Sacramentum Caritatis: The Sacrament of Love
The post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation was released earlier this morning, after a wait of about 18 months. It is available on-line here: Sacramentum Caritatis
The Cafe carried a news story about it, here: http://ncrcafe.org/node/973 The news story begins:
VATICAN CITY -- Catholics must believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, celebrate the liturgy with devotion and live in a way that demonstrates their faith, Pope Benedict XVI said.
"The celebration and worship of the Eucharist enable us to draw near to God's love and to persevere in that love," the pope said in his apostolic exhortation, "Sacramentum Caritatis" ("The Sacrament of Charity").
The 131-page document, a papal reflection on the discussions and suggestions made during the 2005 world Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist, was released March 13 by the Vatican.
When Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, he did not simply thank God for the ways he had acted throughout history to save people, the pope said. Rather, Jesus revealed that he himself was the sacrifice that would bring salvation to fulfillment. READ MORE.
Frank Vitus I was happy to
Frank Vitus I was happy to hear a concern about the order of celebrating the sacraments of initiation. I hope our bishops respond to that. Parents have made confirmation a rite of passage celebration. They want the children confirmed, then after confirmation you no longer see them. Many of my priest friends would like to see the sacrament of confirmation performed at baptism, or shortly after.
Dear FrFrank, Isn't the more
Dear FrFrank,
Isn't the more serious problem the fact that kids flee the Church in their teens, not whether we've managed to confirm them before they go?
Maybe we should work on finding ways to minister effectively to young people, so that they'd have a reason to stay. Myself, I'd want confirmation postponed until at least people's early 20's, so that there's a greater likelihood that the decision to be confirmed is truly the confirmand's considered and adult decision, not the result of parental or peer pressure. Confirmation "completes" baptism, but it also marks a transition to a more adult stance of responsibility in and for the Church. While infant baptism can be defended on the grounds of the community's and the parents' agreement to nurture the child in the faith, it hardly makes sense to confirm under similar circumstances.
Also, since we do not practice re-baptism, moving confirmation to infancy or childhood leaves the Church without any kind of ritual to mark one's maturity in the faith, or one's return to the faith that one fled in one's teens. Confirmation serves pastorally as an important symbol of adult commitment and sometimes re-commitment to the Church. Neither returning to Communion nor celebrating reconciliation can serve that function. This is more an issue, perhaps, in adult religious ed., and is especially so in cultures where there is a strong presence of churches who do practice re-baptism.
“Absolute truth” is an
“Absolute truth” is an understanding I would think people mostly apply, and properly so, to the sanctity of life and the obligation of everyone to be “pro-life”. Commonsense tells us that this is an unconditional truth. “Simple” truth? No.
Addressing the Swiss Bishops (November 2006) Pope Benedict XVI observed that morality is “split in two”. The split is between justice/ecology and the protection of human life. He said:
“I believe we must commit ourselves to reconnecting these two parts of morality, and to making it clear that they must be inseparably united. Only if human life from conception to death is respected is the ethic of peace possible and credible; only then may non-violence be expressed in every direction, only then can we truly accept creation and only then can we achieve true justice.”
How to “reconnect”?
“We must make an effort above all to listen to the Lord in prayer, in deep interior participation in the sacraments, in learning the sentiments of God in the faces and suffering of others, in order to be infected by his joy, his zeal and love, and to look at the world with him and starting from him. If we can succeed in doing this, even in the midst of many no’s, we will once again find people waiting for him who may perhaps be odd—the parable clearly says so—but who are nevertheless called to enter the hall.” [AMERICA Magazine, John Jay Hughes, “Longing for a Pentecostal Church”, pp 23-26, Vol. 196, No. 10, Whole No. 4767, March 19, 2007]
Where is the disconnection? At face value, it is true that the intentional abortion of a fetus violates life and is a sad and tragic failure of morality and social justice. The dilemma of justice/ecology vs. human proliferation was/is at issue in the “Humanae Vitae” Encyclical of Pope Paul VI. The encyclical was undertaken with the intention of incorporating lay input in it. But after reading the lay input the pope opted to exclude it. The encyclical is now largely interpreted as a decision against family planning. The “imperial” decision of unilateral action by Rome in the matter of family planning continues to be a source of public frustration and lay distrust of the Vatican. The Vatican is not yet seen as credible in the matter of a “consistent life ethic”, what cardinal archbishop Joseph Bernardin calls the “seamless garment” ethic.
The population overreach over the face of the Earth, human demands for food, fiber, water, space and fuel are causing radical and irreversible changes of climate, the mortal pollution of the environment, extinctions of species and the abortion of vital ecologies. The abortion of ecological life is massive and real, but gets pitifully little press from mainline religions as a moral issue of primary importance. This failure of justice/ecology by church and society is the disconnection that Pope Benedict refers to. The credibility of the church’s righteous talk about abortion is scant because of church’s selective blindness to ecological abortion.
