Author: Christian Renaissance Movement

In honor of the African Doctor’s 1,669th birthday, here is the most famous and most stirring passage from his best known work, the first real autobiography in world history, Confessions. It recounts the moment he converted to Christianity, in a garden in Milan, while with his friend Alypius.

Book VIII, Chapter 12

But when a profound reflection had, from the secret depths of my soul, drawn together and heaped up all my misery before the sight of my heart, there arose a mighty storm, accompanied by as mighty a shower of tears. Which, that I might pour forth fully, with its natural expressions, I stole away from Alypius; for it suggested itself to me that solitude was fitter for the business of weeping. So I retired to such a distance that even his presence could not be oppressive to me. Thus was it with me at that time, and he perceived it; for something, I believe, I had spoken, wherein the sound of my voice appeared choked with weeping, and in that state had I risen up. He then remained where we had been sitting, most completely astonished. I flung myself down, how, I know not, under a certain fig-tree, giving free course to my tears, and the streams of my eyes gushed out, an acceptable sacrifice unto You. (1 Peter 2:5) And, not indeed in these words, yet to this effect, spoke I much unto You —But You, O Lord, how long? How long, Lord? Will You be angry for ever? Oh, remember not against us former iniquities; for I felt that I was enthralled by them. I sent up these sorrowful cries —How long, how long? Tomorrow, and tomorrow? Why not now? Why is there not this hour an end to my uncleanness?

I was saying these things and weeping in the most bitter contrition of my heart, when, lo, I heard the voice as of a boy or girl, I know not which, coming from a neighbouring house, chanting, and oft repeating, Take up and read; take up and read. Immediately my countenance was changed, and I began most earnestly to consider whether it was usual for children in any kind of game to sing such words; nor could I remember ever to have heard the like. So, restraining the torrent of my tears, I rose up, interpreting it no other way than as a command to me from Heaven to open the book, and to read the first chapter I should light upon. For I had heard of Antony, that, accidentally coming in while the gospel was being read, he received the admonition as if what was read were addressed to him, Go and sell that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me. (Matthew 19:21) And by such oracle was he immediately converted unto You. So quickly I returned to the place where Alypius was sitting; for there had I put down the volume of the apostles, when I rose thence. I grasped, opened, and in silence read that paragraph on which my eyes first fell —Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying; but put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. (Romans 13:13-14) No further would I read, nor did I need; for instantly, as the sentence ended — by a light, as it were, of security infused into my heart — all the gloom of doubt vanished away.

Closing the book, then, and putting either my finger between, or some other mark, I now with a tranquil countenance made it known to Alypius. And he thus disclosed to me what was wrought in him, which I knew not. He asked to look at what I had read. I showed him; and he looked even further than I had read, and I knew not what followed. This it was, verily, Him that is weak in the faith, receive; (Romans 14:1) which he applied to himself, and discovered to me. By this admonition was he strengthened; and by a good resolution and purpose, very much in accord with his character (wherein, for the better, he was always far different from me), without any restless delay he joined me. Thence we go in to my mother. We make it known to her — she rejoices. We relate how it came to pass — she leaps for joy, and triumphs, and blesses You, who art able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think; (Ephesians 3:20) for she perceived You to have given her more for me than she used to ask by her pitiful and most doleful groanings. For Thou so converted me unto Yourself, that I sought neither a wife, nor any other of this world’s hopes, — standing in that rule of faith in which Thou, so many years before, had showed me unto her in a vision. And you turned her grief into a gladness, much more plentiful than she had desired, and much dearer and chaster than she used to crave, by having grandchildren of my body.

Happy birthday, St. Augustine. Pray for us!

Friends,

It is hard to write this column. Harder than I thought it would be. All I can say this week is that Rome is still here. People are still showing up for mass, every day, in hundreds of churches. Ordinations are happening, solemn vows being taken, prayers being offered to God. The world keeps moving, and Rome is still much the same as it always has been.

