Catholic Sensibility

Blogging from me will probably continue to be light for the next few days. I really appreciate Neil’s return. I hope you will review his “Questions” posts and respond. I also hope we will see more of those. OCF will wrap in a few days–only three more posts to finish up cremation. I’ll start right in with the 1981 document, the General Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass. After that, who knows? So many choices.

We had a heavy weekend at the parish. Our patronal feast fell on Friday this year, so for the first time, we decided to move it to the nearest weekend and observe it as a full solemnity. We also have a community meal. Plus it was the weekend for the Spring Break Service Trip Auction Dinner. My impromptu jazz group, the Parisian Thoroughfares, played a 75-minute set at the latter, and for about a half-hour at the former. We added a drummer and a trumpet player for this incarnation. We had a singer perform on about a third of the tunes. It wasn’t my doing we did three moon songs, “How High The Moon,” “It’s Only A Paper Moon,” and “Fly Me To The Moon.” They don’t really have jazz tunes about planets. We’d have to go to “Stardust” and titles like that to get to the greater universe. Anyway, it was great fun to play with good young musicians.

The snow is hitting Iowa–a light fluffy fall from what I can see. Somebody told me it could be ten inches. Someone else said the storm could shift and dump a foot and a half. Well.

We had to get Gambit to the vet earlier today. My wife awoke with a migraine this morning. The young miss stayed home with a sore throat, so when the pets were underfoot this morning hoping I would feed them, the little guy got caught between my legs as I was trying to avoid a jumpy, happy dog. I felt one of his hind legs twist as he darted under me. He was limber enough to jump to the back of the recliner while I was in the shower and then get down to the dog bed while I was dressing. But he’s still stretching out his leg when he rests or sleeps.

Radiology found nothing broken or dislocated, so it seems he just strained soft tissue. “Keep him from jumping,” said the vet. “For a week or so.” Good luck with that. He was already chasing his cat-sister later today and taking a few swats at his elder brother. This was one vet bill I didn’t mind paying–the peace of mind was worth it.

Meanwhile, have a look and listen at this version of “How High The Moon.”

I hear that many conservatives are concerned about the rap they get for being angry. I can appreciate the mischaracterization. The coming trend seems to be, if it can be believed, that now all the progressives are defensive, embittered, and–gasp!–angry.

When dealing with individual persons, it’s almost never a good idea to label someone as angry. If the person is truly on edge, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, not so much a fact. And if it’s true, we can ask ourselves: is such a label likely to be helpful? I have a friend who characterizes himself as happy. He puts it on his blog for all to see. And yet, he’s tripped himself up not with anger so much, but with other behaviors that don’t look happy. Is he one way inside and another way for the world? Could be. My sense is that it’s probably better not to say anything.

I think there are group efforts on the internet that have a relentless mob mentality about them. I don’t think any chant musician wakes up in the morning with the top of their to-do list reading, “1. Insult David Haas today.” But you get a group of like-minded people together, and the temperature seems to have nowhere to go but up. And up and up.

I see my friend Jeffrey Tucker has written another manifesto on the Chant Cafe. With a line like …

The idea (of the 1970/75 translation) was to make the liturgy more directly communicative; but the approach did not stand the test of time and, in the end, managed only to make the liturgy tedious. It was a brilliant but colossal error.

… how can you not, if you care, place yourself into one of two camps: the pom poms or the tums? It’s the kind of tack that happens when one of my brothers or my friend Tom says something outrageous about sports or our family of origin. I either cheer or tell him he’s off his flippin’ rocker. And we have another beer and move on. Like Steelers-Raiders in the 70′s: nothing is settled–it moves on to the next war, the next decade, the next friendly drink. My wife or my mother shakes her head at the incomprehensible rudeness of men. But that’s life.

