The Importance of Proper Definition

I have been in a discussion lately regarding marriage, and the reaction to the State of New York’s decision to start calling same sex relationships “marriages.” One of my interlocutors thought that when I had distinguished between valid marriages and invalid marriages, I was saying that all non-Catholic marriages were invalid (and how unfair that would be). This was obviously not the case, and I will explain it below. Another was having a similar difficulty. Both were confused about the distinction yet validity of religious marriages and non religious marriages, and they were confused about the idea that marriage means more that simply a "boyfriend and girlfriend telling the state of their love." The discussion stemmed from a response to an article, which included the above statement and claimed that by redefining marriage to include same sex couples, the state effectively undefined marriage, and that there is a great loss in this.

Photo courtesy of Isela Maria Photography 

First, let’s get things straight. God is involved in all marriages, whether the vows are expressed in a religious setting or not. When my wife and I exchanged our vows in the traditional Catholic wedding Mass, God was (and is) involved in our marriage. When a non-Christian man and woman go to the justice of the peace and get married, God is involved in that marriage too. The only time God does not unite a couple in marriage is when a marriage is prevented by some impediment from coming about. This is discussed below.

Marriage is a thing into which the couple enters, not something the state created for couples to enter. What the state chooses to recognize as “marriage” has no effect as to whether the couple is, in reality, married or not. The state could call anything a marriage, but that doesn’t bring a marriage into existence. Similarly, the state could legally call an apple an “orange,” but that doesn’t make the apple an orange. Would such a redefinition preclude the orange from being an orange? No. Does such a redefinition remove the state’s distinction between apples and oranges? Yes. Is something lost? Yes, it becomes harder for the average person to truly understand what an orange is, as distinct from what an apple is.

Photo found here

Particularly with regard to the question about the distinction of Catholic marriages: There are two different levels of marriage: natural and sacramental. If a marriage is valid, it is always at least a natural marriage. My marriage is a natural marriage. The marriage between a non-Christian man and woman would also be a natural marriage. Both of those marriages are valid marriages. The particular Christian extra is that marriages between baptized persons are also sacramental--that is, they cause grace in the lives of the couple (a discussion for another time). My marriage is not only natural, but it is also supernatural (sacramental). The catch, with respect to our conversation, is that it takes certain requirements for a marriage to be valid (for various reasons, generally revolving around the fundamental definition that marriage is a full gift of self to the each other) including, but not limited to:

• Marriage can only come about between two people - a full gift of self can only be given to one person, otherwise it is a divided gift. (This rules out polyamory.) This statement also requires that the parties be humans--animals plants and inanimate things are unable to consciously choose to give themselves, so they cannot enter marriage. (A man could not marry his cow.)
• Marriage can only come about between willing people - it is not a gift of self at all if the persons are unwilling. (Shotgun weddings are generally invalid--even though the state would recognize them.) Here is it helpful to note that even arranged marriages are entered into willingly (only the bride and groom don’t get to choose the person to whom they give themselves), so they are completely valid.
• In order to be willing, a man and a woman need to know the covenant to which they're vowing themselves. You can't totally agree to give yourself fully to another person for the rest of your life without a minimal understanding of what that really means. This area is greatly effected in our society. With the continual redefinition/undefinition of marriage, it becomes harder and harder for couples to know what marriage truly is, so it is harder for them to fully give themselves to each other.
• If either the man, the woman, or both is/are a Catholic, the wedding must take place according to the rules of the Catholic Church (in a Catholic church, by a Catholic priest/deacon, they must intend to raise their children as Catholics, and they must conform to all of the other requirements for marriage). Catholics are not free to get married on the beach, in the forest, in a mansion, or elsewhere. Doing so fails to bring about a marriage. They are not married. They can always have their marriage convalidated by the Church, so that it becomes real, but they remain unmarried otherwise (even if the state considers them married).
• Marriage can only come about between people who are able to give themselves - the mentally retarded, the insane, and similar others lack the capacity to truly choose to give themselves to another person for as long as they both shall live. This lack of the ability to give themselves prevents those people from entering a state of self-gift. (The drunk are also not able to give themselves at the time, so drunken Vegas weddings are generally not valid--even if the state recognizes them. This couple could always convalidate their marriage later.)
• The couple must be able to consummate their marriage at least once - if the couple is unable to complete the marital act, they cannot consummate (“bring to perfection”) their gift of self to each other. A man who cannot become erect cannot consummate a marriage. I have heard of cases of women who are unable to receive a man--they would be unable to consummate a marriage. The marriage must be consummated by at least one marital act. The marital act does not need to be a fertile act, but it needs to be the KIND of act that would be fertile. The marital act is the act by which a man and woman would normally generate children (the man must climax within the woman’s vagina--wether or not they are fertile). If the couple is unable to perform this function, they cannot consummate the marriage, so they are unable to give themselves fully to each other. (*As an aside, when a couple forcibly removes their fertility from this act--through contraception, etc.--they change the act which they are performing, reserving themselves from giving a full gift and failing to perform the marital act, so a contracepted act wouldn't consummate a marriage.*)  This act doesn’t need to generate children, but it must be the same act by which children would normally be generated. That being said, obviously a man cannot climax within another man’s vagina (because the other man has no vagina). Men cannot FULLY give themselves (fertility and all) to men. The same goes for women--they cannot FULLY give themselves (fertility and all) to women. Same sex couples cannot enter into a real marriage. No matter what the state calls their relationship, same sex couples lack the ability to enter the reality of what marriage is because they lack the fundamental elements (one man and one woman).

