"Why do they call it World Youth Day?" Ella asked, "When it lasts for several days... they should call it World Youth Week"

World Youth Day is one of those events you hear about for months, it takes a while to raise the kind of cash required to get to Sydney and we've had kids in the parish fundraising for months. I'm sure some of them will have been heavily subsidised by their parents, huge respect to those parents, if Leona asked me to drop £1000 for a flight to Sydney I might politely suggest she change her own nappy from now on.

I was first aware that World Youth Day was here and happening on 6th July at the Postgate Rally when it was announced that Bishop Terry couldn't join us because he had gone to Australia to prepare to join the Pope and thousands of Young People for World Youth Day. I think he went so early because as a Bishop he has no small part to play in the Catechesis sessions that take place throughout the week.

I'm a man who grew up going to St Wilfrid's Church in Hull, My idea of a fun day out is to take my wife to Whitby Abbey and read out loud from Bede's Ecclesiastical History. It's difficult (if not impossible) for me to hear that Bishop Terry is going to spend time with the Pope without getting very excited. Patron of our Diocese, St Wilfrid was the Archbishop of York (a part of our Diocese). He wanted to know what was right and true, so he went to Rome. He returned to England and his loyalty to the teaching of Rome proved so popular that Bede says he "was driven from his see, and two bishops substituted in his stead".

After his ordination when Bishop Terry came to Hull he said:

All my priestly life so far I have believed that the will of God is most often expressed to me in and through my superiors, especially my bishop and the teachings of the Church, proposed and proclaimed by our Holy Father, the Pope. So when the letter goes something like this, you have to listen, take notice and believe that it is the will of God for you...

[link]

At the Synod of Whitby St Wilfrid said:

"But as for you and your companions, you certainly sin, if, having heard the decrees of the Apostolic See, and of the universal church, and that the same is confirmed by holy writ, you refuse to follow them; for, though your fathers were holy, do you think that their small number, in a corner of the remotest island, is to be preferred before the universal church of Christ throughout the world?"

[link]

History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes... Furthermore, a couple of weeks earlier Fr John Paul Leonard of the Diocesan Youth Service joined us at the Hull Faith Forum to give a talk entitled The Pope speaks to the young: The Message from the World Youth Days. Fr John Paul said that one of the things he likes about Pope Benedict is that while Pope John Paul had great charisma, it wasn't easy for a parish priest to take that home and apply it to his own parish but Pope Benedict does things that any Parish Priest can learn from and apply home.

"There is" (to steal another phrase from Bishop Terry) "no mistaking what is being said to me and to you, is there?" Bishop Terry believes the will of God is most often "proposed and proclaimed by our Holy Father, the Pope" and Fr John Paul Leonard, the Diocesan Youth Officer, says he is looking to Benedict as an example.

Benedict leads, we follow. Right?

World Youth Day Live

One of the questions Ella asked at Fr John Paul Leonard's talk on The Message from the World Youth Days was this: How can those of us unable to make the journey to Sydney take part in World Youth Day this year? Fr Massie had an excellent response to that question... let's watch the EWTN live World Youth Day coverage on a big screen. Alas, Australia is 12 hours out of sync with Britain so events timed at reasonable hours of the Australian day were at stupid-o-clock over here. We watched the Prayer Vigil at 9am on Saturday morning. The Closing Mass was at 1am on Sunday morning... we decided to watch the slightly less live replay on Sunday evening.

Unfortunately (and this is partly my fault) it was all a bit last minute in preparation. That meant we could just about round up most of the kids from the West Hull Parishes youth group, but we didn't manage to invite many from other parishes (though a family made it from St Charles). Hopefully, if EWTN cover it, we can try again when the Pope hits Lourdes this September. All in all we had a great time and there were moments (especially during the closing mass) when we were able to feel very close to events happening thousands of miles away.

We also got our five minutes of fame... Fr Massie and Phil sent an email to EWTN telling them about the big screen linkup and it was read out on EWTN so now we are an internationally famous parish, a household name in every corner of the globe. Ish.