I committed to write this column every Sunday, but it is hard.

So much good goes on here. But much of it is the same, week in and week out. But maybe it’s worth dwelling on the normalcies of Roman life… not just singular events.

Let me think about it.

A domani…
-Eamonn

I had a weird and sort of unpleasant day yesterday. I won’t go into why.

Obviously, a lot of American Catholics are having a bit of sadness and dulled shock over the news in Texas. I won’t comment on all that for multiple reasons, also to be left unexplained.

Anyway, both things lead me to this: love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you.

We should love those who are our enemies because God loves them. If we love God, we love those He loves – we want the same things for them, primarily His friendship and its consummation in Heaven. We pray for those who persecute us because we love them in this way.

Feel the splinters? It’s the Cross.

That’s Christianity.

I realize I never finished my “Ireland series” properly. Well, I suppose you could say it is a bit of an ongoing series anyway. I will be back in the country next weekend for something, and then hopefully in January as well. So… I guess we can all look forward to some more posts on the topic. Including today.

Since it’s late, not much commentary from me. I just finished watching this roundtable discussion, which I’d heard about a year ago or so but have just gotten around to. If you are at all Irish, and Catholic, it’s worth a listen. It gives you a really good glimpse into things.

I’ve read Derek Scally’s book – it was riveting. I have started Mary Kenny’s book, and while it’s well written it’s more difficult to read as an outsider… lots of names and places and references that are hard to track if you aren’t already “part of it.” Well, at least that’s the vibe so far.

I’m also now blazing through Thomas Cahill’s famous book, “How the Irish Saved Civilization”… More on that later.

Happy Friday.

Happy Feast of the Dedication of the the Basilica of St. John Lateran!

The full title of Rome’s cathedral, which is around the corner from my house and where I often attend daily mass, is the Archbasilica Cathedral of the Most Holy Savior and of Saints John the Baptist and John the Evangelist in the Lateran. It is the mother-church of all churches.

Enjoy a virtual tour here.

I know Thursdays I am supposed to be writing a series on sports, but for 2 weeks in a row I’ve been unable to play – last week for personal unavailability, today for the first dismal Roman rains of the season. Yuck.

Yesterday was the 1,343rd anniversary of the opening of the Third Council of Constantinople. So today marks the same anniversary of the first full day. (For those who don’t want to do the math, that’s 680.)

Go read about this council here. It condemned monothelitism (one will in Christ – Divine) and monoenergism (one “energy” or “operation” in Christ, very similar).

The Council was convoked during the reign of Pope St. Agatho, who allegedly became pope after the age of 100. He worked a lot of miracles, we are told, and was very likeable. His first notable task as pope was dealing with the unjust deposition of St. Wilfred, Archbishop of York by Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury. Guess what, he convened a synod in the Lateran, and he restored him to his diocese!

Being 103 or so, he sent his legate to Constantinople for the Sixth Ecumenical Council, along with a very long letter on the orthodox position on the question at hand… Maximus the Confessor’s name whispered in the background, the intrigue of Emperor Constantine Pogonatus’s court in Constantinople, the murmurings of George, the local Patriarch, who was anathematized – ALONG WITH THE DEAD POPE HONORIUS I, which is particularly significant and famously controversial… How can you not be mesmerized by this stuff that is so important to understanding our Faith and the history of our Church?

My favorite incident, recounted by Joseph Kelly in his book on the Councils, is of a Monothelite priest standing up in front of the Council Fathers to declare that he could prove his doctrine to be true. How? He could raise the dead. Well, guess what, they procured a cadaver and let him try.

He failed.

They swung hard in those days.