Marriage, by its nature, is ordered to the procreation and education of children. Not every marriage will generate children, but marriage requires the KIND of people who would normally be able to give themselves to each other so fully that their self-giving love MIGHT produce another life. (An infertile man and woman may marry each other because they are the KIND of relationship that is necessary.) Anything else is not a marriage. The state may call it a “marriage,” but that’s like the state calling an apple an “orange”--it doesn’t make it so.

To the next point: is anything lost by this altered definition of marriage? Yes, but the loss is subtle (great, but subtle). Over the last century, we have seen a great breakdown in the family unit. This has been caused by a societal watering-down of the understanding of what it means to "be married" and to "be a family." Much of this has been because of the disassociation of marriage and the marital act. Instead of the marital act being looked at as the fullest gift of husband and wife to each other possible, society has slowly turned it into a mere pleasure act. To be sure, there is much pleasure involved, and that is good, but sexual intercourse purely for pleasure robs it of such self-giving properties. It becomes a form of using the other person for mutual pleasure--even if consensual, it fails to be a true gift. When society treats the marital act as though it’s just a pleasure time, why should it treat marriage like it’s anything special? Problems like adultery have been troubling mankind for practically as long as history records, but should they be considered acceptable? No! We know people shouldn’t cheat on their spouses. Our society, however, has slowly started to brush that problem (and others) under the carpet.

Widespread contraception was one of the first big falls. First, it removed the telltale sign of infidelity--another woman’s pregnancy--but it also dissociated the marital act from being open to generate children, which only stoked the burning fires of lust (sexual intercourse for pleasure instead of pleasure as a part of marital self-gift). This split between marriage and the marital act also gives any man who views women as sexual objects further leeway to treat them as such. It also greatly increases the temptation for men who otherwise wouldn’t treat women as objects to treat them as such--and vice versa. The same can be said for abortion, which became the fail-safe for contracepting couples. Preventing and killing babies from such illicit relationships made it easier for the relationships to occur, and they became more common, more mainstream--such relationships are even lauded in television shows. All of this erodes at the definition of marriage--they are both the sign of a lower view of marriage and contributors to lowering it further.

As our society’s view of marriage lowered, divorce became more prevalent, and to make this easier, lawmakers created “no-fault” divorce, which only further lowered the view of marriage. Not only is marriage separated from the marital act in society’s eyes, but they now look at marriage as a relationship of convenience. While stating, “until death do we part,” people are often really thinking, “as long as I feel good and he/she meets all my needs, but if things turn sour, we’ll just get a divorce.”

Adultery and fornication both went rampant, exploding in the 1960s and 70s. These vices which have historically been seen as evil, were now being seen as not only acceptable, but “freeing.” This libertine “freedom” (which is really just a license to indulge in lust, and become enslaved to one’s passions) has led to a further deterioration of society’s view of the family. As contraception became more available and society’s general view of marriage lowered, the increase of divorce, teen pregnancy, out of wedlock pregnancy, single families, spousal abuse, etc. skyrocketed. The more a society deviates in its understanding from what marriage really is (1 man and 1 woman, committed to giving themselves to each other for a deepening love, for generation and education of any children they might be given as the building block of society, for as long as they are alive), the more prevalent marital evils (divorce, teen pregnancy, infidelity, abuse, etc.) will be in that society.

Has something been lost? Yes. Our society no longer knows what marriage really is, so it will seemingly label anything it wishes a “marriage.” (What is the next apple to be called an “orange?” It looks most likely that the polyamorous crowd will be the next to push their agenda, but I assume they will wait and push the gay agenda first to first try to more fully establish the same sex crowd and lessen the understanding of marriage further before trying to add more partners). With same sex relationships now being called “marriages” by some state governments, it is a further erosion of the real definition of marriage, which will result in a further increase of our society’s marital ills. Unfortunately, people often only live up to the minimum expectation you give them, and as you keep expecting less and less from marriages, they will keep giving themselves less and less to a relationship that requires to give themselves fully. Marriage and family are the building block of society. Our society will not thrive on a faulty foundation--in fact, it is nearly guaranteed to get worse. As we keep lowering our society’s expectations of marriage, we will continue to see worse rates of marital and social evils in our country.

