Another Voice

In ancient times, olive oil was commonly used for medicinal purposes. It was applied to injuries to hasten the healing process. In Luke 10:25-37, for example, Jesus describes the compassionate Samaritan who pours oil, and wine, on the man who was beaten by robbers and left for dead.

Jesus told those whom he healed that their faith had saved them. One could say his ministry was “faith healing,” but with no pejorative connotations. In the synoptic Gospels, Matthew records fourteen instances of healing by Jesus. Mark records six instances. In Mark 6:13, for example, Jesus sends the disciples out and they anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. Luke, traditionally said to have been a physician, recounts thirteen instances of healing. In John’s Gospel, we find three key healing accounts: the healing of a nobleman’s son who was at the point of death; the healing of a man at the sheep-gate pool in Jerusalem; and the healing of the man born blind.

The ministry of healing was an important ministry in the early Christian communities. In New Testament apostolic letters we find a number of examples. In his letter to the Corinthians, written c. 53 CE, Paul mentions that some members of the community have the gift of healing (1 Corinthians 12:9). In the Epistle of James, traditionally attributed to James the brother of Jesus and written before 62 CE, James gave instructions to the Christian community about the ministry of healing: the elders (presbyters) were to be called and were to pray over the sick person and to anoint the man or woman with oil in the name of the Lord (James 5:14-16).

In a letter from the third century theologian Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 220 CE ), he mentions a Christian who cured with blessed oil. There are no other surviving healing texts from the third century. Liturgical documents from the fourth century, however, indicate that the oil blessed for those preparing for baptism was also used for curing spiritual and physical sickness. And there is a prayer for the blessing of oil for strengthening and healing in the early Christian document called “The Apostolic Tradition,” dating most likely from about 375 to 400 CE. The document was once thought to be the work of Hippolytus of Rome, and was dated before 235 CE when Hippolytus is believed to have been martyred.

Up until the eighth century CE, anointing the sick was a widespread practice. It was done by Christian people for their relatives, by men and women with a reputation for healing, and by monks, nuns, and priests. Especially noteworthy, however, is the fact that anointing of the sick remained primarily a lay practice.

Indeed, blessed oil had long been regarded as a substance through which people could be healed. But there had been no official ritual for anointing the sick. That changed in the ninth century.

The blessing of the oil became more solemn and more restricted. It was reserved to the local bishop on Holy Thursday. And the anointing of the sick became a strictly clerical ritual. Most significantly, however, the anointing with blessed oil became an end of life experience, due no doubt to the high mortality rate and the fear of death, at this time.

The sacrament of the sick gradually lost its general healing dimension and became part of the “last rites” before death. Therefore, it came to be called “extreme unction” or “final anointing.” Many people who might otherwise have benefited from the sacrament avoided it or waited until death was imminent before requesting it. It had become indeed a priestly ritual for the dying person.

Reacting to the Protestant Reformation, the sixteenth century Council of Trent stressed that that anointing of the sick is a true sacrament, that it had been established by the historic Jesus, and that it was especially intended for people in danger of death. Trent stressed that only priests were the “proper” ministers of anointing.

The Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965) reclaimed the original meaning of the Sacrament of Anointing that emphasizes the concern and care of the Christian Community and the healing power of Christ. It is intended not just for the end of life but for any time of serious illness or special need. The Council said as well that “extreme unction” should more fittingly be called “anointing of the sick” because by the 1960s it had become clear that the purpose of the sacrament had originally been for the sick and not just for the dying. The bishops at Vatican II also acknowledged – especially noteworthy — that this sacrament was not a strictly clerical ritual until the ninth century.

My contemporary reflections: I very much resonate with the words of my, now deceased, sacramental theologian friend, Joseph Martos: “The only genuine way forward is to look away from ritual and to look instead at what is ritualized, that is, to look at life rather than liturgy and, indeed, to look at the communal lives of people in the church.”

Today we already have communal liturgical rites, in which the theme and focus are healing. I envision anointing rituals performed by ordained and non-ordained ministers/chaplains for people in hospitals, under hospice care or in homes. And more particularly, I would like to see regular informal rituals performed by parish nurses and lay ministers who regularly visit the sick

                    Happy Easter 2024.

Easter is our hope and encouragement to live in the Spirit of Christ. To live and act as Jesus did.

In often think about the words of the Christian humanist, Desiderius Erasmus (1466 – 1536) who lived for a few years in Park Abbey very close to where my wife and I live:

“If you just keep thinking about what you want to do or what you hope will happen, you don’t do it, and it won’t happen.”

Jack

PS: I will be away from my computer for two weeks and will return on April 18.

Our understanding of priests, bishops, and deacons has changed dramatically in the church’s long history.

After Jesus’ death and resurrection, the disciples of Jesus (c. 4 BCE – 30 or 33 CE) understood ther role as one of ministry and service to others. Sent out to spread the Good News of the Way of Jesus, they were called “apostles” from the Greek word apóstolos, meaning “one who is sent out.”

In the earliest Christian communities men and women were apostles. There was a variety of ministries; but ordained priesthood was not one of them. Contrary to what one occasionally hears, the historical Jesus did not ordain anyone at the Last Supper. In the medieval period, many thought he did. But ordination did not exist in his lifetime.

The letters of Paul, written between 48 and 62 CE, mention a variety of charismatic gifts which can be thought of as ministries benefiting the local Christian community, even though the ministers were not ordained in our sense of the word. For example, members, who could teach, taught. Those who were good organizers administered community affairs. Those who had the gift of prophesy could speak out and tell the community what they needed to hear, as faithful followers in the way of Jesus.

We know as well that men and women who were heads of households presided at the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist); and hosted the gatherings in their homes. In Romans 16, Paul greets women leaders such as the deacon Phoebe, the apostle Junia, and the married apostles Priscilla and her husband Aquila. Clear evidence that women were respected leaders in the emerging Jesus movement.

As Christian communities developed, ministries and the ways of training and appointing ministers evolved to meet changing cultural conditions and changing social needs. Presbyters, from the Greek presbyteroi, were community elders. Supervisor overseers (later called bishops) from the Greek epískopoi had oversight and offered guidance in community affairs, and deacons, from the Greek diaconoi, were helpers, entrusted with assisting people in the community by caring for widows, doing charitable work, catechizing, and assisting in baptisms.

The approval and blessing of the community for diverse ministries was indicated by the laying on of hands. These ministries included preaching, prophesy, healing, working miracles, speaking in tongues, and interpreting what was said in tongues (see 1 Corinthians 12:12-30, Ephesians 4:11-12, Romans 12:4-8; and 1 Corinthians 12:4-11). None of the men and women exercising these ministries were ordained. Acts of Apostles, written between c. 90 and 110 CE, mentions the laying on of hands for elders or presbyters, but here it was a form of blessing for those in ministry. In the Hebrew tradition, the laying on of hands was practiced when a father would impart a blessing to his children (see Genesis 48:14-15). We also see Jesus do this: He lays hands on children and blesses them.

