Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Three Births and the Third Person of the Trinity

A Scriptural Reflection on the Readings for Sunday, May 19, 2013, Pentecost Sunday | Carl E. Olson

Readings:
• Acts 2:1-11
• Ps 104:1, 24, 29-30, 31, 34
• 1 Cor 12:3b-7, 12-13 or Rom 8:8-17
• Jn 20:19-23 or Jn 14:15-16, 23b-26

He is silent, yet sounds like rushing wind; he is invisible, but appears as tongues of fire; he is constantly working and giving, but is often overlooked and underappreciated.

He is the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of Life, the third Person of the Trinity. He has many names in Scripture, including Advocate, Comforter, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of adoption, the Spirit of grace.

In the second chapter of the Acts of Apostle, the coming of the Holy Spirit is described as “a noise like a strong driving wind” and his presence as “tongues as of fire.” Notice how elusive the language is: the Holy Spirit is not a driving wind, but is like such a wind; he is not a tongue of fire, but appears as one. There is a paradox here, which is so often the case with the Holy Spirit: he is both very elusive and yet constantly active. It’s as though you see something or someone out of the corner of your eye, but no matter how quickly you turn, they are gone.

Isn’t this the sense conveyed by Jesus, who said to Nicodemus, “The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit” (Jn. 3:8)? The word “born” is deeply significant for there are three very important births, or creations, described in Scripture in which the Holy Spirit moves and acts, giving life.

These three births are closely connected. First, there is the birth of the cosmos and the creation of the world: “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:2). There it is again: the Spirit was moving. Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical on the Holy Spirit, Dominum et vivificantem (Pentecost, 1986), further notes that the presence of the Spirit in creation not only pertains, of course, to the cosmos, but also to “man, who has been created in the image and likeness of God: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’” (par. 12).

The second instance is the conception of the God-man, Jesus Christ. What did the angel say to Mary? “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (Lk. 1:35). Once again, the Holy Spirit is active; he is coming with power. Once again, he is intimately involved in bringing about a man. In the first creation it was Adam; now, the new Adam.

The third birth, or creation, took place at Pentecost, fifty days after the death and resurrection of Christ. “The time of the Church began,” wrote John Paul II, “at the moment when the promises and predictions that so explicitly referred to the Counselor, the Spirit of truth, began to be fulfilled in complete power and clarity upon the Apostles, thus determining the birth of the Church” (DV, 25). At Pentecost, the Church—the family of God and the mystical body of Christ—is birthed by the Holy Spirit. And he is the soul of the Church. “What the soul is to the human body,” wrote St. Augustine, “the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 797).

Emile Mersch, S.J., in The Theology of the Mystical Body (Herder, 1952), wrote: “The Holy Spirit is continually being sent, and Pentecost never comes to an end.” The Acts of the Apostles reveals the Holy Spirit “ceaselessly coming down into the world, no longer under the form of fiery tongues, but through the intermediary of the apostles and their preaching.”

He is still coming, filling, moving, and giving life. Let’s pay attention!

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the May 23, 2010, edition of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

The Innocence of Common Sense and the Deconstruction of Marriage

The Innocence of Common Sense and the Deconstruction of Marriage | John S. Hamlon | Catholic World Report

The world needs to hear the deep, life-giving, theological resonance of God’s plan for marriage and family

Recently, Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, gave an address at the March for Marriage in Washington, D.C. He focused on the common sense argument that all children deserve mothers and fathers. First, though, he effused peace and well-being: “We love you (the opposition)… and want you to be happy… we don’t hate you… we want to be your friends… try to understand our position, as we will try to do the same for you.” Those disarming, unfeigned words reminded me of Herman Melville’s classic tale of innocence, Billy Budd. Melville describes British-frigate sailor Budd as “Adam presumably might have been ere the urbane Serpent wriggled himself in his company.” In other words, Adam before the fall.

Billy Budd sees everything through a perfectly smooth lens, neither convex nor concave. For him, reality has no laminated layers, therefore, no distortions. He wishes everyone well. He cannot recognize evil, even at nose-length. To his shipmates, he is, at once, astonishing and endearing. Such uprightness and transparency, as we know, attracts subterfuge and darkness. Therein lies the story.

Archbishop Cordileone has a depth and charism that the character Budd does not have. And the archbishop understands, far better than most, the Catholic vision of marriage and family. In his talk, I craned to hear something of that depth, something beyond the natural premises (as important as they are) that connect marriage to children, and children to marriage. I wanted to hear a couple of lines designed for those who believe in God, lines that had a memorable ring and some theological content. For instance: “Man becomes an image of God not so much in the moment of solitude as in the moment of communion [marriage]” (TOB, 9.3). But the talk was woven, beginning to end, with a natural warp and woof.

Marriage has an inner truth with two parts: first, in terms of self-gift, marriage reflects the internal life of the Trinity; second, married love is procreative precisely because it images creative love.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

Apocalypse How?

A Scriptural Reflection on the Readings for Sunday, April 21st, the Fourth Sunday of Easter | Carl E. Olson

Readings:
• Acts 13:14, 43-52
• Ps 100:1-2, 3, 5
• Rev 7:9, 14b-17
• Jn 10:27-30

Pop quiz: which book of the Bible describes black helicopters, high-tech warfare involving Russia and China, and computer chips embedded in human flesh?

Hopefully you answered, “None.” But you may know that some Christians believe the Book of Revelation, or The Apocalypse, describes soon-to-transpire, end of the world events in harrowing detail. And most people—even many Catholics—believe that the final book of the Bible is an unremitting work of doom, gloom, and bloodshed.

John the Revelator’s book undoubtedly contains images of doom and gloom, but not for those who stand for and with Christ. And while there is plenty of bloodshed in the Book of Revelation, the good news is that the blood of the Lamb, shed for the sins of the world, cleanses those who faithfully follow the Shepherd.

In other words, today’s reading from The Apocalypse is filled with joy. It proclaims that God will not only overcome evil, He will—at the end of time as we know it—bring together all of those who love Him. The great multitude witnessed by John consists of those who have been saved through suffering, just as Savior, the slain Lamb (Rev. 5:6), brought salvation through suffering and death. “The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom,” explains the Catechism, “only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” (CCC 677).