There is a silver lining. Individuals can resist. People can come to learn the real definition of marriage and try to live up to the higher standard to which truly married couples are called. They can raise children who understand marriage and plan to fully give themselves (for life) into a marriage (if God so calls them to that state someday). That’s what my family is doing, and we are not alone. We are just one couple among millions who understand what marriage really is, and we have pledged to live up to that calling, and to teach our children to live up to that calling.

Lastly, and perhaps, most importantly, we can pray. We can pray that God helps us to understand marriage even more deeply, and we can pray for mercy for any time we have offended the truth of marriage, and for mercy on others who have committed offenses against the truth of marriage. We can also pray for mercy on us as a country, for the country's offenses against the truth of marriage.

“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

Deals in the Dark

I just saw the news over at Whispers in the Logia that the New York state government has redefined its own understanding of marriage. He quoted Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn: "It is mystifying that this bill would be passed on the last day of an extended session under the cover of darkness."

To me, this resounds of another political action that took place at a "special session," under the cover of darkness . . .

Men, who think they have power, casting out what is truly good in exchange for what is politically favorable.


This is a sad day for the State of New York, and for our nation. We have divorced ourselves from the true definition of marriage, and offered instead a cheap whore.

Abram's Unrighteousness

Sarah Supplies Abraham Hagar by Adriaen van der Werff

In today's 1st reading, we hear of the account of Abram, Sarai, and Hagar (Genesis 16). I have often seen people misinterpret this chapter or use it to prove what it speaks against. It has to be understood in the proper context. To get a bit of that, let's look at yesterday's reading (Genesis 15:1-18).

In Genesis 15, God tells Abram (who is at this point childless) that he will have a son. In fact, He tells Abram that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars. At this time, Abram and Sarai are quite old--beyond child-bearing years--but Abram trusts God anyway, and God "credited it to him as an act of righteousness"(Gen 15:6). That was good; Abram trusted what God said. Unfortunately, He didn't trust God enough to make it happen. After not conceiving for a while, Sarai thinks: maybe this son isn't supposed to come through me, so (instead of turning to God for help) she devises a plan to ensure that her husband has the promised heir. She offers her maid, Hagar, to her husband as a concubine. Though this may have been a custom for some people at the time, this was not what God wanted.

God created man and woman to enter into a marriage and remain in that marriage "until death do they part," and the only way God wants man and woman to commit the marital act is within a marriage. God created the first covenant with Adam, the husband of a marriage. Here, Abram broke his marriage covenant by sleeping with a woman who was not his wife--both an offense against his wife (even though it was her idea) and an offense against God's first covenant with man. As always, when a seed is planted by a bad act, bad fruits come.

Abram is generally looked at as a great man, and that he was, but he was not perfect. Here (and in other places) he chose poorly. Although he was trying to do what he thought God might possibly want, he forsook his conscience in order to accomplish the task. He chose to get an heir "his way." To be sure, Sarai and Hagar were complicit in the act, so they were all accountable--they chose to get an heir "their way." They all broke the marriage covenant, and there were consequences. Too often, I have heard people try to use this account as an argument against the Judeo-Christian view of marriage. They just don't get it. Not every story in the Bible shows how to do things rightly--often it shows how not to do things, and this is one of them. Lesson of the day: don't commit the marital act with someone who is not your spouse (also, there are right ways and wrong ways to bring a child into this world: don't try to have a baby in a way that God does not want).

As we continue to read, we will see that the son of this union (Ishmael) is not the heir that God promised; Isaac is that man. As God's messenger predicted (verse 12), much strife between Hagar/Ishmael and Abra(ha)m's true heir, Isaac will come. This will lead to great contention and battles down through the years. The Muslims claim their lineage through Ishmael. The Christians & Jews claim their lineage through Isaac. Thus, we see in the many wars between Muslims and Christians/Jews that Ishmael and Isaac have been fighting down through the centuries, and it all started with a sin against the covenant of marriage. Obviously this story is one of what not to do.

Redemptive Suffering

Redemptive suffering is the concept of being able to suffer for someone else's benefit. It is the basis of Jesus' death on the cross: God took on human flesh man so that He could suffer in His human nature (His divine nature is perfect, so it could not suffer). That suffering was not for some sadistic purpose; rather, it was for atonement. Jesus died on the cross to help us. His death paid the debt of our sins. The picture above is of the "scapegoat" the animal in Jewish culture on whom the people's sins were cast and who was driven away into the desert (a foreshadowing of Jesus who would really take the people's sins away). Every imperfect act of ours separates us from God (who is ultimate perfection) and makes us the devil's property (think of Edmund in the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe--see the video below, particularly 3:20-5:20).