There’s an idea behind Jeffrey’s rhetoric, and it’s a brilliant and colossal reflection of his criticism of MR1. Posts like his are intended to make an enthusiastic and perceptive argument in favor of chant. But what they do instead is prolong a tedious argument like a pub discussion on the merits of conflicting favorite teams and/or athletes. Nothing is going to get solved. But sans beer, we’ll have a heck of a time releasing our inner enzymes, if not demons. We’ll raise our voices and increase blood flow in our cappillaries. Unfortunately, we won’t get the chance to tell someone quietly he’s been drinking too much, or commiserate about women past and present, or pat him on the back, or make the other connections that come so much more easily in real life.

Somehow, we need that beer. Because lacking it, and the brotherly slaps of affection, this discussion on who’s happier is going to keep spinning its wheels.

I’d say there are enough new people getting into liturgical music of all sorts that any number of people are looking forward to the future. Even for an old hand like myself, I still find excitement in the high school and college students who discover sacred music.  I’m happy to live through music ministry as they experience it–a first Midnight Mass or Easter Vigil or a first time being a psalmist. It’s in the excellence of people, and to a lesser degree, excellence in music that I find liturgical ministry fresh and joyful after thirty years. In the old days, I tended to be more self-critical, and definitely harsh with others from time to time. Today, I’m more angry with incompetence in Rome, but a run through the Serenity Prayer and a few deep breaths, and they haven’t gotten rid of me yet.

So how are you readers with all this: frown or grin?

We’ve covered two choices for a deceased Catholic. One option: cremation after the funeral. Second option: one can also cremate, have the ashes buried or entombed, then have a funeral liturgy without body or urn. OCF 426-431 covers the CDWDS indult for US dioceses: having a funeral liturgy with the cremated remains present.

My international readers may be able to tell us if this is permitted in other countries. Keep in mind that an indult can expire or be withdrawn in the future. And let’s be clear about the Church’s stance on this. First cremation is permitted. No indult is required. You can have the funeral, then cremate. You can also cremate and bury, then have a funeral liturgy. These options are not covered by the special permission from Rome.

OCF 426 should explain it for us:

By virtue of an indult granted by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (Prot. 1589/96/L), the celebration of the Funeral Liturgy, including Mass, in the presence of the cremated remains of the body of a deceased person is permitted in the dioceses of the United States of America under the following conditions:

a. That the cremation not be inspired by motives contrary to Christian teaching, in accordance with what is laid down by the Code of Canon Law (1176.3).

b. That each diocesan bishop will judge whether it is pastorally appropriate to celebrate the liturgy for the dead, with or without Mass, with the ashes present, taking into account the concrete circumstances in each individual case, and in harmony with the spirit and precise content of the current canonical and liturgical norms.

I don’t think 426a is a widespread consideration. I’m not sure about condition b–does your bishop get involved with this pastoral judgment in “each individual case” or not?

Some logical liturgical directives, assuming that cremation takes place soon, the ashes are buried or committed to a columbarium or tomb, then the community celebrates the funeral:

422. When cremation and committal take place before the Funeral Liturgy, the Prayers after Death and the Vigil for the Deceased may be adapted as necessary and appropriate and used before the Funeral Liturgy. The Rite of Committal with Final Commendation may also be celebrated at that time. The alternate form for the words of committal is used.

423. Following the committal, the family and friends of the deceased join the Catholic community for the Funeral Liturgy. Prayers which do not make reference to the honoring or burying of the body of the deceased should be chosen instead of those which have these themes.

424. The Funeral Mass is celebrated as given in this ritual. the Rite of Final commendation is omitted, since it has already taken place. Following the prayer aftercommunion, the blessing is given and the people are dismissed in the usual way.

425. When the Funeral Liturgy Outside Mass is celebrated, the Rite of Final Commendation is omitted, since it has already taken place. Following the Lord’s Prayer, a blessing is given and the people are dismissed in the usual way.

Thoughts?

First a recommendation:

418. When the choice has been made to cremate a body, it is recommended that the cremation take place after the Funeral Liturgy. In this case, the Vigil for the Deceased and related rites and prayers, as well as the Funeral Liturgy are celebrated as they are provided in this ritual.