Those in the great multitude, from every nation, race, people, and tongue, are the Church. They make up the New Israel, which has gone through a New Exodus. While the first Exodus involved the people of Israel being saved from the tyranny of Egyptian slavery, this final Exodus consists of the people of the new covenant being saved eternally from the domination of sin and death. As Jesus states, in the reading from today’s Gospel, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish” (Jn. 10:28). The salvation of a multitude too large to be counted is a fulfillment of the great covenant made with Abraham: “I will make of you a great nation … All the communities of the earth shall find blessing in you” (Gen. 12:2, 3; cf. Gal. 3:7, 29).

Overcoming death and establishing eternal life is a constant theme in The Apocalypse. This can be seen in the imagery throughout the book, which is bursting with allusions to the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch and the Prophets. The idea of being made “white” through perseverance in faith is drawn from Daniel, a book used often by John: “Many shall purify themselves, and makes themselves white, and be refined” (Dan. 12:10). White robes symbolize holiness and endurance. Priests in the time of Christ were examined for purity; if they passed, they were dressed in white robes, as was the High Priest. In the new covenant, those who have been baptized into Christ, the High Priest, and who endure to the end will be saved through the sacrifice of the Lamb on the Cross.

The palm branches allude to the feast of Tabernacles (cf., Lev. 24:39-40), which celebrated the harvest of crops and commemorated God’s divine protection during the Exodus. Palm branches were also used as symbols of victory (1 Macc. 13:51; 2 Macc. 10:7). In The Apocalypse they stand for God’s victory over evil, His protection of the Church throughout the time of tribulation, and the restoration of right relationship with God, as evidenced by the songs of praise before the heavenly throne.

John’s vision is also filled with a liturgical and sacramental perspective. The great multitude worship God in His temple, which ultimately is the Person of Christ (cf., Jn 2:19-22). Being washed and made white suggests the bath of Baptism, and the lack of hunger or thirst is Eucharistic in its promise of complete joy in the presence of the Lamb.

Thus, in the end—The End!—the apocalyptic truths of the Book of Revelation don’t involve helicopters and top secret technology, but the salvation of God’s flock, His people, through the death and Resurrection of the Lamb.

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the March 30, 2007, issue of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

Ignatius Press CEO: "I am ashamed when we Catholics are embarrassed by Catholic teaching."

Mark Brumley, CEO of Ignatius Press, has written a piece, "Aren't You Ashamed?", for National Catholic Register. From the opening:

“Aren’t you ashamed of your Church? How can you be so bigoted to oppose marriage equality? Why do you persecute gay people?” 

That’s how one supporter of redefining marriage put it to me.  Another said about the same thing, only she claimed to be a Catholic. My response:  I am not ashamed of the Catholic Church.  If I am ashamed of Catholics, it is for my failure and others’ failure to live the whole gospel, truth and love.  And I am ashamed when we Catholics are embarrassed by Catholic teaching.

Why is it bigoted to believe, as Jesus did, that marriage is a union of a man and a woman for life? If that’s bigotry, then I am a bigot for Jesus’ sake, I guess. People like to recall the story of the woman caught in adultery and rightly so. We should not be quick to judged. We should ultimately seek reconciliation. Why does that mean, though, we should support so-called same-sex marriage?

Yes, it can be awkward when family members differ with us.  We have to find ways of remaining faithful to Jesus and loving to our family. That doesn’t allow us to compromise on the truth: “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Mt 10:37).

The fact is, following Jesus can be very “divisive”.

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery.”  Very divisive, Lord.

“You brood of vipers ...”. Very divisive.

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ...” Divisive, again.

“Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of ...”

Well, you get the point.

Read the entire post on the Register's site.

Glorious Wounds—Christ’s and Ours

Glorious Wounds—Christ’s and Ours | Fr. Andrew Hofer | Homiletic &  Pastoral Review

You could say that Christ’s glorious wounds are our wounds. He took our humanity to himself in the Incarnation … Christ’s humanity is completely ours.

Central to the mystery of the Christian faith is Jesus Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection, known collectively in modern times as the “paschal mystery.” This unity can be most vividly seen in the glorious wounds of the risen Lord. Christ, now raised from the dead, is the same Christ who suffered and died upon the cross. Rather than effacing the marks of the crucifixion, the resurrection glorifies them. These wounds have special mention in some of the scripturally-recorded appearances of the risen Lord. In Luke 24:39 (NAB), we hear Jesus say, “Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself.” Jesus then showed the disciples his hands and his feet (cf. Luke 24:40). Even more prominently, the account in John 20:24-29 of the Apostle Thomas’s doubt and coming to faith, through the invitation to probe Jesus’s hands and side, allows us to probe the meaning of those glorious wounds. As we ponder them, we can find out something not only about the risen Jesus, but also about ourselves.

In his treatment of Christ’s resurrection, St. Thomas Aquinas asks in his Summa Theologiae III (q. 54. a. 4) whether Christ’s body should have risen with its scars. As always in the Summa, Aquinas begins with objections, the best objections that can be mustered against his own position. The first objection deals with how wounds signify corruption and defect. In more modern language, perhaps one could say that the wounds are gross. Isn’t the idea of someone coming to life after death while bearing the wounds of his death something from a horror film? Wouldn’t Jesus be more likely to say “Someone is going to pay for this” than “Peace be with you”?  The second objection also is a matter of the gross factor: wounds destroy bodily integrity. The body just isn’t whole if there are gaping slashes. There’s something wrong, and it’s disgusting. The third objection runs likes this. It might be permissible to retain some sign of the crucifixion to confirm the faith of the disciples that he ,who was once put to death on a cross, now lives. But, why in the world would he continue to look like that? Since Christ’s body immediately after the resurrection is how that body is forever afterwards, it’s not fitting for him to rise with the scars from the crucifixion. The resurrection is forever, so let’s think about the long-term appearance of the body, particularly in what is to be the most glorified body of all. It wouldn’t be right to look that way.

