Catholic Sensibility

Go here for an illustrative discussion on Latin, liturgy, and the last two (or three) Roman Missals. It's long been my contention that the single biggest human factor in making great liturgy (by almost any definition you choose) is the intent, care, craft, artistry, and attention the leadership (meaning clergy, musicians, architects, artists, and other leaders) put into it. When and where the leadership fails to treat liturgy as the most serious earthly work they can do, the Mass fails to realize its potential. My contention is that the language of the Mass, the date of the Missal, and many other contentious factors are irrelevant. The liturgical life of the Catholic Church was in disarray fifty years ago because too many clergy took liberties with the Latin-language Missal and failed to communicate past their own pragmatism. Apathy was the norm, and beauty was the rare exception. My friends at the NLM keep trying. One moment they trumpet the supreme value of Latin, and manage to alienate all the venerable traditional rites of the East. Hint: those guys never had Latin and trads like them anyway. Naturally, the notion is surfaced that the 1970 Roman Missal is fatally flawed. Usually because of some nonsense about the Vatican II bishops not reading the fine print of the documents, or some other lapse of ignorance. I'll shock my readers by saying that if the Catholic Church could come up with a few million priests and church musicians to do a dynamite job on the Latin liturgy, I think most Catholics would go for it. But despite the near-advent of the universal "Latin" (they mean Tridentine) Missal, here are the reasons it will never fly: 1. Most clergy are more concerned with non-liturgical matters. They can't pray in Latin. They don't want to. And they have more pressing concerns, some ministerial (like the parishioners in pastoral need or if the books will balance) or personal (like the latest fine wine, cigar, scotch, or vacation adventure). They are not going to learn Latin for you. 2. The Tridentine enthusiasts have the best of all worlds right now. They worship with a nearly 100% devoted assembly, led by caring and meticulous priests and assisted by musicians who, for an hour a week, have their dream job. If the 1962 or 1570 Missal was more frequent, average quality of worship would suffer. One single single-minded community in a region is a point of strength. At some point dilution sets in. 3. What you might see is younger priests playing dilettante with the Latin Mass. Much like the previous generation was willing to "give it a go" with a polka Mass, clown ministry, or the latest temperament indicator, you'll have guys who think they can just read out of a Latin Missal and make it work. Right. I suspect that vernacular worship has put more demands on clergy. There's an expectation of good preaching. Pew people expect a ready perception of what's going on at Mass. Some priests haven't stepped up to the plate on that one, but that's a fault of training, not the Missal itself. As far as Latin's concerned, if the particular language is at issue, trads don't haven't taken either tradition or Eastern reunion to heart. And if it's any old old language, who's to say that Sanskrit, Hebrew, Egyptian, or some Hindi or Mandarin root language isn't as functional for producing raised levels of liturgical tryptophan in the brain? The Buddhists worship as reverently as any Tridentine trad, wouldn't you say? The 1962 Missal remains a largely political statement. Schismatics use it. Traditional Catholics aspire to something for which they cannot turn the clock back. Today is the era to revitalize plainsong and the treasures of tradition. The trads may well get their "Latin Mass" back, but I suspect they will find that to have and to desire are two entirely different entities.

When's your Chrism Mass? Have you ever gone to it? Has your parish church ever hosted it? Dioceses are all over the map on this one. Traditionally, it's scheduled for Holy Thursday morning. But my experiences have been all over the board: - Saturday morning before Palm Sunday - A weekday afternoon of Holy Week - The Thursday evening prior to Holy Week If you were the armchair liturgist, when would you schedule it. And why?

Leave it to political mucky-mucks to muck up the public face of the government-science interface. Some sanity returns with a new NASA policy. "Scientific and technical information from or about (space) agency programs and projects will be accurate and unfiltered," the new policy stated. A NASA scientist recently complained when he was censored for stating that 2005 was possibly the warmest year on record. The release came nearly two months after the resignation of a 24-year-old NASA public affairs staff member, George Deutsch, who told space agency writers to refer to the big bang as a "theory" because NASA should not discount "intelligent design by a creator." I suppose Mr Deutsch figured the Almighty used the Bible for a recipe. Twenty or fifty years ago, this would've been a commie plot to destabilize the world. Today, they have nowhere to hide. The truth is out there.

The 2005 results of the sex abuse audit are out. No doubt other bloggers are commenting today. I'm not even going to bother reading it. Why? It leaves out one category I wish they would monitor: Bishops Who Don't Get It Clergy have physically, emotionally, and sexually abused children for hundreds of years. That's not news. What is a source of embarassment to Catholics is that too many bishops have allowed themselves to be sucked in by addicts, taking the side of liars and manipulative predators rather than the innocent. I don't think Cardinal George should resign. But he could start attending Al-Anon meetings. His handling of his most recent clergy sex predator is right out of the Co-Dependent Handbook. Until the USCCB starts a Twelve Step chapter, I'm going to sadly predict there will continue to be that occasional episcopal misstep. And while those missteps pile up, the bishops remain in a holding pattern as far as their credibility as moral teachers is concerned. The clergy will do well because people in parishes see the holy, faithful, determined, and compassionate face of Holy Orders on a day-to-day basis. In other words, people still mostly love, but sometimes dislike their priests. They do so for the same reasons they loved or disliked priests long before the Law Crisis hit the media. Bishops, on the other hand, are not easily visible to the masses. They have little contact with the majority of Catholics. When bishops do a good job, it often happens with the assistance of employees, clergy, or other underlings. When they screw up, everybody points a finger. Maybe that's not fair, but until bishops start circulating in parishes far, far more often than they do now, their ministry will remain in crisis. Even if they don't realize it.

It's coming up in nine or ten days. How would you handle the three options for Palm Sunday? There's the big procession, preferably done at one of your Masses. Would you do it at the Saturday Mass, or at the biggest Sunday liturgy? Then there's the choice of the solemn entrance or the simple entrance. Which would you use when? I'll tell you at my parish, after years of sagging support for the procession, we've scheduled the 80-voice children's choir for the procession Mass. Maybe we'll get 140 parents and some siblings. I'll tell you how it went in a wekk and a half. Remember the "armchair liturgist" is not necessarily asking what is done in your parish, but is meant to put you in the ritual driver's seat, asking what you would do, if you were the liturgist.

Scientists have found evidence for small moonlets within Saturn's rings. The moons, estimated to be about 300 feet in diameter, are as yet unseen, but they produce strange propeller-shaped disturbances in the ring matrix. First estimates suggest there could be at least ten million of these bodies in the rings. If a moon is big enough, like Pan here (below) its gravity is ample enough to clear out a path in the ring system. The Encke Gap was first observed on Earth in the 1830's. The moon was discovered a century and a half later. In fact, scientists first saw the moon while examining nine-year old Voyager images in 1990. You can just see the "scalloped" edges on the edge of the gap. In the bottom image, note the dark "waves" in the ring.

