Others first

If our life in Christ means anything to you, if love can persuade at all, or the Spirit that we have in common, or any tenderness and sympathy, then be united in your convictions and united in your love, with a common purpose and a common mind. That is the one thing which would make me completely happy. There must be no competition among you, no conceit; but everybody is to be self-effacing. Always consider the other person to be better than yourself so that nobody thinks of his own interests first but everybody thinks of other people’s interests instead. In your minds you must be the same as Christ Jesus.

Philippians 2:1 - 5

Over the recent years and most particularly in the last several weeks, churches both broad and narrow have been virtually and literally brow-beaten for their handling and mishandling of child sex abuse in their institutions and for their invariable stand on same sex marriage. Nothing can be taken from the victims of child sex abuse, nor the dignity of LGBTQI.

The subsequent diminution of the churches' authority and standing have left them howling into the winds of social change. Their leaders have been mocked and pilloried by the popular and social media and the scourge has impacted deeply on the psyche of the faithful in the pews.

Further, the pursuit of Pope Francis by the alt-right wing of the American church is divisive and unhelpful.

While the church has always provided leaders and leadership, the laity has usually been excluded from playing significant roles, for example in the election of bishops, even presenting candidates for diaconal or priestly ordination (though there is a liturgical acclamation, and of course we have had representation at the Synod of Bishops on the Family). Certainly much progress has been made in the management of dioceses, schools and health services, but in essence, despite the many years since Avery Dulles published his first edition of Models of the Church (1974), the overwhelming model remains hierarchic and clerical (which Dulles called the Church as Institution).

And how so different is the church envisaged by Paul. Paul was under no illusion that the communities he addressed had issues (whether or not to marry, getting drunk, failing to share with poor...) but he had a clear view of what it should look like. Astonishingly it is not unlike the church that Pope Francis has called us to build. But seriously. Very seriously, have we ever attempted to take these words of Paul to heart? Is it not time to do so now?

The way forward appears to be that we need to persuade those who work against us with love, tenderness and sympathy, to be united in love with a common purpose and mind, and where no one puts themselves first. This kind of leadership, this kind of church is truly at the service of humanity, called, empowered and encouraged by the Spirit.

This begins in our daily relationships. In our homes, staff rooms and classrooms. And if we are indeed serious, it starts today. Now.

Peter Douglas

 

WE NEED TO QUESTION THE DUTY OF PRIESTS NOT TO DISCLOSE ANYTHING THEY LEARN FROM PENITENTS

Sara Maitland

This is not a cheerful column. In the past few weeks a very dark topic has come up for me and I want us all to think about it. It is “the seal of the confessional” and the sense that too many of the hierarchy still, despite everything, do not seem to “get it” when it comes to sexual abuse.

For example, the Archbishop of Glasgow, Philip Tartaglia, speaking recently to a conference of priests in Philadelphia, appeared to pin some of the blame for the abuse scandal on the media, which had reported it “many times fairly, but many times not”. Is that “wishy-washy” (which is what he’s accused the Scottish laity of being) or what?

There are nine sins that lead to automatic excommunication. They are not murder, not rape, not enslavement and not the sexual exploitation of a minor. They are, in fact, apostasy, heresy, schism, violating the sacred species (this means the Eucharistic sacrament, not the baptised Homo sapiens), physically attacking the Pope, sacramentally absolving an accomplice in a sexual sin (a priest cannot absolve his own sexual partner), consecrating a bishop without authorisation, procuring an abortion and violating the seal of confession.

It is the last of these nine that I want to think about. A priest who hears about sexual abuse in the confessional cannot even stop the abuser from being the scoutmaster or youth group leader.

He cannot report the abuser to anyone – not to the bishop, not to the police, not to the parents. He can, of course, refuse absolution, but he cannot do anything to protect the abused. Nor can the confessor tell anyone that he has not absolved the penitent, let alone why not.

I have heard people propose that the confessor could require the individual to self-report to, say, the police as a sign of genuine repentance and willingness to make reparation, and therefore a proper condition of absolution. But under the present canons there is nothing a confessor can do to check up that such reparation has been made, or indeed that the so-called penitent has not just slipped round the corner and found a more “sympathetic” (!) priest to absolve him.

