PACHAMAMA AND FRATELLI TUTTI

 Singing from the same song sheet

October Surprises

For the last two years, October 4^th, the feast day of St. Francis of Assisi, has been the source of controversies surrounding the saint’s namesake, Pope Francis.

In 2019, it was on this date that Pope Francis was present at a tree-planting ceremony involving the so-called Pachamama statues in the Vatican gardens. Although it was dubbed by the Vatican as a consecration of the Synod for the Amazon to St. Francis of Assisi, some Catholics, accused the Pope of promoting a pagan ceremony and pagan statues in the Vatican.  This year, it is on the eve of this same date that the Pope is signing a new encyclical entitled FratelliTutti, in Assisi itself.  Although its subject matter is fraternity and social friendship, this time round the accusation is that the chosen title of this document is exclusive and sexist, since its title on the surface translates to “All Brothers” and therefore excludes women.

I would like to suggest a different frame of reference that allows us to see both actions in a different light.  I propose that when these actions are seen through lens of benignity rather than suspicion, through the lens of universality rather than uniformity, the charges of idolatry and misogyny cannot be sustained.

Benignity: a hermeneutic of trust

In the section on the eighth commandment regarding the use of speech, the Catechism enjoins the Catholic to use the principle of benignity.  According to this principle, “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way."  The Catechism goes on to ask that “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. . ..” (CCC 2478).  Surely such benignity, required of our dealings which each other, is a fortiori required where the Holy Father is involved.

And so, before rushing to the conclusion that there is something rotten in the state of the Vatican, one should first attempt to seek out any benign interpretations.  Particularly for the Pachamama saga, such benignity is needed given that most of us have limited knowledge about the Amazon, its peoples, its culture and rituals, including even the Catholic ones.  It is such openness that allowed people to view Pope John Paul II presiding over similar proceedings, without much ado.

Moreover, it is more likely that a pope who preaches regularly against idolatry would not then go ahead to promote it!  Similarly, a Pope who has spoken about and also made significant overt efforts to bring about a greater role for women in the Church could not willingly and knowingly promote the patriarchy in his use of the title Fratelli Tutti. 

One possible explanation would then be that the Holy Father did not do these things knowingly and willingly.  For the Pachamama event, one could say that he did not know initially know what was going to take place and was duped by his staff.  Some have suggested that the Holy Father's initial reaction to the garden ceremony was probably one of discomfort; that is probably why he decided only to pray the Our Father and not give any remarks.  But this explanation is undermined by the fact that when the Pope did later apologize, it was not for the presence of the Pachamama figurines and but for their theft.  Clearly then for the Pope Francis, there was nothing particularly unorthodox about the tree-planting ceremony or about the statues.  And as for the offending title of the encyclical, despite opposition to it (particularly from the English-speaking world), he is pushing forward full steam ahead and leaving it as it is.  Therefore, another explanation has to be found.

Many more capable writers than I have provided explanations that address directly the charges of idolatry, even showing references to Pachamama by Pope John Paul II.  Similar explanations have been made for the Fratelli Tutti saga.  For my part, I find a viable explanation in the Holy Father’s cultural background and attitude to the universality of the Church for his seeming nonchalant and even stubborn refusal to see these actions as anything but kosher, halal or simply Catholic.

Universality: a unity in diversity

When we profess in the Creed to believe in “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church” the first and third words, one and Catholic are seemingly contradictory.  Whereas “one” speaks of unity, “Catholic” speaks of universality.  But this is only an apparent contradiction, for Catholic unity is not a uniformity but a universality, a unity that simultaneously consists of diversity.

Legitimate diversity: “We are one in the Spirit”

Unfortunately, today the word “diversity” is sometimes seen as a bad word, thanks to its abuse by some.  But since the abuse of a thing does not take away its use, the Holy Father continues to sustain the legitimacy of diversity in the Catholic Church.  It is not a case of promoting relativism here or subjecting the gospel to culture.

As the Holy Father explained in his 2013 Pentecost homily: “Only the Spirit can awaken diversity, plurality and multiplicity, while at the same time building unity.”  He went on to describe two extremes: the first one is “when we are the ones who try to create diversity and close ourselves up in what makes us different and other, we bring division”; this is not the legitimate diversity he is seeking.  The other extreme is “When we are the ones who want to build unity in accordance with our human plans, we end up creating uniformity, standardization”; this too is not the legitimate unity he is seeking. “But if instead we let ourselves be guided by the Spirit, richness, variety and diversity never become a source of conflict, because he impels us to experience variety within the communion of the Church. Journeying together in the Church, under the guidance of her pastors who possess a special charism and ministry, is a sign of the working of the Holy Spirit.”

Thus, the principles and the demands of the gospel are always objective and apply to all situations and circumstances.  Thus, idolatry and sexism are always wrong, the primacy of God and the equality of sexes is always a good thing.  But the practice and the concrete cases of idolatry and sexism, or their opposite values, are often going to take different forms depending on the circumstances and cultures.

Overcoming Cultural Dissonance: “et . . . et,” not “aut . . . aut”

Pope Francis is uniquely suited to understand this Catholic unity in diversity given his background.  Of European Italian heritage, he is also fully Latin American in culture, without any debilitating dissonance in him.  For he is perfectly at home in those two worlds, perhaps even more so as his travels around the globe have shown.  He does not see Catholicity as being incarnated only in one culture, and certainly not just in the older Euro-centric culture.  But like the Lord instructed his disciples, the gospel has been taken to the ends of the earth and incarnated there as well.

For the sake of full disclosure, I have to admit that my cosmopolitan background has gradually formed me to be quite comfortable with diversity, albeit with some challenges.   I must admit that I was a little uncomfortable to see the tree planting ritual in the Vatican; it was strange, different, something that I don’t usually see.  This discomfort reminded me of my experiences in my home country of Uganda when I travelled away from home and saw other tribes, other Catholics, doing things differently and wondering why they didn’t do things as we did at home.