Now, Aquinas knows that Christ did rise with wounds, and so the fact of Christ’s resurrected body having glorious wounds is the immediate answer on whether or not that should have occurred. It, in fact, did happen in God’s providence, and so we can then see how there was fittingness by God’s design. Aquinas’ arguments of fittingness (ex convenentia) are arguments of beauty, and, perhaps, there’s nothing quite like the beauty of his answers for the glory of the risen Lord.

In the body of the article, Aquinas gives his first answer as the first of five reasons coming from the Venerable Bede. Christ rose with his wounds for his own glory. It’s not that Christ couldn’t heal his own wounds, but that he wanted “to wear them as an everlasting trophy of his victory.” I was once explaining this to a class of young African men studying for the priesthood. I said that this idea of a trophy of victory is like someone who has survived a fight, but who bears a scar from a fight that he won. Rather than being some sort of embarrassment, the scar is something that he shows off to his friends. One of the African students quickly understood, and said that that was certainly true in his own case. He survived a terrible fight, and he is proud to show others what the fight did to his body. In the words of urban lingo, he gets “street cred.” Jesus, you could say, has this “street cred.” The Lord is able to show off—to have glory—for his victory over the fight against death itself.

Continue reading at HPRweb.com.

Defending Marriage, and Why It Matters

Defending Marriage, and Why It Matters | Jim Graves | Catholic World Report

An interview with Ryan T. Anderson, co-author of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense

Ryan T. Anderson, 31, researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC.  He is also the editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, NJ.

Ryan T. Anderson

He has emerged as a leading defender of traditional marriage before audiences on college and law school campuses, as well as in the mainstream media (he recently sparred with CNN host Piers Morgan and lesbian financial advisor and motivational speaker Suze Orman, for example).

Anderson was born and raised in Baltimore, and, while he is Catholic, his parents sent him and his four brothers to a Quaker school, “for reasons we still don’t fully understand,” he chuckles.  At an early age he found his views often at odds with those of his classmates, such as on the issue of abortion.  He said, “Being in a minority status makes you examine your positions more thoroughly.”

Anderson’s articles have appeared in numerous periodicals, and he recently co-authored What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (Encounter Books) with Robert George and Sherif Girgis. He recently spoke with CWR.

CWR: Why is marriage unique from other adult relationships?

Anderson: As we argue in our book, it is unique because it involves a union of hearts, minds, and bodies of a man and a woman, at all levels of their beings, in an act that has the potential to produce new human life.  Marital relationships are not only emotional, but are ordered towards bearing and rearing children.  

If we reject the understanding that marriage should be between one man and one woman, other questions arise. Why, for example, should we limit marriage to two people?  What about “thruples” [a three-person “couple”]?  What’s so magical about the number two?  Perhaps someone believes their marriage would be enhanced with the introduction of a third party.  If we don’t insist that marriage is a distinct, bodily union between one man and one woman, then we leave it up to the spouses to decide.

Also, why should marriage be permanent?  Emotions come and go, so some people might prefer their marriage to be temporary.

CWR: Polls say younger people are more open to same-sex marriage than the overall population. Why do you think many in your generation have this perspective?

Continue reading on the CWR site.

Notes from Rome by John Paul Shimek

Notes from Rome by John Paul Shimek | Catholic World Report

Blessed Pope John Paul II’s 1996 Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis ordained that, “After the solemn ceremony of the inauguration of the Pontificate and within an appropriate time, the Pope will take possession of the Patriarchal Archbasilica of the Lateran, according to the prescribed ritual” (UDG, n. 92). On March 27, Vatican Information Service announced the date for that event. In an official bollettino of the Sala Stampa della Santa Sede, the Vatican announced that “The solemn celebration of the Eucharist during which Francis will take possession of the cathedra of the Bishop of Rome will take place in the Lateran Basilica on April 7th, the Second Sunday of Easter, or Divine Mercy Sunday, at 5:30pm.” Unlike Universi Dominici Gregis, the Press Office’s bulletin laid the stress on the ‘cathedra of the Bishop of Rome,’ not the ‘Patriarchal Archbasilica of the Lateran.’ It is well-known that Francis favors the title ‘Bishop of Rome’ over the title ‘Pope.’ He uses the first title much more often than the second one. For instance, on the night of his election, Pope Francis used the title ‘Bishop’ some six times, but did not use the title ‘Pope’ once.

###

Pope Francis addressed crowds in Italian at this week’s General Audience, which was held inside St. Peter’s Square on March 27. After his address, assistants read translations of his remarks in various national languages. Then, Pope Francis greeted pilgrims in Italian. Although Francis speaks Spanish, French, German, and English, he has decided to address crowds in Italian, the language of the Bishop of Rome and his people. This custom differs from that of Blessed Pope John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Both men used to address crowds in various languages.

Oftentimes, Pope Francis will address crowds in colloquial or Roman Italian. In the course of his first Angelus address, he called Cardinal Walter Kasper a theologian “in gamba,” which is akin to the German “Mensch.” At the same time, he takes note of Roman or Italian customs, wishing pilgrims a good pranzo. And, he identifies with Roman religious practices. On the morning after his election, he visited the image of the Salus Populi Romani at the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore. Pope Francis is making a conscious effort to appeal to the Roman people as their new bishop.  

###

On March 27, the Vatican’s Sala Stampa confirmed that Pope Francis will continue residing at the Domus Sancta Marthae.

Continue reading on the CWR blog.

The Easter Triduum: Entering into the Paschal Mystery

The Easter Triduum: Entering into the Paschal Mystery | Carl E. Olson 

The liturgical year is a great and ongoing proclamation by the Church of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a celebration of the Mystery of the Word. Through this yearly cycle, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, "the various aspects of the one Paschal mystery unfold"(CCC 1171). The Easter Triduum holds a special place in the liturgical year because it marks the culmination of the yearly celebration in proclaiming the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

The Latin word triduum refers to a period of three days and has long been used to describe various three-day observances that prepared for a feast day through liturgy, prayer, and fasting. But it is most often used to describe the three days prior to the great feast of Easter: Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday and the Easter Vigil. The General Norms for the Liturgical Year state that the Easter Triduum begins with the evening Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday, "reaches its high point in the Easter Vigil, and closes with evening prayer on Easter Sunday" (par 19).