Perhaps I am unnecessarily cynical here; given how few Catholics still make use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation it may seem unlikely that the confessionals are crammed full of dishonest penitents, sliming round the realities and getting absolved “on the cheap” while burdening their confessors with a terrible dilemma. But it really does matter. Abuse is a horrible offence by the powerful against the powerless and its corrosive damage

is too well known to gloss over. All the evidence tells us that the most helpful attention an abused person can be offered is the chance to be heard and believed. It takes courage to “speak out”; recognising this, recently the police have publicly thanked the victims of sexual abuse at the end of successful trials. We as a church are being far less supportive.

I am, as I have said here before, a “practising” penitent, a user of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I have always valued the security and safety that the seal – and the importance that has been afforded it – have offered me. But, sadly, we do need to reopen the question of the absolute duty of priests not to disclose anything that they learn from penitents during the course of the Sacrament of Penance (last addressed as far as I can determine in 1151 – although that decision was reaffirmed in the 1983 Code of Canon Law). Various other bodies have moved towards a more nuanced approach to confidentiality.

Qualified psychotherapists, for example, will commit themselves at the beginning of a relationship to confidentiality except in the case of criminality. Crime and sin are, obviously, not quite the same, but there is a distinct overlap.

This is a conversation that only the laity can have – or at least is pretty pointless without the laity. On the whole, it is the laity who are abused and the laity who are the parents of the abused. In all other contexts the Church has put a hefty (if proper) burden of responsibility on parents. Moreover, we have clear evidence, in the resignations from the Vatican’s commission into clerical abuse and its cover-up, that the laity cannot have confidence in the hierarchy on this issue. This is sad. I would be sad to lose the tender protection and care of the seal. But if that might mean that even one child was protected from abuse (by any adult – of course it is not just priests who abuse) I think that is a sadness I may, as a disciple, just have to live with.

Sara Maitland is a novelist and writer.

 

LIfe in the stars

 

Christ will be glorified in my body, whether by my life or by my death.

 Life to me, of course, is Christ, but then death would bring me something more; but then again, if living in this body means doing work which is having good results – I do not know what I should choose. I am caught in this dilemma:

 I want to be gone and be with Christ, which would be very much the better,

 but for me to stay alive in this body is a more urgent need for your sake.

Avoid anything in your everyday lives that would be unworthy

of the gospel of Christ.

Philippians 1:20-24. 27

I stood outside for a few minutes last night. The sky was clear and I could see the night sky in its spring arrangement and I picked out some of its brightest players. We are, it is mused, made of stardust. And to the God in the heavens I prayed for the repose of the souls of those I have loved and who loved me, and for those who have lost loved ones. It was a short prayer in the universe's most awesome cathedral.

When we consider the fragility of life against the backdrop of the astonishing universe we dwell in, we cannot but be aware of our place in it. We inhabit a small blue planet in a minor solar system deposited between the great arm of Perseus and Scutum-Centaurus in the Milky Way. In evolutionary terms, life on earth began 4.28 billion years ago - almost 10 billion years after the genesis of our universe. There have been 5 major extinctions in the last 440 million years. What is most amazing about life is its resilience, its capacity to regenerate, to adjust to the vagaries of climate, earth movement and the impact of space debris.

Some life forms exist for hours (Mayflies between 1 and 24 hours) and the longest living vertebrate being the Greenland shark lives up to 500 years. In Tasmania may be found the sole surviving clonal colony of Lomatia tasmanica  which is estimated to be at least 43,600 years old. Where once a human lifetime was measured three score and ten years, we now regularly reach a century. Ultimately, at the end of every lifespan, there is death. It comes to every living creature. We humans love avoiding the word. We prefer such euphemisms as passed on, passed away, or just passed; with the Lord, asleep in Christ, called home, departed, slipped away or gone to eternal life. A new one I read recently was 'transitioned'.

