• Editorial - Op Ed
• Bulletin Board, Announcements, Calendar
• Welcome and Website Protocol
• Article Archive

Print this page

Article Categories

• Book Reviews
• Open Letter
• Editorials
• Notes, Quotes & Comments
• Pastor's Study
• Project Millstones
• Sidebar Comments
• Weekly Message

Links

AMERICA Magazine
A balanced Catholic weekly magazine published by the jesuits of the United States for an intelligent Catholic readership. Go online to subscribe.

Liturgy
This link will keep 'parishioners-at-large' in touch with current creative liturgy sources and resources that respect a variety of 'traditions' within the Church.

Voice of the Faithful
A 'movement' of lay Catholics 'inspired' by the abuse scandal calling for greater accountability of bishops to 'Catholics in the Pew.'

Survivos' Network for those Abused by Priests or Religious
A National Network of self-help support groups for people abused by clergy or religious.

Bishop Accountability
Vital information about the disclosure of sexual abuse and related issues affecting Catholics in the pew and the manner in which Bishops continue to exempt themselves from accountability

National Catholic Reporter
A national Catholic lay newspaper covering events not usually covered or presented with a clerical bias in the local diocesan press or but of concern and interest to Catholics.

COMMONWEAL Magazine
A 'lay' Catholic weekly publication with an accent on an intelligent analysis and commentary on curent issues, trends and concerns of interest to Catholics.

Search

Daily Scripture

+ 5th Week in Ordinary Time

It still has meaning.

1 Kings 8:1-7, 9-13 Psalm 132:6-7, 8-10 Mark 6:53-56

The priests brought the ark of the covenant of the Lord to its place beneath the wings of the cherubim in the sanctuary, the holy of holies of the temple. There was nothing in the ark but the two stone tablets which Moses had put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel. [1 Kings 8:6, 8]
_
In recent years there has been much discussion in liturgical circles about the proper location of the tabernacle in the worship space. The directives implementing the Constitution on the Liturgy by the Second Vatican Council prescribed that the tabernacle be located in prominent location in the church or chapel, preferably in a chapel dedicated to the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament and appropriate for veneration. In any case, it was not to be located on the altar table used for the celebration of the Eucharist. As a result in many churches renovations, the tabernacle was moved to the ‘side altar’ previously used for the veneration of the Blessed Virgin or St. Joseph and in some churches, it was placed on the old altar previously used for Mass. In situations the old altar was replaced with a permanent pedestal on which the tabernacle was placed.

In liturgical matters, nothing is simple. Those of a more conservative disposition insisted that the location of the Tabernacle on the side altar reduced the status of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist thereby diminishing its meaning in the devotional life of the faithful. Others of a more liberal persuasion opined that in fact, the location in a separate chapel within the church assigned to the sacrament greater prominence thereby increasing the devotional aspect. Moreover, in as much as an emphasis of the ‘action’ of the Mass as the repetition of the “Lord’s Supper” was promoted by the Council, it seemed to liturgists that the location of the tabernacle in the main sanctuary behind the free standing Eucharist table would compete with the ‘action’ of the Mass as a sacred meal.

The most recent prescriptions in the United States provide that the tabernacle be located in the main sanctuary on suitably ornate pedestal. It is ironic that in the major basilicas including the basilica of St. Peter in Rome, the tabernacle is located on a side altar that is not very prominent.

Whatever the location, it should not be a bone of contention worthy of a liturgical battle. The public and private devotion to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is rooted in the long tradition of the Church and should not be disparaged. In the same way in which the tablets of stone on which the Ten Commandments was symbolic of God’s presence in the temple, so too, the reservation of the Eucharist Bread has been one of the longest-standing practices of the devotional life of Catholics. It is intended to extend the meaning and the effects of the Eucharistic celebration into the life of the faithful who continue to spend time in prayerful meditation on the mysteries of the life of Jesus not the least of which is his faithfulness unto death on the cross for the salvation of the world. The two aspects of Eucharist need not be in competition. The ‘Mass’ continues to be considered a “sacrificial” meal. But we need to be clear that its connection with the passion and death of Christ even as the lamb of God is not to suggest that his death was mandated to satisfy and angry God. That in my opinion is not an appropriate application of Old Testament sacrifices. No, Jesus sacrificial death was the completion of his entire sacrificial life of unqualified and indiscriminate love in the same way as the sacrificial love of partners in marriage offer their sacrificial love to one another or in the manner that Mother Teresa offered her live in sacrificial service to victims of poverty in the streets of Calctta. It is in this sense that devotion to the Eucharist in the tabernacle takes its extended meaning.

