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.

 

I shall be there

‘I tell you solemnly, whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven.

‘I tell you solemnly once again, if two of you on earth agree to ask anything at all, it will be granted to you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three meet in my name, I shall be there with them.’

Matthew 18:18 - 20

Communicating with the divine was, in the ancient religions, through a variety of mediums – prophets, sacrifices, sacred spaces and even obeying laws. There were often complex rituals, which, if adhered to, would ensure a pleasing relationship with the divine.

Long before the Church established its own sets of rituals, the early Christians who listened to Jesus must have been astounded to hear him speak these words (Matthew 18:20): For wherever two or three meet in my name, I shall be there with them. No longer did they need the Temple, the Levite priests or obedience to ritualistic laws, for communicating with God was now being mediated by Jesus himself. He himself would become present whenever his disciples met in his name.

This verse is oft repeated, a Christian mantra. It is a part of our confidence knowing that the work we do as Christians – in our schools, hospitals, social agencies, and of course, church communities – begins with prayer and acknowledges the presence of God-with-us, Emmanuel, and when is all said and done, our work is done in his name. This is not to say that our human frailty cannot wreak havoc on many a good intention.

This invitation to pray together is a treasure of great wealth, and I urge you to take every opportunity to do so. Through prayer, a clarity of mind, an openness to love and a drive to serve others is revealed. There is no greater prayer than the Eucharist, but the coming together of the faithful in his name at any time, in any place is a guarantee that Jesus, the Word made flesh, is in deed dwelling among us.

From participation in the annual Passover, to reinterpreting the maintenance of the Sabbath Day by attending Mass on Sundays may well be a fair stretch, both of imagination and of historicity, but it is accounted for by a fundamental human need/desire to regularise activity. We have been able to institutionalise warrior combativeness into 'sport', have turned ball chasing and kicking into various codes of football, and ultimately have 'liturgised' major sporting fests into visual spectacles that rival and often exceed any Pontifical High Mass. There are, of course, further admonishments in the form of the first Commandment when we overinvest our attention in false gods - whether it be the (Greek) goddess Nike (seriously!) or that Gospel favourite, Mammon (nicely deified for us by the likes of the Scholastic bishop of Paris, Peter Lombard). This deepest urge to congregate, to celebrate, to encounter others who think alike and to achieve a common purpose is what draws us to religious worship or awesome spectacle.

Whether awesome spectacle satisfies our desire to engage with the God who loves us and favours us, is a moot point, but there is a great sadness in our empty churches. The sadness is that we have designed, developed and grown - over two thousand years - a liturgy that is a rich expression of who we are, that articulates God's boundless love for us - and yet we are unable to share its meaning and meaningfulness with all and sundry. Can sport ever offer salvation? A view into reaches of time past and a future that promises everlasting life?

Our ability to draw others to pray and meet in Jesus' name is our greatest and most precious mission. Let us do so with fidelity.

Peter Douglas

Racism remains a common scourge in South Africa and the United States

by Russell Pollitt SJ

Many South Africans believed that the United States is different from their own nation—that it had put its struggles with racism behind it—until Charlottesville happened, and people on the tip of the African continent realized that the United States, like South Africa, continues to battle the terrible scourge of racism, something made even more difficult when both nations struggle under questionable leadership.

Racism is still part of the fabric of South African society. Despite the fall of apartheid in 1994 and the reconciliatory tone set by the country’s first democratically elected president, Nelson Mandela, the demon is very much alive here, and high-profile incidents of racism seem to be on the rise.

As scenes of white nationalists in Charlottesville, Va., were broadcast to the world, the trial of two South Africans, in what has been dubbed the “coffin assault case,” was coming to an end. Two white farmers, Willem Oosthuizen and Theo Jackson, were accused of forcing a black man, Victor Mlotshwa, into a coffin and threatening to douse it with petrol and burn him alive. They also threatened to put a snake in the coffin with Mr. Mlotshwa when he resisted.

They said they did this to “teach him a lesson for trespassing on their farm.” Mr. Mlotshwa only reported the case to the police when a 20-second video of the assault was circulated on social media. The incident reportedly took place on Aug. 17, 2016.

This past Aug. 25, the High Court in Middleburg handed down its judgment. Judge Sheila Mphahlele found the duo guilty of intimidation, assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm and attempted murder. The two men will be sentenced on Oct. 23.