"God is great, this shows the greatness of God," Nana Appah exclaimed as she joined the crowds on Ghana's Cape Coast beach. "This shows the greatness of nature. It is very, very beautiful. I’ve never experienced anything like this before." MSNBC Space tells it. NASA provides a video link for it on that same page. Well worth watching. Plan for future eclipses here. The map doesn't print large enough for the detail, but you get an idea of where to be in the next twenty years to see something spectacular. I still have a bit of regret for not talking my parents into driving us east in 1970, when the totality corridor went up the east coast. I did have fun with the annular eclipse in 1994. I cross-hatched my fingers and projected eight "rings of fire" on the ground for amazed children.

Your DRE or RCIA director hands you the final list of the elect and candidates for baptism and full communion at the Easter Vigil. How many of these do you let pass to put into the Litany of Saints? Which do you send back for a middle name, or another patron saint? You can look it up on the 'net first, or you can play a little game and see how many you think are actual saint names, and which are not: Atticus Caspian Cleer Cynthia Heather Heron Herve Kingsmark Kyle Judas Sauve Sirius Teath Todd White Zephyr

The Tallis Scholars are coming to town. I've already got my tickets; what about you? The 2006-07 chamber music series has already been announced. Our hard-to-please local music critic approves: Who knows how they pull it off every year on their tiny budget, but the Friends of Chamber Music’s 2006-2007 season offers a reliable mix of surprises, megastars, old favorites and some oddities. I'm looking forward to an Advent concert next year by Pomerium as well as an appearance by Chanticleer. For early music, everything's up to date in Kansas City!

George Coyne, SJ, head of the Vatican Observatory, that is: Intelligent design is a religious movement based on fear that if you don't teach an alternative to evolution, we will have a lot of little atheists running around. CNS link here. AAAS link here.

Archbishop cites sacrilege for immediate closing of a NO church. CNS has the brief. Local news coverage here. Archbishop Alfred Hughes, during a news conference, said he had no choice but to close St. Augustine Church because protesters had desecrated it by interrupting Mass. It cannot be reopened, he said, until it is consecrated again.

Sandra Gordon, the president of St. Augustine's pastoral council, said that in the meantime, parishioners and protesters would stay at the church. "We will continue to peacefully occupy the facilities because this is our parish. It is the property of the congregation, not the archdiocese," she said, trembling as she read a statement on Monday.

Great. Another local parish stands off against their bishop. The timing between the disruption of Mass (Sunday) and the order to close (Monday) seems a bit short to me. I suppose if you're going to close a church for that reason, the closure needs to be quick to avoid obvious questions like, "If the protest was an actual sacrilege, why did you let other liturgies take place there in the interim?"

From CNS, a Passion based on contemporary rock songs: "Our approach is to say that if it gets people interested in the Passion and Resurrection, it sounds positive to us," said Father Michael Walsh, communications officer for the Salford Diocese. "It is aimed at younger people, the 16 to 30 age group. It wouldn't suit everybody, but we are certainly not against it." It will take place in Manchester, England. It will include songs by local bands. The music will be arranged for a string orchestra.

Something worth considering. Zenit reports on Chaldean Patriarch Emmanuel III Delly's call for two days of fasting and prayer for peace in Iraq. "We have estranged ourselves from God by our deeds, we do not obey his will, and we have moved away from piety and virtue, from forgiveness, and because of this the blood of so many brothers has been shed and so many children have remained orphans." For this reason, the Christian representative said, "we must return, repentant to God's house to do the will of our sovereign God." "To achieve this sublime objective, we invite all Iraqis, in and outside of Iraq, and all believers and people of good will, to prayer and fasting this coming Monday the 3rd and Tuesday the 4th of April, so that the Lord will restore peace, tranquility and security to Iraq, country of our beloved Abraham." Anybody in with us?

Many adoptions are made by family members. When Anita and I were in classes and going to workshops, we met a few folks who were adopting their grandchildren. Social workers look favorably on this. It can leave open the possibility of a relationship with birth parents if they were ever to get their lives back in order. Reinforcing an existing family tie can be a lifeline for a traumatized child. If, heaven forbid, something were to happen to me and my wife, our daughter would go to live with my brother and his wife back east. We would do the same with any niece or nephew who needed to be with us. I'm sure many people would. On the gay adoption front, I wonder how the issue would or could be finessed if the nearest willing relative were SSA. What if the choice were foster care, a group home, or an SSA relative?

Gaudium et Spes 39

The heavily footnoted 39th section of Gaudium et Spes concludes this current chapter, by looking to the end times and expressing that universal longing for peace and life, and freedom from sin and death. We do not know the time for the consummation of the earth and of humanity,(cf. Acts 1:7) nor do we know how all things will be transformed. As deformed by sin, the shape of this world will pass away;(cf. 1 Cor. 7:31; St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, V, 36, PG, VIII, 1221) but we are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling place and a new earth where justice will abide,(cf. 2 Cor. 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:13) and whose blessedness will answer and surpass all the longings for peace which spring up in the human heart.(cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; Apoc. 21:4-5) Then, with death overcome, the (children) of God will be raised up in Christ, and what was sown in weakness and corruption will be invested with incorruptibility.(cf. 1 Cor. 15:42 and 53) Enduring with charity and its fruits,(cf. 1 Cor. 13:8; 3:14) all that creation(cf. Rom. 8:19-21) which God made on (humankind's) account will be unchained from the bondage of vanity. Heaven is a stimulation, the Council teaches, for the transformation of the modern world in whatever way believers can effect it. The "foreshadowing" mentioned below inplies that activity to restore the world into a graced balanced, however flawed that might be in intention or result, is a participation of sorts in the coming Reign of God, as realized in its truest final form: Therefore, while we are warned that it profits a (person) nothing (to) gain the whole world and lose (him- or her)self,(cf. Luke 9:25) the expectation of a new earth must not weaken but rather stimulate our concern for cultivating this one. For here grows the body of a new human family, a body which even now is able to give some kind of foreshadowing of the new age. It's a concern to God, that much is clear: Hence, while earthly progress must be carefully distinguished from the growth of Christ's kingdom, to the extent that the former can contribute to the better ordering of human society, it is of vital concern to the Kingdom of God.(Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno: AAS 23 (1931), p. 207) What we receive at the end of our lives, at the end of time, will be familiar to those who work for these ideals: For after we have obeyed the Lord, and in His Spirit nurtured on earth the values of human dignity, (communion) and freedom, and indeed all the good fruits of our nature and enterprise, we will find them again, but freed of stain, burnished and transfigured, when Christ hands over to the Father: "a kingdom eternal and universal, a kingdom of truth and life, of holiness and grace, of justice, love and peace."(Preface of the Feast of Christ the King) On this earth that Kingdom is already present in mystery. When the Lord returns it will be brought into full flower. Comments?