The Synod on Synodality was not really a synod on “synodality.” It was a synod on anything and everything that people felt like talking about. This is probably the most fundamental problem with the particular endeavor. And the assumption that “because people talked about it in the context of prayer at the request of the Holy Father” does NOT mean that “the Holy Spirit wants x”… This is a very wrong-headed thought which has animated a lot of the effort. (“Pneumatological maximalism” is what I have been calling it – it has also pervaded ideas about the liturgical reform. But I digress.) What is occurring is a large number of people talking about different issues, with a special invocation of Divine guidance. Nothing less, nothing more.

Let’s pick apart just a few highlights from the “synthesis” document.

“Dear Sisters, dear Brothers”…

With the salutation, we know already what kind of tone the entire document will have. I have never personally met a woman who was likeable who thought it important to be acknowledged in such greetings before men, contrary to the customary form. Have you?

“k) If the Eucharist shapes synodality, then the first step we should take is to celebrate the Mass in a way that befits the gift, with an authentic sense of friendship in Christ. Liturgy celebrated with authenticity is the first and fundamental school of discipleship. Its beauty and simplicity should form us prior to any other organised formation programme. l) A second step refers to the widely reported need to make liturgical language more accessible to the faithful and more embodied in the diversity of cultures. Without calling continuity with tradition and the need for better liturgical formation into question, deeper reflection is needed. Episcopal Conferences should be entrusted with a wider responsibility in this regard, according to the Motu Proprio Magnum principium“

Is it really the most coherent set of proposals – more authentic and beautiful liturgy, but also simpler and easier to understand? Have we not learned, after nearly 60 years of didactic experimentation in the liturgy, that Mass is not the setting to “teach people stuff,” except during the homily? Generally, the more “accessible” the liturgy is, the less transcendent it will seem – and all the less relevant to one’s eternity.

“We need to examine the issue of Eucharistic hospitality (Communicatio in sacris) from theological, canonical and pastoral perspectives in light of the link between sacramental and ecclesial communion. This issue is of particular importance to inter-church couples. It raises the need for a broader reflection on inter-church marriages.”

We perhaps need to examine this topic, but probably not in the way envisioned by the document’s authors. The current discipline as contained in the CIC is actually very, very difficult to justify. It is a larger conversation than I can get into today. I just point back to Pius XI’s encyclical, Mortalium Animos, as being a good modern starting point for the discussion.

“It was also proposed that we might devise an ecumenical martyrology.”

As I’ve written before, this is not Catholic and never could be. St. Cyprian of Carthage, pray for us.

“We need more creativity in establishing ministries according to the needs of local churches, with the particular involvement of the young. One can think of further expanding responsibilities assigned to the existing ministry of lector, responsibilities that are already broader than those performed in the liturgy. This could become a fuller ministry of the Word of God, which, in appropriate contexts, could also include preaching. We could also explore the possibility of establishing a ministry assigned to married couples committed to supporting family life and accompanying people preparing for the Sacrament of Marriage.”

I do not know why “establishing new ministries” would be necessary, especially since the gutting of the hierarchical and clerical meaning of such offices after Ministeria Quaedam, but that’s not my role. What I do know is that preaching is a sacramental. like blessing an object – it is for deacons, priests, and bishops. It is not for laity. I am much more eloquent and better educated than any number of clergy – but I cannot preach. It doesn’t belong to me, I haven’t been “sent” properly. Nor is this something which a pope can just “make up.” It comes from God, according to the triple office of Christ in His own public ministry which the whole Church carries on: teaching (diaconate), sanctification (priesthood), governance (episcopate). Frankincense, myrrh, gold.

“In order to give better expression to the gifts and charisms of all and to be more responsive to pastoral needs, how can the Church include more women in existing roles and ministries? If new ministries are required, who should discern these, at what levels and in what ways?”

This is how companies speak about their departments. “Should we create an office for branding that’s separate from our marketing team?” It is not how the Church establishes ministries, at least historically. It strikes one as a well-intentioned effort that would end with an ecclesiastical fad that has strong institutional backing, but no history or spiritual pedigree. Why don’t we focus on getting right the ministries which the Church already possesses before trying to “create” new ones?