A pertinent question there... "How can the young people back home share in the spirit of WYD?" Watching the Prayer Vigil and the Closing Mass we caught only a small fraction of several days of World Youth Day events, but it was immensely interesting all the same. What does the Pope do, when faced with a crowd of 600,000 young people. How does he pray? How does he celebrate mass? What does he do, as Fr John Paul Leonard noted, that we can take back and do in our parishes at home?

Eucharistic Adoration

As one of the commentators on EWTN noted. If you look at any of the movements that are really flourishing in the Church there's on clear factor they all have in common: Eucharistic Adoration. I remember when I first asked a priest if we could "try" Eucharistic Adoration. I was at university. After seven years at a Catholic Secondary School nobody had told me about the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. Nobody had ever invited or encouraged me to spend time with Him. I found out about Eucharistic Adoration on the internet and when I asked a priest if we could try it he told me some people think it's "a bit trad" (though in fairness, he did do it).

The Pope, apparently, thinks differently.

Faced with a group of young people, be doesn't set out to entertain or to innovate but simply to bring them face to face with Christ in the most direct way he knows how. It looks like Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament should be at the heart of prayer with young people. Locally, I am pleased to say, it often is. Michelle and Cannon Loughlin organise Benediction for the young people once a month at St. Charles. It's an excellent achievement but it's not mainstream. Benedict didn't arrange for Adoration to be available for those who seek it out. He presented it to all. Centre stage.

The celebration of National Youth Sunday (Feast of Christ the King) in Hull last year culminated in Adoration and Benediction which was excellent and proves it can be done (though I didn't think much to the guitar playing). I for one hope to see it again next year, but again, it's a bubble. It happened only because a small minority pushed for it in the right place at the right time.

So the question is this: When Bishop Drainey and Fr John Paul Leonard return from Sydney, are they going to follow the Pope's example? Are they going to take Benediction to the mainstream? I would be wonderful at the next National Youth Sunday (which is rapidly approaching) to find Adoration openly encouraged by the clergy. It would be more wonderful still, to see Benediction happening in our Schools and at Springboard.

Singing

It was something that first struck me a couple of years ago when Ella and I went to Rome as Sposi Novelli and went to a General Audience in our wedding clothes. The Pope sings. It's not something you expect when you see photos of an old man and read his books. He's not exactly Pavarotti, but that's the beauty of the thing. Despite his croaking, wavering, elderly voice - when the Pope says mass, he sings. It's a really pleasant joyful surprise. This leads to an interesting question... when I go to mass at my local parish, why Fr Massie not sing the mass? He sings "Through Him, with Him, in Him" on occasion but the Pope sings loads more than that.

Fr Stephen Maughan recently wrote "One of the targets of the Diocesan Pastoral Plan was to encourage the singing of the Mass, especially on Sundays" he also reminded us that the General Instruction on the Roman Missal states "In choosing the parts to be sung, preference should be given to those to be sung by the priest with the congregation responding…" and continues that "Therefore, it is the acclamations and responses which should be given priority in our musical repertoires."

Musicam Sacram says...

Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when it is celebrated in song, with the ministers of each degree fulfilling their ministry and the people participating in it.

Indeed, through this form, prayer is expressed in a more attractive way, the mystery of the liturgy, with its hierarchical and community nature, is more openly shown, the unity of hearts is more profoundly achieved by the union of voices, minds are more easily raised to heavenly things by the beauty of the sacred rites, and the whole celebration more clearly prefigures that heavenly liturgy which is enacted in the holy city of Jerusalem.

Pastors of souls will therefore do all they can to achieve this form of celebration.

[...]

There is no reason why some of the Proper or Ordinary should not be sung in said Masses.

[link]

As far as I can see, it's this simple: Is singing better than not singing? Yes. Should we do what is better over what is not? Yes. Does the Pope do it? Yes. So what's the problem?

I wonder... When Bishop Drainey returns from Sydney, is he going to follow the Pope's example? Is Bishop Drainey going to encourage priests to sing those parts of the mass that can be sung? That the celebration "more clearly prefigures that heavenly liturgy which is ennacted in the holy city of Jerusalem"

Latin

Another thing that I first noticed in Rome as a Sposi Novelli was the use of Latin. It wasn't just that the Pope spoke in Latin, it was the way many others in the room seemed to know how to join him. Why? I wondered. Why do people in other countries still speak Latin. Then I did some reading, turns out it's because we're supposed to...