My friends at the New Liturgical Movement have posted an interesting discussion on a comparison between the 1970 English-translated collects and the 2002 Latin originals from Roman Missal III. As I've tried to refrain from multi-posting on a single thread anywhere, I thought I'd respond to Fra Lawrence Lew's objections to my post. Is there really a need for the patronizing tone that you take here and persistently in so many of your comments? Which God gave you the divine commission to be the voice of 'Catholic sensibility' as if all other views were less than such? I have strong opinions, and I'm willing to back them up. I tend not to rely on quoting others as some bloggers do, preferring instead to formulate my own thoughts. As a writer I strive to be somewhat original, and bring an honest synthesis to liturgy discussions. If others feel patronized, I can only sat I'm more of a pussycat in person. And if you disagree with me, be thankful youonly have to debate me and not Nathan Mitchell, or Raymond Brown, or even the documents of Vatican II. As far as I can see, this is not a post that comments on the politics of ICEL but on the texts that exist in the current English translation of the Roman Missal, regardless of their provenance and these texts are brought into comparison with the 2002 Missale Romanum, and this comparison reveals the paucity of the current English translation. I think its germane to question the usefulness of such an approach. Pile on the ignorant translators of the 1960's and early 70's without regard for the perspective of the day: that's what it looks like to me. I've been critical of the English version of Roman Missal II since I was in grad school studying liturgy. And let's admit that the hierarchy both in Rome and the US was more than content to first approve these poor translations, then in the former case, obfuscate the publication of a superior one. The problem of poor translation still persists and so long as we labour under it, there is a need to draw to the attention of the faithful, the richness of the original Latin prayers which the English rendering claims to be a translation of. I'm not so sure it's as much drawing the attention of the faithful as it is giving oneself a congratulatory pat on the back for being such a good Latin student. The new ICEL prayers (which have been published as a separate book) are rejected by Rome as being entirely beyond the remit of ICEL, which is essentially a translating body. How did it ever arrogate to itself the composition of new texts? Those were the rules Rome itself set out in 1969. Ask the Italians how they got so many prayers composed in their vernacular. And if one wants to criticize ICEL for what happened in the 1970's and 80's, the least one can do is consult the rules of the 70's and 80's. Sort of like criticizing Charley Jones for hitting only 55 lifetime homers. Then you realize he did it two generations before Babe Ruth. Other translating bodies prepared original texts; the Italians had a number of good original collects. Comparison with those would be interesting. Your notion of crafting new liturgical texts is an entirely separate issue from the current post and a red herring. I do not wish to address that here. Not if new texts are being criticized. The onus lies on you to explain why translation from the Latin is not sufficient for the modern Roman Rite? How have modern man so developed that a translated text no longer suffices? Is the same true of the psalms and the Scriptures and other translated texts from classical culture? Simpler than that: the Latin texts were compiled for the 1570 Missal and its Lectionary. I think the expanded Lectionary and the reformed sacramental rites are worthy to have a series of prayer in harmony with the entire Mass, not just what was adequate for celebration in the previous four centuries. I think Brother Lew is well aware that modern Scripture scholarship has some input to provide on translations. But the point of the article in question, as he says, is about the collects of the Roman Missal. In 1996 Mgr Bruce Harbert, who is now the Executive Secretary of ICEL, described ICEL translations of some of the Collects as “unmemorable,” flawed by a “cuddle-factor” of excessive emphasis on the heart as opposed to the mind, and revealing a “propensity towards Pelagianism” by stressing what humans do rather than what God does. I might agree. That still holds true and that is why they remain open to criticism and why the original Latin texts and any other parallel translations deserve study. Fr Z. helps us in this, as do others commentators, be they 'conservative' or 'progressive' and I am grateful for that. I would not consider this an imitation or jumping on a bandwagon. I'm not sure the "study" is all that useful. I'd be interested in seeing if ICEL of the 1980's was on the right track in translating Roman Missal II. Another interesting comparison would be to contrast the Latin originals (conceded these are the very best in the Roman tradition) with the very best modern prayers composed in harmony with the current Lectionary. Finally, I wonder if the complaints that 'progressive' liturgists have with regard to the ICEL translations have much in common with those who want to preserve a sense of fidelty to the Latin orations. I wouldn't wonder. I think progressives are concerned more with the expression of beauty, clarity, and dignity in worship than with fidelity to a Latin original. I think fidelity to the original Latin prayers must take a second seat to the higher ideals of worship as laid out in Sacrosanctum Concilium. It's enough to say the current English prayers aren't the best we can do. And while "faithful" translations of the Latin originals are a step in the right direction, I don't think they're the best we can do either. Or as musicians might ask, "Why settle for Emperor Joseph II or even Salieri, when you can have Mozart?"

WaPo article reproduced here on getting back to the moon. NASA wants to get to the lunar south pole. I agree. There might be comet ice in the craters, protected from vaporizing by the eternal shadow at the pole. Previous spacecraft have detected hydrogen there. That might be ice. Might not be, but it will be worth a look. If there is ice on the moon, human beings will have a far easier go at maintaining an outpost. If I were going to the moon, I'd want to go here: Aristarchus plateau, with that bright crater, those rills, and possible outgassing from the lunar interior. From the dawn of the Age of the Telescope, observers have seen bright flashes coming from this area. What are they? I'd like to know. Another great place would be the far side crater Tsiolkovsky, notable for its smooth lava floor. That dark gray material looks very much like the maria or smooth plains which cover a good percentage of the near side. On the far side, Tsiolkovsky is one of only two such smooth lava deposits. Sign me up for a mission. Only problem is that I'll be too old by the time they get back to the moon. Maybe I could get the radtrads to take up a collection for me and get me a one-way ticket. I can think of worse places to retire. 'Course, they'd have to forego fiddlebacks for a few centuries to finance it. Could be worth it, though.

Cassini's Jupiter map centered on the south pole. From images taken during its flyby in 2000. Get the details here.

A small cadre of St Bloggers make it their mission to debunk everything DaVinci Code. Honestly, I can't get excited about the task. It's just a piece of fiction. And not terribly original, as the story has been circulating for centuries. As I was reading the Sunday paper over dinner tonight, I noted John Mark Eberhart's column on the entertainment pages, including this tidbit: Thus my theory that, somewhere in the corridors of megapublisher Random House, an eavesdropper might hear the sound of cackling. Random House’s official position is that the lawsuit is without merit. But Da Vinci and Holy Blood both were published by Random House imprints. Now that’s what I call corporate synchronicity. Indeed. Heaven save me from this kind of marketing should I ever get published.

