial, by its very nature forces us to stop and ask, what does that mean? It’s unique word used to describe a unique reality. In a sense, you could say it’s better to admit we don’t understand it fully, than it is to think we do, and actually misunderstand.

Here’s part of a Vatican explanation of this: “The Instruction repeats the call of earlier papal documents for an approach to the translation of liturgical texts that sees it not so much a work of creative inventiveness as one of fidelity and exactness…” (Accessed online at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_comunicato-stampa_en.html).

Another example, again from old and new translations of the Creed:

“We believe in one God…” (how we currently begin the Creed) vs. “I believe in one God…” (what we will be saying in the new translation).

The Latin text is completely clear: it begins “Credo”—which is “I believe.” So why was it ever translated as “we believe”?

Maybe the translators were thinking more of how people are professing these words together—“we”; or they may have looked at the parallel Greek text (also adopted at the Council of Nicea, AD 325), which did say “we.” Whatever their reason, changing “I” to “we” makes a judgment—that “we” is “better”; but in fact, the actual text says “credo”: “I.”

Instead of changing it to something we think is “better,” shouldn’t we take the text as it is, and learn from that? I.e., however many people are saying this Creed, it’s my profession of faith—I have to make it my own: credo.

By translating the text more in line with the original, that keeps the questions or puzzles more “on the surface”—so we can wrestle with them ourselves, rather than their being “solved” for us. That is a more transparent way to do it, allowing the original texts and ideas to “shine through” more.

B. Humility. The full richness and meaning contained in the Mass is not merely its words or ideas; the Mass as a whole is like a work of art; like a painting, or a composition, it forms a unity and we are very careful about picking it apart. In all humility, we truly understand the liturgy less than we realize; that includes priests and bishops, even the pope has said the same.

The Mass isn’t the product of some committee somewhere; it’s ultimately the work of Christ himself, working through his Church; its comes to us as a collective result of thousands of years of use as our highest prayer. So—while it’s not utterly untouchable or unchangeable, the words, “handle with care” apply here!

So when we hear expressions in the Mass—now translated with greater clarity—and we wonder, why did they do that? Before we say, “I don’t like it,” we might want to ponder, why did they say that? How did this become part of the Mass?

Related to this is something many miss—respect for the reforms of Vatican II.

The Latin texts, being translated, while ancient, have already been subject to revision and “updating” by the Second Vatican Council and those individuals Pope Paul VI authorized, just after the Council, to implement the Council’s vision. It was their task to revise the texts and wording of the prayers. The text they produced was translated in 1970, and has now been translated anew.

Now, folks both “left” and “right” have raised concerns about the texts of the Mass that emerged from the Council. Like it or not, the Council chose not to “fix” those “problems” as critics would have wanted them to.

For example: many are troubled that the words for consecrating the wine at Mass will be translated “for many” rather than “for all.” But their issues isn’t with the translation, but with the Latin text that emerged after the Council, approved by Pope Paul VI. The Council could have changed the words, pro multis—“for many” to pro omnes—“for all”—but they did not. They had excellent reason not to—because that reflects what Scripture says. But in any case, that was their job—not the job of a translator. Once again, should our English translation “protect” us from wrestling with the questions raised by this decision? (This will be addressed further, below.)

C. Dignity. Again, here’s what the Vatican said, explaining its approach to translating texts:

The vocabulary chosen for liturgical translation must be at one and the same time easily comprehensible to ordinary people and also expressive of the dignity and oratorical rhythm of the original: a language of praise and worship which fosters reverence and gratitude in the face of God’s glory.

The language of these texts is, therefore, not intended primarily as an expression of the inner dispositions of the faithful but rather of God's revealed word and his continual dialogue with his people in history.

Again, some are saying they like a really plain style of English. Certainly that has value. But stop and consider that we all know times when we use very informal English, and other times we expect to have more formal or stylized language. When we celebrate ritual or special occasions, we tend to expect—and benefit from—more formal gestures and language. It serves to highlight the dignity and specialness of what we are doing.

Blog ways

In a thread below, I'm accused of not being "pastoral" because of some response I gave. Since the one making that complaint didn't specify which of my responses she meant, I will not make any unnecessary assumptions.

Anyway, it occurs to me that things like this happen when folks interact with different expectations but don't realize that they have them, resulting in misunderstandings. So, maybe spelling out some notions of how I approach this blog, and what I think is courteous, regarding comments and discussions on a blog, rather than taking them for granted.