Three gifts offered by Jesus on His way to the Cross

A Scriptural Reflection on the Readings for March 24, 2013 | Palm Sunday of the Lord’s Passion | Carl E. Olson

Readings:
• At the procession with palms, Gospel: Lk 19:28-4
• Is 50:4-7
• Ps 22:8-9, 17-18, 19-20, 23-24
• Phil 2:6-11
• Lk 22:14—23:56

"It is done. We have judged our God and have ordered Him slain.
We will not have Christ with us more—He is in the way.”

Those lines open Paul Claudel’s poem, “The Way of the Cross”, a lyrical, moving reflection on the fourteen Stations. Claudel, who is one of my favorite poets, had a profound love and knowledge of the Bible (he wrote a book titled, The Essence of the Bible). His poetry has often opened up new and wonderful perspectives in my study of sacred Scripture.

In writing that Christ “is in the way,” Claudel emphasizes the two choices before each one of us: to embrace Jesus as The Way or to try to remove him from our way.

Those choices are evident throughout today’s reading from St. Luke’s Gospel. There is, in this reading, a series of gifts offered by Jesus as he, the King of kings, makes his way to his throne, the Cross. These gifts involve choices, not only on the part of man, but also on the part of the God-man. 

In the Upper Room, reclining with the apostles, Jesus took the bread and blessed it, and said, “This is my body, which will be given for you…” He took the cup, and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.” This, of course, is the gift of the Eucharist, “the source and summit of the Christian life,” the Body and Blood which nourishes the sons and daughters of God. This gift was offered along with the gift of the priesthood, through which this perfect and holy sacrifice has been perpetually offered (CCC, 611). 

Yet one of the Twelve rejected the gifts. Judas—grasping and greedy—had spitefully judged Jesus and believed he was now in the way. Judas refused to accept and be part of a kingdom rooted in self-sacrifice, suffering, and redemptive love. “But woe,” said Jesus, “to that man by whom he is betrayed.”

The gift of the cup of the New Covenant, the Catechism remarks, “is afterwards accepted by him from his Father's hands in his agony in the garden at Gethsemani…” (par. 612). This gift of Jesus—offering himself, his fears, and his horror of death—is a profound mystery, for it is bound up in mystery of the Incarnation. The second person of the Trinity, St. Paul states in today’s Epistle, had “emptied himself, taking the form of a slave” and had “humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death…” The first Adam had failed the test of love in the Garden of Eden when faced with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But the new Adam, whose sweat in the Garden of Gethsemani “became like drops of blood,” humbly embraced the torturous trial of the tree of Golgotha. The anguish endured in private prayer in the Garden would soon be a public lamentation: “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?”

The third gift is that of love, redemption, salvation, reconciliation. It is the gift of the Cross, the gift of the Incarnate Word who did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. “The shame of his passion was not the fruit of his own will,” wrote St. Cyril of Alexandria, “but he still consented to undergo it that he might save the earth.” Arms stretched wide, Jesus embraced the world. He embraced the thief, who asked to be remembered in Paradise. He embraced the centurion, who gloried God. He embraces each one of us as we kneel in silence and contemplate those humble words of trust and filial devotion: “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.”

Jesus, for many people, is in the way. But for those who gaze upon the gift of the Cross, Jesus is the Way. In the beautiful words of Claudel:

“There is no cross of our living where His body will not fit.
There is no sin of ours for which He has not a wound.”

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the March 28, 2010, edition of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

In Defense of Marriage

In Defense of Marriage | John S. Hamlon | Catholic World Report

Why natural law arguments for marriage—while very important—are not enough

H. L. Mencken—satirist, progressive, pseudo-misogynist, provocateur—wrote a book in 1918 called In Defense of Women.  Like an optical illusion, the title, depending on one’s focal point, can mean defending women or defending oneself from women. The irony is the initial hook. 

If the executive and judicial branches of the US Government have their way with traditional marriage, the phrase “in defense of marriage” will likewise have two possible slants: defending the marital union as designed by God in the beginning or defending oneself from marital unions as designed by federal authority. 

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The general purpose of DOMA was to cement, at the federal level, the traditional understanding of marriage. Why was that deemed necessary?

The seeds for DOMA were sown in 1993. Hawaii’s Supreme Court had ruled that limiting marriage to one man and one woman was probably unconstitutional (Baehr v. Miike). Immediately, there were those who anticipated trouble down the road. Indeed, they reasoned, if the Hawaiian legislature were to pass a same-sex marriage (SSM) law, the spores of that law could drift to other states by way of the Full Fair and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. 

That clause (c. 1789) states that “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” In short, what is legally binding in one state is legally binding in other states. If, therefore, a same-sex married couple moved from a state that sanctioned SSM to one that did not, the new state of residence would have to recognize the couple’s bond.       

Enter DOMA, which says that (1) no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state, and (2) the word “marriage,” for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States, means a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. 

DOMA does not restrict states from passing legislation for or against same-sex marriage. DOMA does prevent a same-sex couple who, married in a non-traditional marriage state, wants the same rights in a traditional marriage state. For the 31 states with constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and for the 11 additional states that define marriage as between one man and one woman, DOMA is, in effect, an interstate anti-bullying law.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

The Last of the Giants?

The Last of the Giants? | Carl E. Olson | Catholic World Report

It is too early to judge the pontificate of Benedict XVI, but Joseph Ratzinger's brilliance and holiness cannot be denied.

“Church as ours and ours alone is a pointless game in a sandbox.” — Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, 1970

This morning, as I watched live video of Pope Benedict XVI flying from the Vatican to the Castel Gandolfo, I felt, for the first time really, a deep sense of sadness. As the Holy Father stepped from the helicopter, his fatigue and frailty appeared quite obvious, even while his gaze seemed as focused and intent as ever. Then, a few moments later, he appeared on the balcony to make his final, brief address as pontiff.