Sin also enslaves us--it is truly addicting (when we sin, it becomes more habitual to sin again and easier to sin more gravely). Prior to Jesus' death, we had no way of repaying the debt of our sins, so even those "good" people still committed some sins in their lives, and their souls were not in a state where they could enter Heaven.

God loves us so much that He became one of us in order to die for us (see the rest of that movie clip, understanding Aslan as a representation of Jesus). Jesus' death is applied to us particularly through the sacraments. In the Sacrament of Baptism, we are washed with water, but it is not just symbolic; it actually affects our souls. When someone is baptized, he is drowned; His life that he lived up to that point is ended--including all sin (Original Sin, which we inherit from Adam and Eve, and any actual sins, which we have committed up to that point)--and he is raised to a new life for God. The Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) applies Jesus' death on the cross to us to forgives us of any sins we commit after Baptism (provided that we are humble enough to own up to them, that we tell them to God through one of His priests, that we are sorry, and that we intend to try not to do them again). The Sacrament of Holy Communion (the Eucharist) is the main sacrament. It is the bread and wine that are changed into Jesus' Body and Blood at Mass every day. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is made present on the altar at every Catholic Mass. That sacrifice is re-offered to the Father, and then we are allowed to partake in it. We consume what used to be bread/wine and has now become Jesus' Himself. We eat His living Flesh (offered for us) and drink His living Blood (shed for us) under the appearance of bread and wine. God became man to die for us and give us these sacraments (and the 4 others, which I won't go into here).

In the same way, God also allows us to suffer for others. In our pain (of whatever sort: mental, physical, social, etc.), we can unite ourselves with Him on the cross and offer that suffering as a sacrifice to help other people. We understand that all suffering we go through now is trivial compared to the complete joy to be experienced forever in Heaven or (conversely) the complete agony to be experienced forever in Hell. We welcome suffering insofar as it makes us more like Jesus, who suffered for us, and enables us to suffer for others. Though I may have great pain in suffering (and I may lose a lot of temporal goods), it is worth it to save someone's soul from eternal damnation. The suffering through which I go, I can offer up to God because He often wishes to use us as tools for bringing about His mercy. In His mercy, He might grant some sinner extra graces to see the wrongs in his actions, and recognize the harm he causes through his sins. This may be enough for the sinner to repent, to turn back to God and seek forgiveness. That may ultimately lead the sinner to be in Heaven instead of Hell for all of eternity. Thus, the sacrifices we Catholics offer up to God are acts of love--to love is to will for what is ultimately best for someone. While I may not like the daily trials which life throws at me, I recognize that they are opportunities to love people (those around me, or those whom I may never meet). They are opportunities to offer myself up and take their punishment on my flesh, so that they might one day return to a relationship with God avoid eternally separating themselves from Him: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." [John 15:13]

Spirit of the Liturgy - Chapter 1

This is a continuing report on the book The Spirit of the Liturgy by Cardinal Ratzinger.

Click here to read the report on the Preface.

PART ONE: THE ESSENCE OF LITURGY

Chapter 1: Liturgy & Life: The Place of the Liturgy in Reality

In the 20's it was common to describe liturgy with the analogy of a game (having its own rules, stepping outside the pressures of daily life, often being "a rehearsal for later life," [14] and thus allowing us to see daily life as a prelude to eternal life - offering us hope). This analogy, however, lacks a concrete orientation towards eternal life and towards God Himself, so Ratzinger wishes to offer us a new approach [which is really an old approach looked at anew]: liturgy as revealed in the Bible, particularly the Exodus.

The Exodus

The whole purpose of the Exodus is not just to give God's people the Promised Land, but to give them the freedom to worship Him (in whatever way He requests): "Let my people go that they may serve me in the wilderness." (Ex 7:16) [Not: "Let my people go that I may give them land."] "The only goal of the Exodus is shown to be worship, which can only take place according to God's measure." [16] They don't know the means by which God wishes them to worship Him--only out in the wilderness will they be given that knowledge. [They had to take every person and everything they owned, so that they would be prepared to worship God in whatever way He wanted.] "The land is given to the people to be a place for the true worship of the true God." [17] God makes a covenant with His people and "concretiz[es it] in a minutely regulated form of worship . . . [this form of worship shows them] how to worship God in the way He Himself desires." [17] [God tells them how He wants to be worshipped. They don't make it up on their own.] This worship is an entire way of life. It includes both "cult, [which is] liturgy in the proper sense," [17] and morality, the proper way to live. "Ultimately is it the very life of man, man himself as living righteously, that is the true worship of God, but life only becomes real life when it receives its form from looking toward God. Cult exists in order to communicate this vision and to give life in such a way that glory is given to God."[18] [Don't get confused with the popular definition of "cult"--something like a strange or evil group of fanatics. Cult means ritual. We worship in a ritualistic liturgy because that is what we have received from God. Those rituals draw us out of our daily lives, point us toward God, and allow us to receive His life. Only by looking toward God can we get the proper perspective of how to live the rest of our lives (and live them to the fullest). Without that orientation towards God, life is like being in a maze, but not knowing where the end is--there is no goal to direct our actions to the proper end. We have received the rituals for worship from God and from His Church. It is not something that we invent out of our creativity. Our worship is affective because it was given to us by God as a foretaste of how we will worship Him in Heaven.]