Gaudium et Spes 38 addresses some of the recent concerns expressed in the comment boxes here. For God's Word, through Whom all things were made, was Himself made flesh and dwelt on the earth of men.(cf. John 1:3 and 14) Thus He entered the world's history as a perfect man, taking that history up into Himself and summarizing it.(cf. Eph. 1:10) He Himself revealed to us that "God is love" (1 John 4:8) and at the same time taught us that the new command of love was the basic law of human perfection and hence of to worlds transformation. Human perfection--that's a high ideal. It's also an ideal that's not without hope: To those, therefore, who believe in divine love, He gives assurance that the way of love lies open to (people) and that the effort to establish a universal (family) is not a hopeless one. He cautions them at the same time that this charity is not something to be reserved for important matters, but must be pursued chiefly in the ordinary circumstances of life. Undergoing death itself for all of us sinners,(cf. John 3:16; Rom. 5:8) He taught us by example that we too must shoulder that cross which the world and the flesh inflict upon those who search after peace and justice. Appointed Lord by His resurrection and given plenary power in heaven and on earth,(cf. Acts 2:36; Matt. 28:18) Christ is now at work in the hearts of (people) through the energy of His Holy Spirit, arousing not only a desire for the age to come, but by that very fact animating, purifying and strengthening those noble longings too by which the human family makes its life more human and strives to render the whole earth submissive to this goal. The council bishops also recognize that not every individual possesses the same calling. However, every bliever shares that ideal endpoint in God's salvific plan. Now, the gifts of the Spirit are diverse: while He calls some to give clear witness to the desire for a heavenly home and to keep that desire green among the human family, He summons others to dedicate themselves to the earthly service of (others) and to make ready the material of the celestial realm by this ministry of theirs. Yet He frees all of them so that by putting aside love of self and bringing all earthly resources into the service of human life they can devote themselves to that future when humanity itself will become an offering accepted by God.(cf. Rom. 15:16) The celebration of the Eucharist is seen as an indispensible part of the life of believers. It is also a symbol of the way in which human activity can be steered and changed by God for a greater good. The Lord left behind a pledge of this hope and strength for life's journey in that sacrament of faith where natural elements refined by man are gloriously changed into His Body and Blood, providing a meal of (familial) solidarity and a foretaste of the heavenly banquet.

The comment threads on recent Gaudium et Spes posts got me thinking. I'm surprised that a generally positive document in which the Church attempts to dialogue with the world at large garners so much consternation. I could take a great deal of time and reflect on this topic, searching for theological sources like Neil does. Or bringing a high level of spiritual wisdom, like many others might. But I'm "just a singer in a rock and roll band" as the Moodies might say. My highest interest is to put some expression of this into music. But as I have other projects in the cooker right now, let me just take a stab at the notion and leave the the uncovered or weak points to my good commentators. First, I think we can only speak of the appearance of the believer. Only God knows hearts. And it is with God's full vision of the person, their motivations, their struggles and triumphs, and their orientation to grace can anyone know with certitude the person's saintliness. And since we're not God, it makes little sense to even make the attempt. So with that knowledge in mind, let's confess we only have appearances to run with, and there's always the possibility we could be gravely mistaken about these. I think there are three main venues to locate the answer to the question above: Scripture, Tradition, and Spiritual Direction. In the Word of God, we have the example of Christ and his teaching. A believer would mold his or her life to look like Christ's. Primary would be the expression of love for others, especially as it was revealed in selfless sacrifice: the Paschal Mystery. In the extreme, it would be dying for others. In other words, doing what Jesus did. Secondary would be adhering to the teachings of Christ and the Scriptures. Or if you prefer, doing what the Word says to do. I have no doubt that a serious believer would be noticed for activity in this sphere. We might say, "That person acts like Jesus." And we'd mean it. In Tradition, we would look again to lived example first, teaching as secondary. The incarnation of Tradition I would see in the lived example of the saints. Thomas More held his pen. Elizabeth Ann Seton attended to the education of children and the religious life of women. Peter was the rock. Mary Magdalene was the human herald of the Resurrection. The believer would choose one or more examples from among the saints and model his or her life after that hero. We would again notice when a high government official stands up for the truth, or an educator has obvious concern for the catechesis of the young, or that someone's faith would be a steadfast example of leadership in time of trial, or that we would tell it as we saw it in gratitude for being healed of demons. Again, we would do as the example does. We could also follow the teachings of the saints. In that, we would be doing as these figures say--and Jesus affirmed that approach, too. (cf Matt. 23:3) Included in this I would place following the written Tradition of the Church: the catechism, for example. A third approach, and also an essential part of the Christian life, is that of an ordered program of guidance from a spiritual director. Having experience with spiritual direction, I can say this relationship is extremely helpful in guiding the believer's outward example of the faith. A good director can help the disciple cut through the self-delusions and avoidance (aka crap) that may come with the temptations of the spiritual life. Let me raise a caution here. Not all people in spiritual direction are being directed. And some people who are being directed spiritually might not even recognize it as such. That said, I think a director is helpful for a person to sort out God's call. A wise figure (or figures) can help a person discern when the time for doing, praying, moving, etc. has come. You might not be active in social justice circles or in liturgy. But my presumption is that you are a serious believer until you give me evidence otherwise. When Susan complained about the presumptions I was laying out, I want to say I took her input seriously. I do think Gaudium et Spes is an authentic witness to Christ we Catholics cannot take lightly. But I remember my many visits to homebound people when I served in rural Iowa. I would not say these people were somehow less Christian because they lived their faith exclusively in a nursing home or a bedroom. Not at all. As individuals, they had unique and particular circumstances from which to express their lived faith. Likewise, I don't think that going to Mass, serving the poor, or any other particular activity marks a believer with surety. I would apply the lived example of Christ: Jesus worshipped both privately and in the synagogue. The Bible affirms keeping the Sabbath ritually and the participation in the Christian Eucharist. Saints worshipped, too. Likewise serving the poor with charity. Jesus did it. Many saints (though not all) were noted for it. Many saints told people to do it. My sense is that if a believer has any doubt about some aspect of his or her faith, that doubt could likely be movement of the Holy Spirit. At minimum, the matter might be fodder for prayer and discernment. From the example and words of Jesus and the saints, I think we have a certain guarantee if we imitate them in the sense of Sunday worship and practicing charity. In this we have a higher degree of surety about looking like a Christian. I'm assuming of course, that an accompanying orientation of heart and will goes with it. A believer might choose to go his or her own way in being a Christian: foregoing Sunday worship, refraining from charity, and the like. Such a believer lacks a guarantee, especially if doubts and inner conflicts arise from what may be a well-intentioned effort. I would never say a particular non-churchgoer was an unbeliever. I would assume a person who says he or she is a Christian (or a Catholic) is indeed so. But I might not emulate that particular example. Thoughts? Have I placed my foot deeper down my gullet or does this make some sense?