In the first three centuries of Christianity, therefore, we have no direct evidence of what would later be called an ordination ceremony. By the end of the third century, however, Christianity had a clear organizational structure headed by presbyters, supervisor-overseers (bishops), and deacons. Initiation into these orders was accomplished through a rite of ordination that inducted a person into a local office in a particular community.

It is important to clarify that ordination at this time was NOT about passing on some kind of sacramental power. As my former professor the “Dutch theologian” Edward Schillebeeckx once said about liturgical leadership in the past: “You led the liturgy because you were the leader of the people. You didn’t lead the liturgy because you were ordained to have the power of consecration.” Ordination was a blessing on the minister and an assurance to the community that the ordained man or woman was competent, a genuine believer, and trustworthy. There is ample evidence that in the West women were ordained as deacons and abbesses well into the Middle Ages. Women continued to be ordained deacons in the East and were ordained to a variety of ministries. Many contemporary scholars agree with Gary Macy, professor of religious studies at the University of San Diego, who argues that, during the first twelve hundred years of Christianity, women were also ordained as presbyters and bishops. I find the arguments in Macy’s book The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination well-documented and convincing.

It is very important to note, however, that in the 12th century ordination changed from its earlier understanding as a blessing for different ministries in service for a specific community to a bestowal of sacramental power “to confect” (make it happen) the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood. The ordained now belonged as well to a higher social class. The classless and egalitarian church of early Christianity had disappeared. History is important.

The Council of Trent, held in three separate sittings between 1545 and 1563 in Trento in northern Italy, issued several doctrinal pronouncements about ordination, reacting of course to the Protestant Reformation. The Tridentine bishops declared as required Catholic belief that ordination was a sacrament personally instituted by the historic Jesus. The Council of Trent stressed that the sacramental power of ordination was passed on through the tactile laying on of hands, understood as “apostolic succession” going back to Jesus’ “ordination of the apostles as the very first bishops” at the Last Supper. Today we would say that apostolic succession is not about a tactile laying on of hands but about passing on faith, witness, and ministerial leadership from generation to generation.

The Council of Trent stressed as well that ordination brought about an ontological change in the ordained person – a change in the very nature of the person — which elevated the ordained to a level above the laity, leaving an indelible mark on the person forever. The Tridentine bishops emphasized that bishops have the fullest and highest degree of “sacramental power.” They forgot or were ignorant about the fact that the historical Jesus did not exercise power over people but empowered them them to care for others.

Thinking about Trent, one should not forget of course the influence that medieval feudalism still had on the church at that time. There were three estates: the nobility, the clergy, and the peasantry. Bishops, in strongly patriarchal feudalism, held positions of power as feudal lords and as advisers to kings and nobles. Bishops generally lived with the same hierarchical powers, ornate dress, and luxuries as the nobles.

Ordination is a ceremony that celebrates the beginning of a professional life of ministry. It could be much more flexible than it is today and open of course to men and women, married and unmarried, and of whatever sexual orientation. It could be for a specific number of years or life long.

What is celebrated in an ordination ceremony is not getting power over other people or one’s being elevated above the non-ordained. It is about making a commitment and responding to a call to preach the Gospel and care for others. It is about being of service to others, as genuine and credible ministers: helping others grow in and with the Spirit of Christ.

Thinking about ordination and pastoral ministry today, I would like to see some creative changes.

• I would like to see ministerial appointments – ordinations — extended to religious educators, youth ministers, pastoral counsellors, social workers, and others, whose faith and competence are well recognized. Perhaps some would only be ordained ministers for just a few years, and then others would carry on their ministry.
• Youth ministers for example could be ministers of confirmation.
• Pastoral counsellors could be ministers of reconciliation.
• Religious educators and youth ministers could preside at small group eucharists.
• Social workers could be ministers of the anointing of the sick during house calls and hospital visits as well as presiders at small group eucharists in residences for the elderly.
• I am sure there are many other creative ministry possibilities.

Jack

[A few friends have written that they miss my comments about contemporary issues. I understand that. But I would strongly suggest that we cannot deal effectively with today’s issues without a correct understanding of what TRULY happened yesterday. Please bear with me. The history of marriage is a good example. And that history is Christian history not just “Roman Catholic history.”]

During the first three centuries of Christianity, when Christians married, they did so according to the civil laws of the time, in a traditional family ceremony, and often without any special “church” blessing on their union. There was no liturgical ceremony for marriage, as we saw for Baptism and Eucharist.

The usual marriage custom was that, on the wedding day, the father handed over his daughter to the groom in her own family’s house. The bridal party then walked in procession to her new husband’s house for concluding ceremonies and a wedding feast. The principal part of the ceremony was the handing over of the bride, during which her right hand was placed in the groom’s and the draping of a garland of flowers over the couple to symbolize their happy union. There were no official words that had to be spoken and there was no ecclesiastical ceremony.

In the late fourth century, it became customary in some places in the Eastern Roman Empire for a priest or bishop to give his blessing to the newly wedded couple either during the wedding feast or before it. Priests or bishops were not in charge of, nor did they conduct the ceremony. Their presence was not necessary for the marriage to be valid.

Throughout the seventh century, Christians could still get married in a purely secular ceremony. By the eighth century, however, liturgical weddings had become quite common in the Eastern Empire, and they were usually performed in a church rather than in a home.

In the Western Empire, however, marriage developed along quite different lines.

The first Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne (748 – 814 CE), initiated legal reforms in his empire, in both church and civil government. In 802 Charlemagne passed a law requiring all proposed marriages to be examined for legal restrictions, such as previous marriages or close family relationships, before the wedding could take place. Clandestine marriages were a problem, especially in matters of property ownership. Interestingly, Charlemagne himself had five wives in sequence, numerous concubines, and at least 20 children via his wives and concubines.

By the eleventh century, all marriages in Europe effectively came under the jurisdictional power of the church. It became customary to hold weddings near a church, often in front of the church, so that the newly married couple could go inside immediately afterward to obtain a priest’s blessing. But the priest did not officiate at the wedding. And…it was not until the twelfth century that a church wedding ceremony was conducted by the clergy. But marriage was still not considered a sacrament.

It was also in the eleventh century that celibacy became mandatory for priests in the west. Before that time many priests were married but they were encouraged not to have sexual intercourse with their wives. The last married Pope was Adrian II (pope from 867–872 CE), who was married to Stephania, with whom they had a daughter. There were two big reasons for the imposition of celibacy. First, there was a belief that the historical Jesus was a virgin and that therefore priests should be virgins. But there was a second important reason. Priests’ wives were starting to become too influential and threatened male clerical power in the institutional church.

At the urging of popes and councils, a kind of monastic austerity was gradually forced upon the clergy as a whole. Pope Benedict VIII in 1018 formally forbade priestly marriages. That prohibition was solemnly proclaimed by the First Lateran Council of 1123. The rule, however, was not easy to enforce.

In the thirteenth century, marriage was often viewed by church leaders as a remedy against the desires of the flesh. Many church authorities, like Albert the Great (1200 – 1280), the teacher of Thomas Aquinas (1225 -1274), considered sexual desires themselves if not sinful at best dangerous. Thomas Aquinas stressed that virginity was preferable to marriage. In his Summa Theologiae (sometimes called Summa Theologica) he wrote, “By the example of Christ, who both chose a virgin for his mother and remained himself a virgin, and by the teaching of the Apostle [i.e. Paul] who counsels virginity as the greater good.”