“You know that today is different from others”, he said, “as of eight pm I will no longer be the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. I will simply be a pilgrim who is beginning the last part of his pilgrimage on earth.” Those familiar with the writings Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI will recall the collection of his essays, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion (Ignatius Press, 2005), presented to Cardinal Ratzinger on the occasion of his 75^th birthday. The title and subtitle captures, in just eight words, an essential focus of the thought and work of Ratzinger. In his final general audience, given two days ago, Benedict thanked those who had written him notes in recent weeks, reflecting on the meaning of those gestures of love and support:

In this you can touch what the Church is—not an organization, not an association for religious or humanitarian ends, but a living body, a communion of brothers and sisters in the Body of Jesus Christ who unites us all. Experiencing the Church in this way and being able to almost touch with our hands the strength of His truth and His love is a reason for joy at a time when many are speaking of its decline. See how the Church is alive today!

That passage came to mind as I watched the FOX broadcast of events at the Vatican and Castel Gandolfo. One of the reporters, who was obviously a Catholic, was asked a question about the heart of the Catholic Faith: what is it? She referenced the Church’s rich intellectual tradition and the Church’s stand for human rights, but she never mentioned the person of Jesus Christ. This stood out to me because Benedict himself, since announcing his resignation, has spoken several times about the relationship between Jesus Christ and his Church, a relationship that is all about a communion of life and love.

Perhaps the best example of this can be found in his lengthy and fascinating address to priests and clergy on February 14^th, a talk that might be described as a papal history of Vatican II:

Continue reading on the CWR site.

Garry Wills' sour screed against the priesthood

by Anne Hendershott | Catholic World Report blog

Review of Why Priests?  A Failed Tradition
By Gary Wills
New York: Viking Press, 2013.
302 pages.

It was no surprise to see Gary Wills’ op-ed on the upcoming papal conclave published in The New York Times, Wills has been a longtime critic of the Church and her leaders—so when he titled his opinion piece, “New Pope? I’ve Given Up Hope,” it was nothing new.  The author of the virulently anti-Catholic book, Papal Sin, Wills—a former Jesuit seminarian—gave up hope for the Church many years ago.  Now, in his new book, Why Priests? A Failed Tradition, we find that in addition to giving up hope, Wills has now given up his faith.  Denying the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the sacrificial interpretation of the Mass, and the salvific mission of Christ, Why Priests? argues for a “re-envisioning” of the Church which removes the distinction between the ordained and the laity.  Rather than lobbying for female priests, or gay priests, Wills chooses instead to do away entirely with apostolic succession and the God-given power of the priest to consecrate the Eucharist. 

Indeed, Wills’ hatred for priests and the priesthood is palpable on nearly every page of his angry polemic.  But it is difficult to understand the source of this hatred because his examples of “clerical privilege” are so silly.  For example, on page 31 we begin to get an idea of his early anger toward priests when he describes his days as a young golf caddie who had to give priests “special treatment” on the golf course: “Men already prepared to tee off let him go ahead of them. It was presumed he had to get back to his spiritual tasks.”  Wills also recalled that priests often abused parking rules: “once when a priest drove me to the airport to pick up a friend, he stopped in a no-parking area just outside the entry…he told me he had a clerical sticker on his car.” (p 31)

So why did Wills enter the seminary and stay for five years if he had such hostility for the priesthood?

Continue reading on the CWR blog.

Related articles

The Eternal Priesthood of Jesus Christ

"The Crisis of Faith" by Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

New: "A Sense of the Sacred: Roman Catholic Worship In The Middle Ages"

Now available from Ignatius Press:

A Sense of the Sacred: Roman Catholic Worship In The Middle Ages

by James Monti

This incomparable volume presents a comprehensive exploration and explanation of medieval liturgical celebrations. The reverent prayers, hymns and rubrics used in the Middle Ages are described in detail and interpreted through the commentary of scholars from the same time period, the era which is also known as the "Age of Faith".

Collected here is a wide range of ceremonies, encompassing the seven sacraments, the major feasts of the liturgical year (such as Christmas, Easter, and Corpus Christi), and special liturgical rites (from the coronation of the pope to the blessing of expectant mothers). The sacred celebrations have been drawn from countries across western and central Europe-from Portugal to Poland-but particular attention has been given to liturgical texts of medieval Spain, which until now have received relatively little attention from scholars.

Historian James Monti has done exhaustive research on medieval liturgical manuscripts, early printed missals, and the writings of medieval liturgists and theologians so that the treasures they contain can inspire a sense of the sacred in future generations of Catholics.

James Monti is an author and historian who has contributed numerous articles to Catholic publications, including the monthly missal Magnificat. His other books include The King's Good Servant But God's First: The Life & Writings of St. Thomas More, The Week of Salvation and In the Presence of Our Lord.

"James Monti's treatise is an astonishing achievement, a book that can and will shape a new generation of intellectuals who are serious about the Catholic liturgy. Despite the title, this book is not only about medieval liturgy. It's about inspiring the creation of, and the provision of access to, truly sacred spaces in our time, even in a world that seems so barren of them. My own special interest is in Gregorian chant, but Monti's book helps broaden the picture to include a spiritual panorama of extraordinary breadth and depth. We have so much to learn from the past and so much to work toward for a bright and beautiful future of recaptured truth. "
- Jeffrey Tucker, Managing Editor, Sacred Music

"Among the ambiguous legacy of the Liturgical Movement of the twentieth century is the neglect and incomprehension of medieval liturgy. This book is a welcome contribution towards redressing this imbalance. James Monti recovers the tradition of mystical commentary on the sacred rites, a common heritage of East and West, and enriches it with his vast historical erudition. This volume will serve as a useful resource for anyone who wishes to enter into the spirit of the liturgy that shaped a millennium of Christian history." 
- Fr Uwe Michael Lang, Cong.Orat., Author, Turning Towards the Lord

"James Monti's profound faith and incomparable scholarship shine in A Sense of the Sacred. This beautiful book, packed with amazing details and fascinating facts, makes the mystical richness of the Church's sacraments and sacred rituals come alive. One is struck with awe at the wonder of Catholic worship. This remarkable volume is clearly the fruit of one who deeply loves the liturgy and lives the mystery."
- Fr. Peter Cameron, O.P., Editor of Magnificat

Hastening the Reform of the Reform; or, the End of Clown Masses

Hastening the Reform of the Reform; or, the End of Clown Masses | Joanna Bogle | Catholic World Report

A new book on Latin and the liturgy stresses the importance of continuity, not contentious campaigning.

The Incarnation did not happen silently. The Angel Gabriel spoke to Mary, and she heard and responded. There were actual words, a dialogue using voices.