“Absolute” truth? Yes. “Simple” truth? No. Too often now, choices in life are not between truth and falsity, good and evil, but between the lesser falsity and the lesser evil. So it is with abortion. The “Sacramentum Caritatis”, in love and justice must address the reformation of conscience and religious “reconnection” to justice/ecology.
Here it is all over again.
Here it is all over again. The good Sister with her "clacker" signaling when to stand, sit and kneel; being told, in no uncertain terms: "Don't chew Jesus"; teaching us the incomprehensible rote latin responses emoted with skinnerian punctuality; tugging me painfully by the twisted earlobe to sit embarrassingly beside her for talking in church or asking a question, knowing that a leather strap hangs from a belt somewhere within the folds of habit. But no, it is not sister. I know now, she has moved on, "grown up" to become older, wiser, compassionate, maybe even embarrassed herself as she recalls her immature, messianic certainty of "father", catechism, the inherent deviancy of young boys and the absolute rectitude of "Church's" need to order, control and direct the minds, hearts and souls of God's ignorant, sinful children (of all ages).
Then who is it? It is "THE CHURCH". While Sister has moved on and, though in sadly diminishing numbers, sees more clearly the hunger of the hungry, the illness of the sick, the beauty and fragility of creation and the call to action beyond the capacity now of her age, CHURCH seems to be returning with renewed energy and urgency to rigidity, uncompromising blindness to the reality of children, the child in me and the cry for an arm that reaches out and softly brings the tearful face to a warm cheek. It is "THE CHURCH" which fires another salvo into the theology of poverty, powerlessness and freedom, an active compassion for the real poor, the real hungry and powerless children of God. Why, it seems to be to protect the politics of power, empire and control, all in the name of Jesus, of course. All in the name of Jesus who told the Roman occupier and the Jewish establishment in no uncertain terms that they were hypocrites and the people that it was time for fundamental change.
The Church plays hard ball too, but not, it seems, to free its children. Reading the summary of "Sacramentum Caritatis" and the censure "Notificazione"of liberation theologian Fr. Jon Sobrino, coincidentally (?) released on the same day brought back even the scent of black board chalk which seemed to impregnate the Sister's habit as I sat beside her in abject submission to her authority and power wielded without consideration of the gravity of the offence nor of the offender.
Back to the latin and Gregorian chant; back to the kneeling and bowing at the consecration. I love Gregorian chant and respect latin, but we cannot not go back to communal incomprehensibility and universal medieval conformity of and to the trappings of empirical hierarchy. I have loved standing at the consecration and "looking Jesus in the eye" and saying "I love You". Moving the "sign of peace" out of the celebration of the "consecrated" Christ to "atonement and reconciliation" is an abomination and negation that Jesus is an, the, integral element and our companion now in the peace we acknowledge and share with smile and intent. More pre-packaged prayers for rote recitation and brain-washing distancing from dialogue with Christ are coming. Think of all we have to look forward to.
And there is more, we are reminded of the evils of same-sex marriage and abortion while politicians are directed and we enjoined to pursue appropriate legislation, and on and on. We are reminded that more dignified posture and gestures are expected and that "greater restraint" will ensure that the sign of peace will not become an "irreparable distraction" .
What does that mean "irreparable distraction"? In the parish I attend, there is a little girl, perhaps three and a bit, who goes beyond her mother at that point and goes to each pew to share the "sign'. If you don't notice her, she will tug your sleeve until you do. She evokes smiles, even a bit of conversation among us. Each time it happens, I am left with a tingling of joy and community, and yes, peace. What a distraction she is as the Mass goes on.
Evidently the official papal spokesman explained the pope's awareness of the consequences of the document with rumsfeltian clarity: "He does not want to say that which he does not say" .
On behalf of all us boys from grade school, I apologize to the Sisters.
Dennis, What do you think
Dennis,
What do you think is appropriate reverence before the Cause of your being? How about before the God who so loved the world He sent His only Son? How about before that Son, who for your sake endured suffering and an ignominious death on the cross?
As I have posted elsewhere, the sign of peace derives in part from the command to reconcile with our brother before presenting our sacrifice, even if we remember at the foot of the altar.
Latin can be introduced slowly so that it is understood, care needs to be taken to ensure that it remains the case, but a universal langiage for a universal Church has many benefits.
The AE also calls for increased Eucharistic Adoration, a practice that usually consists primarily of contemplative prayer.