By the early thirteenth century, however, marriage came to be viewed as one of the church’s seven official sacraments. This was confirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1213, the Council of Florence in 1439, and was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent, meeting off and on from 1545 to 1563. Nevertheless, the bishops at Trent condemned the still ongoing practice of some priests getting married and strongly declared that Catholics had to believe that virginity and celibacy were superior to marriage.

Today many Catholic theologians and canon lawyers say it is better to let the legal regulation of marriage be a matter of civic control, without denying that church weddings are important communal celebrations or that Christian marriages are sacramental. And…marriages are sacramental because two baptized people make a commitment to each other. They are the “ministers of the sacrament.” The priest is an official witness. But what then about two baptized same-sex people who make a marriage commitment to each other? Is not their marriage also sacramental?

Times change. We acquire new knowledge and new insights about our human identity. In many respects we have better biblical and historical perspectives on the past. Our understandings evolve. Accepted patterns of human behavior do change.

My friend, who completed his doctorate in theology in Leuven in 1994, Todd Salzman and his colleague at Creighton University, Michael Lawler, have a new book coming out in May: Pope Francis, Marriage, and Same-Sex Civil Unions.Todd and Michael argue for the organic development of Catholic sexual teaching to recognize the morality and sacramentality of opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

Contemporary pastoral ministry confronts a number of issues and concerns. Some have been resolved in other Christian traditions but remain problematic in the Catholic tradition, because many in church leadership have difficulty understanding that all church doctrines are time-bound and provisional.

The Greek word, agápē, is usually translated as “love” in the New Testament. It really means care or caring. When Jesus tells his followers to love one another, as we read for instance in John 13:34–35, he is telling them to care about each other and to take care of one another.

Jesus never said it mattered if someone was gay, lesbian, trans, or straight. Agápē is not a feeling word. It is an action word. Loving and committed people are bound together in agápē.

Jack

In the New Testament there is no description of a ritual or ceremony associated with Penance or Reconciliation. The only ritual of forgiveness known to the earliest Christian community was Baptism. Today in fact, biblical scholars view just about all the texts that speak of a call to repentance as a call to Baptism, and moral rectitude after Baptism. Penance was seen as part of Baptism. There was no separate sacrament as we have it today.

The early Christians clearly understood that Jesus began his ministry with a call to repentance (Mark 1:15). To those who showed sorrow for their sinfulness he announced that they were forgiven by the power of God (Luke 5:18–26; 7:36–50). When asked how many times people should forgive one another, Jesus said, in effect, “every time.”

By the second century, Bishop Ignatius Theophoros of Antioch (died c. 110) and other second-century bishops continued to speak of personal correction and praying for others as a means of combating sin. Polycarp the Greek bishop of Smyrna (69  – 155) wrote that pastors should be compassionate and merciful to the sheep in Christ’s flock who went astray.

Later in the second century, however, there was a new development. There could only be one penitential reconciliation after Baptism, for the serious sins of apostasy, murder, and adultery. The public sinner would have to confess sins to the bishop. During liturgies,  the public sinner had to sit behind the community and wear penitential clothing. The public sinner was not allowed to stay for Eucharist and had to leave after the Gospel.

By the third century, a general pattern for the public reconciliation of known sinners began to appear in many Christian communities. Those who wanted to rejoin the community went to the bishop and confessed their error. But before they could be readmitted to the ranks of the faithful they had to reform their lives. They had to perform works of repentance, fasting and praying, and giving alms to the poor to show that their repentance was sincere. The period of their penitence could be a few weeks or a few years depending on the penitential customs of their community. In effect serious sinners were thrown out of the community: excommunicated. When their time of penance was over, the bishop imposed his hands on their heads as he had done after their Baptism.

There were extremes in interpretation. The rigorists claimed that excommunication for sins like apostasy and adultery should be permanent.

Penance, by the late fourth and fifth century, became a very public matter. But it was still normally received only once in a lifetime. The majority of Christians, however, felt no need for public penitence. They were not great saints but they were not great sinners either. During this time, therefore, we see a new development especially in Ireland.

Christianity first came to Ireland in the fifth century, around 431 CE. Missionaries, most famously including Saint Patrick, converted the Irish tribes to Christianity. The Celtic practice of Penance became the seeking of private spiritual advice. Devout Christians were encouraged to personally confess their shortcomings to a spiritual “guide” or “physician” who would give them direction in works of prayer and repentance. The person to whom they went, note well, was not necessarily a priest. Confession could be made to a layperson, but was usually to a monk or a nun.

Penitential books containing rules concerning Penance were also first developed by Celtic monks in Ireland in the sixth century. They gave lists of sins and the appropriate penances prescribed for them. They became a type of manual for spiritual guides. The number of penitential books and their importance is often cited as evidence of the particular strictness of Celtic spirituality in the seventh century. Depending on the penitent’s social status, a penance could be harsher or more lenient. For example, if a member of the clergy murdered a person, how long he had to fast depended on his position in the hierarchy. A bishop had to fast for twelve years, a priest or monk had to fast for ten years, and a deacon had to fast for seven years. And no matter the clergyman’s status, they were defrocked.

In the twelfth century, the rules changed. Only priests could listen to the confession of sins. Only priests had the “sacramental power.” But fortunately, people could receive the sacrament of Penance many times during one’s life. The formula that the priest used after hearing a person’s confession changed as well. What had been “May God have mercy on you and forgive you your sins” was changed to “I absolve you from your sins.” Thomas Aquinas, with his limited knowledge of the early centuries of Christian life, mistakenly asserted that the changed formula was in fact an ancient formula.

It was also in the twelfth century that the understanding of “purgatory” developed. Medieval theologians said sins were forgiven but that, after death, sinners’ souls still needed to be cleansed before they could enter heaven. Purgatory was suggested and presumed to be a place of a cleansing or “purgatorial fire,” outside the gates of heaven, to enable the deceased to achieve the holiness necessary for them to enter the joy of heaven.

At the Second Council of Lyon in 1274, the Western Church defined, for the first time, its teaching on purgatory, but the Eastern Orthodox Church did not adopt the doctrine. [Much later, Popes John Paul II (1920 – 2005) and Benedict XVI (1927 – 2022) wrote that the term “purgatory” does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence. But neither pope could acknowledge that “purgatory” was simply an imaginative thirteenth century conjecture.]

In any case, it was in the fifteenth century that indulgences — from the Latin verb indulgere meaning “to forgive” or “to be lenient toward” — were introduced as a way to reduce the “days” of purgatorial punishment one had to undergo before entering heaven.

One could get an indulgence for saying special prayers, visiting holy shrines, performing good deeds, and later by contributing money to the church. The main funding for the early stages of building St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican, for example, came from the sale of indulgences. The German Dominican friar Johan Tetzel (c.1465 – 1519) gathered indulgence money for the St. Peter’s building project. Although it is now disputed, the old legend was that Tetzel had said: “When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.”

When Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521) excommunicated Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) from the Catholic Church in 1520, the bill of excommunication also condemned forty-one of his ideas, including six on indulgences and twelve on penance.

In the mid-16th century, the bishops at the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563) stressed private confession to a priest as the approved approach to the sacrament of Penance. In fact, Trent’s bishops – not always historically aware ecclesiastics – stated that private confession dated back to the early days of Christianity. They simply presumed that the historic Jesus had created the sacrament of Penance as they understood it.

The Council of Trent’s medieval conception of sin and its remission through the confession of guilt and the performance of penitential works lasted into modern times because the Catholic Church, for a long time, retained its medieval cultural form, while the world around it changed.

The Roman Catholic approach to Penance began to change after the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965) when the name of the sacrament was changed from Penance to Reconciliation, and the rite allowed for a meeting of priest and penitent that was more like counseling than confession.

How should Christian communities practice Reconciliation today? People do need to acknowledge their sinful behavior and seek forgiveness. But forgiveness also requires reconciliation.

I suggest that at the local parish level, Christian communities should devote resources and personnel to focus on conversion and reconciliation about racism, misogyny, and homophobic discrimination. They should also focus on reconciliation within families: between husbands and wives, between parents and teenagers, between brothers and sisters who are angry with each other, and perhaps even between extended family members.

Sacramental forms and ministers can be adjusted to fit contemporary needs and circumstances. Such a ministry of reconciliation would require specially trained men and women as Ministers of Reconciliation. Then indeed the local Christian community would truly exercise sacraments of Reconciliation.

Jack

The word “eucharist” comes from the Greek verb eucharistein meaning “to give thanks.” At Jesus’ Last Supper, he gave thanks, giving special significance to the bread and wine he passed to the men and women who were his disciples. Bread and wine had long been used in Hebrew religious practices. When Jesus said the bread and wine were his body and blood, he was speaking about giving his life for his followers.

Paul refers to the Christian practice of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11. Acts of Apostles mentions three occasions, when the early followers of Jesus gathered to give thanks and break bread together: Acts 2, Acts 20 and Acts 27.

The early eucharistic services were presided over by the men and women who were leaders of the local Christian communities. Ordination was not yet a requirement for eucharistic leaders, because it did not even exist at that time.

Early Christians understood, much better than the medieval Christians who came centuries after them, that social realities can be powerful spiritual realities. The Body of Christ, as Paul stressed, was the Christian community. The Gospel According to Matthew is very clear: Jesus says: “Where two or three gather together in my name, there I am, with them.” (Matthew 18:20)

Interestingly, when the Gospel According to John describes the Last Supper, it mentions the washing of feet but not Jesus’ actions with bread and wine. But the sixth chapter of John’s gospel does quote Jesus as saying, “I am the bread of life. . . This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Nevertheless, John is very strong in his affirmation of the presence of Christ in the community. In chapter 17 we read Jesus saying: “Father, just as you are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one – I in them and you in me – so that they may be brought to complete unity.” (John 17:20-26)

 By the late first and early second century, the weekly ceremonial meal of the Christian communities was called a “Thanksgiving” (eucharistia). The Palestinian Christian leader Justin (100 – c. 165 CE) argued that the Christian Eucharist had replaced Hebrew sacrifices. Justin took a text from Malachi, the last book of the Hebrew Bible, and applied it to Christians in his own days: “Everywhere a pure sacrifice is offered to my name because my name is great among the nations, says the Lord almighty.” (Malachi 1:11)

A “pure sacrifice” in the ancient world was a religious meal, shared by individuals who were ritually “pure.”

Centuries later, in the the eighth and ninth centuries, the ritual changed from a community celebration to a priestly action and worship arrangements in churches changed significantly. The presider became the “celebrant” and no longer faced the people but faced the apse: standing before the altar with his back to the congregation.

The new priestly practice was first adopted in the basilicas of Rome and then became common practice across Europe. What was lost was the sense that the congregation was the Body of Christ. What had been a community ritual became the celebrant’s ritual. The celebrant “said Mass.” The congregation watched everything from some distance. The word “Mass” was derived from the concluding words of the ritual in Latin: Ite, missa est, “Go, it is the dismissal.”

By the eleventh century, the ritual performed by priests was no longer understood as a sacred meal but as a priestly sacrifice: a sacrificial offering of God’s Son to God his Father. Medieval theologians misinterpreted Justin’s quotation from Malachi. Key among them was Anselm (1033 – 1109) the Archbishop of Canterbury with his “satisfaction theory of atonement.” Anselm created a theological distortion with his understanding of God not as a loving Father but as a hard-nosed and vengeful judge, demanding the death of his own son. Quite a departure from “God is love.”

Not long after Anselm, the influential Dominican philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) introduced another important change in eucharistic understanding. He noted significantly that the Eucharist was different from the other sacraments because it was not just a sacred ritual, but Eucharist was a sacred object. Popular piety shifted to adoration of that sacred object: the eucharistic bread, called the “host,” from the Latin word “hostis,” meaning victim.

The changed understanding became official when the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 CE) decided that it was not necessary for Christians to receive communion regularly. The Blessed Sacrament (the name given to the consecrated bread), however, was to be adored. As a natural development of the changed focus to adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the feast of Corpus Christi (eucharistic Body of Christ), was established in 1264 by Pope Urban IV (1195 – 1264) shortly before his death. The worship of the consecrated host greatly expanded into the public adoration of the host exposed on the altar. Monstrances, ornate display cases, were created to display the consecrated host. Stories about bleeding hosts and apparitions of Christ in the consecrated host were widespread.

Protestant reformers reacted to many eucharistic aberrations. The variety of Protestant teachings about the eucharist forced the bishops at the Council of Trent (meeting in twenty-five sessions between 13 December 1545 and 4 December 1563) to restate the meaning of the sacrament.

The Council of Trent produced three documents on the Eucharist, based on Aristotelian scholastic theology. The bishops declared that “Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really and substantially contained under the appearances of bread and wine.” This presence, due to “transubstantiation,” was based on medieval Aristotelian metaphysics. It was understood as “the real presence,” localized in the sacramental bread, and not just a spiritual presence. The bishops at Trent said nothing about the earlier ceremonial meal and nothing about the real presence of Christ in the Christian community, the Body of Christ.

As sacramental theologian Joseph Martos so often observed, the Catholic Church officially still recognizes the doctrines of the Council of Trent, but contemporary Catholics and Catholic theologians are quietly laying them aside.

Most contemporary theologians no longer speak about the Mass as a sacrifice. The term “transubstantiation” is virtually unknown to younger Catholics. Even the word “mass,” though still in popular use, is disappearing from the vocabulary of theologians and liturgists. Today more prefer to speak of the Mass as the “Eucharistic Liturgy.” (The English word “liturgy” is derived from the ancient Greek leitourgia, which means “a work or service for the people.”)

I remember when my former professor Edward Schillebeeckx (1914 – 2009) said we should stop talking about “transubstantiation.” He stressed that in the eucharistic celebration the bread and wine take on a new significance and proposed the term “transignification.”

