As Church fixes abuse problem, society must follow suit - Bp. RF Vasa

As Church fixes abuse problem, society must follow suit
By Bishop Robert Vasa

April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month. During this month there has been an increased level of activity and concern expressed about the extent of child abuse in our country and in the world as a whole.

There has been a bright light shining on the flaws and faults of the Church in regard to its past and even present failures in regard to reporting child abuse and protecting children from abuse. This light is not at all comfortable but it is necessary and hopefully it is also purifying. Unfortunately the focus of the past and even into the present is that all too human tendency to deny, minimize and even fail to recognize the presence of abuse. There is also a definite need to be more vigilant about who is allowed into the priesthood and who is allowed to have access to children.

The bright light shining on the Church, however, may be shading other areas of society where abuse is much more prevalent and much less noticed. The 2009 Report by the Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops indicates that during the course of 2009 there were nearly 400 new allegations of abuse presented to dioceses in the United States. This number is indeed distressing but it does need to be looked at a bit more carefully. There were 352 allegations presented to dioceses that occurred prior to 1990. More than one-third of these instances of abuse (127) occurred as long as 40 or 60 years ago. This does not diminish the gravity of the abuse but it is very difficult for most priests and bishops of today to claim responsibility for abuse that occurred so long ago. To say that the “church” allowed this abuse to happen is to fail to recognize that priests and bishops in the Church from 40 to 60 years ago failed to do all that they should have done to prevent and report such abuse. The same can be said of those very tragic years between 1970 and 1990 when a vast majority of the abuse occurred. Of the new allegations received in 2009, 225 were from these years. This number may be slightly higher if one adds in the 14 cases presented without specification of a particular year. This would raise the number for these years to 239.

The report, while acknowledging the serious shortcomings of Church leadership in the past, as indicated by the number of allegations still coming forward from those years, has some hint of hopeful news. During the course of 2009 there were 24 cases presented to dioceses that involved abuse occurring since 1990. Thus, from this 20-year period, 24 persons who had been abused came forward in 2009. Considering that there are approximately 195 dioceses and eparchies in the United States this would mean that in 2009 a vast majority of dioceses have not received a claim of having been abused during these years. This does not mean that there are no other victims still struggling with the trauma of having been abused during these years but hopefully this relatively low number can be seen as a sign of hope.

A further and very real sign of hope is the report’s counting of the number of new allegations received in 2009 for abuse that occurred last year. This number is 6. If this is at all accurate it would show that the Church has indeed taken the horrible trauma and scandal of child sexual abuse very seriously and that the efforts of the Church, its bishops, priests and laity, are bearing fruit. We do not deny the past but the efforts of the Church these past 10 to 20 years seem to be having a positive effect. I pray it is so. It is indeed most sad that the Church did not take these strong measures 40 years ago and for that we apologize to the people of God and most especially to those who have been harmed and often grievously harmed because evil and sinful priests were allowed to continue in ministry after their evil inclinations and actions were manifested and known by those who had the power and the duty to remove them.

In great contrast to this sign of hope in the Church I need only refer to the state of Oregon. According to an April 22 headline: “Change needed in abuse investigations.” In brief, the story points out that in 2009, Oregon state workers screened 67,885 reports of child abuse and neglect. These 67,000 reports generated 28,584 investigations. These 28,000 investigations revealed 11,090 children who were victims of abuse or neglect. The story points out that nearly half of these children were under 6.

This is an area that needs the same bright and unrelenting light of truth that has been focused so diligently on the Church these past 20 years. I do not at all defend the past negligence of the Church but I do commend her increasing vigilance these past 20 years. Where is the vigilance in our society? How can nearly 5,000 pre-kindergarten children be the victims of some form of abuse or neglect in Oregon in a single year? If we conservatively multiply this number (which would undoubtedly be much larger in many states) by a mere factor of 40 we come to the most shameful possibility that more than 200,000 pre-school age children in the United States may have suffered some form of abuse or neglect in 2009. Yet, the story will receive one day of coverage in the local paper and then pass again into oblivion until April of next year. In the meantime, every single report involving the Church will make national news for days and sometimes weeks. One could begin to wonder if the public concern is really about the welfare of children at all.

