| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
questions answered
by wm. b. smith
A Mass rubric
Question: At the Communion rite in Mass, some priests raise both the Host and the Chalice, then say: "This is the Lamb of God, . . ." Most priests raise only the Host over the paten. Is this an option?
Answer: I have seen what you describe only a few times. However, the rubrics of the Roman Missal are clear on this: "The priest genuflects. Taking the host (". . . accipit hostiam . . ." Ordo Missae n. 104), he raises it slightly over the paten and, facing the people, says aloud: "This is the Lamb of God, . . ."
I am not sure what this deviation is supposed to convey. The present rubric in the Mass of Paul VI is exactly the same as the old rubric in the Missal of 1963.
Msgr. P. J. Elliott in his reliable book, Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite (Ignatius, 1995) makes the same point: "Holding the paten in his left hand directly over the corporal (82), he raises the broken Host or the fragment preferably to eyelevel, saying, 'This is the Lamb of God. . .'." (#330, page 121) Footnote #82 in the Elliott book states clearly: "He does not raise the broken Host over the chalice" (p. 121).
The Lesser Evil?
Question: A condom distribution campaign has polarized our local school board. Some parishioners say we can't reverse the campaign so we can accept it as a "lesser evil." Any opinion?
Answer: Whether it is disease transmission (so-called "safe or safer sex") or drug addiction (clean needle-exchange) or even smoking (filters over non-filters), most of these campaigns present themselves as "harm reduction."
I would challenge just how much harm and what kind of harm they reduce both on scientific and moral grounds. A recent signed article in the NYTimes (8/18/96; p. 14) documents "Rethinking 'Harm Reduction' for Glasgow Addicts." The push there now is for total abstinence programs: "Harm reduction sounds good, but it doesn't work"-it simply adds to resources keeping people on drugs.
In a similar way, many ask why classroom sex education is unable to curb sexual activity among teens. One simple but overlooked answer is that it was never intended to do so (W. K. Kilpatrick, Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong (1992) p. 56). Nonjudgmental sex education does not frown on early sexuality; most classroom sex ed is based on the opposite presumption-it is based on the expectation that teens will be sexually active. With that sad presumption as the base line, the whole emphasis shifts to "damage control." Given the FACT that no Christian teen can live as a Christian, some put all their hopes in industrial strength condoms to keep damage (HIV transmission) to a minimum.
Here again, another methodological flaw, albeit a scientific one. Commercially available latex rubber condoms were neither designed nor manufactured for this purpose. Significantly, in our litigious society, no condom manufacturer claims for their products what Planned Parenthood advocates claim for them.
Commercial latex condoms all have synthetic pores (strategic voids) one micron in diameter designed as they are for containing human spermatozoa. However, the HIV virus is 1/3 to 1/10 the size of one micron-about 400 times smaller than human sperm (cf. J. C. Howard, Linacre Quarterly (May, 1996), p. 28; W. Kilpatrick, p. 60). Because of this fact, no manufacturer claims to prevent the transmission of any virus.
Frankly, I don't know of anyone who would argue for a smoke-free environment saying: look, 25% of teens are going to smoke anyway, so let's distribute filter cigarettes (outside the schoolyard) as a "lesser evil" to the non-filter camels and keep long term damage to a minimum.
All of these can be described, one way or another, as "harm reduction." But all of them are morally flawed because they do not positively advocate virtue but facilitate lesser or lessened vices. I suspect, as in Scotland, they don't work because they can't work-we keep adding to resources that keep people on drugs, potential disease and smoke. What is needed is a smoke-free environment, a drug-free environment and a disease-free environment.
Some years ago, the U.S. Bishops issued a particularly cogent "Statement on School-Based Clinics" (11/18/87) detailing the inherently mixed message that is sent when agencies of responsibility (schools) take a promiscuous lifestyle for granted while advancing the deception that this can be done without adverse consequences (cf. Origins 17:25 (12/3/87) 433; 435-441).
No one can keep ignoring or abusing the Natural Law without some adverse consequences. This is not a spiritual prediction-it is in the nature of things, the nature of life and the nature of morals.
Other agencies of responsibility (parents, teachers, spiritual guides, health counsellors) have the same challenge and obligation. "Harm Reduction" doesn't work. Mixed messages without true principles, or with no principles (half virtues, no virtue, "damage control") don't work.
We have to tell and teach the truth-the truth about the human person and the truth about the gift of human sexuality. Only the truth will set us free! (For condom distribution or teaching both of the above articles are useful: J. C. Howard, Linacre Quarterly 63:2 (May, 1996) 26-30; and W. Kilpatrick, Ch. 3, "Sex Education" [Simon and Schuster, 1992] 52-77).
Dancing in the Aisles
Question: I witnessed the following. As Mass began, we were told by the priest to sit and "reflect" while two barefoot women danced around and incensed the altar. Is this permissible?
Answer: No. The Congregation for Sacraments and Divine Worship once approved and published an authoritative point of reference for Dance in the Liturgy.
It reads in part: "The dance has never been an integral part of the official worship of the Latin Church." . . . "Conciliar decisions have often condemned the religious dance because it conduces little to worship and because it could degenerate into disorders." While noting that some elements might appear among Ethiopians, the Syriac liturgy and in the Byzantine liturgy, "However, the same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the Western culture." . . . "There is a great difference in cultures: what is well received in one culture cannot be taken on by another culture. The traditional reserve of the seriousness of religious worship, and of the Latin worship in particular, must never be forgotten . . . ." (cf. Notitiae vol. 11 [1975] pp. 202-205; Canon Law Digest v. 8, pp. 78-82; Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy Newsletter 1981-1985 [1987] pp. 62-64 for text and footnotes).
The above instructs us about "disorders"; let history be our guide and note things of the past present in New Age enthusiasts. There is an entry in the New Catholic Encyclopedia on "Chorisantes."
Who are they? "CHORISANTES, a fanatical sect of wandering men and women, so called because of the obscenely grotesque dance that characterized their religious frenzy. Dance madness was reported as early as the 9th century among certain monks and nuns of Syria, but in Europe the source was probably the old Germanic dances celebrating the summer solstice, which in the Christian Era honored the nativity of John the Baptist. Chorisantes appeared sporadically in the Rhineland and in the Low Countries from the 14th to 16th centuries. Their dance frenzy occurred usually in public places, near or in churches. Since they were regarded as being under diabolical possession because of invalid Baptism or of Baptism administered by a priest living in concubinage, their cure was sought in exorcism and in pilgrimages to churches of St. Vitus (hence, St. Vitus dance)." (M. F. Loughlin, "Chorisantes" NCE vol. 3 [1967] p. 626). Some things "new" are very, very old.
Please address questions to Msgr. Wm. B. Smith, St. Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie, Yonkers, N.Y. 10704. n