In 2019 a Pew Research Center survey found that most self-described U.S. Catholics did not believe in transubstantiation. Nearly 69% said they personally believed that the bread and wine used in Communion “are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.” U.S. Catholic bishops were greatly dismayed – some even angry — and said something had to be done.

During their November 2021 annual meeting, The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voted overwhelmingly (201 – 17) to launch a three-year Eucharistic revival initiative – to teach Catholics about the Eucharist — that will culminate this year, 2024, in a National Eucharistic Congress in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Most Catholics who reject the idea of Christ’s “real presence” in the Eucharist think it means that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. In fact, Christ’s presence is not a physical presence.

But we do perceive spiritual realities, however, through physical realities. When one looks, for example, at the physical words on a page, one perceives things that are not physical, namely meanings or ideas. Our eyes look at black marks on a white background, but the mind perceives what the words mean.

Contemporary theologians understand all of the sacraments as ritual actions of words and gestures, which embody and reveal not only human realities but also divine realities. At his Last Supper, Jesus changed the meaning of a common Hebrew ritual to a memorial of his own death and resurrection. He changed the meaning of the bread and wine from what they signified for the Hebrew people to a sacrament of his body and blood.

Today we better understand that just as the Word of God is present in the reading of Sacred Scripture at each liturgy, so also Christ is present sacramentally in the bread and wine celebration shared in the Christian community as signs of spiritual communion with him. As Paul the Apostle stressed, Christians are the Body of Christ.

The worshiping Christian community, the Body of Christ, makes it possible for Christ to be present in the proclaiming of God’s word in the Scriptures, in the thanksgiving that it offers to God in remembrance of Jesus’ Last Supper, and in the giving and receiving of the eucharistic bread and wine.

If we believe the Christian community gathered for Eucharist is the Body of Christ, it is not enough to just believe it. We must also live it, practicing love of God and love of neighbor as outlined in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7).

Our Christian faith is not a relic of the past. It is a life-giving program for today and for tomorrow. We are called to be in dialogue with the times and the world in which we live, faithful to the Word of God, and striving to harmonize life and faith.

Jack

In many Christian denominations, Confirmation is a rite that often includes a profession of faith by an already baptized person. Confirmation is not practiced in Christian traditions that stress the importance of believer’s adult baptism.

Confirmation as a separate sacramental ritual in Western Christianity did not exist at first. Contrary to what some people still think, the historical Jesus did not “institute the sacrament of Confirmation.”  Its origin in early Christian communities was in the blessing that the baptizing overseeer (bishop) gave right after doing the baptismal water ritual. It was therefore part of Baptism.

The early practice changed, however, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380 CE and the number of Christians grew tremendously. Very quickly there were more baptisms than a single bishop in each city could handle. Priests, therefore, began doing the baptizing.

What had originally been a bishop’s blessing administered after doing a baptism then became, in the fourth century, a bishop’s blessing separated in time and space from the water ritual. The episcopal rite was called a blessing or anointing, and in various places it was given names such as “Chrism” or “Consignation.”

In the fifth century, in what is today’s France, the post-baptismal blessing was called “Confirmation” and this name eventually gained wide acceptance. Many people really did not see the necessity for this Confirmation ritual, because Baptism was the key sacrament of initiation into the Christian community. For the most part, therefore, episcopal Confirmation fell into disuse.

In the ninth century, however, reform-minded French bishops made an attempt to revive Confirmation, suggesting that it bestowed “the gifts of the Holy Spirit.” Nevertheless, by the twelfth century, Confirmation was mostly only received by those who wanted to be members of the ordained clergy.

Another change, called “the bishop’s slap,” arrived in the thirteenth century. But the post Vatican II (1962 – 1965) reformed rite of Confirmation enacted in 1971 removed it. It had been added to the ritual in the 13^th century by Durandus of Saint-Pourçain (c. 1275 – 1332). He was a French Dominican, theologian, and bishop. The bishop’s slap happened, after the anointing, when the bishop (usually gently) slapped the confirmand’s cheek while saying, “Peace be with you.” The slap inspired military imagery and fostered an interpretation of confirmation as a maturity rite for new “soldiers of Christ.” Its meaning however was poorly understood and so it was removed in the 1971 reshaping of Confirmation.

In 1563 the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent stressed the importance of the Sacrament of Confirmation because the bishops believed it had been established by the historical Jesus. Their belief was not grounded in any documented history but in their own historic conjecture. They simply presumed Jesus had created it.

Historical understandings can and do change and better historical information brings changed institutional and personal understandings as well. Over the centuries, Confirmation has gone through a number of changes in understanding and ceremonies.

In the Eastern Catholic Church, the sacrament is called Chrismation and it is conferred immediately after baptism for infants along with their First Communion. In Western Christianity, Confirmation is ordinarily administered when a child reaches the age of reason or early adolescence. In Belgium, for example, young people are confirmed at age 12. In Germany Protestants were usually confirmed around age 14, Catholics about age 12.

In the United States the debate about Confirmation has been growing ever since the decision of the Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in 1972 that Confirmation should ordinarily be celebrated for adolescents in junior high. In the late 1970s and early 1980s a number of dioceses moved Confirmation to high school years, like a Christian Bar or Bat Mitzvah – a coming of age ceremony for boys and girls when they reach the age of 12 or 13. But in the late 1980s some dioceses moved in the opposite direction, celebrating Confirmation just before First Communion in second grade. There are of course variations. In the Diocese of Fargo, North Dakota, the sacraments of Confirmation and First Holy Eucharist are celebrated together at the same Mass. The usual age for the reception of these sacraments is third grade.

Concluding thoughts: Meaningful sacraments are not just rituals that celebrate beliefs, but rituals that truly celebrate lived realities. If Confirmation is truly a rite of passage, it needs to facilitate and celebrate a genuine change in people’s lives. A dynamic and meaningful Confirmation should connect people, whatever their age, with an experienced spiritual reality: an experience of the Sacred in the depth of our human lives. Such an experience gives people what we so desperately need today: faith, hope, and courage to journey forward.

Perhaps we all need to spend more time studying and reflecting on Christian spirituality, as a good friend said recently, “where we see the glimmer of the living Spirit peeking through, calling us forward, and joining us together, healed, whole, and holy.”

I personally would like to see Confirmation as a ritual of adult commitment to the Christian way of life: a faithful commitment to caring for others and to the spiritual transformation that results from living according to the Gospel. But I would say that Confirmation in many places is a sacramental ritual still in evolution.

Jack

P.S.   Readers have asked me for a couple book recommendations about sacraments. Two books by sacramental theologian friend Joseph J. Martos (1943 – 2020) are on the top of my list: Doors to the Sacred: A Historical Introduction to Sacraments in the Catholic Church. Be sure to get the version updated in 2014. The other Martos book I really like is Honest Rituals, Honest Sacraments which he completed in 2017.