Sacrosanctum Concilium says "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" and "steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

It's not so very long ago a priest pointed out to me "You can generously interpret [...] You can also decide not to be generous in your interpretation". Again I have to ask Bishop Drainey and all the Priests of our Diocese. How obvious a hint does the Pope have to give? It's World Youth Day. Hundreds of thousands of young people are present along with hundreds of Bishops and many Cardinals. The Pope knows you are watching and what does the Pope do? The Pope sings the Tantum Ergo in Latin. The Pope sings the Lord's Prayer in Latin. The Pope sings his final blessing in Latin. There is no mistaking what is being said to me and to you, is there? The Pope wants us to sing parts of the mass in Latin.

So are we going to be generous in our interpretation or not? Are we the kind of Diocese that follows generously the example of the Holy Father or do we only begrudgingly do what the Pope wants if he writes a document spelling it out and even then we look for loopholes and exceptions?

Kneeling to Receive Communion

Not so very long ago Francis Cardinal Arinze was seen on YouTube saying "even if the Bishops decide that the people will receive in the hand standing, as in the United States. Our congregation in Rome has said: "Yes, provided that those who want to receive kneeling, you leave them full freedom and those who want to receive on the tongue, you leave them in peace and not in pieces."

At World Youth Day the Pope took it another step. Across the massive crowds people were free to receive communion in many ways with many receiving in the hand while standing and others opting for Intinction. The Pope however, gave communion only on the tongue and only to people who where kneeling. Which is exactly how I used to receive communion as a child, so it's hardly a practice lost in the mists of time.

Again, the question must be asked. Why does the Pope do this? Why give communion this way? Why not in the hand? Does the Pope think this way of giving communion is to be preferred. If so, should we prefer it? Pope Benedict left the priests in the crowd free to distribute communion however they saw fit, but set his own clear example. When Bishop Drainey returns from World Youth Day I wonder if he will follow the example of the Pope and encourage people to receive communion on the tongue while kneeling?

In Spirit of the Liturgy Pope Benedict (then a Cardinal) wrote...

It may well be that kneeling is alien to modern culture - insofar as it is a culture, for this culture has turned away from the faith and no longer knows the One before whom kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe also learns to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it as been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered, so that, in our prayer, we remain in fellowship with the apostles and martyrs, in fellowship with the whole cosmos, indeed in union with Jesus Christ Himself.

Remember that, next time some 'trendy' priest in his sixties invites you to sit for the Eucharistic prayer.

Ad Orientem (ish)

The Pope also made prominent use of what some are calling the "Benedictine" altar arrangement. The candles are on the altar (instead of behind) and a huge cross is facing the celebrant as he says mass. As seen in Spirit of the Liturgy and discussed on this very blog here and here.

Again, is this a hint?

Saint Wilfrid - Pray For Us!

Hows that for constructive? Hints and suggestions straight from the successor of St Peter himself. Emphasise Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction. Sing the Mass. Sing/say the more well known prayers in Latin. Encourage kneeling for communion on the tongue. Put the candles on the Altar. Get one of those altar cross thingies.

Oh, and remember. The Pope didn't do all that with a group of stuffy traditionalists. He did it with young people and they loved it.

Don't forget to read Pope Benedict's address at the Prayer Vigil and his Homily at the Closing Mass

All in all, I've got a lot out of this World Youth Day considering I never went. I look forward to seeing Bishop Drainey and the Youth Department bring the spirit of WYD back home to Middlesbrough.

Bishop Drainey once said...

“If a household is divided against itself, that household can never stand.” If the people of God are divided, they will not stand. Unity is such a powerful sacrament with which we can show the world that it is by the power of God - through Christ Jesus, bound together in the Holy Spirit. All disunity weakens and disintegrates the body, but in our case, because our life is given to us by God who is three persons in one God, and we are called to be witness to the unity of that divine community, in our case, disunity is blasphemy. This is very strong language indeed. In unity lies our strength; in unity lies our most powerful witness to the world.

[link]

How then, can we not bring the example of the Pope in to our Parishes and Youth Events at home?