Bill, An additional point
Bill,
An additional point that sprung out at me that I failed to make: That part of the universality of the Church is a certain amount of universality of culture. Not absolute uniformity, but there are certain gestures (sign of the cross) and postures (kneeling & genuflecting) that are part of Catholic culture. While retaining elements of our own cultures, would it not behoove a universal Church to have some common elements that are familiar to the traveler where ever he may be? This is part of the argument for Latin as well, not for the whole Mass, but for certain elements that are easily taught. On can pray the Lord's Prayer in Latin without being able to translate it, praying along interiorly with whatever language/meditation is helpful, but praying externally in unity with the whole Church.
I am also in favor of the re-discovery of the all-but forgotten Rites of the Church, from the Dominican and Ambrosian Usages of the Tridentine Rite (that too), to the Byzatine Rite to the many other Eastern and African Rites. Let these be the foundation for inculturation, as they and the cultures they serve have common roots in many cases. We have such a variety of rights that we can afford to take our time to revive usages and practices that may fit a particular local church as needed, with the proper permissions. In that, I hope that the CDW takes a liberal view in the coming years to allowing local temporary indults for the purposes of permitting organic growth of the Church, by way of micro-expermentation, as opposed to the last forty years of macro-experimentation.
(sorry, I did mean for this to be a two liner...)
"...the Mass is not just the
"...the Mass is not just the community gathering for a thanksgiving meal..." Of course it is not. So?
"...but the Re-Presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary." It is not "just" the "Re-Pres" but more it also and inextricably the risen glorious triumphant Christ, without which/Whom there is no Mass.
You have yet to answer my
You have yet to answer my question above...
Anywho...
Actually there would be the Mass, but we would be absolute fools to put any faith in Jesus, and thus the Mass. But He still instituted the Mass, and I don't think there is a necessity for the Resurrection in and of itself for redemption, but... j/k
OK, back to the real point:
How we behave at Mass, what movements we make, what words we say, all reveal what we truly believe about what we are taking part in. I admit, as I have repeatedly done in the past, that I overemphasize the Sacrifice at the cost of the Resurrection, in opposition to the prevailing culture in the Church in the West that underplays the sacrifice to, and quite often beyond, the point of denial. I profess, as always, in the words of the Tridentine Offertory: that the Mass is offered "in remembrance of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Our Lord" and furthermore that the Passion and Resurrection are part of the same act of sacrifice and are therefore inseparable. Now that that little disclaimer is out of the way, what is your objection to liturgical norms?
Or, rather, let's just address one: kneeling (much bigger deal than the location of the Sign of Peace)? Kneeling has become part of Catholic culture, the highest form of respect that we can pay. It puts us in a position of weakness and submission. Is this your objection? It makes us look up, to Jesus as above us, rather than straight on, to Jesus as one of us. Is this your objection?
When Jesus invited the
When Jesus invited the little children to come to him, that same who is the "Cause of my being...ignominious death" etc, did he mean that they be the scrubbed, docile little angels correctly "postured" silently in the pews? Are the babies to be relegated to the yuppy "crying rooms" again so that they will not be "irreparable distractions". Mass, for all its glory is "real" here and now you and certainly me. Cloistered convents and monastaries are where one can and should expect to be able to absent oneself from all other distractions and focus totally on the mystery. I pray that somehow I am sharing in their faith and devotion and focus, but I and most of us are living a different life.
Christ also rose and that there is no Mass outside the risen, joyous and triumphant Christ.
This is a copy of my e-mail
This is a copy of my e-mail response to Pope Benedict XVI re: Sacramentum Caritatis.
Your Holiness,
Although I cannot explain why I thought to expect otherwise from your document on the Synod on the Eucharist, I still found myself both surprised and saddened by the sections pertaining to reception of the Sacraments (especially Eucharist) by divorced and remarried Catholics. Your reference to love of the truth reveals a preference for theological principle over the loving compassion of your true Master, the Lord Jesus. Do you honestly wish to console the excluded by telling them they can participate in Eucharistic adoration? Why would someone the Church excludes from reception of the Eucharist sit and contemplate the very reality that Mother Church tells them they are unworthy to receive? Moreover, your recommendation to those who find themselves in second marriages without the benefit of an annulment that they should live together as brother and sister will only serve to confirm the general impression that Rome has nothing relevant to offer. Most Catholics no longer heed the exhortations from the Vatican when they concern the internal dimensions of their private married lives, e.g., with regards to birth control. The crisis of authority brought on either by Humanae Vitae or the widespread rejection of it, or both, will only be deepened by this unrealistic exhortation. I have heard, perhaps apocryphally, that you desire a smaller Catholic Church that is more faithful to the Vatican's dogmatic utterances. I believe the comments in Sacramentum Caritatis might contribute to just such an outcome. My own prediction is that very few Catholics will ever read this document which may prove to be a blessing.