65. The common welfare further demands that in their efforts to co-ordinate and protect, and their efforts to promote, the rights of citizens, the civil authorities preserve a delicate balance. An excessive concern for the rights of any particular individuals or groups might well result in the principal advantages of the State being in effect monopolized by these citizens. Or again, the absurd situation can arise where the civil authorities, while taking measures to protect the rights of citizens, themselves stand in the way of the full exercise of these rights. “For this principle must always be retained: that however extensive and far-reaching the influence of the State on the economy may be, it must never be exerted to the extent of depriving the individual citizen of his freedom of action. It must rather augment his freedom, while effectively guaranteeing the protection of everyone’s essential, personal rights.” (John XXIII’s encyclical letter Mater et Magistra, AAS 53 (1961) 415)

66. And the same principle must be adopted by civil authorities in their various efforts to facilitate the exercise of rights and performance of duties in every department of social life.

Applying the important question: When is help not helpful? Discerning parents know it. Skilled teachers practice it. The key intervention here is not to “give” someone something, but rather to facilitate a person’s or group’s ability to “augment” the experience of being more fully human.

Those two courses taught me how to think like a mathematician: take nothing for granted; prove everything; build an edifice by small and careful steps. If only I had been thinking like a mathematician before I took four semesters of calculus and statistics.

We did not study the historical (?) Euclid. We didn’t directly study his seminal work Elements, either. But this book by David Berlinski dips into the man (what we can deduce or guess from those who wrote about him) and about some of the elements of his work in mathematics.

This book gets off to a difficult start. It’s not written like most popular science books, though there are elements of personal interest from great mathematicians. The author tries, maybe a bit too hard, to be literary. I do like his prose. But he takes too long to say what he needs to say.

Dr Berlinski doesn’t say everything. He doesn’t distill all of Euclidean geometry into 156 pages. He spends a lot of ink on interesting things like analytical geometry and the parallel postulate. By Chapter IX he gets to the advent of non-Euclidean geometry–things like how lines and two-dimensinoal shapes behave on something like a sphere. The earth’s surface, for example.

So we come to a final question about the title. Is Euclid still king in a scientific culture that stands with one foot in the fantastic? Elements was a geometry textbook for more than two millennia, but no longer. Forget space; does Euclid have any authority in human time?

I’m probably not thinking like a mathematician any more. So this book was a bit difficult for me, though not in the concepts it presents. Can I recommend it? Sure: if you like geometry.

63. In addition, heads of States must make a positive contribution to the creation of an overall climate in which the individual can both safeguard (their) own rights and fulfill (their) duties, and can do so readily. For if there is one thing we have learned in the school of experience, it is surely this: that, in the modern world especially, political, economic and cultural inequities among citizens become more and more widespread when public authorities fail to take appropriate action in these spheres. And the consequence is that human rights and duties are thus rendered totally ineffective.

This experience would seem to be contrary to the beliefs and actions of our more recent American line-ups of political leaders. Both major parties seem more or less willing to let the inequities continue, impinging on rights and pushing duty into the background.

64. The public administration must therefore give considerable care and thought to the question of social as well as economic progress, and to the development of essential services in keeping with the expansion of the productive system. Such services include road-building, transportation, communications, drinking-water, housing, medical care, ample facilities for the practice of religion, and aids to recreation. The government must also see to the provision of insurance facilities, to obviate any likelihood of a citizen’s being unable to maintain a decent standard of living in the event of some misfortune, or greatly increased family responsibilities.

The government is also required to show no less energy and efficiency in the matter of providing opportunities for suitable employment, graded to the capacity of the workers. It must make sure that (workers) are paid a just and equitable wage, and are allowed a sense of responsibility in the industrial concerns for which they work. It must facilitate the formation of intermediate groups, so that the social life of the people may become more fruitful and less constrained. And finally, it must ensure that everyone has the means and opportunity of sharing as far as possible in cultural benefits.

The trick is to make government work as truly representative of all the people, to minimize the bias of lobbying (or to see that it is spread more fairly among all people) and other privileges. If this document were being revisited today, I suspect Pope Francis would address this carefully.

What do you make of public administration assisting in the development of “ample” religious facilities? Pope John doesn’t single out churches, does he?

The second of two entries from the Psalms:

Be still and know that I am God!

The second of two entries from Saint Paul:

So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

And the fifth of five entries from the Gospels, but the only one from Matthew:

Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.