“Different positions have been expressed regarding women’s access to the diaconal ministry.”

Yes, one orthodox and in line now with what the Holy Father has publicly stated (albeit in an odd manner), and one heterodox. Women cannot be ordained, period. Even to the minor orders, which, again, thanks to Ministeria Quaedam, hardly exist. Perhaps MQ is then a blessing in disguise…

“Formation for ordained ministers should be designed in a way that is consistent with a synodal Church in the different local contexts. Before embarking on specific paths candidates should have a significant, albeit initial, experience of life in a Christian community. Formation should not create an artificial environment separate from the ordinary life of the faithful. By safeguarding the requirements of formation for ministry, we can foster an authentic spirit of service to the People of God in preaching, celebrating the sacraments and enacting charity. This may require a revision of the Ratio fundamentalis for priests and permanent deacons.”

The Synthesis document has a lot to say about priestly formation, almost none of it particularly useful. The thought that there should not be an “artificial environment” for formation is one thing – but it leaves one wondering if the authors think of the average seminary as “artificial,” and what exactly that means. However, the fact that “artificial” is juxtaposed with “separate from the ordinary life of the faithful” is just plain deadly to the proposal. For those unfamiliar, the 30-second history of this question is that before Trent, there were three ways to approach ordination: through apprenticeship (tutelage under some individual priest), the university (getting a degree and then finding a bishop to ordain you), and the monastery (entering the community and eventually being ordained within). Trent thought there were problems with this and so instituted what we know now as the seminary – a place specifically designed NOT to be part the “ordinary life of the faithful” because the cleric is NOT an ordinary member of the faithful, he is set apart… “separate,” even.

Well, I think that’s enough. I don’t say there’s nothing useful or true in the synthesis document, I just think it can be found elsewhere and in a better form.

I hope you will pray with me for the Synod and its continued activities. It is really important not to be deceived – yes, the whole thing is a bit of a fad, and much of it is silly – but not only are there dire consequences for the bad things which come from the Synod and its activities, but also good can come from it all too. And many individuals are obliged to participate under obedience – so let’s pray that they have the graces to do it well.

So yesterday I pointed out that it is actually an authentically good thing that we have just concluded the Synod on Synodality (its first Roman phase at least). I think it is actually good, in itself. No snark. A lot of very hard work done because it was asked of people by the bishop, and by the Pope. God likes that. Obedience.

Now let’s comb through things a little bit. Problems, I mean…

The biggest problem is with the idea itself of the Synod of Bishops, which is a project created by Paul VI – not exactly an ancient institution. There have been Roman synods before, centuries and centuries ago, but nothing like what is going on today where bishops from random countries arrive to discuss complicated matters for a few days, produce a document which may or may not have already been written ahead of time, and then the Holy Father puts out his own text based on the other one.

I think the idea is pretty fundamentally flawed. If the Holy Father wants concrete advice about the affairs of the global Church, that is what consistories of cardinals are for. It’s literally the entire point of the College of Cardinals. The College is smaller, stabler, and the status of the cardinalate often makes one privy to goings on that other bishops may not be aware of. It’s just a leaner and meaner machine. With the Synod, it seems hit or miss.

And then there is the fact that consultation about broader topics, like “youth,” as we saw a few years ago, is itself almost entirely pointless. As if “youth” faced the same issues in suburban New England as they do in the African bush.

So we now have the familiar style of Roman commentaries – “Some people face x. Other people long for y. It was observed that others have experience with z.” Ok. What good is that? This is why the norm has been local synods in past centuries. Focus on x, or y, or z – not all of them. It leads to incoherence and uselessness. I would wager that you could count on one hand the number of parish youth ministers who are willingly and organically still consulting the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on youth from 2018. If a document that took so long to produce – not to mention so much money – can become almost totally obsolete within FIVE YEARS, it raises the obvious question: “Is it worth it?”