During the celebration of the Eucharist, we become what we eat. Through our devotion to the Eucharist reserved in the tabernacle, we are reminded that the Eucharistic presence in our mind, heart and soul extends into all the good works of our lives with the hope that we too will always think and act with the same sacrificial love as did Jesus in his earthly life.

Palm Sunday 'C'

Sunday March 28, 2010

Anything is better than reform, even denial?

Thirty five years ago we were not as convinced of the danger of cigarette smoking as we are today. It is not that there were no warnings. Indeed studies had already concluded that smoking causes cancer. Some smokers heeded these early warnings; many did.

Shortly thereafter, the inevitable backlash emerged, poking holes in the arguments against smoking. New studies ‘engineered’ for the most part by the tobacco industry produced counter claims. Depending on the strength of personal denial and threats to the economy, the impact of smoking reforms on personal smoking habits and on the tobacco industry was mixed. Tobacco companies issued warnings and contributed large sums of money in health related causes as they simultaneously expanded their marketing to third and fourth world countries where smoking continues on the rise.

The only people who welcome reform are reformers. Everyone else prefers to live or die with culpable or inculpable denial.

I ‘bummed’ my last cigarette on December 6, 1983 at approximately 1:15 PM in the office of the rectory of St Joseph Church in Mendham — cold turkey. It was a menthol cigarette. Somehow I had convinced myself that mentholated cigarettes were not as unhealthy as regular cigarettes. That’s how denial works. It dissipates only in stages and depends less on intelligence as on and irrational psycho-dynamic dependence. In fact menthol and filtered cigarettes were worse than regular cigarettes.

Thirty-five years later most people middle aged and over avoid smoking environments. Unfortunately, smoking is on the increase among teens. They haven’t gotten the message or they don’t want to get the message. They are in the early stages of denial. Personal acceptance and peer pressure are more important than common sense.

Although legislation has capped smoking environments, the heightened awareness of the dangers of smoking has had a greater impact on reform.

A similar phenomenon has taken place regarding the use of alcohol and drugs though there is a lot more denial about substance abuse and its damaging effects. DWI laws have resulted in safer highways but not necessarily in safer drinking habits.

This phenomenon is much more subtle in political arena. From time to time, there have been cries for reform in government from one or another side of the aisle, each presenting a case against a clear and present danger to society unless certain reform measures are accepted and passed through the legislature. Sooner or later, backlash occurs from the opposing party punching holes in the data and citing all the reasons why the reform won’t work. Unfortunately, within the political sphere, the data is often skewed by a hidden agenda that has less to do with the case and cause for reform. Both sides resort eventually to ‘ad hominem’ arguments and name-calling. Don’t confuse the issue with facts. Destroy the opponent at all costs. Kill the messenger. Anything is better than costly reform ‘We have the right to have our cake and the right to eat it too.’ It’s okay to pass on the debt of war to succeeding generations but not the cost of health reform Socialism is okay recovery of financial institutions too large to fail but not for the protective measures for the health and safety of citizens on the brink of bankruptcy.

Even the Church can slip into denial about it’s own need for reform from the top to the bottom. Years ago when the news of the sexual scandal broke in this county, blame was assigned to messengers rather than face the truth of mismanagement and cover-ups. It is time for reform and if it doesen’t come from the top, then it must come from the bottom up.

Jesus was a reformer. He told the truth and challenged the religious and political establishments of his time to act “in spirit and in truth.” He set out to inform his opponents about goodness and’ Godness’ not to destroy them for their badness.

He was popular at first but his popularity peaked and the tide was turned against him. His triumphant entry into Jerusalem and his acceptance as king was not to last. Though some considered his ‘kingship’ a good ruse to depose him through a mockery of a trial, his kingdom was not of this world or on this earth. He was confronted with the inevitable backlash again. He was too good to be true. If people listened to what he said and heeded his call to discipleship, it would lead to personal conversion and religious reform. But anything is better than reform!

The passion narrative can be understood only in the light of the Beatitudes and Jesus’ mission to mercy. He confronted even his opponents with love not hate. He subjected himself to human judgement and eventual degradation because it was only way for humanity to appreciate divine forgiveness. God did not will the death of his son; he willed only that he be faithful to life and to accept the consequences of living faithfully — committed to justice, truth and integrity with a touch of hard nosed compassion — even if it cost him his life.

It was not the Jews who put Jesus to death; it was humanity and its will to power that made Jesus powerless before human pride and the arrogance of earthly rulers and religious rulers too!

This is the mystery into which we are invited this holiest of weeks. But it is important and necessary that we view the crucifixion of Jesus through the lens of the Beatitudes and the miracle stories all of which constitute the meaning of Jesus life and the ultimate reason for his execution.

Too good to be true, he was rejected; too powerless to be defeated, he was raised up in glory. His mission is our mission; his destiny our destiny.