For Paul the life that comes after this earthly one is preferable but he admits that he has work to do here and now and that this work has greater urgency then his desire for death (and eternal life in Christ). For each of us, the time we have must be put to work, to enable the flourishing of all that lives, care for our environment, our communities of communities. Whether or not there is a divine plan or a divine accident, at the deepest centre of all things is love. Not dogma. But love. All life was created to praise God. Or less theologically, just be what they are meant to be. Only humans complicate this. We can be overcome by greed and covetousness and any number of 'failings'. So added to our workload is to put right whatever we have put wrong.

Everything growing on earth, bless the Lord;

praise and exalt him above all forever.

You springs, bless the Lord;

praise and exalt him above all forever.

Seas and rivers, bless the Lord;

praise and exalt him above all forever.

You sea monsters and all water creatures, bless the Lord;

praise and exalt him above all forever.

All you birds of the air, bless the Lord;

praise and exalt him above all forever.

All you beasts, wild and tame, bless the Lord;

praise and exalt him above all forever.

All you mortals, bless the Lord;

praise and exalt him above all forever.

Daniel 3: 76 - 82

Wherever we go at the time of death, we go in the hope of the resurrection. I cannot reiterate it enough that in the mission we have to take the Gospel to the world, we have no greater obligation than to lead others to love and to be in awe of this extraordinary universe.

Peter Douglas

Our common home really needs your help!

By Tony Magliano

“A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system,” warns Pope Francis in his landmark environmental encyclical Laudato Si (“On Care for Our Common Home”).

Indeed, the scientific consensus is very solid. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

The Earth’s hottest year on record was 2014. That was until 2015, which then became the hottest year. And that was until 2016, which is now the Earth’s hottest year.  

As reported in The New York Times, of the 17 hottest years on record, 16 have now occurred since 2000.

For decades scientists have warned that humanity is on a disastrous global warming course – increasing floods, droughts, storms, wildfires – by failing to drastically reduce fossil-fuel use – coal, oil and gas – and move quickly to clean sustainable wind, solar and geothermal energy. 

Yet climate change deniers – with little sustainable scientific evidence – insist that global warming is not happening. And the president of the United States is their chief spokesperson. Trump posted on Twitter that climate change is a hoax devised by China to secure an unfair trade advantage. 

He has irresponsibly proposed cutting necessary funding to the Environmental Protection Agency by approximately 30 percent, and has promised to pull the U.S. out of the crucial international Paris Agreement on climate change.

Leading us in the opposite direction of Trump, Pope Francis in his environmental encyclical Laudato Si (“On Care for Our Common Home”) insists “public pressure has to be exerted in order to bring about decisive political action. Society… must put pressure on governments to develop more rigorous regulations, procedures and controls. Unless citizens control political power – national, regional and municipal – it will not be possible to control damage to the environment.” 

The recent People’s Climate March in Washington, D.C. was good, but far from enough. The citizen pressure the Holy Father is urging must be strong and ongoing. Because most politicians don’t see the light until they feel the heat!

Consider signing up to receive information and action alerts from the Catholic Climate Covenant, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. And parishes would do well to order/download the Eco-Parish Guide for Catholic Parishes.

Skeptical Science is a scholarly website recommended to me by a highly respected climate scientist. I hope you find it as informative as I do. 

Each month I purchase 100 percent clean renewable energy for my home. And you and your parish can too. 

Like St. Francis, Pope Francis sees all of God’s creation as interrelated and worthy of protection. And so should we! 

In “On Care for Our Common Home” – a must read – the Holy Father warns: “When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected.”

And thus Francis invites us to live with an attitude of the heart, fully present to each person, and accepting “each moment as a gift from God to be lived to the full.”

Tony Magliano is an internationally syndicated social justice and peace columnist. He is available to speak at diocesan or parish gatherings about Catholic social teaching. His keynote address, "Advancing the Kingdom of God in the 21st Century," has been well received by diocesan and parish gatherings from Santa Clara, Calif. to Baltimore, Md. Tony can be reached at tmag@zoominternet.net.

 

Beneficence and SSM

Resentment and anger, these are foul things,

and both are found with the sinner.