I want to commend and encourage The Central Oregon KIDS Center and their promotion of Darkness to Light Training. KIDS Center, among other things, provides education and consultation to community members and professionals throughout Central and Eastern Oregon on issues related to child abuse and neglect. In a recent news article one of the Darkness to Light Trainers noted: “There is only one person responsible for children, and that is every single adult.”

This type of training and attitude, too, is a great sign of hope.

© 2010, Catholic Sentinel

Do the math. where's the outrage?

Hospital decided it could not meet the Catholic standard -Bp. R.F. Vasa

Here's an interesting response to CINO institutions. Notable in that there is a response.

Hospital decided it could not meet the Catholic standard
By Bishop Robert Vasa


BEND — In the course of the past several weeks I have focused on what it means for individuals and institutions to be Catholic. I have done this, in part, because of a concern about Catholic colleges and hospitals in general but also, in part, because of very specific discussions I have been having with the administration of St. Charles Medical Center, a Catholic health care institution, in Bend. Over the course of the past several years I have struggled with the difficulty of trying to reconcile some practices ongoing at the medical center with clear Church teaching. In January I wrote: “It is not uncommon for faithful Catholics to question the Catholicity of these public institutions especially when they seem to be expressing and holding public views which are, or strongly appear to be, contrary to the clear teachings of the Church. At what point are these institutions no longer ‘in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth?’” I have come to the very difficult conclusion, after much discussion and discernment, that it is time to acknowledge that which has become very clear to me, namely, that St. Charles is a community hospital and should no longer be identified as a Catholic institution.

A little history: In the 1970s St. Charles became a community nonprofit organization with the Sisters of Saint Joseph of Tipton, Indiana as the Catholic Sponsors. In 1992 an Association of the Christian Faithful was established with the specific goal of “preserving the unique Catholic character of St. Charles.” This was done because the Sisters determined that they could no longer provide Catholic Sponsorship. Most notable among the Sisters was Sister Kathryn Hellmann, who personally oversaw the progress of St. Charles for many years. In 1992, the Sisters transferred control of the hospital to the board of directors and the Sisters were instrumental in helping establish the Association of the Christian Faithful as the vehicle by which the hospital’s Catholic sponsorship could be maintained.

A specific part of the role of the Association of the Christian Faithful was to assure that there was a clear adherence to both Catholic principles and approved Catholic practices at St. Charles. These specific practices, as well as a summary of the principles, are contained in a document published by the Catholic Bishops of the United Sates titled: “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” (ERDs). The adopted statutes of the Association of the Christian Faithful, however, did not allow sufficient control over the implementation of the directives at St. Charles and thus the association had no real means of insisting upon adherence to the ERDs. Consequently, the ERDs were viewed as “guidelines” or “suggestions” and compliance with them was understood by the board as both voluntary and optional.

In 2007 the diocese was presented with a report on the level of compliance with the ERDs and that report indicated that there were a couple of areas of grave concern. While the commitment to adhering to Catholic principles was clearly present the same could not be said about adherence to or avoidance of certain immoral medical practices.

I have noted elsewhere that while adherence to the principles in a general way is commendable, that alone does not identify an Institution as Catholic. There must also be an adherence to those practices which are also a part of what it means to be a Catholic institution. Sadly, after having functioned in a particular way for a large number of years the board did not see how it could now align the medical practices of the hospital with the ERDs to a degree that would justify an ongoing sponsorship relationship between the Diocese of Baker and St. Charles.