And here’s the ballot:

The final three will be up Tuesday.

My wife and I just got back from the finale of the local chamber music season. Ames Town & Gown splits its season between the city auditorium and the recital hall on campus (like tonight).

Tonight’s performers were magnificent. I would be hard-pressed to recall a better-programmed concert. One might think that Italian baroque music is a narrow field, but the contrast of pieces, performing styles, structure, and featured performers was absolutely delightful. Trio Settecento has their own YouTube channel.

The concert began delightfully with Stradella’s Sinfonia in D minor and Legrenzi’s Sonata quinta. After a solo harpsichord piece, a Scarlatti sonata, I really enjoyed Corelli’s E major sonata from Opus 5. Four Scottish airs arranged by Geminiani concluded the first set. Violinist Rachel Barton Pine mentioned that in 17th century Europe, the dividing lines between folk and classical music were not as precise as they might be today. A musician playing in the local concert band one night might be playing dance music in a pub the next. While the whole evening was billed as “An Italian Sojourn,” these “Four Scottish Airs” worked wonderfully well in the trio format.

After intermission, the trio began with Locatelli’s Sonata in D minor, which is on their video page at their web site. What’s not on the page is the outrageous Caprice that concludes the piece. A Vivaldi cello sonata, then Veracini’s Sonata in F finished up. There was a Handel encore after a standing ovation.

It was the best chamber music experience since I lived in Kansas City and heard the Monteverdi 1610 Vespers.

To the right is Pip on one of his playful moments with Gambit.

Many years ago, we examined the Vatican II documents in section-by-section detail. Neil or I also added the occasional essay touching on these documents. Eagle-eyes among you will notice “Lumen Gentium” is a new page, both on the sidebar and crowding out the header at the top. Little by little, I’ll be posting outlines of all fifteen documents on separate pages.

Readers will be able to navigate easily to the pages as they are published. You will be able to scan the outlines of the chapter headings given in the official documents. Each page will identify each post with a brief phrase to give you an idea of the content. Any reader may feel free to search for something interesting, then reignite the discussion. Or read through the document in an organized fashion, rather than clicking on the topic to the right and plowing through pages of 15-posts in reverse post order.

I’ve been noting that the 2006 transition to WordPress seems to have mangled some of the formatting. I didn’t change anything in Lumen Gentium yet. But I think I’ll go back and tidy things up on those posts eventually. I’ll work on Sacrosanctum Concilium next, editing and cleaning as I go. Over the next few months, we’ll have fifteen spiffy new pages for each of the documents, plus 619 Vatican II posts cleaned up for easier reading.

I hope to have another feature in place by summer’s end. I know PrayTell is featuring a section-by-section analysis of Sacrosanctum Concilium by Michael Joncas these days. I hope you’ve been following that. I’ll embellish the pages with links to that and to other discussions. So if you know of some sites, or perhaps you have analysis on your own site, I’ll link here and we can expand the discussion across blog borders.

If any reader would like to contact me about writing new essays on the Vatican II documents, let me know. I do hope Neil will return to offer new material someday. But some of you have an open invitation (and you know who you are) to write up something here. As we roll through the golden jubilee of Vatican II, it’s very worthwhile to maintain discussion on that essential council and its documents.

62. One of the principal duties of any government, moreover, is the suitable and adequate superintendence and co-ordination of (people’s) respective rights in society. This must be done in such a way

• 1) that the exercise of their rights by certain citizens does not obstruct other citizens in the exercise of theirs;
• 2) that the individual, standing upon (their) own rights, does not impede others in the performance of their duties;
• 3) that the rights of all be effectively safeguarded, and completely restored if they have been violated.( Cf. Pius XI’s encyclical letter Divini Redemptoris, AAS 29 (1937) 81, and Pius XII’s broadcast message, Christmas 1942, AAS 35 (1943) 9-24)

Note that a serious consideration of duties in addition to rights widens the equation a bit. An individual’s rights do not extend to impede the rights–or even the duties–of other citizens.

As Christians struggle with the legal reality of a phenomenon of same-sex unions, this principle seems to come into play. Do people who see themselves as morally upright really have options in withholding publicly offered services to LGBT couples? It might be easy enough for me to say “no,” as the services I offer are connected with the Church’s sacramental life. And for the present, I have no interaction with couples of the same sex in marriage preparation.