Worship, Law & Ethics

"Worship, law, and ethics are inseparably interwoven." [18] Law must be founded in morality and both must be oriented toward God, otherwise they trap man in a world-centered vision, forcing him to bow to the whims of the ruling majority, rather than the all-good, unchanging truths of God. People need law so that they may be free to live and worship. "God has a right to a response from man." [19] Law must preserve this right, otherwise man cannot live the life for which he was made. "When human affairs are so ordered that there is no recognition of God, there is a belittling of man." [19] The Israelites were given regulations for both cult and morality at Sinai. "This and this alone is what makes the land a real gift." [19] If Israel sticks to these regulations, she is free; if not, she loses her freedom. "When the loss of law becomes total, it ends in the loss even of land . . . steadfast adherence to the law of God . . . must be the necessary condition [foundation of existence] for life in community and freedom." [20]  [Proper worship directs us to God, who allows us to see how to live properly. That orientation toward God forms our morality/ethics. Law exists to encourage people toward right conduct (virtue) and discourage people from vice. Without proper worship, we are trapped in a mindset that thinks only of this world and its concerns. It fails to see things from the God's perspective and what is eternally best for our souls. Without the true goal in mind, our efforts can easily become misguided. Many of our civil law makers have lost the proper perspective, or have been trained in an environment which rejects God, and therefore, rejects the proper goal of all of life. Law should protect and promote worship, but that is far too often not the case in our society.]

The importance of worship.
Cult, then, "goes beyond the action of the liturgy . . . embrac[ing] the ordering of the world of human life." [20] Worship is "man glorifying God" and man does this "when he lives by looking toward God." [20] Law and ethics must be "anchored in the liturgical center and inspired by it." [20] Man's relationship with God (liturgy) must first be right before his other relationships (with other men, with creation - law, ethics) can be rightly ordered. [God gives man his relational orientation. Man must first encounter the Truth, Goodness, Justice, Love that God is in order to know how to be truly true, good, just and loving.] "The right kind of cult, or relationship with God, is essential for the right kind of human existence in the world. It is so precisely because it reaches beyond everyday life." Worship takes us out of the world and gives us a taste of Heaven. Life without that foretaste is empty, so those without true cult end up creating 'their own forms of cult, though, of course, they can be only an allusion and strive in vain by bombastic trumpeting, to conceal their nothingness." [21]
[I'm reminded of this at the end of every Super Bowl (or other sports finales). The whole profession is "bombastically trumpeted" with fancy graphics, lively commentators, jarring music, and memorabilia galore, which all conceal their real nothingness. I used to be a devout follower of the worship of football. Ever since I was introduced to it, I have loved to play the game, so it only naturally followed that I would love to watch the professionals play the game. Growing up, my family had our Sunday tradition of watching the games together. I was enthralled by the games, looking up statistics, buying the video games, collecting the cards, and eventually playing fantasy football. None of these are bad in themselves, but they can become dominant foci in someone's life--as it did in mine. Every year, though, as the confetti paper fluttered in the air to mark the end of that year's Super Bowl, something about it seemed anti-climactic. All this build up throughout the year (and intensifying as the game day drew nearer) seemed to leave me with an empty feeling when the game was accomplished. As the years went by, that emptiness pointed to something: all the hype around this contest is really hiding that it's just a game. It's entertaining to watch them compete, but the flashy decorations are all ways that they try to make the game seem as though it has some great importance.]