Coming to the USA to study as a young seminarian in the 1990s would bring its share of culture shocks, even within the Church.  I was surprised to see the rather short one-hour Mass, women wearing trousers at Mass, a paid and professional parish staff.  Years later, studying in Italy for four years would also bring some cultural challenges, such as seeing the effigies of saints in glass coffins under altars, the frightening artwork and beasts, some of the paraphernalia at the various shrines dedicated to the Blessed Mother. And yet all these were bona fide Catholic rites and images from the old Catholic world.  A quarter of a century later, I still feel a bit of disagio when attending prayer services involving the flag ceremony such as on Veterans Day, since I come from a culture that has a different relationship with its national symbols and the military.

What these various experiences of cultural unease have taught me is that just because I do not understand fully what is going on, just because I see things from my particular cultural lens, does not give me a reason to jump to conclusions of Voodoo.  I believe I am able to do this because, like the Holy Father, I appreciate the possibility of legitimate cultural diversity.

Pachamama: A case of inculturation?

The Amazonian Culture: A Civilization

Besides their novelty, the Amazonian ceremony and figurines also suffered from the specific deficit of provenance, because they come from a non-European civilization.  Certain definitions of civilization, which focus on urbanisation, have tended to denigrate cultures that did not develop around cities.  This has led some to even deny that they are civilizations at all.  As a result, many Native American, Latin American, African, Oceanic and even the far more ancient Asian cultures have been denied the characteristic of civilisation.  This mindset therefore sees such cultures as getting on the path to civilization only if they follow the trajectory of Western world.  Their only contribution is that these cultures have sociological and anthropological value as sources for a kind of cultural archaeology, of what the Western society was like in the past.

Unfortunately, this paternalist attitude towards other cultures also obtains in the Church.  Although many of the contemporary Catholic practices and customs are the products of contributions from various cultures over our 2000-year history, some think that the canon of cultural inculturation is closed.  Perhaps the only contributions allowed from the newer cultures are exotic presentations put on every now and then such as African dances, Asian dragon dances, colourful vestments etc, but nothing fundamental to what it means to be a Catholic.  Such “allowed” activities have only the same entertainment value that dinner at an ethnic restaurant provides, but they don’t become part of the normal fare for the universal Church, and sometimes not even for that part of the Church.  Contributions to the Catholic Church are seen as being one-way, from the Euro-centric world and Church, to the primitive peoples.  And yet the Church's modus operandi throughout our history has been to take what is good from cultures and adopt and adapt it to the gospel.

Interestingly, even some of those who attempted to defend the Pachamama rituals failed miserably because they did so from their particular Euro-centric frame of reference.  They suggested that those figurines were Amazonian versions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the so-called “Our Lady of the Amazon.”  But the official Vatican responses rejected this explanation outrightly, instead referring to the images as representations of life.  What these more-Francis than Pope Francis types were doing was failing to see that non-Western cultures have their own ways of doing things, of being Catholic, that do not necessarily need to ape the Western ones.

Legitimate Inculturation: New Wine in New Wineskins

Not every figurine of a woman at a Catholic ceremony has to be that of the Blessed Mother, even though she has been depicted in various cultures.  In what is a universal Catholic Church, there can exist rituals that are sui iuris, that are not merely a copy of something Western.  Here I can think of the Mexican rituals of quinceañera and Día de los Muertos or the Ugandan Last funeral rites rituals.  Naturally, like many other devotions and para-liturgical activities, these kinds of rituals don’t tend to become part of the universal Church, instead becoming a part of the local Church's liturgical and prayer life.  That is why it is possible

that a culture that has not yet abandoned its ties to the natural world might have Catholic “nature” rituals and devotions, which more industrialized cultures do not.  Perhaps such an event is something the new world can teach the old, because new world has a greater respect for the sacred than the old, and at its best has a better integration of the sacred and the profane world.

The Pachamama ceremony is a good example of where an ordinary (profane or non-sacred) activity like planting crops, caring for nature is also simultaneously imbued with sacred significance, since the success of these activities does not rely on man's intervention (e.g. artificial irrigation) but on factors beyond man’s control, and therefore can be attributed to divine providence.  That is why I can see how a ritual involving a veneration of the Earth could be Christianized, since what it celebrates is not inconsistent with the Church’s approach to the stewardship of the earth and divine lordship over it.  On the other hand, if the meaning of this ritual were to instead imply that the earth is herself a sacred deity to be worshipped and appeased rather than a creation of the all-good, all-powerful God, then we would rightly cry foul!  However, no evidence has been proffered that this is the case.  It was perhaps such a message that Pope Saint John Paul II taught when he spoke to the peasants of Bolivia in 1988 about their agricultural work. He said "This is the work of God, who knows that we need the food that the earth produces, that varied and expressive reality that your ancestors called the 'Pachamama' and that reflects the work of divine Providence by offering us His gifts for the good of man."

My own experience in Uganda gives some foundation in this regard.  The Catholic missionaries in Uganda adapted the previously non-Christian practices regarding agriculture, particularly harvesting rituals, and re-directed the native appreciation of the transcendent towards Jesus Christ; thus even today, the Church has rituals regarding the first harvest of crops.  Is that not what St. Paul himself did when he spoke to the Athenians at the Aeropagus (Acts 17:22-34)?

Fratelli Tutti: Lost in Translation

The more recent Fratelli Tutti kerfuffle perhaps also arises from a particular cultural perspective used to see it.  For most of the complaints about the title come from the Anglophone world, where the older practice of using the masculine gender for the generic has all but disappeared.

One of my vivid memories from my Italian language classes in the Italian region of Umbria was the lesson on the inclusive masculine grammatical gender.  Our characteristically animated and young Italian teacher, Signorina Margherita, explained that if you entered a room and there were ninety-nine women and one man, you should say “Signori” (the masculine “gentlemen”).  Many of us coming from the English-speaking couldn’t believe her until her equally very Italian colleague, Signorina Barbara, confirmed that masculine nouns like Uomini and Signori and corresponding pronouns could also apply to groups that contained both sexes.  (Interestingly, the formal “You” uses the feminine pronoun Lei for either sex).