As bishop, I am responsible for attesting to the full Catholicity of the hospitals in my diocese, a responsibility I take very seriously, and I have reached the conclusion that I can no longer attest to the Catholicity of St. Charles. The board is responsible for the operation of the medical center and for its compliance with the ethical guidelines it deems suitable for St. Charles. The question the board faced was whether it could alter its present practices to the degree required for continued identification as “Catholic.” It was the board’s determination that it could not meet that standard.

I see before me two distressing options. I must either condone all that is being done at St. Charles and its affiliates by continuing a sponsorship relationship or I must recognize that those practices are absolutely contrary to the ERDs and distance myself from them. It would be misleading to the faithful for me to allow St. Charles to be acknowledged as Catholic in name while, at the same time, being morally certain that some significant tenets of the ERDs are no longer being observed there.

This is not a condemnation of St. Charles. It is a sadly acknowledged reality.

I believe the board has acted in good faith over the years because of its understanding that the ERDs were voluntary. The diocese has always presumed full compliance with a proper interpretation of the ERDs until the revelations of the 2007 report.

St. Charles has gradually moved away from adherence to the requirements of the Church without recognizing a major possible consequence of doing so. That consequence is a loss of Catholic sponsorship. Since I see no possibility of St. Charles returning to full compliance with the ERDs and since such full compliance with the ERDs is essential to “Catholic Status,” St. Charles will now be considered solely as a community nonprofit organization, not a Catholic one.

In practical terms there should be very little change in how St. Charles presently functions. One major shift will be the absence of the Blessed Sacrament at the hospital. The chapel will no longer be a Catholic chapel and Mass will no longer be celebrated there. In our secular culture most do not recognize the extreme grace of our Lord’s Real Presence but I suspect his absence from the chapel will be deeply felt.

© 2010, Catholic Sentinel

Words to live by

Words matter:

Language of liturgy meant to remake us in God's image
By Bishop Robert Vasa


In recent weeks an article in America Magazine titled, “Why Not Wait?” has received a bit of national attention.

The article expresses reasons to resist accepting the new translations of the Roman Missal that have been completed and are awaiting final approval by the Holy See. That article and its posited reasons will not be commented upon in this article but I mention it because it provides the occasion to comment on a couple of much older America articles.

An article in the December issue of the Adoremus Bulletin titled, “Translating the Liturgy: Finding Words to Express the Ineffable” caught my attention and it is in this article that excerpts of older America articles are found. The era was the 1960s and it was an era when new translations were likewise being discussed. In an Oct. 22, 1966 issue of America we find this suggestion: “If the Church wants to sweep the world like the Beatles, it must use language as contemporary as theirs.” This was a mindset, perhaps not different from that posited by a very recent America article. Fortunately, the answer now is the same as the answer provided then by Jesuit Father Walter Ong, then professor of English at St. Louis University. He is cited as saying: “Let us not think that we have made revelation available to contemporary man by making it sound like something else he hears — a schoolboy’s idiom, the Beatles, Huntley and Brinkley, or even Senator Dirksen — The liturgy is related to our ordinary lives, but it is always also different from them and it is the expression of God’s judgment on them just as well as His love for them. No viable liturgical usage can merely ape secular practice: it must both assimilate secular practice and judge it.” (“Let Us Pray — But How?” America, Dec. 3, 1966).

The new translation includes changes to the preface dialogue between the priest and the people. We are familiar with it:

The Lord be with you. And also with you. Lift up your hearts. We lift them up to the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right to give Him thanks and praise.

The future dialogue is a little different.

The Lord be with you. And with your spirit. Lift up your hearts. We lift them up to the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right and just.