In the very beginning of all things, God used words. He spoke, and things came into being: “Let there be light.” And Christ is the eternal Word, the Word made flesh who came to dwell among us. At every Mass, the priest uses words, Christ’s own words, and Christ comes to dwell among us: the Word made flesh.

The gift of speech is one of God’s greatest gifts to us: the gift of languages is one of the things that makes us different from the rest of God’s creation, that distinguishes us as human beings and reminds us that we are made in the image of God.

In recent decades, especially in the English-speaking world, the words used in the Church’s sacred liturgy have been miserably inadequate for the glory of their task. Of course, the words have fulfilled their required purpose—as a bleak, ill-decorated church is adequate for Mass and provides protection from the weather for the Holy Sacrifice. But the very nature of the Mass, and the nature of human beings created to worship God, requires something better than that.

Now Father Uwe Michael Lang has examined all of this in a readable book exploring the subject of words, language, and liturgy. The Voice of the Church at Prayer: Reflections on Liturgy and Language (Ignatius, 2012) could not have come at a more opportune time: the new Mass translation—already it does not feel so new—is in use in parishes across the English-speaking world, the “reform of the reform” is well under way, the debates and discussions over liturgy have matured and are better informed than for many years passed, and the younger generation of priests is one that seeks authenticity, reverence, and beauty in the celebration of the sacred mysteries.

Continue reading this review on the CWR site.

What Evangelicals Can Learn From Catholics

What Evangelicals Can Learn From Catholics | Joseph Pavicic | Homiletic & Pastoral Review

The biggest thing that Evangelicals can learn from Catholics is how to worship … liturgy, when celebrated reverently, can also give worshipers a connection to the sacred that is just not available through the type of worship service … in Evangelical churches.

Several years ago, I wrote an article for HPR entitled: “What Catholics Can Learn from Evangelicals.” I argued that Evangelical Protestant churches do a better job of teaching Scripture to their congregations than most Catholic parishes. Evangelicals are also more comfortable with evangelizing their neighbors than are Catholics. These remain areas where the Catholics can learn to improve by emulating their Evangelical brethren. However, Evangelicals also have a lot to learn from Catholics.

The idea of Evangelicals learning from Catholics is not really a novel one. Many Evangelical missionaries study the history of Catholic missions to improve the effectiveness of their own missionary activity. Some Evangelicals, obeying St. Paul’s dictum to “test everything; hold on to what is good,” even study the writings of John Paul II on the theology of the body. But during the Evangelical heyday of the 1980s, it was possible for Evangelicals to view the Catholic Church as similar to the mainline Protestant churches—as an institution that was waning in influence. There was little reason to learn from a church that looked like it was losing relevance.

The intervening years, however, have shown that the Catholic Church did not suffer the same fate as the mainline Protestant denominations. Under the leadership of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the Church was able to eliminate much of the confusion that prevailed in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. Rather than becoming irrelevant, the Catholic Church has continued to boldly proclaim the uncompromising Christian message to a culture that is increasingly hostile to Christian beliefs. Under these circumstances, it makes sense for Evangelicals to view Catholics as allies. Although there are many treasures within the Catholic Church, the two that Evangelicals might find most beneficial are liturgical worship and an emphasis on unity.

Liturgical Worship
The biggest thing that Evangelicals can learn from Catholics is how to worship.

Continue reading at www.HPRweb.com.

Portland’s new archbishop: “I’m a teacher at heart”

Portland’s new archbishop: “I’m a teacher at heart” | Jim Graves | Catholic World Report

Archbishop-elect Sample discusses the liturgy, sex abuse scandals, social media, and more.

Archbishop-elect Alexander Sample, 52, will be installed as the 11th archbishop of Portland, Oregon on April 2, succeeding the Most Reverend John Vlazny.  

Archbishop-elect Sample was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Marquette, located on the upper peninsula of Michigan, in 1990. He was consecrated Marquette’s bishop in 2006. At the time of his episcopal ordination, he was the youngest Catholic bishop in the US, and the first to be born in the 1960s.

Sample was born in Montana and grew up in Las Vegas, Nevada, and attended Catholic schools there. Although he had thought about a vocation to the priesthood while growing up, he initially decided to pursue a career in engineering. He earned his BS and MS degrees in engineering before opting to go to seminary.

As a priest, he served in a variety of diocesan roles, including acting simultaneously as pastor of three small parishes. The Diocese of Marquette serves 50,000 Catholics, and has 55 active diocesan and religious order priests. The Archdiocese of Portland, by contrast, has 415,000 Catholics and 294 priests (including retired priests). It encompasses western Oregon.

Sample is known for his orthodoxy and fondness for a more traditional liturgy. And, according Marquette’s Director of Communications Loreene Koskey, Archbishop-elect Sample is “personable, intelligent, well-spoken, and likes to meet and talk with people.” She added that the promotion of Pope Benedict’s New Evangelization has been a hallmark of Archbishop-elect Sample’s episcopacy.  

Sample recently spoke to CWR.

CWR: Were you surprised to discover that you’d been named archbishop of Portland?

Sample: Yes. The appointment of bishops is a process that is carried out in strict confidentiality. I had no idea I was being considered for Portland; the nuncio’s call to me informing me I had hit me out of the blue. It was quite a shock; it seems a little surreal.

It’s going to be a huge change, not only geographically but in terms of added responsibility. But I’m also excited. I’m inspired by challenges.

It is going to be hard to say goodbye to Marquette. It’s my home. I’ve served here 22 years as a priest, and seven as a bishop. I’m not an emotional person, but saying goodbye will be emotional.

CWR: Before your appointment, had you ever been to Portland before?

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Sacramental Social Doctrine

Sacramental Social Doctrine | William L. Patenaude | Catholic World Report

Authentic Catholic endeavors for social justice must be rooted in the sacramental presence of Jesus Christ.

In their elusive quest for social justice, civil authorities have over the centuries learned much from the Church. As a result, a great many forms of state-sponsored welfare—especially in the growing liberality of the West—are a testament to the two-thousand-year presence of the Gospel and the outpouring of grace in the seven sacraments.