On the other hand, if I were a florist, and offered a public business to the community, could I deny services for a same-sex union ceremony? If I were standing on a moral high ground, as it were, would I not be obligated to subject all prospective clients to moral scrutiny: sex outside of marriage, previous divorce, couples with open sexual habits? If not, why would I be singling out lesbian and gay couples? Because it was obvious to me? Or because I was lazy? Would I stay in business if I applied the same standard of morality to all potential clients? Or can I get away with a public opposition to LGBT clients because they formed a small fraction of my potential clientele?

At any rate, this section deals more with the action of governments in respecting rights. A government is responsible for overseeing that all citizens respect the rights of their sister and brother citizens, and to watch carefully that boundary where the exercise of one might violate the other.

Your thoughts?

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

And from the beginning of one Gospel …

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

… to the end of another …

“Were not our hearts burning [within us] while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?”

… these are your verses to consider.

Vote away:

With Pope Francis, I detected in his address to ambassadors today, a new dictatorship. This is one that will be far less elusive. And it’s a cruelty and oppression which is very real for hundreds of millions in our world. If not more.

Consequently the financial crisis which we are experiencing makes us forget that its ultimate origin is to be found in a profound human crisis. In the denial of the primacy of human beings! We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf of old (cf. Ex 32:15-34) has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal.

The worldwide financial and economic crisis seems to highlight their distortions and above all the gravely deficient human perspective, which reduces (a person) to one of (their) needs alone, namely, consumption. Worse yet, human beings themselves are nowadays considered as consumer goods which can be used and thrown away.

The dictatorship of an inhumane economy. Now that’s a real dragon.

Money has to serve, not to rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but the Pope has the duty, in Christ’s name, to remind the rich to help the poor, to respect them, to promote them. The Pope appeals for disinterested solidarity and for a return to person-centred ethics in the world of finance and economics.

Rock mentioned this was one of the few times the Holy Father has referred to himself as “the Pope.” That’s the kind of Pope we need today.

During Lent, I turned off the car radio. I’ve largely kept to that discipline these Fifty Days, as I try to remember people in prayer.

Intercessory prayer has never been one of my strong points. One, I forget. Two, in my parish, I recruit people to write them up for Sunday Mass. When someone forgets, I usually go to the prayer from three years prior. I’ll make a few edits and drop in the old petitions as if they were new. Three, I don’t like to ask for help.

On that last bit, I don’t know that it’s a guy thing as much as a me-thing. I remember reading somewhere early in my Catholic life that God knows what we need before we utter it as a request:

Even before a word is on my tongue, O Lord, you know it completely. (Psalm 139:4)

A few times, when someone has asked me to pray for them, and I’ve neglected or forgotten, a bad thing happens. They come to me and thank me for my prayers. I figure God is timeless in a sort of science fiction-y time travel way. So I then pray for the person, even though they’ve weathered the storm of their crisis. God sees all moments of all time as a unity, so what can be harmed by presuming on God’s pre-eminence in the fourth dimension?

That said, this is a matter where I can see a little more discipline will be helpful. On the parish staff, each of us was assigned a prayer-partner this year. I got one of our newbies, so that seemed important to remember. I put it on my to-do list, cycled every three days. Mostly successful, it was. But I needed a little more.

During Lent, I tried to remember people by inserting their names in the Hail Mary when I prayed it. I found a decade covered my close family: wife, young miss, my mother, my brother and his wife, their three kids, my sister, and my widowed sister-in-law. My staff colleagues took another decade-and-a-half. Parishioners filled out the rest. More often, I would just pray this altered Hail Mary ending:

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for N, now and all the days of her/his life.

But I was thinking it would be good to have a rote prayer for that daily bike roundtrip. Since the Holy Spirit is much on our minds these days, and the Trinity beckons in another weekend, what if I composed a brief intercessory prayer for people? Something like this:

Loving Father, you have made N and adopted her/him as your very own.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy on her/him.
Come Holy Spirit, fill her/his heart with faith and the fire of your love.

I’ve found I stumble over the words a bit. Probably need to get into a rhythm as I avoid potholes and traffic and such.

But a curiosity among other believers reading this, Catholic or otherwise. How do you pray for others? Do you find it enough to keep the person in mind as you pray regularly? I like to image the face of the person, but that’s more difficult when I’m operating a vehicle. And maybe I’m trying to accomplish too much on that nineteen minutes a day. On the other hand, even the uphill trek home has sailed by this week.

Today’s trio includes another Luke/John matchup, but with a Psalm verse thrown in.