The changes are small. Almost subtle. Yet, important. Our present colloquial language may be easy but it is lacking. Recently at a confirmation the exchange of peace between the bishop and a student immediately after having been confirmed went like this: Bishop: Peace be with you. Student: Ya, you too. The “schoolboy idiom” was common, homey, maybe even well suited to the candidate but it could be questioned whether it was well suited as a formal liturgical response to a bishop in the context of the administration of the sacrament of confirmation. I do not for a moment suppose that this candidate’s response would have been different if the formal liturgical response had been “And with your spirit” instead of “And also with you” but I do know that “Ya, you too” is closer to “And also with you” than it is to “And with your spirit.” Perhaps, just perhaps, our previous desire and attempt to bring liturgical language down to a much more common form of expression has allowed something even more common to invade the realm of the sacred.

Because “And with your spirit” is both a more accurate translation and a less common form of expression, it has the capacity to be seen as something a bit set apart. It is set apart, unusual, uncommon, unique, reserved for the sacred. At the same time, these characteristics make this revised translation of the expression thought provoking and even challenging. After having received the response from the people, the next expression by the priest flows more readily and beautifully. The priest, because the language is of a different nature, can now more readily say, “Lift up your hearts.” Uncommon language, unique, unusual, reserved for the sacred, set apart. Language matters. The priest continues: “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.” This is ordinary enough but the revised people’s response again gives us additional reason for reflection. “It is right and just.” Remember the current response: “It is right to give Him thanks and praise?” In our most common and routine form we might be tempted to simply say, “Right.” But when we say “It is right and just,” we acknowledge not only what is proper, what is right, but also that which is owed to God in justice. The change is small. Almost subtle. Yet, important. The dialogue lifts us out of the common (i.e. “Hi, how are ya? Fine.”) into a liturgical, formal, spiritual realm.

Father Ong, in 1966, continued: “Our efforts to accommodate modern English to God’s word, to put the meaning of the Scriptures and the Church’s teachings into our own language, thus entails an interior reorganization of our own lives. In the process we have to let God’s grace do its work on our own modes of expression and thought processes in their native English-speaking habitat. All this means that in finding how to use 20th century English liturgically and doctrinally in the way the teachings of the Church and the economy of language both demand, we shall have to remake our very selves and the culture around us. But this is only what the Gospel has always called on us to do. We want to make the liturgy meaningful to us not to have it fit our ways of thinking but in order to change our thinking and our lives. Change in us is both the pre-condition and the measure of success.”

How we understand the meaning and purpose of our liturgical celebrations is of critical importance. On one hand the desire to bring the Liturgy down to the people has some merit provided this attempt does not diminish the sacredness or solemnity of the Liturgy. On the other hand the desire to lift people up in the context of the Liturgy is more consistent with what Jesus came to do. He did not come to us so that we could remake Him. Jesus came to us so that we could be remade more perfectly into His image. This requires that we be stretched. Thus, stretching our common use of language seems most appropriate. Do not let your hearts be troubled. Lift them up to the Lord.


© 2010, Catholic Sentinel

Excommunication is a declaration of acts that severs ties - Bp RF Vasa

A combox ranter has left horrid insinuations against the Catholic Church at Anita's V-For Victory post The Crucifix versus the Swastika. The poster seems to think that a statement of excommunication is necesssary for every baptized apostate individual whom has publicly declared their opposition to faith, morals, reason, and the dominion of Christ, even if they have never been a practicing Catholic! That this is not necessary in the slightest, the following essay from Bishop Robert F. Vasa makes clear. Today's problem is of a different nature, and his excellency does a wonderful reflection on that.

Excommunication is a declaration of acts that severs ties
By Bishop Robert Vasa

During the course of this past year there have been a number of occasions when bishops have hinted to laity that being Catholic involves a bit more than claiming the title. This has been done, in particular, with regard to politicians who may, in their own way, love Jesus, who may attend Sunday Mass and who do identify themselves as “faithful” Catholics. The press usually hints at the big “E” word, excommunication. The question of when a Catholic should be excommunicated has even been asked quite frequently and very seriously. While bishops are extremely reluctant to take the seemingly dramatic step of excommunication, I think there is very good reason for us to explore more thoroughly what excommunication really means and why it might be considered in certain circumstances.