I'm sure you've seen the headlines in the news recently... JK Rowling's Harry Potter condemned in Vatican newspaper, Harry Potter, wrong model of a hero, Vatican newspaper says, Vatican: 'Harry Potter is wrong kind of hero'., Vatican hits out at the Harry Potter 'lie' and EVIL HARRY POTTER, BY THE VATICAN among others.

So what's the deal? Did the Vatican hit out at Harry Potter? No.

What actually happened is that two writers, Paolo Gulisano (who doesn't work for the Vatican) and Edoardo Rialti (who doesn't work for the Vatican) wrote articles about Harry Potter which were published in the Vatican newspaper. One wrote a pro-Potter story, the other opposed him. The actual true story is described in this article from the Catholic New Service (who are also not the Vatican):

Writers in Vatican newspaper debate lessons of Harry Potter novels

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican newspaper sponsored a face-off between a writer who said the Harry Potter novels offer lessons in the importance of love and self-giving and one who said they teach that with secret knowledge one can control others and the forces of nature.

The newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, dedicated a full page in its Jan. 14-15 issue to the debate about the novels by J.K. Rowling. The Italian translation of the last novel, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," was released in early January.

Paolo Gulisano, a physician and the author of a biography of J.R.R. Tolkien, said that the Harry Potter books counter the individualism of the modern age by making a hero of a boy "guided by moral values such as the choice of good, giving, sacrifice, friendship and love."

The stories, he said, teach young people "without moralizing" that material riches, immortality and anything obtained without effort "are illusions and that what truly counts is commitment, friendship and love."

"It is not power, not success, not an easy life that lead to the truest and deepest joy, but friendship, self-giving and adhering to the truth," he said.

But Edoardo Rialti, a professor of English literature at the University of Florence, said the books "communicate a vision of the world and of the human person that is full of profound errors and dangerous suggestions."

First, he said, the books teach that "evil is good," and that violence, lying, trickery and manipulation can be positive if used to obtain something good.

But the deeper problem, he said, is that the books advocate gnosticism, the idea that a select elite can develop special powers and gifts through specialized knowledge that is hidden from most mortals -- or "muggles," as normal humans are called in Rowling's books.

[source]

Yawn. The real news here is how manipulative the press have been with the facts. How do you go from "two writers debate the Harry Potter books" to "Vatican hits out at the Harry Potter 'lie'". You don't. Unless you are looking for even the tiniest of excuses to make the Pope look like an Evil Nazi Bastard.

Less than a week ago I wrote about the book Pope Benedict wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger. In Spirit of the Liturgy there is left no doubt whatsoever that Pope Benedict considers a return to eastward facing masses to be essensial. He wrote: a common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance.. If you missed that blog entry you can catch it here.

At mass yesterday, the feast of the Baptism of the Lord, I tested the theory. I tried to look away from Fr Massie (the Pope says that looking at him has no importance) and instead at the Cross. Mass was different.

A few thousand miles away another mass was different yesterday morning. As reported in the New York Times (Try to ignore, for a moment, the horrendous impropriety of somebody writing publically about something that happened at a mass):

Pope Turns Back on Congregation In Old Mass Ritual

Pope Benedict celebrated parts of Sunday's Mass with his back turned on the congregation, re-introducing an old ritual that had not been used in decades.

The Pope used the Sistine Chapel's ancient altar set right against the wall under Michelangelo's dramatic depiction of the Last Judgment, instead of the altar placed on a mobile platform that allowed his predecessor John Paul II to face the faithful.

A statement by the Vatican's office for liturgical celebrations said it had been decided to use the old altar, where ballots are placed during papal elections, to respect "the beauty and the harmony of this architectonic jewel."

[source]

No negative bias there then. First of all, people need to remember that in Church terms "not used in decades" and "old" are not really synonymous. I've been alive for decades remember and I am not even old enough to understand why we can't say mass like the Pope! Besides which it has been used in decades, it's used regularly around the world by many priests when they celebrate mass in private. Can you imagine a priest stood away from the altar celebrating on his own to an empty room? Perhaps that's what the NYT think happens...