The Synoptic Gospels (Mark 1:9–11; Matthew 3:13–17; Luke 3:21–23) mention the ritual immersion practiced by John the Baptizer in which Jesus himself participated. Matthew 29:18–20 also portrays the risen Lord, in a post-Resurrection narrative, commanding his disciples to baptize using a Trinitarian formula. The words came not from the historic Jesus, biblical scholars suggest, but from early church practice around the year 80 CE.

The word “baptism” is derived from Latin and Greek words meaning to immerse or to plunge in water. Historically people have participated in Baptism by being dipped or immersed in water, having water poured on their heads, or even just splashing some water on the head of the person being baptized.

John the Baptizer was an itinerant Hebrew preacher active in the area of the Jordan River in the first century CE. John used Baptism as the central symbol of his pre-messianic movement. Most scholars agree that John baptized Jesus and that certainly some of Jesus’ disciples had been participants in John the Baptizer’s religious movement. Being baptized by John demonstrated a desire to refocus one’s life and make a commitment to follow God’s law in anticipation of the Messiah’s arrival.

For Jesus, his Baptism marked a moment of personal discernment and preparation for his own public ministry, which was far greater than the ministry of John the Baptizer.

That a ritual immersion in water was important in the earliest decades of the Jesus movement is clear from the many references to it in the New Testament. When Paul speaks of being “immersed in one spirit” and “into one body,” he is talking about the ritual’s marking an entrance into the community and sharing a communal spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). But Paul did not develop an elaborate theology of Baptism. Borrowing from Hebrew ideas with which he was familiar, Paul saw it as a symbolic immersion and an initiation not only into the community of believers but into the very way of life that Jesus himself had lived.

The earliest and best second-century source on believer’s Baptism is the Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” 100-110 CE. It reveals how Hebrew Christians saw themselves and how they adapted their practice for Gentile Christians. The Didache not only establishes moral qualifications for the adult who is about to undergo Baptism but also requires the baptismal candidate to fast for a day or two.

Originally the minister of Baptism was the overseer (bishop). Later presbyters (priests). But over the years, official RCC teaching about the minister of Baptism has evolved. A layperson can baptize when a priest or deacon is not readily available. This, for example, has been happening for some time in Austria and Switzerland. Most recently, in March 2022, Bishop Franz-Josef Overbeck, Bishop of Essen, Germany, appointed 18 lay pastoral and parish workers – 17 women and one man – as extraordinary baptismal ministers, for a three-year period. Then in November 2023, Bishop Gebhard Fürst, in the Diocese of Rottenburg-Stuttgart in Southwestern Germany, commissioned 26 theologically trained, non-ordained, men and women to administer the sacrament of Baptism in his diocese.

Infant Baptism? Traditionally, advocates of infant Baptism say that its practice dates back to the apostles. Yet there is no proof for this assertion. No clear evidence for infant Baptism exists before the third century.

Baptism began as a ritual for adults. But it developed greatly in the third century, and by the fourth and fifth centuries, Baptism had become a several-weeks-long adult exercise involving prayer, instruction, and learning the creed: all leading up to the actual baptismal washing on Easter. The ceremony was usually conducted by the overseer (bishop) of the Christian community.

Although some infants were being baptized in the third and fourth centuries, infant Baptism did not really become widespread until the fifth century, thanks to the introduction of his Original Sin understanding by Bishop Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 CE).

For many traditionalist Christians, the doctrine of “Original Sin” is firm and definite. In fact, however, there are no biblical and no historical indications that Jesus knew of or believed this doctrine. Neither did the early church. Original Sin is a theological construct created by Augustine of Hippo in the late fourth century. Augustine taught that through sexual intercourse all humans inherited a tainted nature. He identified male semen as the means by which Original Sin was inherited and passed on. He stressed however that the historic Jesus of Nazareth was free of Original Sin because he was conceived without any semen.

Augustine believed as well that sexual desire itself was a consequence of Original Sin. Oddly enough, as a young man, Augustine had had few qualms about sexual desire and engaging in sexual relationships. When an 17 years old student in Carthage, he began a long-term relationship with a mistress. He had at least one son, who died as a teenager, named Adeodatus i.e. “a gift from God.” He left his mistress at the prompting of his mother, Monica, who wanted him to marry a young heiress in Milan. That did not happen. Augustine did find another mistress. But then he had an anti-body and anti-sex “conversion,” and became a celibate priest.

Most importantly we need to understand Augustine’s Original Sin impact on infant Baptism. Augustine held that when unbaptized infants died, they went straight to hell as a consequence of Original Sin. Remember that infant mortality in those days of course was quite high. Augustine therefore became a strong advocate of infant Baptism, and in the church, thanks to Augustine, infant Baptism would become the norm.

Quite honestly, Augustine’s negative understanding of human sexuality and his creation of the Original Sin doctrine have always been theologically problematic.

Back to adults. Some post-Reformation Christian traditions strongly rejected infant Baptism. The Anabaptists, started in 1527, believed that Baptism was valid only when candidates freely acknowledged their faith in Christ and requested to be baptized. The word “Anabaptist” comes from the Greek word ana meaning “again” as in “baptized again.” Anabaptist groups today include mainly the Amish, the Brethren, and the Mennonites.

Other contemporary Christian traditions, of course, stress the importance of adult believer’s Baptism. “Baptists” form a major branch of Evangelical Christianity distinguished by baptizing adult professing Christian believers and doing so by immersion.

In many ways I can resonate with the stress on adult Baptism, but I doubt very much that infant Baptism will disappear. Regardless, Baptism is not a thing. It is an initiation into the community of believers. The communIty of believers, therefore, has a major responsibility to support and promote the healthy Christian development of all of all of its members. Just as parents, family, and friends promote the physical, mental, and intellectual development of babies and children, so too parents, family, and Christian communities bear a heavy responsibility to promote and support the Christian faith and values development of their babies and children.

Yes, there is “continuity and change” in all of the sacraments. Meaningful sacraments are not just rituals that celebrate beliefs but those that truly celebrate lived and living realities. A dynamic and meaningful sacrament should connect people, whatever their age, with an experienced spiritual reality: an experience of the Sacred in the depth of our human lives.

Jack

In the ancient narrative about Noah and the great flood, it rained 40 days (Genesis 7:12). Moses was on Mount Sinai for 40 days (Exodus 24:18). In the New Testament, according to the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus spent 40 days of prayer before beginning his public ministry (Mark 1:12-13, Matthew 4:1-11, and Luke 4:1-13).

And now of course our season of Lent begins on February 14. It also lasts 40 days — if the 6 Sundays in Lent are excluded.

Lent – the name comes from lencten the Old English word for the spring — is our special time for reflection and renewal.

The annual forty-day spiritual renewal period of Lent was actually created in 325 CE by the bishops at the First Council in Nicaea, now İznik Turkey.

During Lent 2024, in response to several requests, I would like to offer some updated theological reflections about the sacraments – Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Marriage, and Holy Orders. I did this some years ago, I realize. But our theological understandings develop, and I also have some new Another Voice followers.

Theology mediates between faith and culture, as the Canadian philosopher and theologian Bernard Lonergan, S.J. (1904 – 1984) once said. As the cultural context changes, so too does theology. That means of course that all theology, including official doctrinal statements, is provisional. Context is important. Theology is always related to the context in which it is done. It is related to the “signs of the times,” to use a phrase popularized by Pope John XXIII (1881 – 1963), when he convened the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965).