But this feature is not just unique to Italian; it is found in Romance languages and other languages as well.  The most recent Spanish translation of the Roman Missal for the USA translates the Latin Fratres as Hermanos (which, while it literally translates to “Brothers,” also includes both men and women).  Similarly, the Swahili Missal also says Ndugu and the Luganda Missal says Aboluganda, both “masculine” words intending to include both men and women.  Ironically the latest Italian translation of the Roman Missal has adopted the Anglophone usage and translated Fratres as Fratelli e sorrelle (“brothers and sisters).

Nevertheless, I submit that Pope Francis, choosing to maintain the Italian phrase Fratelli Tutti, to quote St. Francis of Assisi (Ammonizioni, 6), intends to respect not just the grammatical but also the cultural norms of the Italian language, particularly at the time of its authorship.  It is incumbent upon us who read him, or even those who translate his work into other languages, to adjust our cultural lenses accordingly.  On his part, perhaps being equally sensitive to the diversity that exists in the world, has asked that in translating the encyclical, those two words, Fratelli Tutti, be left untranslated, just like he did for another St. Francis phrase Laudato Sì.

I regularly have to exercise cultural transitions between celebrating Mass in English, my primary language, and the others languages of Latin, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, (and various Ugandan languages.)  Particularly because English is a Germanic language, albeit with a heavy dose of Latin and French influence, I cannot apply its rules to the Romance languages.  Even within these languages, which are practically sister-languages (not brother-languages) to each other, and daughter languages (not son-languages) to Latin, I have to respect their unique features.

For example, when it comes to pronunciation, I cannot always apply the rules of Latin to Italian since the latter does not have “J” but uses “G,” such as in the words Gesù instead of Iesus.  I also have to be careful when pronouncing “c” as Italian and Spanish do so differently like in the word sacrificio, and do so differently for “gn” as in the words degnamente and dignamente in Italian and Spanish respectively.  My forays into Portuguese, in which I am least competent, throw some curveballs my way, where Jesus is pronounced differently than its Spanish counterpart Jesù, but dignamente is identical to the Italian.

Similarly, I have to be more attentive to the so-called false friends words which look like each other and therefore can lure one into complacency, but are quite different in meaning.  For example, guardare means “to guard” in Italian, but guardar means “to watch” in Spanish; sembrare means “to resemble” in Italian, but sembrar means “to sow” in Spanish; pronto means “ready” in Italian but means “soon” in Spanish.  Similarly, the Portuguese and Spanish words embaraçada and embarazada respectively can be a cause for embarrassment, since the former means “embarrassed” while the latter means “pregnant;” similar confusion can be caused by the nearly identical Portuguese and Spanish words, esquisita and exquisita, with the former meaning ”weird” and the latter meaning “exquisite”; when you are invited for cena in Spain, it is for supper, but in Portuguese cena is a scene.

In conclusion, if such cultural navigation is needed for words in languages that belong to the same Romance and Latin group, how much more openness to diversity is needed for culturally and historically-contextualized phrases like Fratelli Tutti? 

This grammar lesson aside, those who actually read the document will be pleasantly surprised that any fears about excluding women are unfounded, since the document starting from the very first document speaks to and of brothers and sisters, men and women and women's rights.  

One gospel in a diversity of tongues

I am not unmindful of the genuine disquiet that such actions by the Holy Father or by other Catholics might engender in some people.  What I have tried to offer is a different way of looking at them, particularly through the lens of benignity and Catholicity.

Benignity is not only an injunction of the eighth commandment of the Decalogue, but it is also a filial duty towards one’s natural Papà, and our spiritual Papa.  It is a duty grounded in charity towards one another, but especially towards finding the truth under the guidance of the successor of the one who the Lord appointed head of the Church and commanded: “feed my lambs, . . .  tend my sheep, . . . feed my sheep” (Jn. 21:15-17). He also told him, “strengthen your brethren” (Lk, 22:32).

As for Catholicity, it is true that few people get the opportunity to acquire its lens by sheer force of exposure to diversity.  And yet diversity is in the very DNA of the Catholic Church and so is openness to it.  Starting on Pentecost day, the people listening to the first Pope, Peter wondered how they could hear the gospel each “in his own native language” despite the fact that they were “Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs” (Acts 2:7-11).  From that day until today, wherever it has been planted, the Church has continued to live out this diversity. 

That is why I am ready to believe that the garden-planting ceremony and the Pachamama artefacts used therein in October 2019 were not a case of idolatry, but a case of Amazonian Catholics being Catholic in their own way.  That is why I am ready to believe that the Pope’s use of the phrase Fratelli Tutti in October 2020 is not an exclusion of women, but simply a Franciscan way of addressing his brothers and sisters about “a love that transcends the barriers of geography and distance. . ..” (Fratelli Tutti, #1).

Homily Ordinary 27A: The Lord is both just and merciful

Homily for 27^th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A 2020

Isaiah 5:1-7; Philippians 4:6-9 · Matthew 21:33-43

Introduction

I once saw a T-shirt that said, “When mummy says ‘No,’ Call 1-800-GRANDMA.” Now as you can tell from my accent I am not from around here.  And I don’t know what kind of grandmas you have here, but my Ugandan grandma was no-nonsense, in fact, perhaps even tougher than my mother.

I bring up the easy-going American grandma, because she is a good example of the image of God that we have been hearing in the readings of the past few Sundays: a God who forgives over and over again, the God who pays a full wage even those who come at the eleventh hour, the merciful God.

But today’s readings complete the picture of God by showing us that he is also like a parent who metes out tough-love.

Scripture and Theology

Both the first reading and the gospel, use the image of a vineyard to contrast God's great generosity with the rejection of that generosity by the people.  By the way, in case you wonder why Jesus uses vineyards in his examples.  Well, that is what was available. If he were to come to Southern Louisiana today, he might speak of bayous, swamps, cotton fields, or even our malls.