Most people assume this involves extra expense, “renting” a casket as well as preparation of the body for possible viewing. Then cremating after the funeral but before interment. One pastor I worked with always floated this option, but the families almost always chose convenience and a more common funeral home practice.

419. At the conclusion of the Funeral Liturgy, the Rite of Final Commendation and Farewell takes place, using the alternate form of dismissal (CF 437). Then the cremation of the body takes place.

420. At the Rite of Committal, the cremated remains of the body of the decased person are reverently taken to the place of burial or entombment and the alternate form for the words of committal is used (OCF 438).

421. When the Final Commendation is celebrated as part of the Rite of Committal rather than at the Funeral Liturgy, the alternate form for the words of committal is used.

Comments on any of this, especially the experience and/or the additional cost of conducting part of the funeral rites with a body and the Rite of Committal with ashes?

The Pewsitter headline was amusing, as usual: “Did the Pope consider ending priestly celibacy?” They linked to the America blog here where the headline was: “Benedict Called for Church to ‘Investigate Celibacy’.”

This is a serious issue. It doesn’t need amateur journalists popping off a nonsense headline I might expect from the features section of a secular paper. What we’re talking about here is not lining up wives for all of today’s celibate clergy. The ancient tradition would not admit ordained priests to marry. The issue is whether married candidate should be admitted to the priesthood. Everybody who is ordained and celibate now, would remain so.

Commentator Pete Lake quoted the pope from a recent defense of mandatory celibacy:

Not getting married is based on the desire to live only for oneself, not to accept any definitive bond, to have life at every moment in full autonomy, to decide at every moment what to do, what to take from life; and therefore a ‘no’ to commitment, a ‘no’ to definitiveness, a having life only for oneself. (Celibacy) is a definitive ‘yes,’ it is allowing ourselves to be taken in hand by God, giving ourselves into the hands of the Lord, into his ‘I,’ and therefore it is an act of fidelity and trust. It is the exact opposite of this ‘no,’ of this autonomy that does not want to be obligated, that does not want to enter into a bond. (A)s the criticisms show, celibacy is a great sign of faith, of the presence of God in the world.

This quote sounds like the unmarried life is at root, a selfish life. I know the pope isn’t intending to be read this way, but we all know that a celibate priest without the discipline of a religious community, is well placed to lead a self-centered life. Most priests, we know, live a life of sacrifice and availability. And these men are a credit to Holy Orders as well as the celibate tradition.

As for the pope’s last sentence, I would have to say that matrimony trumps celibacy. It is a sacrament, and as such, it is a definitive sign of Christ’s presence both in the Church and in the world. It also is at the core of the smallest unit of Christendom, the domestic Church. A solo celibate unrooted in an explicit eremitic tradition has none of this. No sacrament for celibacy. No Church of one.

In addition, the handing over of personal autonomy is a great sign of sacrifice. A married adult offers an experience of kenosis toward the spouse, the children, and in the married witness in the Church and in the world.

My strong sense is that what is passing for a theological justification for mandatory celibacy is exceedingly weak. I think the Holy Father does well within a mystagogical tradition. He seems out of his depth with this quote above. Should’ve stuck with that letter back in 1970.

(This is Neil)

I’ve just read a very interesting short article [PDF] by Adam Deville in the Canadian Journal of Orthodox Christianity. (I should admit that just a short while ago, I was completely unaware of the existence of this journal.) I’ll summarize it briefly and then ask a few questions.