We must receive worship, not create it.
True Worship is the worship that God reveals. Man cannot "creatively" plan worship how he wishes. It must be received, otherwise "man is clutching empty space." [21] "Real liturgy implies that God reveals how we can worship him . . . [in bad liturgy] worship is no longer going up to God, but drawing God down into one's own world." [22] He gives, as an example, the Golden Calf narrative--the people created their own version of God and worshipped him how they felt like worshipping him. They weren't patient enough to receive the proper form of worship from God. Ratzinger says that this narrative "is a warning about any kind of self-initiated and self-seeking worship." [23] When man tries to create his own worship, "man is using God . . . a festival of self-affirmation. Instead of being worship of God, it becomes a circle closed in on itself . . . no longer concerned with God but with giving oneself a nice little alternate world, manufactured from one's own resources . . . an apostasy in sacral disguise. All that is left in the end is frustration, a feeling of emptiness. There is no experience of that liberation which always takes place when man encounters the living God." [23] [Here, Ratzinger turns the spotlight from the banal pursuits of secular society's worship of empty things to those who try to impose such empty things into the received worship of God (particularly the Mass). This is one of the greatest travesties of our time. As we saw above, man needs proper worship, so that he can be directed outside of himself and rightly oriented to God (and thereby rightly oriented to all of creation), yet so often today, people who style themselves as "liturgists" try to turn this received worship into a display of their own "creativity." In doing so, they turn the focus of the liturgy away from God and onto the people (either the ones performing the "creative" innovation or the community gathered in the pews). Later, Ratzinger will describe this as "replacing the true essence of the liturgy with a  kind of religious entertainment." How true his words are! All too often, I have attended Masses where it seems like the priest is trying to entertain the people instead of point them toward almighty God. The few I have questioned about this have made comments about "not wanting to be too 'high Church' for the people" or "wanting to make people feel welcome," etc. This makes me sick. I can't believe that someone would forego thousands of years of cultivated Church practice (based on revelation and handed on to us faithfully by the Magisterium and which has drawn countless people toward sainthood) for the sake of what amounts to creature comforts. It becomes a form of settling for the lowest common denominator instead of a pursuit of what is highest.]

Good liturgy: solemn, dignified, beautiful, inspiring, directing us beyond ourselves/daily life and toward God
It orients us to a proper relationship with God.

Bad liturgy: campy, showy, people-centered, uninspiring, banal, base, empty . . .
"It becomes a feast that the community gives itself, a festival of self-affirmation. Instead of being worship of God, it becomes a circle closed in on itself: eating drinking and making merry . . . no longer concerned with God but with giving oneself a nice little alternative world, manufactured from one's own resources . . . an apostasy in sacral disguise. All that is left in the end is frustration, a feeling of emptiness." [23]

Book Report: Spirit of the Liturgy - Preface

About six years ago, I was introduced to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's (now Pope Benedict XVI's) Book Spirit of the Liturgy. This was at a conference by one of his students: Fr. Joseph Fessio. At this conference, Fr. Fessio was able to make use of his many years both as a student and friend of our current Holy Father to help explain the Pope's book. I had previously started to take an interest in liturgy (the official public prayers of the Catholic Church - how they are celebrated and why). Quite impressed with the ideas presented to explain the Pope's views on liturgy, I was instantly intrigued. I bought the book and couldn't put it down. Ratzinger's view on the beauty of the liturgy and its power to inspire us toward God are evident in his liturgical example as pope. At this point I was determined to write an explanation of the book to help spread the Pope's message, but God knew better--I still needed more understanding and a better venue. At the conference, Fr. Fessio had introduced the crowd to Ave Maria University, and he mentioned how AMU was trying to put the Pope's thoughts on liturgy into practice. Through a series of miraculous situations (about which I should write one day), God allowed for me to enter AMU's graduate program, study, and receive an MA in Theology. While studying there, we covered Ratzinger's book in Dr. Roger Nutt's Liturgy &; Sacraments class, which helped me to gain an even greater understanding of the book, the Mass (and our other liturgies), and led me to an even greater understanding of how desperately our Church needs to hear this message.

Recently, I have started re-reading the book, and I have decided to prepare a chapter-by-chapter explanation, so that everyone may hear and understand this great call to deeper and more beautiful liturgy "as the animating center of the Church, the very center of Christian life," [7] to inspire souls toward even greater relationships with God and to glorify Him with their lives. This has rekindled my desire to share the book with you. Today's first post will only cover the Preface. I will write a summary in black and I will make my extra comments in red. Without further ado, I present to you The Spirit of the Liturgy:

Preface

Ratzinger states his purpose for writing the book: to assist the renewal of the understanding of the liturgy by building on what Guardini wrote in his 1918 book The Spirit of the Liturgy, updating it for a contemporary setting, hoping to encourage a liturgical movement "toward the right way of celebrating the liturgy, inwardly and outwardly." [9] [Later, we will get into what the right way is.]

He mentioned that one of the difficulties that had crept into the Mass prior to the Second Vatican Council was the "instructions for and the forms of private prayer," [8] that distracted the faithful from seeing the beauty of the liturgy (which he likens to a fresco). The fresco, he states "had been preserved from damage [in Guardini's time], but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations." [7] [Those private devotions distracted the people and covered over the beauty of what was happening before them.]