Anyway, in the first reading, the vineyard, which represents the people, has been watered and tended well by its owner.  The vineyard owner, who is God, expects it to produce good fruit, but it has produced only wild grapes, sour grapes, that is, sin.  That is why God now abandons it and lets it be trampled upon.  The message is that when people repeatedly reject God’s love and mercy bad things will happen to them.  We need only to look briefly at the history of Israel to see for how long they took God's love for granted and how overdue their punishment was.

The first period of their history was the time of the PATRIARCHS: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  This vineyard was leased to them, you might say, when God called Abraham, who lived in what today is Iraq, to become the Father of his people.  God promised him descendants, land and most of all blessings.  Abraham agreed and moved to what is now Palestine.  For his part, God fulfilled his end of the bargain when Abraham’s wife Sarah gave birth to Isaac, who in turn gave birth to Jacob or Israel, whose name became the name of the whole nation.  Jacob and his family later moved to Egypt during the famine, and grew into a large community there, grew into the Hebrew people.

Unfortunately, during their time in Egypt, Jacob’s descendants, the Hebrews, were ENSLAVED, which is the second period. The people cried to their God to rescue them, and rescue them he did, appointing Moses to lead the exodus that brought them to the Promised Land.  But even during that journey of 40 years, the people were often rebellious.  For example, they made a golden calf to worship and often whined about the kind of food God gave them.

The third period of their history was the MONARCHY, the time of the Kings.    No sooner had the people reached the Promised Land than the rebellious attitude began to rear its head again.  They did not want to be ruled by Judges who represented God, but by powerful kings like other nations.  The patient Lord granted their wishes.  But these kings, one after another, began to lead the community astray, just as the Lord in his immense wisdom had foreseen. For example, they brought in false idols for the people to worship. Worse still, the kingdom was divided into the North and the South.  The two kingdoms continued on separately. But both did not adhere to the laws of the Lord, despite the preaching of the prophets he sent them like Elijah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah, whom they persecuted and some they killed.

As punishment for their sinfulness, the two kingdoms fell, and the people were sent into EXILE, beginning with the Northern Kingdom which fell to the Assyrians.  Then despite the preaching of more prophets like Jeremiah, the Southern Kingdom of Judah also did not heed the teachings of the Lord and fell to the Babylonians soon after. But the Lord was kind and merciful, and after about 50 years of punishment in exile, he brought the Jews back home.

Finally, God sent his son, Jesus to be the Christ, to bring the final good news of salvation.  But they rejected him, preferring to stick to their old sinful ways.  That is what the gospel parable is speaking about, where the people are now represented not by the vineyard but by the tenants of the vineyard.  God's hope that “They will surely respect my son,” came to nothing. They had Jesus killed as a criminal on the Cross.

And so, after this troublesome history, Jesus asks, “What will the owner of the vineyard do to those tenants when he comes?"  And his listeners answered correctly: "He will put those wretched men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the proper times."

And true to his word, the vineyard, the promise of salvation, was taken away from the Jewish people and given to others, that is, the Christians.

Christian Life

But this new lease of the vineyard to Christians has the same conditions as the previous one.  While God promises his immense providence and love, we the new tenants must also produce good fruit by being committed to the Lord in faith, hope and love.  How well have Christians done in this regard?  How much fruit have we produced?  How good is the fruit produced so far?

Clearly the many saints, the many martyrs, the many good examples of committed Christians in the world suggest that some have taken the terms of the lease very seriously.  But that great picture is contradicted by the many less than stellar examples of individual Christians and of the Church as an institution.  Our sins, especially the more pervasive ones are clearly a rejection of the terms of our lease.  Surely the terrible crimes of clerical sexual abuse are wild grapes that do not please the Lord.  No doubt the pervasive culture of death even among Christians that kills the unborn and the elderly are sour grapes that make the Lord angry.  But so are the death penalty and mistreatment of prisoners and suspects.  We cannot forget some historical sour grapes of slavery, segregation and even racism today.  We also break the terms of our lease when fail to care for the poorest in our society especially since Jesus asked us to care for the least of his brethren.

Will God punish us for our communal sins just as he does for the personal ones?  You bet he will, but not in the ways people often think.  Perhaps you have heard people say Katrina was punishment for the debauchery of New Orleans. Or today some say that COVID-19 is divine punishment for our sins.  Since the coming of Jesus, that is not how God punishes us.  He does not use natural disasters, even though he allows them to happen.  You see natural disasters like Katrina and COVID-19 are blunt tools since they punish all, the guilty and the innocent.  But that is not how God works.

Do you remember in the gospel when people asked Jesus about the seemingly meaningless deaths of the Galileans at the hands of Pontius Pilate? Jesus said that those Jews weren’t more sinful than other Galileans, nor where the people of Siloam who died when a tower collapsed on them. The important factor in divine punishment is the refusal to repent.  That is why Jesus told them: “unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:5).

Conclusion

And so dear friends, instead of looking for divine punishment in natural disasters, let us be more concerned about the punishment that awaits us, if we do not repent personally.  We must also teach others, not just about God who is patient and merciful, but also one who is righteous and just.  Let us not replace the one-sided fire and brimstone God of the past with an equally defective anything-goes, I-am-okay-you-are-okay image of God.

Only when justice and mercy meet, can we have the perfect recipe for growing in relationship, not only with each other, but also with God.  If we accept tough-love parenting from our parents, of my Ugandan grandmother, knowing that we are the better for it, how much more should we accept the same tough love from God our Father?  Without mercy justice is cruel; but without justice mercy is fake.  But God’s mercy is real because it is just; God’s justice is real because it is merciful. 

IMPLEMENTING THE THIRD EDITION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS, USA

Rev. Deogratias O. Ekisa S.T.D

Professor of Liturgy and Sacramental Theology

Notre Dame Seminary, New Orleans Louisiana, USA

February 2, 2020

INTRODUCTION: “And with your spirit.”