Also, they cut short the Vatican statement:

That placement of the altar, added the note, implied that in some moments the Pope "had his back to the faithful and his gaze upon the cross, orienting the attitude and disposition of the whole assembly in this way," though he did not use the 1962 missal.

[source]

Anyways... the long and the short of it is this:

The Pope celebrated the new mass in the ad orientem style yesterday. So it can be done. How about I repeat the question from last time...

Should we not be doing what the Pope does? If not, why not?

Are we not interested in the cosmos any more? Are we today really hopelessly huddled in our own little circle? Is it not important, precisely today, to find room for the dimension of the future, for hope in the Lord who is to come again, to recognise again, indeed to live, the dynamism of the new creation as an essential form of the liturgy?

So why not?

So, resolved to read more I have been reading. Not lots but while Ella was away at Stonyhurst and once Leona goes to bed I had more peace and quiet than I've had in aeons. I'm reading The Spirit of the Liturgy by one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

It raises a question and I believe it is a serious question. Which way should the priest face during the mass? Come to think of it... which way should the people face during mass?

Cue scoffing. I sort of half asked why the priest switched direction a while back. We've done this one James... before you were born... we used to say mass "facing away from the people" (ad orientem) and now we say mass "facing the people" (versus populum). The only rational explanation I have been able to aquire is "you are too young to remember it so I must know best". And on an on and ad hominem. If I am wrong about this, perhaps somebody could explain my mistake instead of simply pointing out the difference in our respective ages.

Cardinal Razinger quotes Bouyer:

"Never, and nowhere, before [that is, before the sixteenth century] have we any indication that any importance, or even attention, was given to whether the priest celebrated with the people before him or behind him. As Professor Cyrille Vogel has recently deomonstrated it, the only thing the insisted upon, or even mentioned, was that he should say the eucharistic prayer, as all the other prayers, facing East... Even when the orientation of the church enabled the celebrant to pray turned toward the people, when at the altar, we must not forget that it was not the priest alone who, then, turned East: it was the whole congregation together with him."

Then Ratzinger says himself...

Admittedly, these connections were obscured or fell into total oblivion in the church buildings and liturgical practices of the modern age. This is the only explanation for the fact that the common direction of prayer of priests and people were labelled as "celebrating toward the wall" or "turning your back on the people" and came to seem absurd and totally unacceptable.

...

In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest - the "presider", as they now prefer to call him - becomes the real point of reference for the whole liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing. Not suprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the "creative" planning of the liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, "make their own contribution".

Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a "pre-determined pattern". The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out to what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself. The common turning toward the east was not a "celebration toward the wall"; it did not mean that the priest "had his back to the people": the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation of the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together "toward the Lord".

But Raztinger (like myself) is not a member of the Traditionalists for the Mass as a Historical Recreation of the Past Society. He continues...

It would surely be a mistake to reject all the reforms of our century wholesale. When the altar was very remote from the faithful, it was right to move it back to the people. In cathedrals this made it possible to recover the tradition of having the altar at the crossing, the meeting place of the nave and the presbyterium. It was also important clearly to distinguish the place for the Liturgy of the Word from the place for the properly Eucharistic liturtgy. For the Liturgy of the Word is about speaking and responding, and so a face-to-face exchange between proclaimer and hearer does make sense. In the psalm the hearer internalizes what he has heard, takes it into himself, and transforms it into prayer, so that it becomes a response.

On the other hand, a common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue but of common worship, of setting off toward the One who is to come. What corresponds to reality of what is happening is not the closed circle but the common movement forward, expressed in a common direction for prayer.

I didn't write the paragraph above. The present Pope did. He says that turning to the east is "essential". If I was a priest, I would feel the need to have a bloody good reason for disagreeing. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he encountered some objections and he covers them in his book...

Haussling thinks that turning to the east, towards the rising sun, is something that nowadays we just cannot bring into the liturgy.

Is that really the case? Are we not interested in the cosmos any more? Are we today really hopelessly huddled in our own little circle? Is it not important, precisely today, to find room for the dimension of the future, for hope in the Lord who is to come again, to recognise again, indeed to live, the dynamism of the new creation as an essential form of the liturgy?

Another argument is that we do not need to look toward the east, toward the crucifix - that, when priest and faithful look at one another they are looking at the image of God in man, and so facing each other is the right direction for prayer.