In our contemporary historical context people have big questions: Who, or what is God? What do we really know about the man Jesus of Nazareth? Women priests? Why not? Do we really need a church? Human sexuality and gender issues? What is normal and what is natural? Life beyond this life? Do we listen to the questions of older people? Does this life really have meaning? Is the Roman Catholic Church still understood as the “one, true church”? And what kind of Christian community will nourish the faith life of tomorrow’s Christians? Do we really listen to young people today?

There are of course abundant questions about the sacraments. Did Jesus create them? How have sacraments changed over the centuries? What is an invalid sacrament? Are Anglican and Protestant sacraments valid? In 1898, for example, in his apostolic letter Apostolicae curae Pope Leo XIII (1810 – 1903) declared all Anglican ordinations to be “absolutely null and utterly void.” Leo had many good qualities but had a very short-sighed view of sacramentality. He found Anglican orders invalid because of changed ordination rituals and understandings, written by Thomas Crammer (1489 – 1556) and introduced under King Edward VI in 1550 and 1552.

Thomas Crammer of course was a key leader of the English Reformation and Archbishop of Canterbury from 1533 to 1555. As archbishop, he put the English Bible in parish churches, drew up the Book of Common Prayer, and composed a litany that remains in use today. Then he was condemned by the Vatican as a heretic and burned at the stake in 1556, as ordered by the newly installed “Catholic Queen,” Mary Tudor, also known as “Bloody Mary.”

In our contemporary context, changes do not always come easily. On February 3^rd for example, as I was writing this reflection, the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, the DDF, issued a doctrinal Note entitled “Gestis verbisque,” (“By gestures and words”) stressing that the words and elements in the rites of each sacrament cannot be changed because such changes render the sacrament “invalid.” The recent DDF Note stressed as well that “changing the form of a sacrament or its object is always a gravely illicit act and deserves exemplary punishment.” Some people seem blind to new understandings or even hostile to change.

The background to this February DDF declaration goes back to an issue brought before the doctrinal office in August 2020 by a number of conservative priests from Phoenix Arizona who doubted the validity of their baptisms because the priest who had baptized them as babies had changed the prescribed words from “I baptize you” to “we baptize you.” The Vatican concluded that in such cases the sacrament had to be considered “invalid.” People who therefore were “invalidly baptized” had to be baptized again, then married again, or ordained again. A real sacramental tempest in a Catholic teapot. Perhaps Rome is now trying to appease conservative Catholics who are still upset about the 2023 December 18 DDF decision allowing blessings for same-sex couples?

Thinking about invalid baptisms, I started thinking about my own father who for most of his life was a baptized Protestant but decided to become a Catholic in later life. Much to his chagrin he had to be baptized again because the parish priest told him his “Protestant baptism” was “invalid.” (Named “Waldo Emerson,” after the U.S. philosopher and poet, he was informed by the baptizing priest – who was really a very kind man — that he also needed a “Christian name.” He took “Joseph” my brother’s name. I was his “godparent” baptismal sponsor. And he was baptized on my sister’s birthday. It was a moving event back then and still is many years later.)

Knowing and understanding history is important. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by Pope John Paul II (1920 – 2005) in 1992, still stresses authoritatively that the seven sacraments were instituted by Jesus. This understanding was carved in stone by the Counter-Reformation sixteenth century Council of Trent. Contemporary historical theologians and biblical scholars, however, find no direct evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever created a well-defined and complete set of seven sacramental rituals, such as appeared in the church several centuries after his death and resurrection.

In fact, before the thirteenth century, there was no talk of just seven sacraments, because Christians had a variety of rituals and symbols. Christian practices and Christian beliefs were far from uniform and far from what they would become. Marriage, for example, was not considered a sacrament until the the Council of Verona in 1184 CE. What WAS considered a sacrament before that time was the solemn consecration of virgins. Well, issues of sex and gender in Western Christianity, especially after the fifth century, have often been problematic. But there were exceptions as well. What is perhaps less well known is that for centuries women had been ordained as deacons and abbesses, and even as presbyters and bishops. This was certainly the case until the 12th century. [See Gary Macy’s book – The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West]

Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) and other Protestant reformers rejected the sacramentality of medieval Catholicism. Using the New Testament, they acknowledged Baptism and Eucharist, which are both explicitly mentioned in the scriptures. But they regarded the other five as ecclesiastical inventions.

In response to Luther and the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent, meeting for twenty-five sessions between 13 December 1545 and 4 December 1563, initiated a Catholic Counter-Reformation. The greatest weight in the Council’s decrees was given to the seven sacraments, in some detail, refuting the claims of the Protestant Reformers. The bishops, not so well anchored in Christian history but fiercely anti-Reformation, insisted on the numbering of the sacraments as seven and that all seven were directly instituted by Jesus before his death and resurrection.

It is important for us today to have a clearer sense of the evolution of sacramental rituals. But that is not enough. Sacramental actions today need to regain their dynamism, which involves everyone in the Christian community and not just a hierarchy of ordained men.

As my good friend and sacramental theologian Joseph Martos (1943 – 2020) so often said, the sacraments are not things to be “administered” and “received.” All mechanistic definitions of the sacraments must be rejected. Early Christian rituals were grounded in life experiences such as conversion, community, commitment, and self-giving. Grace is not a thing given by sacraments. Grace is our participation in Divine Life. Our Christian way of life is a process of growth in the Spirit, not a doctrinal declaration.

I hope you will find my Lenten reflections informative and helpful.

Jack

Globally more voters than ever will head to the polls in 2024. At least 64 countries, representing a combined population of about 49% of the people in the world, will hold national elections. The results will be consequential for years to come.

In the United States, political-religious polarization continues to grow. A few days before the January 23^rd New Hampshire Primary, the right-wing organization CatholicVote.org endorsed former President Donald Trump in the Republican presidential primary. The organization sees the former U.S. president as a great leadership “General” and “Someone who knows the truth and is willing to fight for it.” It is a dangerous time when we live in a world in which everyone has an opinion that is based on little or no trustworthy information.

According to NORC — the National Opinion Research Center — at the University of Chicago, confidence in U.S. democracy remains low. Most of the public think democracy could be at risk depending on who wins the presidential election next year, including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans.

We live in a time of tremendous socio-cultural change. As I mentioned a couple weeks ago, rising authoritarian “leaders” with their distorted dogmatism are a growing danger around the globe. Cheap slogans become truth statements. Fiction becomes reality. Authoritarian “leaders” — with their closed systems of power and authority — gradually or quickly shift into doing whatever they want, because too many people, anxious about social change, close their eyes, stop thinking, and unquestioningly submit to strong authoritarians who take charge but are fundamentally undemocratic, tyrannical, and immoral. As the authoritarian dictator Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945) supposedly said “How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.”

The big challenge in the 2024 elections is evaluating the socio-political ethics of candidates for political office. Honesty, human rights, human dignity, compassion, and collaboration are the values that ethically healthy leaders promote.