From the raising of Lazarus in the fourth Gospel, a close winner over Micah:

Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live.”

The good thief entered paradise, and also our penultimate round:

Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.

And the Psalmist urges us:

The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom should I fear?

Should the Psalmist fear being eliminated by one of two Gospel passages? Vote, then check it Sunday morning.

60. It is generally accepted today that the common good is best safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed. The chief concern of civil authorities must therefore be to ensure that these rights are recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended and promoted, and that each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily. For “to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of (their) duties, is the principal duty of every public authority.”( Cf. Pius XII’s broadcast message, Pentecost, June 1, 1941, AAS 33 (1941) 200)

61. Thus any government which refused to recognize human rights or acted in violation of them, would not only fail in its duty; its decrees would be wholly lacking in binding force.( Cf. Pius XI’s encyclical letter Mit brennender Sorge, AAS 29 (1937) 159, and his encyclical Divini Redemptoris, AAS 29 (1937) 79; and Pius XII’s broadcast message, Christmas 1942, AAS 35 (1943) 9-24)

In my mid-fifties, I’m probably a little bit more than halfway to my retirement, which might take place in my 70′s. I can’t imagine not being active in some way. Many of the retired folks I see in parishes are quite active: serving at Mass, serving the poor. A few of them are as hard to pin down as students. Throw in frequent trips to see grandchildren, and these people are as active and seem as healthy as anyone I know.

Does this finding cast doubt on the pro-life cred in this diocese, for this initiative?

The question for the worker and employer is naturally: Will management be flexible to the needs of the older employee, and what is optimal for her or his health? This isn’t about seventy-somethings flipping burgers with teenagers at the supermall’s fast food joint. This remains a matter of making a substantive and positive contribution to society. Even if a corporation isn’t writing the check while making demands.

Some Catholics have a problem with the perceived imbalance of this “limited” petition from Eucharistic Prayer II:

Remember, Lord, your Church,
spread throughout the world,
and bring her to the fullness of charity,
together with Francis our Pope
and N. our Bishop
and all the clergy.

Why end there? What about us lay people? (We are, by the way, mentioned just before this sentence.)

Pope Francis has dispatched the disgraced Cardinal O’Brien to several months of “spiritual renewal, prayer, and penance.” Was this on his mind in today’s homily?

When a priest, a bishop goes after money, the people do not love him – and that’s a sign. But he ends badly.

A lack of love, especially in a Church culture in which people are still largely predisposed to treat priests with great affection, is indeed a sign.

(St. Paul) did not have a bank account, he worked, and when a bishop, a priest goes on the road to vanity, he enters into the spirit of careerism – and this hurts the Church very much – [and] ends up being ridiculous: he boasts, he is pleased to be seen, all powerful – and the people do not like that!

A ridiculous end. And all the more sad that some clergy do not perceive the state with which they are viewed. A martyr, certainly, can be widely rejected and laughed at. But a buffoon will suffer the same fate.

Pope Francis requests:

Pray for us, that we might be poor, that we might be humble, meek, in the service of the people.

This is why I have no problem with the mention of pope, bishop, and clergy in the Eucharistic Prayer. Presiders don’t need to bother to add “laity,” though I appreciate the gesture. I’ve worked closely with priests for three decades. I know they need prayers. I don’t begrudge them the extra mention (if it is indeed that) before God.

Pope Francis asked for a reflection on Acts 20:28-30:

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Read this fine passage, and while reading it, pray, pray for us bishops and priests. We have such need in order to stay faithful, to be men who watch over the flock and also over ourselves, who make the vigil their own, that their heart be always turned to [the Lord’s] flock. [Pray] also that the Lord might defend us from temptation, because if we go on the road to riches, if we go on the road to vanity, we become wolves and not shepherds. Pray for this, read this and pray. So be it.

I can attest to the great difficulty in remaining faithful in a marriage over the past seventeen years. It seems serene on the surface–what others see when my wife and I worship together, shop together, sit quietly in a room together, attend concerts and events and parties. But married life is difficult in ways I would not have imagined. But I feel fortunate. My wife prays for me, and I for her. And we keep working at it, mutually supportive of one another.

Some clergy–I don’t know how they maintain balance in what is essentially the eremitic lifestyle of a modern priest. How tempting it must be to consider drink, drugs, sex, gluttony, and other indulgences.

So, no: I have no problem whatsoever with the Holy Father’s message today.