He looked pretty good for being born during the French-and-Indian War. Died of liver failure a few days ago. If only General Clive hadn't fed him that imported British booze. More healthful living and maybe some yoga and Addwaitya might've reached 300. Even so, 250 is a pretty astounding age for an animal.

German scientists may have breakthrough on the ethical impasse on emryonic stem-cell research. My cynical side still tells me ESCR is about corporate profits more than profitable research. Time will tell.

MRO sends back test images from Planet 4. See the bitty box on the lower right? Magnification factor twelve, Mr Spock. Mars may not be big on moons or ice, but it sure has interesting geology.

Fr Tucker reports on traditantrums in northern Virginia and the blogdom: I think it's totally disproportionate and exaggerated that out of the mountain of emails I've received on the Diocese's two new permissions, almost all of them have to do with altar girls and many of them are rash. I've read through some of the comment boxes on other blogs and found the same pattern. And the diocesan newspaper is the only print media to give equal attention to the far more interesting announcement of the two new Masses in the Old Rite. That's sad. I would also point out the instructive fact that, although the right wing has been very loud and at times quite savage about the altar-girl permission, I have yet to see or hear a single negative comment from the left wing about the permission for the Old Mass. In fact, the only negative comments I've heard about it have come from conservatives.

Zenit interviews a priest of the Fall River diocese. It's a good concise history of the issue, not terribly biased. In responding to the question, "Are the laity rising up to defend the Church?" Father Landry raises a challenge of his own: There's also another important way in which the laity needs to rise up. The leaders of Catholic Charities in Boston have defended the decision to place children in same-sex homes because most of the children involved were very difficult to place. In other words, the children had languished in foster care or group home situations for a long time because heterosexual couples had not stepped forward to adopt these generally older children with greater physical, emotional or psychological needs. It's not so much that Catholic Charities was working on an agenda to place kids with same-sex couples; it's that the alternative was for them to remain in foster care or group homes, and Catholic Charities officials, at the time, thought that was worse. I hope that one of the positive effects of this situation will be that Catholic married couples will generously start to step forward in greater numbers to give a loving home to children in these circumstances who have already suffered so much. A few things: My contention remains that foster care and group homes are indeed worse. Landry concedes the preference is given to placement with stable, two-parent homes. I can tell you that preference is given to experienced biological parents. (That was our greatest hurdle in adopting a child.) Demonstrating stability in a relationship is absolutely essential. Adoptions and foster care placements can trigger separations and divorce. Social workers want to be assured that a relationship will stand up to stress. Any SSA couple that adopts a child is going to have to demonstrate stability probably in excess of a married couple with the same number of years together. I'm glad of Landry's challenge to Catholic laity to "defend" bishops by stepping up to the plate and adopting some of these 127,000 kids. I'm still waiting for someone from the Church to bail from the whining about proportionalism. We concede that point theologically and practically on any number of issues: baptizing children of inactive Catholics, going to war, practicing executions, dilly-dallying on support for torture. If the Church wants to refrain from placing children with gays, cohabiting couples, and single parents, that is within the bounds of good sense. But having that Massachusetts opportunity to apply for an exemption in 1993 and not bothering to do so strikes me as more of an administrative blunder than a moral one. As it is, one possible good outcome from this is that Catholics who feel strongly about defending the bishops in this arena will start whittling down those tens-of-thousands of needy children and moving them from the adoptable rolls to the home. This is a prime instance in which the act of charity will speak more about the nature of the Church than the ideological posturing bereft of love.

We saw a good production of my daughter's favorite musical last night. I find that as I get older I can more easily enjoy youth theatre. We saw the local high school do a very satisfying stage version of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe last month. I find that focusing on the positives allows the best of the creator (and the Creator) to shine through. On this age level, it can be tough to find a quantity of young men to pull off a show with quality. In most high school casts I've seen, the young women--in general--outshine the men on stage. Joseph is such a male-heavy show, but the CYT found guys who were equal to the task. Probably more than equal, in balance. They employed two young women for the narrator role and made good use of that in choreography and music. The young drummer in the pit band was extraordinary. The lead had a good voice and even better stage presence as Joseph. The solo and group numbers by the brothers were really good. Everybody seemed to be having fun--which is the best thing you can tell the young performers to do. My wife commented that the set design, props and costuming were excellent. I'd have to say they were among the best I've seen in community theatre--for any age level. Seen any good shows lately?

Sacred Scripture teaches the human family what the experience of the ages confirms: that while human progress is a great advantage to man, it brings with it a strong temptation. For when the order of values is jumbled and bad is mixed with the good, individuals and groups pay heed solely to their own interests, and not to those of others. Thus it happens that the world ceases to be a place of true (family). In our own day, the magnified power of humanity threatens to destroy the race itself. Lack of concern for others: the danger of the age. GS frames their analysis of the world's sin as being that of selfishness. Not a direct rebellion against God, necessarily, but a lack of concern for those harmed by selfish actions. Recalling Matthew 22:39, Jesus did equate the two loves as being alike. For a monumental struggle against the powers of darkness pervades the whole history of man. The battle was joined from the very origins of the world and will continue until the last day, as the Lord has attested.(cf. Matt. 24:13; 13:24-30 and 36-43) Caught in this conflict, (humankind) is obliged to wrestle constantly if (it) is to cling to what is good, nor can (it) achieve (its) own integrity without great efforts and the help of God's grace. Always on guard, it seems. I'm struck by the likeness with addiction recovery here. Recovering addicts acknowledge they are still addicts, though in a state of recovery. That is why Christ's Church, trusting in the design of the Creator, acknowledges that human progress can serve (humankind's) true happiness, yet she cannot help echoing the Apostle's warning: "Be not conformed to this world" (Rom. 12:2). Here by the world is meant that spirit of vanity and malice which transforms into an instrument of sin those human energies intended for the service of God and (people). God's will is that human beings find happiness in their own works, but cannot find a purity of contentment outside of God. Hence if anyone wants to know how this unhappy situation can be overcome, Christians will tell (them) that all human activity, constantly imperiled by (human) pride and deranged self-love, must be purified and perfected by the power of Christ's cross and resurrection. For redeemed by Christ and made a new creature in the Holy Spirit, (human beings are) able to love the things themselves created by God, and ought to do so. (They) can receive them from God and respect and reverence them as flowing constantly from the hand of God. Grateful to (their) Benefactor for these creatures, using and enjoying them in detachment and liberty of spirit, (people are) led forward into a true possession of them, as having nothing, yet possessing all things.(cf. 2 Cor. 6:10) "All are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's" (1 Cor. 3:22-23). My reading of this is that the imitation of Christ can always be fruitfully brought into human endeavor. Love and reverence for things can express that quality God desires most strongly from the created world: gratitude. The promise is that detachment, therefore liberty, promotes true possession. I suppose the extreme counterexample is when things begin to possess us by the agency of our own sins. Thoughts?

