| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
letters from our readers
Blessing tots with the Host Editor: A new phenomenon seems to have made its appearance in parish churches. It is the number of individuals, especially little children, who come to receive a blessing at Communion time. Of course the practice itself is not new, but what is new is the increased number who do not want to be left out altogether from this part of the Mass. In our parish we still have the altar rail. We ask those who come forward and kneel for a blessing to cross their arms over their chest. It seems I am often invoking as many blessings as administering holy Communion, mostly on tots and pre-first communicants. The practice presents a minor problem. If the minister uses his right hand to bless and touch the individual, he contaminates the hand he uses for administering the sacred Host. (Recently a communicant complained that he got a hair with the Host!) If he pauses to switch the ciborium to his right hand and uses his left to bless, this is both awkward and a kind of aberration, since the left hand is not for blessing. I have adopted a practice that I believe can solve the problem. I bless the individual by making the sign of the cross over his head with the Host and saying, “The blessing of Christ.” I justify this for reasons that are theological, psychological, and hygienic. Theologically, blessing is given by the person of greatest dignity. When a minister holds Christ in his hands, Christ is the most dignified person present, so it should be Christ, not the minister, who gives the blessing. Psychologically, it flies in the teeth of those who claim that physical contact is preferable by stressing the lack of it as an act of greater faith. Hygienically, it avoids contact and possible resulting contamination by lint, hair oil, and the like. I stand to be corrected on this practice (for instance, my colleagues here have not adopted it), but until someone can show me it is eccentric or downright wrong, I shall continue it and even recommend it. Fr. Gerald A. Buckley, O.P.
Editor: It is unfortunately the case that the life of Christ and the history of Christianity suffer from not being recognized as having eliminated the pain and suffering of countless people. Christ himself, and countless Christians after him, have lessened or cured pain and suffering for innumerable people. Jesus cured the physical and spiritual ills of many individuals. Christians have educated many poor people so that they could raise their standard of living and live in simple decency rather than in squalor. The sick, the infirm, the aged, the neglected and the homeless—the list is endless of those who had their afflictions attended to and often cured. The cross that Christians carry each day is the cross of prudence, to insure that we do the right thing and don’t hurt anyone; the cross of justice so that we don’t harm others by being unfair with them; of fortitude so that we don’t flee from difficulties but overcome them in order to protect those entrusted to our care from suffering; of temperance so that we don’t silence those who have something to say or hurt others by overindulging and harming others by our reckless behavior. Christianity is not only our daily cross; it is the “Light of the world” that eliminates suffering whenever and wherever possible. Bob Saverine Thomism and phenomenology
Mr. Grabowski is clearly of the opinion that the synthesis of Thomism and Scheler’s phenomenology called “Lublin Thomism” is valid, that is, philosophically coherent. This I question. In The Degrees of Thomism Maritain makes it quite clear that the philosophy of St. Thomas and the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl are contradictory systems. I doubt if he would have thought differently of the phenomenology of Max Scheler. Mr. Grabowski writes that even those who are open to the traditional teaching might wonder about the language “intrinsic evil” applied to contraception. If this language and the appeal to natural law were abandoned, the prohibition of contraception would become merely a matter of precept—evil because forbidden. Pope Pius XI and Pope Paul VI stated clearly that it is the other way round: God has forbidden contraception because it is evil, and it is evil because it is against the natural law, which man must obey if he is to orient himself rightly to God, his Last End. The natural law is an orientation stamped on human nature by God, the Author of Nature and it is a reflection of the Eternal Law, which is God himself. Romano Amerio has an eloquent treatment of the subject in his book Iota Unum, pp. 388-398. Mr. Grabowski is of the opinion that the prohibition of contraception in Humanae Vitae is authoritative but not infallible, and he can quote many theologians in support of this view. If it is not infallible, it could be changed. It is clear to anyone who reads Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae and takes account of the solemnity of the language, that this view of the matter has no plausibility. As Christopher Derrick wrote in 1969: “ On the face of it, Pope Paul appears to have done precisely the kind of thing that was envisaged by those who framed the 1870 definition (of papal infallibility).” If so many Catholics are using contraceptives, this can provide no argument against the doctrine. They have simply been led astray by errant theologians, who should have been, but were not, called to order by their bishops. Rev. G. H. Duggan, S.M.
Editor: The December issue of HPR just arrived and I read your Editorial, “Time and Eternity.” I enjoyed it very much, though I don’t know if the word “enjoy” is the proper word. I’m seven months older than you (7/27/28) so I can relate to what you wrote. I’ve been working here in the interior of Brazil for the past 35 years and HPR has been an important contact with what has been going on in the Church and the world. Because of the shortage of priests we work and are on duty all day, every day, but believe me it’s worth it! Rewarding does not describe it. Besides the regular parish duties I work with youth; there is nothing more rewarding, they keep you young! About a year ago, it suddenly came upon me that my time is almost up; it made me feel “very good!” It’s hard to explain. I’ve continued doing what I’ve always done, it is just that I feel different. It is almost as if I can’t wait to find out the answers to all the questions that have come up during my life time, questions that can’t be answered here: What was Jesus’s life like as a youth, what type of cross was Christ crucified on, what did Our Lady do after Pentecost, etc. . . . I hope we will be able to ask questions! You wonder what heaven will be like, but Christ said there are many houses there so I am sure there will be a lot to do! The important thing now is to get there. I have a lot of people praying for me, good nuns in the cloister and others. I hope we will meet there one day and talk about things that have appeared in HPR over the years. Fr. James Bray
Editor: In his letter (HPR, November 1996) Fr. Brian Harrison accuses Dr. José Pereira (“Infallible Papal Pronouncements” HPR, March 1996) of appealing to “a popular myth without theological foundation” which maintains that, until recently, “there have only ever been three infallible (ex cathedra) papal pronouncements.” Father Harrison seems to be taking the affirmative sense as if it were the exclusive sense. When Dr. Pereira points to the dogmatic definitions of the Immaculate Conception (1854), Papal Infallibility (1870) and the Assumption (1950), I do not believe he intends to limit papal infallibility only to these definitions (and the recent ones specified). Rather, I think he is looking to these as the most lucid paradigms of the exercise of papal infallibility. Fr. Harrison is correct in saying that there have been many papal statements other than the ones mentioned by Dr. Pereira to have been held as infallible by some impressive theologians. In his book, The Development of the Papacy (1954), Hector Burn-Murdoch also mentions numerous papal teachings which have been considered infallible by various theologians. However, Burn-Murdoch notes that there is no official list of these teachings provided by the Magisterium. Moreover, Canon Law (#749, 3) tells us that “no doctrine is to be understood as infallibly defined unless it is manifestly established as such (nisi id manifeste constiterit).” How are we to know which doctrines are manifestly infallible? Here, I think Dr. Pereira is wise to make use of the clearest examples of infallibility as the model by which to judge those which are not so clear. On the other hand, Fr. Harrison has provided an important service in highlighting the explanation of infallibility offered by the late Fr. Ermengildo Lio, O.F.M. I have read some segments of Fr. Lio’s book, Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità (which were kindly sent to me by Fr. Denis O’Brien, M.M. of Dallas), and I believe his analysis needs to be better known. Perhaps Fr. Harrison should consider sponsoring a translation of Fr. Lio’s book in order to make his explanation of papal infallibility more accessible to the English-speaking world. Robert L. Fastiggi, Ph.D. |