Dr. DeVille uses recent books by Beppe Severgnini and John Allen to define la bella figura, literally “beautiful figure.” Allen says that an emphasis on la bella figura is “undeniably influential in Vatican psychology.” This need to “keep up appearances,” Allen goes on to say, means:

1. The Vatican is reluctant to replace incompetent people or criticize their work.

2. The Vatican prefers to deal with scandal outside the spotlight.

3. If there’s a choice between doing something quickly and doing it beautifully, it will be done beautifully.

DeVille suggests that the concern for la bella figura has been used to “cover up mistakes, justify inaction, or rationalize a refusal to change bad policies.” His example has to do with Rome’s “quiet” decision in 2006 to abandon the title “Patriarch of the West.”  After a negative Orthodox reaction based on the fears that this meant a renewed claim to universal church jurisdiction for the papacy, Rome could only respond in an “unsatisfactory and thoroughly  unconvincing” manner because it just could not admit that the decision was “inadequately considered before being sprung on everyone unaware.” That was unthinkable.

There are other obvious examples. As Allen reports, during the November 2002 meeting of the US Bishops in Washington, DC, then-Bishop Sean O’Malley said:

“Church leaders dealt with sexual abuse by clergy in a modus operandi that was suggested by a theology of sin and grace, redemption, permanence of the priesthood, but also a great concern about scandal, the bella figura, and the financial patrimony of the Church.”

DeVille goes on to suggest that there might be theological problems with la bella figura. An emphasis on “beautiful figure” might be incompatible with an emphasis on the church as kenotic, or self-emptying. DeVille writes:

“Such a [kenotic] approach aims to purify the Church by emptying her of all inclination to sinful division and self-aggrandizement, and to encourage Christians to draw closer to one another and to that unity for which we all hope by means of a confession of weakness and admission of faults.”

You can’t be self-emptying and always preserve the figura.

Second, the attempt to avoid any possibility of scandal can itself become scandalous. The late Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, wrote:

“While some Catholics are perhaps scandalized by admissions of fault, others are scandalized by the refusal to admit such faults. They reproach their fellow Catholics for what they see as their tendency to justify everything that has been done by their coreligionists, especially by persons purporting to act in the name of the Church.”

Third, DeVille says that exponents of la bella figura often fail to understand the nature of beauty – namely, that “confession, contrition, kenosis, and even death often contain and convey a beauty that the world can neither give nor understand.”

The Jesuit Mark Bosco has said, “[I]t is precisely in brokenness that the Cross is the witness of a kenotic, self-emptying transparency, drawing the beholder up into a hidden Beauty, the self-sacrificing communication of the Absolute.”

Three questions, then:

1. Is there any serious theological justification for an emphasis on la bella figura being “undeniably influential in Vatican psychology”? (“It’s been done for a long time” is hardly a serious theological justification.)

2. Is an emphasis on la bella figura doing harm to the Church?

3. Is it realistic to think that the ecclesiastical emphasis on la bella figura can be changed?

(Thanks in advance for your responses – I’m really very interested to know what you think.)

I don’t feel entirely at ease about the way Harry and I have discussed the need for the eleventh worker. On the other hand, I feel far from daunted in pursuing this tack. The simple truth is that employment is one of the major issues facing Americans. What’s more, they tend to place it above other political footballs like immigration, the deficit, wars abroad, and even moral issues like Gitmo, abortion, and euthanasia.

I might agree with some commentators that life-and-death issues are more grave in that they affect the life and death of millions. But employment is enough of a significant issue that it demands our attention.

The simple math and more complex moral situation behind it suggests that for every ten American workers, at least one more person needs to be hired to bridge most of the gap toward full employment in this country. Who will hire that individual? Big corporations? Local businesses? Start-up companies? Well-to-do business leaders? They should all be considering it. After every good financial report, the question needs to be asked: can we hire someone and expand or fine-tune our operations?

Count me a doubter on the notion of dualism: that the Church has a realm on which it can rightly pontificate: sex, drugs, rock-n-roll. But that the secular arena of business is some sort of natural Darwinian arena in which the fittest survive, and poor economic practices are weeded out like the genetic mutation of black fur in the arctic or sharks without teeth and the Church should keep quiet.

While I would welcome a sensible bishop’s voice to this discussion, the lack of episcopal interest in the concerns of the laity is not a dealbreaker. For today, I’ll close with a reference to the CCC on the responsibility of business leaders:

Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations. They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits.