Gaudium et Spes 36 addresses the common fear that the Church is an agent for the stifling of the human spirit as opposed to a supporter of human endeavor: Now many of our contemporaries seem to fear that a closer bond between human activity and religion will work against the independence of (people), of societies, or of the sciences. As with anything, individual human beings do work to thwart human expression in a sinful way. Some of these human beings reside in the Church, where they may wreak havoc in the name of the same Church. If by the autonomy of earthly affairs we mean that created things and societies themselves enjoy their own laws and values which must be gradually deciphered, put to use, and regulated by (people), then it is entirely right to demand that autonomy. Such is not merely required by modern (humanity), but harmonizes also with the will of the Creator. For by the very circumstance of their having been created, all things are endowed with their own stability, truth, goodness, proper laws and order. (Humankind) must respect these as (it) isolates them by the appropriate methods of the individual sciences or arts. Therefore if methodical investigation within every branch of learning is carried out in a genuinely scientific manner and in accord with moral norms, it never truly conflicts with faith, for earthly matters and the concerns of faith derive from the same God. (cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter III: Denz. 1785-1186 (3004-3005)) For the skeptic, the Church is in a position to labor to prove its words. The past statement I found interesting on two fronts. First, the notion that aspects of God's creation possess qualities, notably truth. Truth as a philosophical concept or ontological one is a quality of a scientific or artistic aspect of the universe. The obvious scientific item of the past would be the heliocentric model of the universe as championed by Galileo. Of the last century would be the elaboration of Darwin in developing the evolutionary model, and how it applies not only to biological creatures, but cosmology, geology, and perhaps even economics, to mention just a few disciplines. Artistically (and my second point of interest is the pairing of sciences and the arts) one might find that music contains certain truths as well. Religious chant might have an artistic and scientific basis for producing a certain psychological state of mind--a state conducive to prayer. It would be found that other forms of music, aside from Gregorian chant say, would have a comparable or superior effect. That would be a truth, an aspect of God's creation, that would be undeniable. Indeed whoever labors to penetrate the secrets of reality with a humble and steady mind, even though (she or) he is unaware of the fact, is nevertheless being led by the hand of God, who holds all things in existence, and gives them their identity. A consciousness of the agency of God in one's work is not required for such work to be part of God's plan. Consequently, we cannot but deplore certain habits of mind, which are sometimes found too among Christians, which do not sufficiently attend to the rightful independence of science and which, from the arguments and controversies they spark, lead many minds to conclude that faith and science are mutually opposed.(Cf. Msgr. Pio Paschini, Vita e opere di Galileo Galilei, 2 volumes, Vatican Press (1964)) Remember where we found this. But if the expression, the independence of temporal affairs, is taken to mean that created things do not depend on God, and that (humankind) can use them without any reference to their Creator, anyone who acknowledges God will see how false such a meaning is. For without the Creator the creature would disappear. For their part, however, all believers of whatever religion always hear His revealing voice in the discourse of creatures. When God is forgotten, however, the creature itself grows unintelligible. Comments?

Zenit reports on an online Children's Bible. Now available in 152 languages. We're going to see a stage version of this story tonight:

Gaudium et Spes 35 fine tunes what was said earlier about the value of human activity on the plan of God. The improvement of individuals, groups, and society as a whole is a good thing. As individuals and groups transcend self-improvement, growth above and beyond the comfort zone is more valued than material riches: Human activity, to be sure, takes its significance from its relationship to (humankind). Just as it proceeds from (them), so it is ordered toward (them). For when (people work they) not only alter things and society, (they develop themselves) as well. (They) learn much, (they) cultivate (their) resources, (they go) outside of (themselves) and beyond (themselves). Rightly understood this kind of growth is of greater value than any external riches which can be garnered. (People are) more precious for what (they are) than for what (they have). (cf. Paul VI, address to the diplomatic corps Jan 7 1965: AAS 57 (1965), p. 232)

This is especially true in matters of social justice. Medical advances, for example, are more valuable for the good they do than the profits they garner for owners, investors, and even workers. Advancement in sociology, in a better and more harmonious rendering of society in other words, is more valuable than technological improvement.

Similarly, all that (they) do to obtain greater justice, wider (communion), a more humane disposition of social relationships has greater worth than technical advances. For these advances can supply the material for human progress, but of themselves alone they can never actually bring it about.

Advancement without a heart: this is not progress, according to the Church. Hence, the norm of human activity is this: that in accord with the divine plan and will, it harmonize with the genuine good of the human race, and that it allow (people) as individuals and as members of society to pursue their total vocation and fulfill it.

The final result is that individuals must be free to discern and pursue their path in life. The more human beings do this, the more advanced society becomes. Lacking such opportunities, we cannot truly say the world is better off today than fifty or a hundred years ago.

A consecrated host turns into a blood clot, covered by the Dallas media. Last week, a student asked me why God doesn't work miracles any more. She was thinking about the divine intervention mentioned so often in the Old Testament, plus Jesus' miracles. The best answer I could devise on the spot was that Jesus must intend for his brothers and sisters to be miracle workers today: that was our charge given at the Ascension and at Pentecost. We achieve medical miracles, both marvelous (the healings unimaginable to previous generations) and unexplained (the tumor vanishing without expectation for visible cause). I've always been far more impressed with the change of heart I've seen in people. Do you know what I mean? The people whose lives were going horribly, but through addiction recovery, good influences, and even religion, have managed to steer themselves away from trouble and been led into a more graced existence. Once I asked God to take away a miracle. I was praying the office many years ago and the palm of my hand had a blood spot. I didn't think anything of it, and I wiped it on a handkerchief. It reappeared seconds later. Then I got worried. The last thing I wanted was to get caught up in some stigmata thing. I promised God my faith was fine. I walked to the bathroom and when I looked in the mirror, there was a small cut on my chin. I sometimes curve one hand over my mouth and chin, so that was where the blood was coming from. I felt a little silly about it. "Right. Like I'm really saintly enough for stigmata," I thought. So I'm not sure what the point is about this Dallas experience. I guess I'm waiting for something even more miraculous: that more believers who have received Communion will manifest more deeply they have turned into the Body of Christ. Do they know we're Christians by our love or by our miracles?