American Catholics who went to the Mass on the first Sunday of Advent in 2011 were in for a surprise.  This was the day when the Church in the USA was beginning to use the new translation of the Third Edition of the Roman Missal. And so they would hear and respond with new Mass parts.  For example, when the priest greeted them with "The Lord be with you," they would now respond and "And with your Spirit," rather than the previous "And also with you."

Not wanting to repeat the mistakes of earlier transitions in liturgical texts, particularly the momentous change to the vernacular in the 1970s, many dioceses in the USA took great pains to prepare their people for the reception of the new translation of the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal into English.  In this essay, I will describe the work done by the Archdiocese of New Orleans, Louisiana.

RESOURCES: Literature and audio-visual materials

Some of this preparation took place by way of sharing literature and audio-visual materials which were sent to clergy and to the various lay ministers.  For example, an inter-active DVD entitled Become One Body, One Spirit in Christ, produced by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) and the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), contained a wealth of detailed information on the reasons for the new translation, the principles that guided the work and commentary by those who serve on the commission.  It also offered background reading for priests and ministers including materials that could be reprinted for parishioners e.g. in Sunday bulletins.  Another useful resource was a book, Parish Guide to Implementing the Roman Missal Third Edition, that provided parish priests with a well-thought out and practical process that included a time-line with suggestions on how to implement the transition to the new Missal.  There were several other resources provided by liturgists and theologians to guide parishes in making a smooth transition.

WORKSHOPS: A lesson in lex orandi lex credendi

Another key element of the preparation for the new Missal were workshops and conferences.  The Archdiocesan Office of Worship set up diocesan-wide conferences for the various categories of the faithful, priests, deacons and the various lay-ministers addressing their specific roles.  These workshops were conducted by experts in the field of liturgy.  For example, the sessions for the priests were conducted by the then Executive Director of the USCCB Committee for Divine Worship, himself a graduate of the San't Anselmo Faculty of Liturgy in Rome.  The workshops for the deacons and lay ministers were conducted by the officials of the Archdiocesan Office of Worship, who are trained liturgists themselves.  While the priests had just one workshop offered to them, to accommodate the busy work and family schedules of the deacons and lay ministers, workshops were offered on different dates to make it easier for them to attend.

It is remarkable that the content of these workshops was not just the textual and rubrical changes to the Roman Missal.  The workshops used this opportunity to review Catholic liturgical theology as well as the theology of the Eucharist and Mass.  By providing the theological and philosophical foundations to the new Roman Missal, the workshops showed that the changes and indeed the whole Mass is an application of the ancient adage of lex orandi lex credendi.  Following the renewed focus on the sign value of the liturgy according to the Second Vatican Council, the workshops attempted to show the consistency between the rites and texts and what we believe about the Eucharist.

SPECIAL INITIATIVE BEFORE: Anticipating the musical settings

There are two more initiatives carried out by the Archdiocese of New Orleans Office of Worship that I thought were particularly insightful and helpful.

The first initiative had to do with music.  At their request, permission was granted by the USCCB for an anticipated use of the new Mass settings starting in September, three months before the official start date of the New Missal on the First Sunday of Advent.  The reason for this request was to get the parishioners gradually introduced to these new Mass parts, especially as set to music.  In addition, with the cooperation of the parish music ministers, one particular music setting, the Mass of Renewal was agreed upon and all parishes used that for the first year, so that the whole diocese would have a common repertoire when the faithful came together for diocesan celebrations.  A few additional settings were also recommended for particular groups such as schools and youth, and for later use.  This initiative was so successful that whenever I celebrated Mass in various parishes I could very easily introduce the various commons because they were familiar to all in the whole diocese.

SPECIAL INITIATIVE AFTER: A Year of Renewal: Offering a Worthy Sacrifice of Praise

A second initiative was that Archbishop Gregory Aymond designated the first year of implementation of the new Missal (November 2011 – November 2012) as a special year on the Mass with the theme, "A Year of Renewal: Offering a Worthy Sacrifice of Praise."  During this year, various activities and celebrations with a focus on the Eucharist were carried out, including Eucharistic adoration.  Concerted efforts were also made to teach the faithful more about the Mass.  Each parish carried out a four-part program of study and discussion entitled "The Mass Explained".  This program was based on a booklet of the same title authored by Monsignor James P. Moroney, Executive Secretary at Vox Clara Committee.  This successful program gave small groups of parishioners in parishes an opportunity to explore topics such as the history of the Mass, full conscious and active participation, the role of the priest, deacon and lay person at Mass, the meaning of the various signs, symbols and actions at Mass and the spiritual effect of the Mass on the faithful.

CONCLUSION: Participation through understanding

Looking back eight years now, it is very clear that the efforts and resources that were used to prepare the faithful of the diocese for the changes were well spent and have borne much fruit.  Not only was the transition smooth, but also there is now a greater understanding and appreciation of what the Mass is, bringing to fruition in some way the wish of the Council Fathers who earnestly desired that the faithful "through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration" (SC 48).

 

Homily Ordinary 25A: No condition is permanent – not even the condition of sin

Homily for 26^th Sunday of Ordinary Time Year A 2020

Ezekiel 18:25-28; Philippians 2:1-11; Matthew 21:28-32

Introduction

During the last few Sundays, the readings, especially the gospels, have challenged us to recognize God’s generosity and mercy towards us.

·        Three Sundays ago, we heard Jesus provide the Church with a four-step process for helping a sinner turn from sin to righteousness; and he concluded with this assurance: “Again, amen, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.”

·        Then two Sundays ago, we heard him explain how generous this process was to be, not the miserly seven times that Peter suggested, but seventy-seven times, because that is how merciful God is.  Otherwise God will not grant us mercy, “unless each of you forgives your brother from your heart.”

·        And then last week, with the parable of the generous Master of the Vineyard, Jesus showed that God is not only just, but also generous, freely giving even to those who come last more than they deserve.

Today’s gospel turns this theme of God’s generosity and mercy on its head, throwing the ball into our court, and focusing on how ready we are to receive it.

Scripture and Theology

Put simply the readings are telling us that “No condition is permanent,” neither the condition of sin nor the condition of righteousness.