Modern social activists have largely forgotten this. Indeed, the idea that the Church is responsible for the West’s charitable genetic code is unintelligible for many.

This amnesia is a threat to social cohesion and to the state’s desire to attain what is right and just. In forgetting the role Christianity, the West not only forgets its identity but also its strength. Thus it will fail to achieve such goals as universal health care, expansive forms of welfare, and the moral foundations that make civilization possible. In time, as state-mandated compassion meets its limits (financial and otherwise), civil authorities must and will conclude—either through reason or empirical evidence—that governments can only do so much when they actively restrict the presence of God.

The state seeks social and civil justice primarily through the passing and enforcing of laws. In contrast, the Church speaks in her catechism of proposing principles for reflection; providing criteria for judgment; and offering guidelines for action (§2423). The Church does not dictate particular political or social policies. Rather, she hopes to baptize people and cultures in two ways: with the offering of her teachings and with the grace of God.

When we consider the former, the relationship between the Church’s social doctrines and society has a sacramental character—a relation that seeks not to destroy the nature of human cultures and start from scratch, but to challenge, engage, and, hopefully, elevate them.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

 

The USCCB files amicus brief in Supreme Court supporting DOMA, Prop. 8

From Sister Mary Ann Walsh, for the USCCB:

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on January 29 filed amicus briefs in the United States Supreme Court in support of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8, both of which  confirm the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

DOMA was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996 and defines marriage for federal and inter-state recognition purposes. Proposition 8 is a state constitutional amendment approved by the citizens of California in 2008. Both laws are challenged because they define marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman.

Urging the Court to uphold DOMA, the USCCB brief in United States v. Windsor says that “there is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex.” The brief also states that “as defined by courts ‘sexual orientation’ is not a classification that should trigger heightened scrutiny,” such as race or ethnicity would.

It added that “civil recognition of same-sex relationships is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition—quite the opposite is true. Nor can the treatment of such relationships as marriages be said to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.”

USCCB argued that previous Supreme Court decisions “describing marriage as a fundamental right plainly contemplate the union of one man and one woman.”

The USCCB also cautioned that a decision invalidating DOMA “would have adverse consequences in other areas of law.”

In a separate brief filed in Hollingsworth v Perry urging the Court to uphold Proposition 8, the USCCB states that there are many reasons why the state may reasonably support and encourage marriage, understood as the union of one man and one woman, as distinguished from other relationships. Government support for marriage, so understood, is “recognizing the unique capacity of opposite-sex couples to procreate” and “the unique value to children of being raised by their mother and father together.”

The USCCB brief states that “[T]he People of California could reasonably conclude that a home with a mother and a father is the optimal environment for raising children, an ideal that Proposition 8 encourages and promotes. Given both the unique capacity for reproduction and unique value of homes with a mother and father, it is reasonable for a State to treat the union of one man and one woman as having a public value that is absent from other intimate interpersonal relationships.”

The USCCB brief adds that “While this Court has held that laws forbidding private, consensual, homosexual conduct between adults lack a rational basis, it does not follow that the government has a constitutional duty to encourage or endorse such conduct. Thus, governments may legitimately decide to further the interests of opposite-sex unions only. Similarly, minimum standards of rationality under the Constitution do not require adopting the lower court’s incoherent definition of ‘marriage’ as merely a ‘committed lifelong relationship,’ which is wildly over-inclusive, empties the term of its meaning, and leads to absurd results.”

“Marriage, understood as the union of one man and one woman, is not an historical relic, but a vital and foundational institution of civil society today,” the USCCB brief states. “The government interests in continuing to encourage and support it are not merely legitimate, but compelling. No other institution joins together persons with the natural ability to have children, to assure that those children are properly cared for. No other institution ensures that children will at least have the opportunity of being raised by their mother and father together. Societal ills that flow from the dissolution of marriage and family would not be addressed—indeed, they would only be aggravated—were the government to fail to reinforce the union of one man and one woman with the unique encouragement and support it deserves.”

The USCCB brief also notes that “Proposition 8 is not rendered invalid because some of its supporters were informed by religious or moral considerations. Many, if not most, of the significant social and political movements in our Nation’s history were based on precisely such considerations.  Moreover, the argument to redefine marriage to include the union of persons of the same sex is similarly based on a combination of religious and moral considerations (albeit ones that are, in our view, flawed).  As is well established in this Court’s precedent, the coincidence of law and morality, or law and religious teaching, does not detract from the rationality of a law.”

USCCB notes that a judicial decision invalidating Proposition 8’s definition of marriage would have adverse consequences in other areas of law.

“[R]edefining marriage—particularly as a matter of constitutional law, rather than legislative process—not only threatens principles of federalism and separation of powers, but would have a widespread adverse impact on other constitutional rights, such as the freedoms of religion, conscience, speech, and association.  Affirmance of the judgment below would create an engine of conflict in this area, embroiling this Court and lower courts in a series of otherwise avoidable disputes—pitting constitutional right squarely against constitutional right—for years to come.”

Cana, Signs, and Sacraments

A Scriptural Reflection on the Readings for Sunday, January 20, 2013 | Carl E. Olson

Readings:
• Is 62:1-5
• Ps 96:1-2, 2-3, 7-8, 9-10
• 1 Cor 12:4-11
• Jn 2:1-11

The Gospel of John contains some seventeen direct references to signs (semeia), which is St. John’s term for the miraculous deeds of Jesus. St. John is especially interested in how these various signs are manifestations of God’s new and transforming intervention in human history through the Word, the Logos. His Gospel is a profound reflection on the fact and mystery that God became man and dwelt among us, “full of grace and truth” (see Jn 1:1-14). 

Chapters 2 through 12 of John’s Gospel are sometimes called collectively “The Book of Signs,” for they contain seven signs, or miracles, performed by Christ. These signs include the healing of the official’s son (Jn 4), the healing of the paralytic (Jn 5), the multiplication of the loaves (Jn 6), walking on water (Jn 6), the restoration of the blind man (Jn 9), and the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11).

The first sign, however, is the miracle at the wedding at Cana, proclaimed in today’s Gospel, which is found only in the Fourth Gospel. The exact location of Cana is unclear, but it was probably just a few miles north of Nazareth. The identity of the bride and groom are unknown, although a later tradition from about the third century states that Mary was the aunt of the bridegroom.