He who exacts vengeance will experience the vengeance of the Lord,

who keeps strict account of sin.

Forgive your neighbour the hurt he does you,

and when you pray, your sins will be forgiven.

No one can escape the postal voting episode that is going be, apparently, clear evidence of our democracy. We will be subjected to the daily updates on the weightings of Yeses and Noes. We shall be suitably shocked and dismayed by the outrageous claims, call loudly for fairness, justice, patience and honesty. The most difficult objective to be reached is to actually have people cast their 'vote'.

Along the way so much pain has been created. There is no sighing of acceptance, no heaving of collective breasts in solidarity, just pain.

Beneficence refers to the moral obligation to act for another's benefit, preventing or removing harm. Immanuel Kant believed we all have a duty to be beneficent - each according to their ability and means (but it has its limits).

It behoves each of us to act with caution and care when we engage in social and paper media in support of the Yes or No case. The book we call Ecclesiasticus is alternatively called the Wisdom of Sirach. While it provides some very helpful advice for the Jews of 2nd century BC Jerusalem, there are contextual issues that would not align all too well to 21st century AD Australia. Most contentious is its support for the harsh treatment of slaves (Sirach 23:44 - 48) and a negative and provocative view of women (Sirach 42:12 - 14). But Sirach is right to call us to account for the hurt we have/will/may cause in the defence or advance of our views (Sirach 28:2). We must also be prepared to forgive.

This is our first effort outside of elections and referenda to have a say (though not definitive), but we need to learn how best to conduct the debate so that harm is minimised, where we can exercise our duty without undue influence and without repercussions.

There is an opportunity in the use of such tools as this vote to revisit other issues of national importance - if we dare: immigration, refugees, abortion, euthanasia, gun control, conscription, death penalty, eugenics, Aboriginal constitutional recognition, overseas aid, ANZUS obligations.

Not everyone is that interested in the toing and froing arguments. My father-in-law just wanted to know if he had to vote. He didn't particularly give a damn.

Peter Douglas

A liturgical expert explains Pope Francis' change to Mass translation rules

John F. Baldovin SJ

The question of who has appropriate responsibility for the translation of liturgical texts has been a kind of political football since the Second Vatican Council. On the one hand, the council clearly wanted that responsibility to rest mainly with episcopal conferences (i.e. national assemblies of bishops). On the other hand, even before the council ended, a Vatican instruction on implementing the liturgical reform put the weight of responsibility not on the national bishops conferences but on the recognition and confirmation of translated texts by the Holy See (i.e. the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments—as it is now known).

In English-speaking countries this procedure did not seem to cause much concern during the first wave of translation (through the 1970’s). However, beginning with the second generation of revisions, especially the revision of “Pastoral Care of the Sick: Rites of Anointing and Viaticum” (1983), the Vatican began to become more proactive in scrutinizing translations sent to them. In the meantime the International Commission on English in the Liturgy made up of bishops of eleven English-speaking episcopal conferences continued to produce revised translations according to the principles laid out in the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments’ own document on translation, “Comme le Prévoit,” published in 1969. During the 80’s and 90’s relations between the Vatican and ICEL became more and more strained. A crucial moment came with ICEL’s new translation of the liturgical psalter in 1995. Three years later the Vatican forced the U.S. bishops conference to withdraw its approval (imprimatur) for the translation. In 1997 the Vatican responded to the proposed ICEL translation of the Rites of Ordination with a letter citing 114 errors and claiming that many more were found in the translation that had been sent to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. It should be noted that each episcopal conference needs to approve translations to be sent to Rome by a two-thirds vote.

With the new U.S. representative to ICEL, Cardinal Francis George, taking the lead the Vatican proceeded to change ICEL’s constitution and remove its long-term executive secretary, Dr. John Page, as well as all of the advisors who had done the work of preparing the translations for the bishops’ approval. At the same time the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued a new instruction on translation, “Liturgiam Authenticam” (2001), which reversed the translation strategy of “Comme le Prévoit” insisting on a much more literal translation of the Latin texts (including word order and punctuation) than the previous philosophy which was commonly called dynamic equivalence.