How about this:

1. If you comment, please use some sort of screen name, even if all you do is add, at the end of the post, a pen name.

2. If you ask for an opinion or an explanation, I'll do my best to give it to you. I don't object if you disagree, but that's an invitation for some back-and-forth.

3. I am a Catholic priest. I teach and present Catholic teaching, in its entirety, as best I can. I recognize that some parts of our Catholic Faith are hard to hear or hard to follow. I am genuinely sorry I am not smarter or more creative in being able to make the "hard teachings" not have hard, pointy edges that sometimes hurt. You'll have to take my word for it that if you feel hurt, that was not my aim. While allowing for all my flaws in presentation, nevertheless remember that sometimes the truth does hurt.

4. Everyone is entitled to a favorable presumption, until saying or doing something that calls it into question. I try to do that, and I may well fail and I'm willing to have someone say so. But I appreciate folks treating me that way. Example: I presume people are good and decent and trying seriously to follow Christ, and I expect others to presume the same about me--not lecture or condescend to me about how I ought to be a better Christian.

5. Part of the purpose of comments is discussion; if you post an argument for something, I think reasonable people presume you're fine with that being critiqued and responded to. If you post an argument for something that is at odds with Catholic teaching or practice, or--no offense--gives flawed information about a subject pertaining to the Catholic Faith, or Catholic history, please don't be surprised if I or someone else responds and corrects that. It's not personal. Example: someone posts arguments for ordaining women as priests. Sorry, that's directly contrary to Catholic teaching. I'm not going to let that go unchallenged. Particularly when it's not all that connected to the topic. And if someone claims to offer facts that are not facts at all, brace yourself for that to be pointed out.

6. I don't claim to be an expert on everything involving Catholic history, liturgy or teaching, and I don't claim to have read every document or be able to quote them off the top of my head. I don't have time to track it all down. I'm a parish priest and I post comments on my blog, about my day, or about homilies I've given, etc. I think I'm reasonably knowledgeable on these subjects, and I try to be transparent about what sort of information I'm sharing.

7. Let's not play games. If a poster chooses to be contentious, that is an invitation for a more vigorous response. Please don't then play the, "oh you should be nicer" card. If you don't want the give-and-take of a discussion, don't give and you won't have to take. There are other games: "bait the Catholic/bait the priest," being disingenuous about "questions" that really aren't requests for information but set-ups for a point you want to score, etc. Play it straight, and I'll do my best to respond in kind. Play games and I'll call you on it or just not take you as on the level.

8. This blog isn't the be-all and end-all of my life, and it shouldn't be for anyone else; meaning: don't take it that seriously. When sour folks show up and complain, picking on rather obscure "offenses" (such as complaining about me "telling" him or her what to pray for, when I said please pray for more priests)...without wishing anyone ill, I genuinely think you may do better not to read this blog, or any blog, if it upsets you. Seriously, and in all charity, if someone's feelings are really that tender, online blog discussions are not for you.

9. I do have a hard time digesting the "surprise" and umbrage that sometimes shows up in comments. I used to offer my political views, and these would generate howls of outrage from a few tenacious folks, as if I have no business telling anyone my personal opinions; and you would think I was advocating the death penalty for puppies, as opposed to views that--even if you disagree with them--aren't terribly unconventional. Well, I got tired of that, so pretty much no more political observations on the blog. Not worth my time and energy. Yet it remains very puzzling to me that folks can get so worked up. Speaking more generally, some so-called "outrage" just can't be taken with a straight face.

10. If you accuse me of something--such as attacking people "personally," or saying something it would dumb, or wrong, to say, please don't be surprised if I ask you to back it up.

11. This is my blog. I get to decide when someone is behaving badly or not getting into the spirit of things. My tools are extremely limited: I can respond to a comment, or delete it.

This took me a few minutes to dash off, so no doubt I could write it better with more time. And, yes, I'm giving you the option of offering comments.

Hanging out with seminarians

Sunday we started what will be a new tradition in Piqua: hosting a summer cook-out for seminarians.

It started with a conversation over supper, earlier this year, with a couple other priests and several seminarians; I don't even remember where we were--but the point was made that seminarians don't see a lot of each other over the summer. Then someone else said, what if we had a summer cookout? And somewhere along the line I said, "we could do that in Piqua..." and then I asked the seminarian staying with us in Piqua to spread the word...and then it happened.

We had about 20 guys, most came up from Cincinnati, but a few came from up north. We could easily have more if things work out next year. Afterward, we talked about what we could do to encourage more prospective seminarians to come along.