Mr. Oosthuizen and Mr. Jackson were arrested only after outrage over the viral video rose, and they were released after posting bail of less than $100. Even more disturbing, their lawyer claimed that the two men never considered what they did to Mr. Mlotshwa as “wrong.”

South Africa was also rocked by another violent racial assault after another video went viral a few weeks ago. This time it was a video of five white men assaulting a black couple at a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet on Aug. 3. 

The country’s minister of police, Fikile Mbalula, described the incident on Twitter as a racially motivated attack. The perpetrators were arrested and charged with attempted murder, assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm and pointing a firearm. They have denied it was a racial incident, claiming that the black couple “had [a] bad attitude.”

A local police officer said that in the north of Pretoria, where this incident took place, there is an average of eight to 10 such reported cases every month. The area is still considered to be an enclave of conservative white Afrikaners.

Some South Africans are worried that the events in the United States like Charlottesville will embolden white nationalists here. South Africa is still in a fragile state when it comes to race relations. There is a growing tension across the country as more incidents of racially motivated attacks come to light.

The South African police, not unlike some police departments in the United States, have a reputation for brutality when it comes to dealing with black lives. South Africa only recently marked the fifth anniversary of what is now known as the Marikana Massacre, when police opened fire on striking black miners, killing 34 in a mining community in the country’s northwest platinum belt.

That bloodshed represented the single most lethal show of force by police in South Africa’s democratic era, and though the minister of police was suspended in its aftermath, no police have been held accountable for the miners’ deaths.

The Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference spent two days of their midyear plenary in August reflecting on racial injustice in the church and in the country. And in May 2016, the bishops issued a pastoral letter asking for a “candid conversation on racism and its manifestations in order to adequately and seriously address racism and racial divisions in our country.”

The bishops said: “We realize that this is not an easy conversation, one that many of us may prefer to avoid. Our invitation to such a dialogue may in itself evoke a range of emotions, including self-justification and self-righteous feelings; or, guilt and denial; on the other hand, feelings of anger and sadness. Dialogue, rational and respectful, is necessary so that we open ourselves to receive God’s healing.”

The S.A.C.B.C. has tasked its Justice and Peace Commission of the Conference to develop practical ways for parishes to address issues of race from within.

Political leaders in South Africa have been known to use race for gain. Embattled President Jacob Zuma has claimed racism as the motivation for a series of protest marches against him. Many South Africans, across color lines, are unhappy with his leadership and with an increasing gap between the rich and poor, but Mr. Zuma has said the marches demonstrate that “racism is real and exists in our country” and that “some of our white compatriots regard black people as being lesser human beings.”

It is true that there are still white people in South Africa who regard black people as inferior, but Mr. Zuma has done little to find a way forward. Like President Trump, he seems incapable of rising above his own ego and putting the national interest first.

In 2016, the South African bishops conference proposed that the country needs to deal with the social trauma that resulted from colonialism and the violence of apartheid. It said that South Africans need to acknowledge the link between race, power and privilege and call for an urgent redress of the economic inequalities in the country that are a direct result of racially discriminatory laws and practices. Sadly, this message has not reached parish communities or become part of the national narrative.

The United States and South Africa have much in common, including an “expanding frontier” mythology expounded in the United States by scholars like Frederick Jackson Turner and in South Africa by numerous historians of the “Great Trek,” the early 19th century migration of Dutch-speaking colonists into the interior of southern Africa. Both countries resisted British colonial rule and are marked by a history of slavery, wars against indigenous peoples and civil war.

More recently, both countries experienced unpopular wars in foreign countries—in Vietnam and Namibia (which, ironically, South African soldiers used to call “Nam”). Both countries now have heads of state who spend more time embattled in their own messy politics than serving their people.

Both nations, on a more positive note, have experienced largely nonviolent struggles for the civil rights of disenfranchised segments of their populations; at times, they drew inspiration from each other. In more recent times one might draw parallels between the struggles of women and sexual minorities for greater freedom and equality, with liberties won in law offset by a comparable social backlash.

Sadly, today it seems the United States and South Africa have a few other things in common: the ugly underbelly of a persistent racism and leadership that does not appear up to the task of confronting it.

This article was first published in America on 29 August 2017. Father Russell Pollitt SJ is one of America's Johannesburg correspondents.