This week I have five observations about the character traits of ethically unhealthy leaders. They are warning signs that should alert people and call for serious pre-election reflection.

1. Ethically unhealthy leaders care more about self-interest than other-interest. They set themselves above the rules that apply to others, seeking the upper hand rather than working with others collaboratively.

2. Ethically unhealthy leaders offer fantasy in place of reality, insults in place of inspiration, and rely on fear to gain the upper hand by stirring up conflict and inciting violence.

3. For ethically unhealthy leaders, power and control are far more important than respect and civility. Their key words and actions are what threatens, belittles, blames, shames, and physically or emotionally harms others.

4. Ethically unhealthy leaders separate people into bad and good categories – “them vs us.” The bad people are dangerous. They must be isolated or eliminated.

5. Ethically unhealthy leaders ignore ethics. For them the end justifies the means. They offer the same exception to their loyal supporters who behave unethically, saying they’ve done nothing wrong.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

The challenge for all of us is to really inform people and encourage them to critically evaluate candidates. The ethical issues are much bigger than whether or not a candidate says he or she is against abortion. Yes. We need to seriously discuss the abortion questions, but in this coming election the big questions are stressing the responsibility to be informed voters, to reflect and to evaluate a candidate’s integrity, trustworthiness, and competency.

Right now, I am thinking about the observation of the U.S. American writer Isaac Asimov (1920 – 1992): “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

I am thinking as well about the warning of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato (c. 424 – 348 BCE) who wrote: “The price good people pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil people.”

Doomsday scenarios are not my thing. But our challenge is very real.

Jack

Catholic Church leaders in Africa and Central Asia prohibit the blessing of same-sex couples, despite recent Vatican approval. In fact, Catholic bishops in several countries have objected to the Vatican’s, and Pope Francis’, recent approval of blessings for same-sex couples, underscoring the divisiveness of the issue in the global Catholic Church.

The Catholic bishops of Africa and Madagascar issued a unified statement refusing to follow the Vatican declaration allowing priests to offer blessings to same-sex couples and asserting that such unions are “contrary to the will of God.” The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a brief statement focusing mostly on its assertion that same-sex couples remain ineligible for liturgical blessings and reiterating the church’s position that marriage is a union of a man with a woman.

Some bishops in Germany and Belgium, however, have long defied the earlier Catholic Church ban on blessing same-sex unions, even going so far as to produce a rite of blessing for same-sex couples.

Anti-LGBTQ policies and punishments, elsewhere, remain strong. In Africa, for example, 33 of the 54 nations across the continent have laws that make same-sex activity a crime punishable with fines and even lengthy prison sentences. In Somalia and some of the states of Nigeria people can even be legally put to death for same-sex behavior.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992, is still in effect and considers sexual activity between members of the same sex to be a grave sin and same-sex attraction as objectively disordered.

Nevertheless, on Monday, December 18, 2023, in an official declaration “Fiducia supplicans” issued by the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and approved by Pope Francis, it is now permissible for priests to bless same-sex couples as long as they are not part of regular Church rituals or liturgies. [The “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith” (DDF) was originally founded by Pope Paul III in 1542 and was then known as the “Inquisition.”]

With this new declaration the DDF and Pope Francis have firmly established the possibility of blessing same-sex couples and remarried divorcees as a pastoral option. Pope Francis also emphasized, however, that blessing same-sex people should not be equated with blessing their sins! His remark reminded me of the earlier 2021 DDF declaration which had stated flat-out that the church couldn’t bless the unions of two men or two women because “God cannot bless sin.”

So now the Vatican takes small steps in the right direction? Time will tell. One of my theologian friends observed that the December 2023 DDF document is akin to kindly giving a glass of water to a starving person, but only a glass of water.

In any event, in view of recent developments, an historical-critical perspective is helpful…

LOOKING AT SACRED SCRIPTURE AGAIN

Up to now, the traditional religious condemnation of same-sex behavior had been based on: Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-7; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 1 Timothy 1:10. In the light of contemporary biblical scholarship, however, it is impossible to affirm that these texts provide a solid foundation for condemning same-sex behavior today.

The Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament texts should not be taken literally but should be interpreted in terms of the authors’ times, culture, and social contexts – an historical-critical interpretation.

The understanding, back when the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament were composed, was that all human beings were naturally heterosexual and, therefore, any same-sex behavior was unnatural, a perversion, and immoral. That biblical assumption is now understood as incorrect, because some people are, by nature, same-sex oriented.

Relying upon the historical-critical method, it is clear that the traditional condemnation of same-sex behavior lacks legitimacy. Change does happen. The old understanding of human sexuality is time-bound. A new understanding has already begun taking shape. As an older Catholic historical theologian, I have often chuckled that in 1943, the year I was born, the Vatican endorsed a more critical study of Scripture based on an increase in historical knowledge. The Vatican recognized explicitly that “past ages” did not have “all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition.” Historical development.

No doubt the most influential biblical account leading to the condemnation of same-sex behavior has been the biblical account about Sodom in the book of Genesis (Genesis 19:1-28). A contextual exegesis, now agreed upon by most contemporary biblical scholars, shows that a same-sex condemnation based on the Sodom account is really not an accurate biblical interpretation. Scripture scholars today are in agreement that Inhospitality was the real sin of Sodom. The residents of Sodom refused to offer shelter to the two visiting angels who entered their city that evening.

If one asks why God would destroy Sodom because of inhospitality, one must realize that hospitality in ancient Near Eastern culture was highly valued. Travelers were vulnerable to all kinds of cruel treatment such as robbery, assault, rape, and murder. The clearer sin in both the Hebrew text and the original Hebrew context was the sin of inhospitality. Even the historical Jesus, in the Gospel of Luke, affirmed this inhospitality interpretation, in his reference to Sodom when his disciples were not welcomed in a town with hospitality. (Luke 10:8-12)

A CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE

The heterosexual – “other-sex” – orientation is an innate, deep-seated, and stable orientation to, predominantly, persons of the opposite sex. It is natural. The homosexual – “same-sex” – orientation is a similarly innate, deep-seated, and stable orientation to, predominantly, persons of the same sex. It is natural. A person’s sexual orientation is neither chosen nor readily changeable. It simply is. And… sexual acts – whether heterosexual or homosexual – are moral when they are natural and expressed in a truly human, just, and loving manner.

FOR FURTHER READING

Creighton University theologians, Todd A. Salzman (who completed his doctorate in theology at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1994) and Michael G. Lawler, have written extensively about Catholic sexual morality. I strongly recommend their book The Sexual Person, Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology, Georgetown University Press, 2008. Their book provides a helpful context for current ethical debates about marriage, cohabitation, sexual orientation, and reproductive technologies.

Todd and Michael contend that the Catholic Church is inconsistent in its teaching. It adopts a dynamic, historically conscious anthropology on social ethics; but it still adopts a static, classicist anthropology on sexual ethics. They propose a definition of human sexuality that finds love and truth in all just and loving heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual acts.

Historical-critical thinking is important. We observe. We reflect. We can change.

Jack