417. The cremated remains of a body should be treated with the same respect given to the human body from which they come. This includes the use of a worthy vessel to contain the ashes, the manner in which they are carried, the care and attention to appropriate placement and transport, and the final disposition. The cremated remains should be buried in a grave or entombed in a mausoleum or columbarium. The practice of scattering cremated remains on the sea, from the air, or on the ground, or keeping cremated remains in the home of a relative or friend of the deceased are not the reverent disposition that the Church requires. Whenever possible, appropriate means for recording with dignity the memory of the decased should be adopted, such as a plaque or stone which records the name of the deceased.

One practice I see that could be a little more dignified is omitting the abbreviated reference “cremains.”

The attention to placement and transport is also worth an extra look: no urns carried under the arm, or accidentally left on the floor.

As for interment, it’s a rare parish that still retains a cemetery. But some are providing a columbarium for parishioners whoh have chosen to be cremated.

One of the world’s most dangerous volcanoes could bury two-thirds of the continental US if 640000BC repeats itself. The new that the Yellowstone hot spot may be securely under the Rockies: I like that. Should we be nervous that the ground in this part of Wyoming is “taking a deep breath”?

When a person’s ashes are scattered at sea or in a field or on a mountain, or in some natural setting, it may be hard to discern a tangible place for a particular remembrance. Sure, the memory of the person is with us. But part of the Catholic imagination is tied up tightly with the incarnational: making a spiritual reality more concrete, more close to us with a physical, tangible object.

The Church does offer times and other places for remembering the dead. This section seems to repeat old information, but it is presented as a factor for the discernment on whether a deceased Catholic should be cremated.

416. The Catholic Church commends its deceased members to the mercy of God by means of its funeral rites. It likewise asks that the Christian faithful continue to offer prayer for deceased family members and friends. The annual observance of All Souls Day, the commemoration of the faithful departed on November 2, attests to this salutary practice. Masses celebrated for the deceased on the anniversaries of death or at other significant times continue the Church’s prayer and remembrance. For Catholic Christians, cemeteries, especially Catholic cemeteries, call to mind the resurrection of the dead. In addition, they are the focus for the Church’s remembering of the dead and offering of prayer for them.

This is why the Church insists on respect for the cremated remains of a body–to make the prayer for the dead more real, more tangible, more connected with our physical lives.

New Jersey Catholics, having been approached for $1M to bolster Catholic education aren’t too happy with their new bishop for investing more than half that amount in a new suburban house. Less than two months into service, and there’s an appeal from the laity to the papal nuncio:

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that the newly appointed Bishop of Trenton be asked to reconsider his decision to move to a semi-rural home on six acres in an exclusive neighborhood. He should choose instead to make his home in the City of Trenton where the Diocese’s bishops have lived and served for the past eighty-seven years. Purchased in 1924 for this specific purpose, 903 West State Street has a cross etched into its brick work, a magnificent private chapel, and a stately presence for all to see. In the spirit of Catherine of Siena, we ask that he return to his rightful place, among all of the people — black, white, brown, yellow, rich, poor, working-class, professional — to serve as a symbol of unity and beacon of hope for a city that he is now seeking to abandon for greener pastures. Let not “Lawrenceville with a Princeton address” (the house at 53 Carson Road) — be the Diocese of Trenton’s Babylonian captivity.

It’s not as if Bishop O’Connell is being asked to live in poverty by remaining at the old manse in the working class ‘h0od. Note the appeal to the saint who shamed Gregory IX for living in the south of France.

(Sigh)

Do you file it under bishops-who-don’t-get-it? Or is the old house really a dump with a cross carved into the brick? I’m not sure the climate is right almost anywhere for these kinds of moves. Granted, many Catholics would like to see some bishops in a nine-by-twelve room with a sink and a toilet for company. But these moves to suburban sites: what are these guys thinking? It’s a PR nightmare. It sets a poor example for the Gospel. Yes, they pointed out in Cincinnati the virtue of entertaining seminarians and clergy and other guests.  But some would counter that’s what you have a diocesan center for … or the homes of rich benefactors.