When instructed by his father to go and work in the vineyard, the first son said “No,” but later thought better about the matter and did as his father asked.  This son represents sinners, that is, the tax-collectors and prostitutes, who had said “No,” to God when they refused to believe in his promises, when they refused to worship him and most of all when they refused to follow his commandments and instead chose to live in sin.  But now after hearing John the Baptist and Jesus preach, they had turned from the evil ways and towards the Lord.  Throughout the gospels we hear of many tax-collectors like Matthew and Zacchaeus and some sinful women too, who like this son, turn to the Lord and leave behind their old lives of sin.  For no condition is permanent.

The second son, said “Yes” to the father but did nothing about it; he represents the religious leaders of the time.  The Chief Priests and elders of the Jewish people thought that since they had believed in God’s promises, worshipped him and they followed the letter of the Law, they were just fine.  But in truth they had become complacent in their righteousness and at the same time they were cynical about conversion of sinners denying that it was at all possible to change. When Jesus came, instead of continuing to say “Yes” to the God of Jesus, who is the same God whom they had believed, worshipped and obeyed, now they said “No,” like the second son; they rejected the Way of God’s son, who had preached: “Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

Centuries earlier, during the time of the Prophet Ezekiel, the people had complained that the Lord’s ways, of forgiving people who changed from bad to good, were unfair.  But the Lord said: “Is it my way that is unfair, or rather, are not your ways unfair?”  The Lord punishes those who turn “away from virtue to commit iniquity.”   But the Lord forgives and preserves the life of the person who “turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just.” 

Christian Life

This message is just as relevant for us today as it was for the people of Ezekiel’s time and those of Jesus’s time.  Put simply, the message is “no condition is permanent”; change is possible.  And change can go one of two ways: conversion from sin to virtue, or the complacency that leads from virtue to sin.

There are far too many people today, who think that God could never forgive their sin.  How often do I hear people say, “Father, what I did was too terrible – an abortion or a promiscuous past, racism or an addiction – there is no way God can forgive that,” they say!  And they give up; they don’t believe Jesus who says that God is merciful and challenges them to be like the first son who converts.

Nelson Mandela was universally acknowledged as a man of peace and reconciliation!  But do you know that in his younger days he was a man of violence and would be called a terrorist today?  But like the first son, later he was to become a great ambassador of peace and reconciliation among races.

You may also have read a few years ago about a Catholic priest in Virginia, who as a young man was a leader of the Ku Klux Klan.  But after the Lord touched him, 40 years ago, he turned from his racist ways and even became a priest.  He turned his initial “No” to a “Yes” of service to all God’s people.

We too must believe that change from evil to good, from sin to virtue, from the wrong to the right path is possible.  Each of us needs to ask himself or herself:

1.    Do I live in despair for myself and in cynicism for others who are imperfect or do I live in hope, hope that change in Jesus is possible?

2.    Do I easily give up on myself and others, letting sin and addictions keep me down or do I harbour the hope that conversion to the Lord is possible?

3.    Do I concrete take steps to bring about change in my life and do I take steps to help others turn their lives to the Lord?

On the other hand, like the second son, we can just as easily fall into the same complacency of thinking that our original “Yes” to the Lord will carry us all the way to heaven.  Our “Yes” at Baptism, confirmation, matrimony and other occasions was only the beginning of our commitment.  We must continue saying, “Yes Lord, Yes Lord, Yes Lord” every day of our lives.  We must say this “Yes” by continuing to believe in his teaching, by continuing to worship him and by continuing to live according to his commandments, every day of our lives.

I recall a story I heard told by the best man at a wedding a few years ago. He advised the newly married couple to compare their love for each other to one million dollars.  But rather than give it to each other in one big check of one million dollars, he advised them to go the bank and get one-dollar bills and give them out to each other one day at a time.  In this way, they would be saying "Yes, I love you" not just once, but every day of their lives.  Our Yeses to the Lord, also need to be both in word and action, every day of our lives.

Conclusion

Yes, leopards cannot change their spots because those spots are genetic.  But human beings can change from sin to virtue, evil to good, wrong to right, because the Lord helps us with the grace, we need to do that.  The Lord left us the sacrament of Penance as a means to make that change concrete. And Isaiah assures us: “Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow; Though they be red like crimson, they may become white as wool” (Is. 1:18).

And so, both the first son and the second son are imperfect sons: one imperfect in word and the other imperfect in action.  And we are at one time or other both sons.  But there is a third son, who is perfect in both word and deed.  It is the Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, who not only said “Yes, I will become man,” but also actually went to the Cross and died for our sins.  This son, the Lord rewarded by raising him up on the third day.  As St. Paul assures us, if we follow Jesus’s example, we shall also receive his same reward and destiny, , his resurrection.  After a lifetime of imperfect Yeses, at that time our “Yes” will be definitive and permanent. And we shall see God as he is, and we shall be with him for ever and ever. Let that be our hope for ourselves and for others.

Homily Ordinary 23A: I am my brother's keeper

 Homily for 23^rd Sunday of Ordinary Time Year A 2020

Ezekiel 33:7-9; Romans 13:8-10 · Matthew 18:15-20

Introduction

In the book of Genesis, when God asks Cain where his brother Abel is, Cain denies knowing saying: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”  Today many people say the same thing, especially when it comes to correcting each other.

And so many people will misquote Jesus and say, "Stop judging, that you may not be judged" (Mt. 7:1).  By this phrase they mean, "you believe what you want and I believe what I want, it is not my place to correct you."  Even worse, people whose responsibility it is to teach like teachers to students, parents to children, priests to parishioners, abdicate their duty and say “who am I to correct others.”

Fortunately, today's readings teach us that we are our brother’s keeper, we are our sister’s keeper.  We must make appropriate judgement and we must correct others where sin is involved.

Scripture and Theology and Christian Life

In the first reading the Lord clearly tells Ezekiel: “You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel; when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.”