I find it hard to believe that the famous critic thought this was a serious argument. For we do not see the image of God in man in such a simplistic way. The "image of God" in man is not, of course, something that we can photograph or see with a merely photographic kind of perception. We can indeed see it, just as we can see the goodness in a man, his honesty, interior truth, humiliy, love - everything, in fact, that gives him a certain likeness to God. But if we are to do this, we must learn a new kind of seeing, and that is what the Eucharist is for.

A more important objection is the practical order. Ought we really to be rearranging everything all over again? Nothing is more harmfull to the liturgy than a constant activism, even if it seems to be for the sake of genuine renewal.

Here's the part where it gets really interesting. Here's the part that affects us. Now. Today.

Facing east, as we heard, was linked with the "sign of the Son of Man", with the Cross, which announces the Lord's Second Coming. That is why very early on the east was linked with the sign of the Cross. Where a direct common turning toward the east is not possible, the cross can serve as an interior "east" of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community. In this way we obey the ancient call to prayer: "Conversi ad Dominum", Turn toward the Lord! In this way we look together at the One whose death tore the veil of the Temple - the One who stands before the Father for us and encloses us in his arms in order to make us the new and living Temple.

Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during mass? Is the priest more important than the Lord? This mistake should be corrected as quickly as possible; it can be done without further rebuilding. The Lord is the point of reference. He is the rising sun of History. That is why there could be a cross of the Passion, which represents the suffering Lord who for us let his side be pierced, from which flowed Blood and Water (Eucharist and Baptism), as well as a cross of triumph, which expresses the idea of the Second Coming and guides our eyes toward it. For it is always the one Lord: Christ yesterday, today, and forever.

I don't have anything to add. He has spelled it out. However, one final objection remains. When Cardinal Ratzinger wrote this book he was only a Cardinal and we can ignore him because, you know, it's convenient. Has he said anything telling us to put a cross in the middle of the altar since he became Pope?

Well, a picture is worth a thousand words...

So here's a question... Should we not be doing what the Pope does? If not, why not?

New Encyclical clears up longstanding question... "Jesus was not Spartacus"

It also says a lot of other stuff. You can read it online here

Disclaimer: The following are some quotes I found and liked while skimming this lunchtime. I haven't read it all yet, and this is not supposed to constitute a summary.

Faith is not merely a personal reaching out towards things to come that are still totally absent: it gives us something. It gives us even now something of the reality we are waiting for, and this present reality constitutes for us a “proof” of the things that are still unseen. Faith draws the future into the present, so that it is no longer simply a “not yet”. The fact that this future exists changes the present; the present is touched by the future reality, and thus the things of the future spill over into those of the present and those of the present into those of the future.

Freedom presupposes that in fundamental decisions, every person and every generation is a new beginning. Naturally, new generations can build on the knowledge and experience of those who went before, and they can draw upon the moral treasury of the whole of humanity. But they can also reject it, because it can never be self-evident in the same way as material inventions. The moral treasury of humanity is not readily at hand like tools that we use; it is present as an appeal to freedom and a possibility for it. This, however, means that:

a) The right state of human affairs, the moral well-being of the world can never be guaranteed simply through structures alone, however good they are. Such structures are not only important, but necessary; yet they cannot and must not marginalize human freedom. Even the best structures function only when the community is animated by convictions capable of motivating people to assent freely to the social order. Freedom requires conviction; conviction does not exist on its own, but must always be gained anew by the community.

b) Since man always remains free and since his freedom is always fragile, the kingdom of good will never be definitively established in this world. Anyone who promises the better world that is guaranteed to last for ever is making a false promise; he is overlooking human freedom. Freedom must constantly be won over for the cause of good. Free assent to the good never exists simply by itself. If there were structures which could irrevocably guarantee a determined—good—state of the world, man's freedom would be denied, and hence they would not be good structures at all.