It’s lose-lose for the laity. If you have a good guy you’d want to gift with a nice home, the Congregation of Bishops is sure to bump him to a big city see. And if he’s a lifer in the present climate, there’s almost surely something wrong with him.

Rock reported last summer that his predessor thought him to be a man os “pastoral sensitivity.” On the job for six months, how do you think this move looks? Plus, the bishop’s a Vicentian. Is there a vow of poverty in the mix with that?

From his first letter as bishop last month (emphases my own):

At a time when money is tight and employment is not stable, I have nowhere else to turn but you. At a time when society and culture mock our most deeply held teachings and values, I have nowhere else to turn but you. At a time when the number of those available to lead and serve in our parishes and institutions are rapidly diminishing, I have nowhere else to turn but you. And in all these things and the many other burdens that weigh heavily upon us all, as your bishop I invite and ask you to join with me in turning to the Lord, especially during this Advent Season, in joyful expectation and daily prayer that our faith might be renewed, our hope strengthened and our charity increased and multiplied!

My sisters and brothers, I ask your prayer in these times of transition that I might be for you a good and faithful bishop, that my many imperfections and weaknesses might be minimized …

Anybody on the ground in Trenton with something to add?

(This is Neil)

“That they all may be one, as you, Father, in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:21)

In this prayer of the Divine Redeemer of the world we have it clearly revealed that unity among Christian believers is not only most desirable in itself, but it is an essential and a necessary prerequisite to the full acceptance of Christ by the entire world as its Savior and King and of the resultant consummation of his universal reign over the nations of the world.

Fr Paul Wattson, Co-founder of the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Atonement, Radio Talk at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, 1.25.1931

Day 8

Call for the Service of Reconciliation

Readings

Genesis 33:1-4 Esau ran to meet Jacob, and embraced him … and they wept
Psalm 96:1-13 Say among the nations, “The Lord is King!”
2 Corinthians 5:17-21 God … reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation
Matthew 5:21-26 Leave your gift before the altar, and go: first be reconciled to your brother or sister …

Commentary

Our prayers of this week have taken us on a journey together. Guided by the scriptures, we have been called to return to our Christian origins – that apostolic Church at Jerusalem. Here we have seen devotion – to the apostles’ teaching, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers. At the end of our reflections on the ideal of Christian community presented to us in Acts 2:42, we return to our own contexts – the realities of divisions, discontents, disappointments and injustices. At this point the Church of Jerusalem poses us the question: to what, then, as we conclude this Week of Prayer for Christian Unity are we called, here and now?

Christians in Jerusalem today suggest an answer to us: we are called, above all, to the service of reconciliation. Such a call concerns reconciliation on many levels, and across a complexity of divisions. We pray for Christian unity so that the Church might be a sign and instrument for the healing of political and structural divisions and injustices; for the just and peaceful living together of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim peoples; for the growing in understanding between people of all faiths and none. In our personal and family lives, too, the call to reconciliation must find a response.

Jacob and Esau, in the Genesis text, are brothers, yet estranged. Their reconciliation comes even when enduring conflict might have been expected. Violence and the habits of anger are put aside as the brothers meet and weep together.

The recognition of our unity as Christians – and indeed as human beings – before God leads us into the Psalm’s great song of praise for the Lord who rules the world with loving justice. In Christ, God seeks to reconcile to Himself all peoples. In describing this, St. Paul, in our second reading, celebrates a life of reconciliation as “ a new creation”. The call to reconcile is the call to allow God’s power in us to make all things new.

Once again, we know that this ‘good news’ calls us to change the way we live. As Jesus challenges us, in the account given by St. Matthew, we cannot go on making offerings at the altar, in the knowledge that we are responsible for divisions or injustices. The call to prayer for Christian unity is a call to reconciliation. The call to reconciliation is a call to actions – even actions which interrupt our church activities.