As is well known, this change imposed by the Vatican led to the scrapping of a translation of the Roman Missal that had been approved by all of the English-speaking conferences in 1998 (again by a two-thirds vote in each conference). A new translation of the Missal was prepared and approved in 2010. It had been preceded by a revised ordination rite and followed by a translation of the rite of confirmation and just a year ago by a new translation of the second edition of the marriage rite, which had appeared in 1992!

Last December Pope Francis announced that he was appointing a commission of bishops and experts under the chairmanship of the secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (second in command), Archbishop Arthur Roche, to review “Liturgiam Authenticam.” They met sometime last winter. The motu proprio, “Magnum Principium,” issued by Pope Francis today is presumably a response to their report.

This latest document may not be a bombshell but it is certainly a significant change in direction with regard to who has responsibility for liturgical translations. The pope has changed Canon 838 in two important ways.

The first change is to the text that formerly read:

§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books and recognise their translations in vernacular languages, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

It now reads (changes in bold):

§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by Conferences of Bishops according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

The second change is to the text that formerly read:

§3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves.

It now reads (changes in bold):

§3. It pertains to the Conferences of Bishops to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.

The most important key here is found in §2 where “translations” is replaced by “adaptations.” The latter refer to significant changes to the original Latin text (typical edition) published by the Vatican—i.e., additions made by the conferences themselves. They are subject to a closer vetting by the Congregation. Now the translations (§3) are to be confirmed by the Holy See. The import of this seemingly small change is noted by the pope himself in the motu proprio:

“In order that the decisions of the Council about the use of vernacular languages in the liturgy can also be of value in the future a vigilant and creative collaboration full of reciprocal trust between the Episcopal Conferences and the Dicastery of the Apostolic See that exercises the task of promoting the Sacred Liturgy, i.e. the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is absolutely necessary.”

To put it more simply, the weight of responsibility now falls much more on the shoulders of the various episcopal conferences. This is made clearer in the official Vatican commentary on the motu proprio:

“In brief, the “confirmatio,” ordinarily granted based on trust and confidence, supposes a positive evaluation of the faithfulness and congruence of the texts produced with respect to the typical Latin text, above all taking account of the texts of greatest importance (e.g. the sacramental formulae, which require the approval of the Holy Father, the Order of Mass, the Eucharistic Prayers and the Prayers of Ordination, which all require a detailed review).”

In his explanatory “key” to reading the motu proprio Archbishop Roche asserts that “Liturgiam Authenticam” needs to be reinterpreted in light of the new document with regard to how it deals with the Vatican’s stamp of approval.

What are the consequences? In the first place, the Vatican still has the last say on translations. That has not changed—nor is it likely to for fairly obvious reasons like the unity of the faith. But, second, the Vatican commission, Vox Clara, which had been established by Pope John Paul II in 2002 to help the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments vet English translations is now redundant. For many it had been a clear violation of the spirit and the letter of Vatican II in the first place. Third, those conferences which have been experiencing tension with the Vatican over revised translations, like the French-speaking and German-speaking, now have much more breathing room in deciding what is best for translating liturgical texts. Fourth, conferences will now have great latitude in applying the rules set out in “Liturgiam Authenticam.” In any case it would be a good time for the Vatican to issue a more balanced statement on translation in line with the pope’s obvious desire to respect the “entire communicative act” (surely a reference to “Comme le Prévoit”) as well as to be faithful to sound doctrine.

Finally, what about the English-speaking Catholic world? It is no secret that the 2010 translation has received a mixed reception and a number of prominent Catholics, not least the Australian Jesuit theologian, Gerald O’Collins, have called for a reconsideration of the current missal. Many will rejoice greatly if the current translation is revisited. Certainly, some will not. The bishops, particularly the U.S. Bishops’ Conference, will have to decide how to proceed. They now have much more authority over liturgical translation. The ball is in their court.

John F. Baldovin, S.J. is professor of historical and liturgical theology at the Boston College School of Theology and Ministry. This article was first published in America on 9 September 2017.