What is known, for it forms the crux of the story, is that something embarrassing had taken place: the wedding party ran out of wine. Mary, ever attentive to the needs of others, intercedes on behalf of the bride and groom, telling her son, “They have no wine.” She prays—that is, entreats—in faith, for the needs of those gathered for the feast. This foreshadows her prayers, as “Mother of all the living” and Mother of the Church, at the foot of the Cross, the saving way to the marriage feast of the Lamb (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2618, 1335, 963).

Jesus’ response is puzzling, perhaps even perplexing: “Woman, how does your concern affect me?” But the term “Woman” is not an insult, as some have argued incorrectly; it is actually a formal title of respect (cf. Matt 15:28). What is unusual is how Jesus, in speaking to his mother, uses the term without any qualifier. It indicates a changed relationship between son and mother (cf. Jn 19:26). Further, in using it, Jesus identifies Mary as the new Eve, whose obedience and faith will be an essential part of the new creation and a new family, the Church.

Jesus stated that his hour—the time of his passion, death, resurrection, and ascension (Jn 13:1)—had not yet arrived. Mary does not question him, or protest. Her words to the servers are words of invitation to all of us: “Do whatever he tells you.” She trusts her son, knowing he will do what is right and necessary. “The Mother of Christ presents herself as the spokeswoman of her Son's will,” observed Blessed John Paul II in Redemptoris Mater, “pointing out those things which must be done so that the salvific power of the Messiah may be manifested. At Cana, thanks to the intercession of Mary and the obedience of the servants, Jesus begins ‘his hour.’” (par 21).

The Church sees the miracle at Cana as a “confirmation of the goodness of marriage” (CCC 1613). But there is also a connection to baptism, for the jars used in the miracle were for ceremonial washings, for ritual purification from defilement. In the waters of baptism, we are cleansed by God’s grace and transformed by his power. Through baptism we become members of the Church, the bride of Christ, and are invited to partake of the blood of the bridegroom (CCC 1335).

“Now we all partake at the banquet in the church,” wrote the sixth-century saint, Romanus Melodus, “For Christ’s blood is changed into wine/And we drink it with holy joy/Praising the great bridegroom.”

First water, then wine; first baptism, then Eucharist. By these sacraments, perceptible signs, we are changed, cleansed, fed—and wed.

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the January 17, 2010, edition of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

Related articles

You are Who you eat: "Let Christ be eaten..."

The Shock of the Blessed Sacrament

The Food that Endures for Eternal Life

Doctrine, Dissent, and the Eucharist

Church Fathers answer the question, "Why did Jesus insist on being baptized?"

A Scriptural Reflection on the Readings for January 13, 2013, the Baptism of the Lord | Carl E. Olson

Readings:
• Is 42:1-4, 6-7 or Is 40:1-5, 9-11
• Ps 29:1-2, 3-4, 3, 9-10 or Ps 104:1b-2, 3-4, 24-25, 27-28, 29-30
• Acts 10:34-38 or Or Ti 2:11-14; 3:4-7
• Lk 3:15-16, 21-22

If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, why did Jesus insist on being baptized by his cousin, John? And if baptism, as St. Peter wrote, “now saves you … through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 3:21), why would the Messiah deem it appropriate, even necessary, to be baptized? What, was the point of the Lord’s baptism in the Jordan River?

These and related questions fascinated and perplexed many of the early Church fathers and theologians. The baptism of Christ, writes Fr. Kilian McDonnell, O.S.B., in his study of the topic, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan: The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (The Liturgical Press, 1996), “was widely discussed in all the currents of theological reflection” in the early Church, “without doubt partly because of the problems it posed.” From this discussion emerged many helpful theological insights.

St. Justin Martyr (d. 165), one of the first great apologists, addressed the baptism in his Dialogue with Trypho. He emphasized that the Son had no need to be baptized—just as he had no need to be born, to suffer, or die—but did so in order to reveal himself to mankind; the baptism, in other words, was the messianic manifestation, a sign for the Church first, and then the world. When Jesus came to the waters, St. Justin wrote, “He was deemed a carpenter,” but the proclamation of the Father and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove showed him to be far more than a mere worker of wood.

In his famous work, Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus (d. c. 202) focused on the participation of those who believe in Christ in the anointing of the Savior. The connection between the baptism and anointing—itself an essential Messianic concept—is already evident in the New Testament, as heard in today’s reading from the Acts of the Apostles: “…how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power.” This same anointing, St. Irenaeus wrote, is given to those who are baptized into Christ. The Holy Spirit, having descended upon the Son, has become “accustomed in fellowship with Him to dwell in the human race, to rest with human beings, and to dwell in the workmanship of God, working the will of the Father in them, and renewing them from their old habits into the newness of Christ.”

Others delved into the mystery and meaning of the Jordan River, which was already, at the time of Christ, the site of many key events in the history of Israel. St. Hippolytus (d. c. 236) referred to “the Grand Jordan”; Origen (d. 254) wrote that just as “no one is good, except the one only God, the Father,” likewise “no river is good except the Jordan.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (d. c. 394), in his treatise, On the Baptism of Jesus, wrote, “For Jordan alone of rivers, receiving in itself the first-fruits of sanctification and benediction, conveyed in its channel to the whole world, as it were from some fount in the type afforded by itself, the grace of Baptism.” Just as Joshua had entered the Promised Land by crossing the Jordan, Jesus opened the way to heaven by entering and dividing the same waters.

St. Ephrem (d. 373) wrote a beautiful hymn in which he connected the baptism of Jesus with the womb of Mary and the sacrament of the Eucharist: “See, Fire and Spirit in the womb that bore you! See, Fire and Spirit in the river where you were baptized! Fire and Spirit in our Baptism; in the Bread and the Cup, Fire and Holy Spirit!” Christ, the Light of the World, dwelt first in the womb of the Virgin—who was thus “baptized” by her Son—and then in the womb of the Jordan; he emerged from both as the Incarnate Word, the Savior of mankind. Those who are baptized thus become the children of Mary and partakers of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of her Son.

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the January 10, 2010, edition of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)