Prayer

God of Peace, we thank you that you sent your Son Jesus, so that we might be reconciled to yourself in Him. Give us the grace to be effective servants of reconciliation within our churches. In this way help us to serve the reconciliation of all peoples, particularly in your Holy Land – the place where you demolish the wall of separation between peoples, and unite everyone in the Body of Jesus, sacrificed on Mount Calvary. Fill us with love for one another; may our unity serve the reconciliation that you desire for all creation. We pray in the power of the Spirit. Amen.

In reading the following three sections, you get a different idea from a comfortable, “Oh, the Church thinks cremation is fine these days!” On the other hand, my sense is that the main reason more Catholics opt for cremation is financial. That the Church permits cremation makes that choice easier. In OCF 415, the Church speaks of “feasibility.” I don’t think the feasible is the primary factor.

Let’s read a few sections.

413. Although cremation is now permitted by the Church, it does not enjoy the same value as burial of the body. The Church clearly prefers and urges that the body of the deceased be present for the funeral rites, since the presence of the human body better expresses the values which the Church affirms in those rites.

414. The Church’s teaching in regard to the human body as well as the Church’s preference for burial of the body should be  regular part of catechesis on all levels and pastors should make particular efforts to preserve this important teaching.

415. Sometimes, however, it is not possible for the body to be present for the Funeral Mass. When extraordinary circumstances make the cremation of a body the only feasible choice, pastoral sensitivity must be exercised by priests, deacons, and others who minister to the family of the deceased.

Commentary:

I find that the focus of the funeral rites these days is on the mourners, on Christ’s resurrection, and on the qualities of hope and gratitude. The physical body does not figure highly in the preaching I’ve heard, either as a good or as a focus for Catholic values.

I read OCF 415 and get the sense a much narrower window exists. It is usually true that the family has already made arrangements for embalming or incineration before the arrival of the Church’s minister. The rite is correct to suggest that catechesis for the value of the body should be wide and relatively frequent.

If the burden of this catechesis is placed on pastors, how many can articulate with persuasion the Church’s preference against cremation? And if they cannot, who will?

I saw a criticism of a 1991 Tom Booth song at the Chant Cafe:

For Holy Communion, they sang “I Will Choose Christ”, which puts the focus on what I am doing as opposed to what God is doing.

It’s hard to know if the objection is more about the style of music or how this was rendered. Consider the text of verse one:

How many times must he call my name and show to me that he is God?
And as a servant he calls to me, “You must serve too.”

My assumption is that Tom was channeling the frequent biblical adventure where God calls (Samuel in 1 Samuel 3, Isaiah 6, Isaiah 40, Jeremiah 1) and sometimes we resist and protest, as did Jonah and Jeremiah and countless unnamed others. But Christ is clearly the actor in the text, and the second half of this verse is a clear allusion to the Last Supper of John 13:14-15.

In verse two, the singer asks Christ to teach and heal. The third verse focuses on the cross and death of Christ. Tom adds a note of death to self, and wraps up with the Christian hope that we will “rise with (Christ)”–it’s all Paschal Mystery as far as I can see.

As for the repeated “I” reference, is it so different from Psalm 40 which we sung last week? Six first-person references in the first three verses. Then there were too many to be bothered about counting them. “I” and “my” certainly outnumber “God.”

 … my cry … my feet … my steps … a new song in my mouth … my delight … my heart … my lips … my witness … my heart …

I don’t find either Tom’s song or Psalm 40 objectionable as a liturgical song. Individual thanksgivings, laments, and points of view are common in the Psalter and the more lyrical passages of the Bible. The liturgy itself seems to care little for first person reference. By the Cafe’s commentator’s standard, the Credo is all about me, what I believe. Right? Wouldn’t it be clearer just to skip the whole verb credo and just acclaim, “There is one God, the Father …” and leave the one or four references to self completely out of the picture?

That said, I don’t see myself composing a text with six I’s in the refrain. I’d prefer singing “We will choose Christ.”