Guardini's book "helped us to rediscover the liturgy in all its beauty, hidden wealth, and time-transcending grandeur" [7] and inspired a Liturgical Movement in Germany, which helped to preserve its beauty despite the white-washing. The Second Vatican Council again showed us the beauty of the liturgy, but

since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact it is threatened with destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. [8]

I'm sure that many of us have been witnesses to destruction of elements of the beauty in the Mass: art, architecture, music, and (even more sadly) reverence. I will not dwell on them here because he treats them later, but I cannot stress enough the importance that we Catholics need to return to a sense of beauty, reverence, and majesty in our liturgies, for the sake of the souls in the pews. We need an inspiring liturgy--one that doesn't just speak to us where we're at (or worse: tries to entertain us), but one that draws us up out of our daily life and inspires us to look toward God and order our whole lives accordingly. Pope Benedict XVI has not changed his views since becoming pope. He has not made many top-down liturgical commands, rather he has led by example--restoring, in the Masses he offers, the beauty that had been damaged. He gave us Anglophones an excellent example of this when he celebrated Mass in Westminster Cathedral. Below is a video excerpt from that Mass. Note how beautiful and inspiring everything is and how different it is from our everyday lives--Mass provides us that time to step away from everyday life and focus on what is really important: God. Ask yourself: "how can my parish (with what resources it has) offer Masses more like that?"

I pray that God will bless me with a better understanding of this book, and the liturgy, and that what little work I am able to do will be done with love, and will help preserve the beauty of the fresco. I pray, too, that you, dear readers, will be inspired to give greater glory to God--particularly in the liturgy.


Trying to glorify God in my work,
- Casey

Indulgences Explained

My parish had a parish mission last week, and our pastor wanted to advertise that there was a plenary indulgence that one could gain from attending the mission, so he asked me to write an explanation of indulgences for the parish. From what I wrote, he streamlined it down to a few bullet points (I tend to be a bit verbose, if you hadn't already noticed).

For my draft, I looked at Catholic Answers' Primer on Indulgences, and Jimmy Akin's article How to Gain an Indulgence, and tried to combine them and make the piece a little more reader-friendly for people who don't have much knowledge of the faith.

Indulgences Explained

A lot of misinformation is given about indulgences and the Catholic Church. The Church never “got rid” of indulgences. At the Council of Trent (session 25), the Church infallibly defined indulgences as a valid part of the faith, condemning the beliefs that a) indulgences are useless and b) the Church doesn’t have the power to grant them. Both of those are false, and Catholics are not permitted to spread them. So what are indulgences? Hopefully the following will help answer that question:

The results of sin: guilt and punishment:

When we sin, we incur guilt: “When a man or woman commits sins, that person is guilty.” (cf. Numbers 5:6) We have broken our relationship with God and other people. We also incur punishment relative to the offense we committed: “I will punish you according to the fruit of your doings, says the LORD.” (Jeremiah 21:14) Punishment is meant to correct us so that we recognize the evil we have committed and convert to doing good in the future. “Be afraid of the sword, for wrath brings the punishment of the sword, that you may know there is a judgment." (Job 19:29) It is important to remember that we bring these punishments on ourselves. God wants all of us to be with Him; He wants us to do good. God is not trying to trap us into doing evil. His punishments reprimand us for our bad deeds. If we humbly accept our just punishments, they will help us to act rightly in the future. God can reduce someone’s punishment, and He does so through indulgences.

Punishments are of two types: Temporal and Eternal:

Depending on the severity of our sins, our punishment will be more or less severe. Eternal punishment is Hell--being separated from God forever. Hell is the punishment for people who commit mortal (serious, grave) sins and do not repent from them. “They will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:46) It is connected to the guilt of the sin, and it is forgiven through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. There are also temporal punishments (punishments that will end): “The punishment of your iniquity, O daughter of Zion, is accomplished; He will keep you in exile no longer.” (Lamentations 4:22) Indulgences affect temporal punishments.

Forgiveness removes guilt, but not all punishment:

In the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we confess our sins to God through His priest. When we are forgiven, our guilt is completely removed: “I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD’; then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin.” (Psalm 32:1) The punishment, however, remains. Moses is a good example of this. God forgave Moses’ guilt, but He still punished Moses by not allowing him to live long enough to enter the Promised Land. (Numbers 20:12) Death itself is a punishment that comes from sin. (Genesis 3:22-24; Romans 5:12) Even though we are forgiven of sins through the sacraments, we will still die. If I were to go to Confession for stealing someone’s car, I would be forgiven of the guilt, but I would still have the car that is someone else’s property. We all recognize that I must (at least) restore the stolen property. The same goes for all sins. There are temporal effects of our sins and through our punishment we restore them. Less objective sins like gossip, sloth, lust, etc. are much harder to restore.  Therefore, God disciplines us through other punishments. God gave us the sacraments to remove our guilt and He allows us indulgences to reduce our punishments.