·        And then God goes on to tell Ezekiel, that if he does not speak to the wicked man about his wicked ways, he, Ezekiel will share the same punishment as the wicked man himself, for failing to warn him.

·        But if Ezekiel warns the wicked man and the wicked man refuses to convert, Ezekiel will be absolved of the wicked man’s guilt; only the wicked man in this case will be punished for his wickedness.

The Lord is very clear here, that Ezekiel as a prophet, is responsible for helping others to turn away from sin.  He cannot shun his responsibility with the excuse of "I might hurt their feelings," or "they are entitled to their opinions."  Ezekiel is a prophet and must fulfil his prophetic duty of warning others who go astray.

In the gospel Jesus also entrusts members of the Church with that same responsibility of correcting the sinner.  But he goes further, by telling us how to correct each other, giving four steps for gradually bringing the sinner back.

The first step is “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.”  This is fraternal correction that happens one-on-one, unlike what often happens in our society today, where when we see something wrong, we tell everybody else, except the person who needs to hear it.

·        Jesus, instead is asking that, for example, you might pull a friend aside and warn him about his vulgar language.  Or a parent might ask her teenage daughter to dress more modestly before going out.  Or a teacher might admonish a student for disrupting the class.

·        The purpose of this correction is not to lord it over others, but to help them realize their sin, by speaking truth to them with love.  And in this way, there is great hope that the sinner will change his or her behaviour and return to the right path.  This is the hope that Jesus expresses when he says: “If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.”

Unfortunately, some sinners will not accept this personal fraternal correction.  That is where the second step comes in.  “If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’”  There is strength in numbers.

·        In our everyday lives, we can think of this step as calling for backup.  Today friends might carry out an intervention to help a friend suffering from an addiction.  Or mom and dad might team up and have a "Come to Jesus" meeting with their child.  Or a teacher might summon the services of another teacher or school counsellor in dealing with an errant student.

·        The backup of more people is needed for two main reasons.  First of all, in the Jewish legal system and probably in ours today, the witness of two or more was required to sustain a case in court.  But a second and more important reason is that two or more members of the community might help the sinner see his bad ways more easily than one person.  One or two more people bring a wider perspective and show the gravity of the situation.  Hopefully because of this, the person realizes the error of their ways and returns to the path of righteousness.

If the person refuses to listen to the small group, Jesus provides a third step, saying “Tell the Church.”  This step involves bringing in the wider Christian community, especially the Church leaders.

·        In our language today, we might call this step “Bringing in the big guns.”  Among friends this might mean bringing in an influential outsider such as the priest.  For parents, the grandparents or someone with the role of matriarch or patriarch of the family might be asked to intervene.  And for teachers, this step might mean summoning mom and dad for a crisis meeting in the principal's office.

·        Like the previous two steps, this one is needed because our sins affect the community; our sins give a bad example to others in the community, especially to the young; our sins make the community weaker; our sins often hurt others in the community.  And so if the first two steps, have failed to take care of the problem, the whole community, especially the church leaders, need to get involved.   That is why sometimes our bishops have to remind politicians of their errant ways. They often do this privately at first, but when the person refuses to change, they are forced to do so publicly.

Unfortunately, some people will persist in their sin and will never accept the advice of one person, a small group of people or people in authority.  And for them Jesus prescribes the fourth and last measure: “If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”  Treating such a person like a gentile or tax-collector means treating them as outsiders or expelling them from the community. 

·        For us today this is what we call the nuclear option, such as cutting ties with a friend or not inviting them to Thanksgiving dinner, parents cutting off a child, for a school expelling a student, for the Church, excommunication.

·        As drastic as this last step of expelling the sinner might seem, it is not done out of bad will, but with the intention of helping the sinner realize how serious his sin affects the community.  The purpose of this step is that once the sinner is cast out in the cold, he or she might change their ways and seek readmission. The expulsion is medicinal than penal. 

Conclusion

And so, my friends, while individualism and privacy might be values for society, they are not Christian virtues.  Christians take care of each other, not just by feeding them or giving them water, but also by correcting their sins.  We are on this journey of salvation together.  That is why we must cover each other’s back, not by covering up their errors, but by bringing them to their attention so that they might change. We are called to be our brother's keeper, our sister's keeper.

As we make our journey to heaven, we need to save, not just ourselves, but others as well. We must arrive at God’s door together, presenting ourselves together.  We must not enter the Good Lord’s house, only some of us without the others.  We need to return to the house of our Father, all of us together.  What will he say to us, if we arrive there without our brothers and sisters?  What shall we say to God if we arrive there without our brothers and sisters?

Homilia Ordinario 23A: ¿Soy yo acaso el guardián de mi hermano?

 Homilía del XXIII Domingo del Tiempo Ord. Año A 2020

Ezekiel 33:7-9; Romans 13:8-10 · Matthew 18:15-20

Introducción

En el libro de Génesis, cuando Dios le pregunta a Caín dónde está su hermano Abel, Caín niega saberlo diciendo: "¿Soy yo acaso el guardián de mi hermano?"

Hoy mucha gente dice lo mismo, sobre todo cuando se trata de corregirse. Ellos citarán mal a Jesús y dirán: "Deja de juzgar, para que no seas juzgado" (Mt. 7: 1).  Con esto quieren decir, "tú crees lo que quieres y yo creo lo que quiero, no es mi lugar corregirte". Peor aún, las personas cuya responsabilidad es enseñar, como maestros a estudiantes, padres a niños, sacerdotes a feligreses, tal vez abdican de su deber y dicen “quién soy yo para corregir a los demás”?

Afortunadamente, las lecturas de hoy nos enseñan que somos los guardianes de nuestro hermano, de nuestra hermana. Debemos hacer juicios apropiados y debemos corregir a otros.

Escritura y teología y vida cristiana

En la primera lectura, el Señor le dice claramente a Ezequiel: “A ti, hijo de hombre, te he constituido centinela para la casa de Israel.  Cuando escuches una palabra de mi boca, tú se la comunicarás de mi parte.”

