• 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.

Guest Editorial

Sunday June 6, 2010

A Pattern of Missteps, an editorial from COMMONWEAL Magazine.
June 4, 2010

Apart from such political blunders, recent pastoral failures within the American church have also undermined the credibility of its teaching about abortion. Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix recently alarmed even many staunchly prolife Catholics when he publicly announced that Sr. Margaret McBride, RSM, had excommunicated herself by approving a request to remove a fetus from its mother’s womb in order to save her life. McBride served on the ethics committee at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. Late in 2009 a woman was brought to the hospital suffering from acute pulmonary hypertension, a life-threatening condition for any pregnant woman. If the pregnancy, then in its eleventh week, continued, both mother and child would probably die.

Abortion is not permissible under any circumstances, says Bishop Olmsted, not even to save the life of the mother. But others, including some very conservative Catholic moralists, think that, in cases where a pregnancy will almost certainly kill both the woman and her unborn child, separating the child from the mother is morally justified. The arguments here are complicated. Suffice it to say that the intention of those who remove the embryo or fetus from its mother’s womb is not to kill a developing child but to save the mother in a situation where the child has no chance of survival and the woman has no other chance. It is not clear to many Catholics why in cases of ectopic pregnancy the church will allow the removal of a fallopian tube—and with it an embryo—in order to save a pregnant woman’s life, while it will not allow the removal of a nonviable fetus to save a woman from dying because of pulmonary hypertension. It is not enough for bishops to say or imply: “Trust us. There’s a difference.” Nor is it fair to expect Catholics to overlook the death and human suffering occasioned by such theoretical subtleties.

The statements issued by Olmsted admit of no complexity or uncertainty when it comes to such hard cases. Certainly, the bishop had a responsibility to question Sr. McBride’s decision. What he should not have done was assume that she and others were acting in intentional defiance of Catholic teaching. Instead of simply announcing the excommunication of someone of good faith and great dedication who was faced with a now-or-never, life-or-death decision, why didn’t the bishop simply express concern that McBride might have erred, and explain that it is a bishop’s duty to investigate the incident? In that way, he might have avoided lending support to those who argue that the church cares more about embryos and fetuses than about their mothers, and that Catholic bishops won’t be satisfied until the law forces women to continue pregnancies that are a death sentence for both them and their unborn children.