It was easy: burgers, brats, cole slaw, pop, beer, watermelon, ice cream. A parishioner donated a couple of cheesecakes, so we barely touched the melons and never got to the ice cream. Once most everyone showed up, we went over to church and prayed Vespers, then we came back over to the rectory and had pop, beer, pretzels and then the stuff came off the grill. The whole thing cost about $200, and another priest of the archdiocese chipped in half.

I wish you could have met these guys. Their ages were all over the map, but mostly in their 20s and 30s. The kind of guys I think you'd be happy to have your daughters going out with--if they weren't headed to the seminary. I remember when priests were good to me as a seminarian, and I'm very glad to do the same in turn.

Please keep praying for more priests, and please don't hesitate to give encouragement to any men you meet you think might make a good priest or deacon. Some guys just need someone to tell them, "you could be a good priest!"

You already know (Sunday homily)

How strong is your faith?
If you were past child-bearing age,
would you believe you could have a child?
And would you—like Sarah—be willing to face the challenge?

I don’t think my faith is that strong. Perhaps you think the same?

We might wonder how we increase our faith.
You do it by accepting the baby, as Sarah did—
and do what a parent does.

Often we fret about whether we can see the journey through—
but that isn’t something we can ever know.
Our task is to take the first step. And the next.

Many ask, “How do I know I’m doing what God wants?
How do I discover his will?”

The answer lies in what the Lord said in the Gospel:
Focus on what you already know,
on the task the Lord has given you to do.
God has already told us plenty about his will for us:
He’s given us the commandments;
We know we have to honor our commitments;
We know plenty that God has revealed to us.

“Be like servants who await their master’s return…
ready to open immediately when he comes and knocks.
Blessed are those servants
whom the master finds vigilant on his arrival.”

...a break in the action...

I wanted a mental break so I'm writing a quick post.

What's doing?

> St. Mary Parish is gearing up for a drive in September to raise funds for various "capital" maintenance items--i.e., roof repairs, building repairs, etc. I was just sending some emails around about that to stay in touch with those doing the planning.

> St. Boniface is wrapping up some capital improvements; the scaffolding just came down from the steeple, where we installed copper over some painted wood; the wood needed painting every 15 years or so; the cooper won't need anything but a periodic inspection for many decades to come. It's very possible this will still be serviceable in 100 years. (And the scaffolding being down will relieve a couple getting married this coming Saturday, with yours truly as sacred witness.)

> I'm contacting some St. Boniface parishioners about our plans for the interior of the church; we plan to make some improvements there, and we need a little help to make our goal. I was just making some phone calls.

> Our Piqua parishes support a 24-hour Eucharistic Exposition chapel; while other parishes in the archdiocese have extended exposition--and many have chapels open all night--no other parish in the archdiocese has 24-hour, 7-day-a-week exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.

We've been doing it for almost 20 years; and we are having a celebratory Mass on October 31; and Archbishop Schnurr will grace us with his presence as celebrant. In conjunction with that, we will have a Eucharistic Conference November 4-8, with talks by Rev. Larry Villone of the Missionaries of the Blessed Sacrament on Thursday and Friday, and at all Masses Saturday afternoon and Sunday. (The actual anniversary is Dec. 1, but we celebrate when the Archbishop comes!). So I've been making some phone calls and sending emails about that.

> In September, St. Boniface will take part in a "stewardship of offerings" program sponsored by the Archdiocese. I am very excited about this, because it's something we need and it's great that the Archdiocese is backing it and paying for it. We have a solid company handling it and I am confident it will be well done. So I have some things on my desk about that. Because of St. Mary's capital effort, we will do the offering effort in the fall of 2011.

> In November, both parishes will begin an outreach to all our parishioners: very simply, we will begin contacting every parishioner personally--by phone or at their door--to connect with them, see if they need anything, and make sure they know what's going on in their parish. Our reason for doing this? So many of our needs always seem to come back to the task of re-evangelizing and re-connecting many of our less-connected parishioners. So why not go to them? But we are going to contact everyone, because it is a little dicey putting together a list only of the "inactive."

I haven't done anything on this today, but I was hoping to make a call...we'll see...

> Sunday, I'm hosting a cookout for the seminarians of the archdiocese (if you are reading this and didn't get word, or didn't reply...let me know!). The idea arose because one of the seminarians staying at, and working for, the parishes this summer said the guys don't see much of each other all summer; so I said, what about a cookout? So we expect about 20 of the guys Sunday afternoon. Brats, burgers, pop and beer, that sort of thing. I have to get to the store between now and then to get the supplies.

OK, I should get back to signing checks and making a few more phone calls...

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!