·        Y luego Dios continúa diciéndole a Ezequiel, que si no le habla al malvado acerca de sus malos caminos, él, Ezequiel, recibirá el mismo castigo que el malvado mismo, por no advertirle.

·        Pero si Ezequiel advierte al malvado y él se niega a convertirse, Ezequiel será absuelto de la culpa del malvado; sólo el malvado en este caso será castigado.

El Señor es muy claro aquí, que Ezequiel como profeta, es responsable de ayudar a otros a alejarse del pecado. No puede eludir su responsabilidad con la excusa de "podría herir sus sentimientos" o "él tiene derecho a su opinion." Ezequiel es un profeta y debe cumplir con su deber profético de advertir a otros.

En el evangelio, Jesús también confía a los miembros de la Iglesia la misma responsabilidad de corregir al pecador. Pero él va más allá, mostrandonos cómo corregirnos unos a otros, dando cuatro pasos para convertir al pecador gradualmente.

El primer paso es “Si tu hermano comete un pecado, ve y amonéstalo a solas.“ Esta es una corrección fraternal que ocurre uno a uno, a diferencia de lo que sucede a menudo en nuestra sociedad, donde cuando vemos algo mal, se lo decimos a todos los demás, excepto a la persona que necesita escucharlo.

·        Jesús, en cambio, está pidiendo que, por ejemplo, usted pueda llevar un amigo a un lado y advertirle sobre su lenguaje vulgar. O un padre podría pedirle a su hija adolescente que se vista más modestamente antes de salir. O un maestro puede amonestar a un estudiante malo privatamente.

·        El propósito de esta corrección no es dominar a otros, sino ayudarlos a darse cuenta de su pecado, hablándoles la verdad con amor. Y de esta manera, hay una gran esperanza de que el pecador cambie su comportamiento y regrese al camino correcto. Esta es la esperanza que Jesús expresa cuando dice: "Si te escucha, habrás salvado a tu hermano."

Desafortunadamente, algunos pecadores no aceptarán esta corrección fraterna personal. Ahí es donde entra el segundo paso. "Si no te hace caso, hazte acompañar de una o dos personas, para que todo lo que se diga conste por boca de dos o tres testigos."

·        En nuestra vida cotidiana, podemos pensar en este paso como una solicitud de respaldo. Hoy los amigos pueden realizar una intervención para ayudar a un amigo que sufre una adicción. O la mamá y el papá podrían unirse a confrontar su hijo. O un maestro podría solicitar la ayuda de otro maestro o consejero escolar para tratar con un estudiante errante.

·        Se necesita el respaldo de más personas por dos razones principales. Primero, en el sistema legal judío y probablemente en el nuestro hoy, se requería el testimonio de dos o más personas para sostener un caso en la corte. Pero una segunda y más importante razón es que dos o más miembros de la comunidad pueden ayudar al pecador a ver sus malos caminos más fácilmente que una persona. Una o dos personas más aportan una perspectiva más amplia y muestran la gravedad de la situación. Con suerte, debido a esto, la persona se da cuenta del sus pecados y regresa al camino de la justicia.

Si la persona se niega a escuchar al grupo pequeño, Jesús da un tercer paso, diciendo "díselo a la comunidad." Este paso implica atraer a la comunidad cristiana en general, especialmente a los líderes de la Iglesia.

·        Entre amigos, esto podría significar traer a un forastero influyente como el sacerdote. En el caso de los padres, se podría pedir la intervención de los abuelos o de alguien con el prestigio de matriarca o patriarca de la familia. Y para los maestros, este paso podría significar convocar a mamá y papá a una reunión de crisis en la oficina del director.

·        Como los dos pasos anteriores, este es necesario porque nuestros pecados afectan a la comunidad; nuestros pecados dan un mal ejemplo a los demás en la comunidad, especialmente a los jóvenes; nuestros pecados debilitan a la comunidad; nuestros pecados a menudo lastiman a otros en la comunidad. Entonces, si los dos primeros pasos no lograron resolver el problema, toda la comunidad, especialmente los líderes de la iglesia, deben involucrarse. Es por eso que a veces nuestros obispos tienen que recordarles a los políticos sus caminos errantes.

Desafortunadamente, algunas personas persistirán en su pecado y nunca aceptarán el consejo de una persona, un pequeño grupo o la comunidad. Y para ellos Jesús prescribe el cuarto y último paso: "si ni a la comunidad le hace caso, apártate de él como de un pagano o de un publicano." Tratar a tal persona como un pagano o un publicano significa expulsarlos de la comunidad.

·        Para nosotros hoy esto es lo que llamamos la opción nuclear, como cortar lazos con un amigo o un hijo, o una escuela que expulse a un alumno, o para la iglesia hacer la excomunión a una persona.

·        Por más drástico que parezca este último paso de expulsar al pecador, no se hace por mala voluntad, sino con la intención de ayudar al pecador a darse cuenta de la gravedad de su pecado que afecta a la comunidad. El propósito de este paso es que una vez que el pecador es expulsado al frío, él puede cambiar de conducta y buscar readmisión. La expulsión es medicinal que penal.

Conclusión

Entonces, hermanos si bien el individualismo son valores para la sociedad, no son valores cristianos. Los cristianos se cuidan unos a otros, no solo dándolos comida y agua, sino también corrigiendo sus pecados. Estamos juntos en este viaje de salvación. Es por eso que debemos corregir unos a otros, no encubriendo sus errores, sino advirtiéndolos para que puedan cambiar.

Al hacer nuestro viaje al cielo, necesitamos salvarnos, no solo a nosotros mismos, sino también a los demás. Debemos llegar juntos a la puerta de Dios, presentándonos juntos. No debemos entrar en la casa del Padre, sin los demás. ¿Qué nos dirá si llegamos allí sin nuestros hermanos y hermanas? ¿Qué le diremos a Dios si llegamos allí sin nuestros hermanos y hermanas?  No podemos decir como Caín: “¿Soy yo acaso el guardián de mi hermano?”  Porque estamos el guardián de nuestro hermano, de nuestra hermana.