God allows us to do good in order to take away the punishment of others:

Just like Jesus died on the cross for all of us, so we can unite our little sacrifices to Him for the benefit of others. Similarly, God was ready to take away the punishment of Sodom if Abraham could find enough righteous men. (Genesis 18:16-33) Also, Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic man because he saw the faith of the man’s friends. (Matthew 9:2) God allows us to gain indulgences not just for ourselves, but also to help others.

God works through His Church:

Just as we receive the sacraments from God through His Church, so also God offers us indulgences through the Church. The penance given in the Sacrament of Reconciliation has been given since its foundation because the Church recognized that restitution needed to be made. The sinner needed to do something to amend the situation beyond being forgiven of the guilt. The Church alone has the authority to grant indulgences.

“In the early Church, penances were sometimes severe. For serious sins, such as apostasy, murder, and abortion, the penances could stretch over years, but the Church recognized that repentant sinners could shorten their penances by pleasing God through pious or charitable acts that expressed sorrow and a desire to make up for one’s sin . . . If Christ gave his ministers the ability to forgive the eternal penalty of sin, how much more would they be able to remit the temporal penalties of sin! Christ also promised his Church the power to bind and loose on earth, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ (Matt. 18:18). As the context makes clear, binding and loosing cover Church discipline, and Church discipline involves administering and removing temporal penalties (such as barring from and readmitting to the sacraments). Therefore, the power of binding and loosing includes the administration of temporal penalties.”

Indulgences can be applied to the dead:

If we die with punishments unfulfilled, we cannot yet enter Heaven: “Nothing unclean shall enter [Heaven].” (Revelation 21:27) Because of that, we must be cleansed of any leftover temporal punishments before entering Heaven. That is what Purgatory does—it “purges” us of any leftover guilt and punishment. The purification that happens in Purgatory is often likened to fire, purifying precious metal: “If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” (1 Corinthians 3:15) We can offer indulgences for the sake of those who are in Purgatory (so that their purgation may be swifter and their entrance into Heaven sooner/easier).

An example of this is Judas Maccabeus who, after a battle, gathered his soldiers’ dead bodies and found that all of the slain soldiers were wearing superstitious amulets (an great offense against God because we must put our trust in Him alone, not in superstitions). 

[Judas and his people] turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. (2 Maccabees 12:42-45)

Certainly when it comes to the eternal effects of our sins, only Christ can make amends or reparation. Only he was able to pay the infinite price necessary to cover our sins. We are completely unable to do so, not only because we are finite creatures incapable of making an infinite satisfaction, but because everything we have was given to us by God. For us to try to satisfy God’s eternal justice would be like using money we had borrowed from someone to repay what we had stolen from him. No actual satisfaction would be made (cf. Ps. 49:7-9, Rom. 11:35). This does not mean we can’t make amends or reparation for the temporal effects of our sins. If someone steals an item, he can return it. If someone damages another’s reputation, he can publicly correct the slander. When someone destroys a piece of property, he can compensate the owner for its loss. All these are ways in which one can make at least partial amends for what he has done.

An excellent biblical illustration of this principle is given in Proverbs 16:6, which states: ‘By loving kindness and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil’ (cf. Lev. 6:1-7; Num. 5:5-8). Here we are told that a person makes temporal atonement (though never eternal atonement, which only Christ is capable of doing) for his sins through acts of loving kindness and faithfulness.

How to gain an indulgence:

To gain any indulgence you must be a Catholic in a state of grace. You must be a Catholic in order to be under the Church's jurisdiction, and you must be in a state of grace because apart from God's grace none of your actions are fundamentally pleasing to God (meritorious). You also must have at least the habitual intention of gaining an indulgence by the act performed.

To gain a partial indulgence, you must perform with a contrite heart the act to which the indulgence is attached.

To gain a plenary indulgence [full cleansing from all punishments] you must perform the act with a contrite heart, plus you must go to confession [within a short period of time—around 8 days] (one confession may suffice for several plenary indulgences), receive Holy Communion, and pray for the pope's intentions. (An Our Father and a Hail Mary said for the pope's intentions are sufficient, although you are free to substitute other prayers of your own choosing.) The final condition is that you must be free from all attachment to sin, including venial sin. 

Because of the extreme difficulty in meeting the final condition, plenary indulgences are rarely obtained. If you attempt to receive a plenary indulgence, but are unable to meet the last condition, a partial indulgence is received instead.