Gaudium et Spes 34 raises an important consideration: Throughout the course of the centuries, (people) have labored to better the circumstances of their lives through a monumental amount of individual and collective effort. To believers, this point is settled: considered in itself, this human activity accords with God's will. For (people), created to God's image, received a mandate to subject to (themselves) the earth and all it contains, and to govern the world with justice and holiness; (cf. Gen. 1:26-27; 9:3; Wis. 9:3) a mandate to relate (themselves) and the totality of things to Him Who was to be acknowledged as the Lord and Creator of all. Thus, by the subjection of all things to (humankind), the name of God would be wonderful in all the earth. (cf. Ps. 8:7 and 10)

The concern in many minds is over this subjection. In the ancient world, people were at the mercy of weather, disease, famine, and other natural disasters to a far greater extent than they are today. Triumph over the wilds of nature was seen as a victory over evil. But human beings are considerably stronger than they were in biblical times. This mandate today would seem to shift from a victory by strength to a stewardship of wisdom, as the governance of the world "with justice and holiness" seems to indicate.

This mandate concerns the whole of everyday activity as well. For while providing the substance of life for themselves and their families, men and women are performing their activities in a way which appropriately benefits society. They can justly consider that by their labor they are unfolding the Creator's work, consulting the advantages of (others), and are contributing by their personal industry to the realization history of the divine plan. (cf. John XXIII, encyclical letter Pacem in Terris: AAS 55 (1963), p. 297)

I'm not forwarding the notion that everyday lay activity is "ministry," but I think believers can see their work as participating in God's saving plan. This would be part of the root of the Church's philosophy of work.

This next part is important. I think it reveals a healthy approach to human development, namely that modern developments such as rationalism or technology or science are not by nature in opposition to God. The believer recognizes God's grace in the work of the world. Through daily work, the believer is also "bound" to put extra effort into evangelization and witness. Improving the life of a person, or the lives of people as a whole are seen as a participation in God's plan:

Thus, far from thinking that works produced by (human) talent and energy are in opposition to God's power, and that the rational creature exists as a kind of rival to the Creator, Christians are convinced that the triumphs of the human race are a sign of God's grace and the flowering of His own mysterious design. For the greater (humankind's) power becomes, the farther ... individual and community responsibility extends. Hence it is clear that (people) are not deterred by the Christian message from building up the world, or impelled to neglect the welfare of (others), but that they are rather more stringently bound to do these very things. (cf. message to all (humankind) sent by the Fathers at the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, Oct. 20, 1962: AAS 54 (1962), p. 823)

It's the start of a new chapter for the Pastoral Constitution: "(Human) Activity Throughout the World." This is the last chapter before the Church turns to its own role. After that, particular issues will be covered in the last half of Gaudium et Spes. Through (their) labors and (their) native endowments (humankind) has ceaselessly striven to better (their) life. Today, however, especially with the help of science and technology, (they have) extended (their) mastery over nearly the whole of nature and continues to do so. Thanks to increased opportunities for many kinds of social contact among nations, a human family is gradually recognizing that it comprises a single world community and is making itself so. Hence many benefits once looked for, especially from heavenly powers, (humankind) has now enterprisingly procured for (themselves). A straightforward assessment of the improvement of the material situation for the world's people--many of them, at any rate. In the face of these immense efforts which already preoccupy the whole human race, (people) agitate numerous questions among themselves. What is the meaning and value of this feverish activity? How should all these things be used? To the achievement of what goal are the strivings of individuals and societies heading? The Church guards the heritage of God's word and draws from it moral and religious principles without always having at hand the solution to particular problems. As such she desires to add the light of revealed truth to mankind's store of experience, so that the path which humanity has taken in recent times will not be a dark one. Nothing surprising here. Human progress can only find meaning in light of God. The Church admits answers are not always forthcoming, but faith would tell us the search for the truth lies not exclusively in human betterment, but in the heritage of faith.

MRO will test its powerful camera this week. Here's a nice single-page graphic.

Gaudium et Spes 32

Section 32 concludes Chapter 2 of Gaudium et Spes, which was titled "The Community of (Hu)mankind." If there has been a bias toward the greater social needs in sections 23-32, it was because of the overall thrust of the chapter, not necessarily because of any kind of a reorientation to extroversion and public social work.

We have a theological and historical reality, namely that God saves people in communities:

As God did not create (people) for life in isolation, but for the formation of social unity, so also "it has pleased God to make (people) holy and save them not merely as individuals, without bond or link between them, but by making them into a single people, a people which acknowledges Him in truth and serves Him in holiness."(cf. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter II, n. 9: AAS 57 (1965). pp. 12-13) So from the beginning of salvation history He has chosen (people) not just as individuals but as members of a certain community. Revealing His mind to them, God called these chosen ones "His people" (Ex. 3:7-12), and even made a covenant with them on Sinai.(cf. Exodus 24:1-8)

Consider the Scriptural witness; it contains interwoven stories about individuals called by God to intervene in human affairs and lasso a group of people into God's grace. Consider Abraham and his descendants, Joseph and famine relief, Moses and the freedom from slavery, Judith and her besieged city, and so on. Even the non-action figures wrote whole books on their meditations--Wisdom, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes were all penned by wise and spiritual authors who intended (it seems) to share their advice with a larger group of persons.

Jesus is naturally the example par excellence:

This communitarian character is developed and consummated in the work of Jesus Christ. For the very Word made flesh willed to share in the human fellowship. He was present at the wedding of Cana, visited the house of Zacchaeus, ate with publicans and sinners. He revealed the love of the Father and the sublime vocation of (humankind) in terms of the most common of social realities and by making use of the speech and the imagery of plain everyday life. Willingly obeying the laws of his country He sanctified those human ties, especially family ones, which are the source of social structures. He chose to lead the life proper to an artisan of His time and place.

More than his life's example, Jesus also preached community:

In His preaching He clearly taught the (children) of God to treat one another as (sisters and) brothers. In His prayers He pleaded that all His disciples might be "one." Indeed as the redeemer of all, He offered Himself for all even to point of death. "Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down (their) life for (their) friends" (John 15:13). He commanded His Apostles to preach to all peoples the Gospel's message that the human race was to become the Family of God, in which the fullness of the Law would be love.

I think of the witness of Christian saints in this light. Many saints led rather ordinary lives. But their example is promoted for imitation, itself a broadening of the individual calls each of them received from God. Jesus himself intended for a human community to be formed. It was to be a group of people more closely bonded than any other. Indeed, Christ's own body was upheld as an early prime example of the way in which this new community would function.

As the firstborn of many (sisters and brothers) and by the giving of His Spirit, He founded after His death and resurrection a new ... community composed of all those who receive Him in faith and in love. This He did through His Body. which is the Church. There everyone, as members one of the other would render mutual service according to the different gifts bestowed on each.