Let us say once again: we need the greater and lesser hopes that keep us going day by day. But these are not enough without the great hope, which must surpass everything else. This great hope can only be God, who encompasses the whole of reality and who can bestow upon us what we, by ourselves, cannot attain. The fact that it comes to us as a gift is actually part of hope. God is the foundation of hope: not any god, but the God who has a human face and who has loved us to the end, each one of us and humanity in its entirety. His Kingdom is not an imaginary hereafter, situated in a future that will never arrive; his Kingdom is present wherever he is loved and wherever his love reaches us. His love alone gives us the possibility of soberly persevering day by day, without ceasing to be spurred on by hope, in a world which by its very nature is imperfect. His love is at the same time our guarantee of the existence of what we only vaguely sense and which nevertheless, in our deepest self, we await: a life that is “truly” life.

Fantastic news (if it is true)...

ROME, Nov 15, 2007 / 09:41 am (CNA).- The Italian newspaper La Repubblica revealed today that Pope Benedict XVI has finalized his second encyclical on the subject of Christian hope, and that it should be published before Christmas, during Advent.

Benedict’s first encyclical, “Deus Caritas est”, was signed on Christmas Day 2005 and by the following month had been published in eight languages. His second encyclical is tentatively titled "Spe Salvi” (Saved by Hope) and takes its inspiration from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, the newspaper reported. The potential title comes from the 24th verse of the eighth chapter of St. Paul's letter, which reads: "Because we have been saved by hope."

According to La Repubblica, the Holy Father wants to "reach the hearts of Christians and invite them to have hope, without being thrashed by pessimism."

The document, according to the same source, is being translated into several languages and could be signed by the Holy Father on December 8, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception and the anniversary of the close of Vatican II.

Doctor Doctor, I keep seeing the four horsemen of the apocalypse! Don't worry... It's not the end of the world.

"Let us have no fear for the future, even when it appears dark and gloomy," the Holy Father told his Angelus audience. He was commenting on the day's Gospel reading from St. Luke, in which Jesus tells his disciples: "When you hear of wars and insurrections, do not be terrified, for these things must take place first, but the end will not follow immediately."

"Let us accept Christ's invitation to face daily events trusting in his provident love," the Pope said.

A Christian, he continued, should have a "biblical vision of history," and should realize that following Christ is more important than any historical events, however dramatic. Jesus, he reminded his audience, is the summit of history, "its transcendent fulfillment, is its alpha and omega, its beginning and end."

One of the promising indications of a renewal in the Church’s missionary consciousness in recent decades has been the growing desire of many lay men and women, whether single or married, to cooperate generously in the missio ad gentes. As the Council stressed, the work of evangelization is a fundamental duty incumbent upon the whole People of God, and all the baptized are called to "a lively awareness of their personal responsibility for the spreading of the Gospel" ("Ad Gentes," 36).

Fundamental duty?

All the baptized?

A lively awareness?

Personal responsibility?

Whohitwhowiththewhatnow?

British musicians recorded the classic Irish hymn, "Sweet Heart of Jesus," in a calypso, disco style and sent it to Pope Benedict XVI on an iPod nano.

What shall we do tonight Pinky? Umm. Oh I know. How about Sweet Heart of Jesus in a calypso, disco style. Great idea Brain. Maybe the Pope would like that. Let's send it to him on an iPod nano.

Or not.

Pope Benedict might like it, or he might become the first pontiff in history to throw an iPod into the trash.

The musicians' intention, however, was to soften the pope's attitude toward modern church music.

There's nothing modern about "Calypso, disco style" you losers.

The gift is from contemporary Catholic songwriters Jo Boyce and Mike Stanley, and it features a new album of classic hymns reworked in modern forms of music. The duo has used instruments such as pianos, saxophones, guitars, drums and synthesizers to recreate centuries-old works in laid-back gospel, folk, funk, soul and lounge-music styles.

I might have bloody well known. Boyce and bloody Stanley. The British answer to Marty Haugen. Only that's not fair on the Scots, Welsh and Irish is it. The English answer to Marty Haugen. Resplendent with lyrics such as "is here in bread and wine for me". That's sure to soften the pope's attitude.

The album, "Age to Age," was downloaded onto an iPod and sent to Pope Benedict in the hope of gaining a "papal seal of approval," said a Sept. 4 press release by the Catholic Communications Network of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.

You want a papal seal? Here you are:

Arf! Arf!

That's as close as you're gonna get.