Then there’s the branding. At this point, it is increasingly hard for me to conclude that whoever is responsible for graphic design and “marketing” at the Holy See is not consciously trying to repel masculine men – especially young ones – from having any interest in what’s going on. (This is to make no mention of the long delay in ceasing to use a certain disgraced former Jesuit’s artwork in promotional materials.) The “Crayon Synod” has really earned its name.

But enough with the higher-level critique. Tomorrow some observations on the content of the final document (penultimate document?)… I have some thoughts…

I know that once in a while guys at the Holy See reads these pages. Fathers – make the effort to get out of the Vatican Bubble. It has VERY thick walls.

You could take the title as being snarky. You might be a little bit correct.

But I also think that, whether one likes or dislikes the “Synthesis” document (so aptly named, given the Hegelian trends present in the whole thing), it is actually a good thing that people showed up and tried to do what was asked of them for the Holy Father. The Synod on Synodality, for all its problems – of which there are a great many – is the largest consultative process ever undertaken in human history. People have worked hard, because the Vicar of Christ wanted them to. (And the people at the Synod have made it known that the schedule was a bit severe, at least by their standards. Recall that many of the bishops participating also have dioceses to run, in between sessions, on the commute back to the hotel, as they are getting ready to sleep, etc… It’s not easy. Maybe it’s not even possible.)

Anyway, I do think there is good in it all. I will let others – for now – pick apart the process and its documents. I will try to focus on good things. At least on Sundays…

The other day someone was talking about a priest they had seen who was not reading anything from the missal during mass – he had memorized everything. The attitude was positive… “It is impressive,” “he could look at us and just engage us more directly,” etc. I have heard too before of a priest who decided once to memorize the Gospel reading for some Sunday… Woah! Father memorized a few lines! What a performance!

Needless to say, I don’t think it’s good. Of course, it is good to memorize the liturgy – especially just in case one is put in a prison camp without a missal… And of course it is good to memorize Scripture. But even if one does that there a few problems with this treatment of the liturgy.

First, it comes off as a “performance by Father So-and-So.” It is distracting. It points to the personality of the priest, not to God.

Second, there is always the chance that a mistake gets made. Oops.

Third, it doesn’t match the way Christ knew things. This is the one I offer for the most consideration… The Lord had and has several different kinds of knowledge… Not only acquired or empirical knowledge (the “I observed it and learned it” kind), but also infused knowledge (the kind immediately given by God about real things). The Lord further has beatific and Divine knowledge, but here I just want to focus on the infused and acquired knowledge. What good is it for the Lord to have acquired knowledge when He already knows all singular things past, present, and future by infused knowledge (and by beatific and Divine knowledge)? Why should He learn anything?

To bring it into sharper relief… Why does the Lord READ the scroll of Isaiah at the synagogue in Nazareth? (Luke 4:16-20… It is at least directly implied.)

As St. Thomas explains, it is most fitting that the Lord’s powers be reduced to their proper acts most fully, such that they are not rendered useless. Because Christ is fully a human, He has the same kind of intellect you and I have – one which can learn by comparing one thing to another, by reasoning from effect to cause. So, He did that. And there is a certain kind of satisfaction in knowing and in demonstrating a truth in a different way from the way one already knows – like finding a new way to prove some mathematical theorem. Christ does this when He asks questions, reasons, or even looks around. He already knows by the other kinds of knowledge, but it is good to have the display of power through acquired knowledge.

One can even perhaps have had the unique and somewhat strangely satisfying experience of READING a prayer that is very familiar, like the Hail Mary. There IS something different about it – and we have intimated that difference here. It is a kind of maximization of our own faculties of knowledge and the manifestation of that knowledge. It therefore models Christ’s own knowledge and teaching better.

Where custom allows for the recitation of particular common prayers from memory (like the Our Father), then the celebrant does nothing wrong in so doing. But it should not be done outside of legitimate custom except for a very serious reason.