The role of the individual is to play her or his part. More than that, the Church is to consider itself always in need of reform, of greater perfection, of better effort, of striving for the ideal, which without God is unreachable.

This solidarity must be constantly increased until that day on which it will be brought to perfection. Then, saved by grace, (people) will offer flawless glory to God as a family beloved of God and of Christ their Brother.

Thoughts?

Gaudium et Spes 31 approves of education, social service, and civic involvement. We need great souls, too. Isn't it the truth?

In order for individual(s) to discharge with greater exactness the obligations of their conscience toward themselves and the various group to which they belong, they must be carefully educated to a higher degree of culture through the use of the immense resources available today to the human race. Above all the education of youth from every social background has to be undertaken, so that there can be produced not only men and women of refined talents, but those great-souled persons who are so desperately required by our times.

The Council bishops are biased in favor of people of destiny. Heaven knows we need more such people, but I don't think this emphasis necessarily excludes the millions of quiet souls who work in their own small way for the Reign of God.

Now a (person) can scarcely arrive at the needed sense of responsibility, unless ... living conditions allow him (or her) to become conscious of his (or her) dignity, and to rise to destiny by spending him (or her-)self for God and for others. But human freedom is often crippled when (people) encounter extreme poverty just as it withers when (they) indulge in too many of life's comforts and imprison (themselves) in a kind of splendid isolation. Freedom acquires new strength, by contrast, when (people) consent to the unavoidable requirements of social life, take on the manifold demands of human partnership, and commit (themselves) to the service of the human community.

The Church is clearly saying we need to encourage a strong, public witness. Now more than ever.

Hence, the will to play one's role in common endeavors should be everywhere encouraged. Praise is due to those national procedures which allow the largest possible number of citizens to participate in public affairs with genuine freedom. Account must be taken, to be sure, of the actual conditions of each people and the decisiveness required by public authority. If every citizen is to feel inclined to take part in the activities of the various groups which make up the social body, these must offer advantages which will attract members and dispose them to serve others. We can justly consider that the future of humanity lies in the hands of those who are strong enough to provide coming generations with reasons for living and hoping.

Comments?

Susan explains her difficulty with a sense of Gaudium et Spes we've seen these past several days. Perhaps it's partly because of my commentary, and partly because of a perception of a social justice sensibility amongst Catholics. Let's see if I can explore this a bit while keeping one or both feet out of my mouth. I suspect the Council defined individualism broadly, far beyond the social justice implications. GS has analyzed the world of the 60's in light of increased population, advances in communications technology, and the complex international political situation of the time. (And we can concede that the world and Church of 2006 is likely in a more extreme situation with regard to these factors than it was forty years ago.) The Council bishops seem to be saying that humans are social beings, by creation. So the social nature of humankind must be taken into account when examining spiritual considerations such as morality. Emphasizing the social nature of humanity is especially important in the present day because of these "special" circumstances, it might be argued. Susan said: Being with Jesus ("me-and-Jesus") or, as the Council would have it, "individualistic morality" (both of which are quite negative terms), does not mean, and never has meant tax fraud or the like. To imply that, as this passage does, is to be not only inaccurate, but insulting to the centuries of ordinary people who really WERE devoted to Jesus Christ, but who didn't necessarily have the rah-rah social-work spirituality now in vogue. Honestly, I don't see the connection. I do think that most criminals have an altered (or diseased) sense of morality. It's something that leades them apart from the mores of society, be they legal or moral or something else. Some criminals, including tax cheats, have indeed gone their own way. Their approach might be analyzed along the lines of "The laws don't apply to me because of X, Y, and Z, so I'm going to do what I want to do." Individualism, narcissism, selfishness, addiction, whatever you want to call it: all those pathologies put the individual at the center of the universe, and leave God and other people on the sidelines. But I don't see it as an all-or-nothing concept when the Church teaches through GS. I also don't accept an automatic link between community and social gospel. Certainly we've had lone rangers advocate for social justice--in the Church and outside of it. Some do-gooders do good on general principle, or possibly even for selfish reasons, and never cultivate any kind of relationship with those they are assisting. Ordinary believers who quietly follow Christ are not individualists. The extreme of me-and-Jesus spirituality would include sentiments such as: "I find God on the golf course or in nature; I don't need to go to Church to be a Christian." (actual quote from a relative of mine) If the caution is against being alone with Jesus, as you imply, Todd, the end result is an easy excuse for not praying at all. I didn't mean to imply it. I would say that a person who cultivates personal prayer but divorces any expression of Matthew 25 in her or his life might be an individualist. But I think that's an extreme example. It's easy enough to take advantage of the opportunities God drops into our lap. An extreme individualist would not see it as any of his or her business to help the hungry, the naked, the prisoner, etc.. But I suspect that "ordinary" Christians are often of great help in their own quiet way. And for the record, I don't think homebound people or the elderly fall into this category, even if the Christian community neglects them. There is a ministry of prayer--something even introverts can do. The true test of pathological individualism in religion is not one's involvement or lack of involvement in social justice or private prayer. The true test is how one balances all of Christ's demands according to one's gifts and talents. I would like to think a mature self-awareness is in play for devoted Christians. Playing to one's strengths and gifts is valid to a point. But perhaps God often calls us to bolster the aspects of self we are less good at or less inclined to work on. Maybe a communal liturgist needs to work on the devotional life. Maybe a social justice activist needs to go on silent retreat for a week. Maybe the person who prefers to pray at home alone can join a Bible study or a prayer group. We need the Holy Spirit to fill and inform our works as well as the rest of our lives, or what we do comes in the end to nothing. And we aren't going to get that help unless we are "individualisticly" moral as well as socially moral - indeed the second is impossible without the first. Unless we are at some level alone with Jesus, in fact. I'm in agreement. The moral battleground is indeed engaged often in the interior life. And GS teaches that authentic human cultural progress is impossible without the spiritual dimension--including a moral and just approach in the living of life. But I do think that the Christian community--however one defines and adopts that in one's life--can be a useful tool in maintaining virtue. That's the monastic approach as I understand it: a radical expression of community. Simply put, it is easier for many people to live with others and try to be good than it is might be to go it alone. That's not to say that some aren't called to the eremitic life. The Church has plenty of examples of hermits. But their relative few numbers lead me to believe that approach is the exception to the rule. In looking at the Vatican documents, I believe it is important to try to set aside our personal, cultural, and ideological biases. Try to take the document for what it says. First context might be the viewpoint of a celibate hierarchy meeting in Rome in the 60's. Eventually we get to the here-and-now for us and our respective parishes and/or prayer lives. But I think it's good to avoid jumping the gun or reading too much of what we love (or hate) into the texts.