The press would undoubtedly accuse Bishops who talk or even think about excommunication as being tyrannical power mongers but this is unfair. Excommunication is a declaration, based on solid evidence, that the actions or public teachings of a particular Catholic are categorically incompatible with the teachings of the Church. It is intended primarily as a means of getting the person who is in grave error to recognize the depth of his error and repent. A second reason, while somewhat secondary but no less important, is to assure the faithful who truly are faithful that what they believe to be the teaching of the Church is true and correct. Allowing their faith to be shaken or allowing them to be confused when Catholics publicly affirm something contrary to faith or morals, seemingly without consequences, scandalizes and confuses the faithful. This is no small matter. The Church, and particularly bishops, have an obligation to defend the faith but they also have an obligation to protect the faithful. We do not generally see the dissidence of public figures as something that harms the faithful but it has a deleterious effect upon them.

I find, very frequently, when I speak a bit more boldly on matters of morality or discipline, there are a significant number of the faithful who send messages of gratitude and support. It is their gratitude which stirs my heart for it makes me realize how much there is a need to support and affirm the clear and consistent teachings of our Catholic faith for the sake of the faithful. While the press may caricature such bishops in rather uncharitable fashion, I trust that they are men devoted to true compassion and to the truth itself. Their compassion extends to those who are misled and to those who, while not misled, are discouraged when their faith is attacked without rebuttal. This discouragement of the faithful is not insignificant. When we look at the word itself we see that its root is “courage” and allowing someone’s courage to be dissipated, or “dissed” as the young might say, is harmful to the person. En-couragement, by contrast, builds up the courage of the faithful and increases their strength for doing good. It is life giving and revitalizing. Allowing error, publicly expressed, to stand without comment or contradiction is discouraging.

When that moral error is espoused publicly by a Catholic who, by the likewise public and external act of receiving Holy Communion, appears to be in “good standing” then the faithful are doubly confused and doubly discouraged. In that case, the error is certainly not refuted. Furthermore, the impression is given that the error is positively condoned by the bishop and the Church. This is very dis-couraging to the faithful. In such a case, private “dialogue” is certainly appropriate but a public statement is also needed. In extreme cases, excommunication may be deemed necessary.

It seems to me that even if a decree of excommunication would be issued, the bishop would really not excommunicate anyone. He only declares that the person is excommunicated by virtue of the person’s own actions. The actions and words, contrary to faith and morals, are what excommunicate (i.e. break communion with the Church). When matters are serious and public, the Bishop may deem it necessary to declare that lack of communion explicitly. This declaration no more causes the excommunication than a doctor who diagnoses diabetes causes the diabetes he finds in his patient. The doctor recognizes the symptoms and writes the necessary prescription. Accusing the doctor of being a tyrannical power monger would never cross anyone’s mind. Even when the doctor tells the patient that they are “excommunicated” from sugar it is clear that his desire is solely the health of his patient. In fact, a doctor who told his diabetic patient that he could keep ingesting all the sugar he wanted without fear would be found grossly negligent and guilty of malpractice.

In the same way, bishops who recognize a serious spiritual malady and seek a prescription to remedy the error, after discussion and warning, may be required to simply state, “What you do and say is gravely wrong and puts you out of communion with the faith you claim to hold.” In serious cases, and the cases of misled Catholic public officials are often very serious, a declaration of the fact that the person is de facto out of communion may be the only responsible and charitable thing to do.

Failing to name error because of some kind of fear of offending the person in error is neither compassion nor charity. Confronting or challenging the error or evil of another is never easy yet it must be done.

The adage usually attributed to Edmund Burke was correct: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

The Lord has called bishops to be shepherds. That shepherding entails both leading and protecting. In an era when error runs rampant and false teachings abound, the voice of the Holy Father rings clear and true. The teachings of the Church are well documented and consistent. Bishops and the pastors who serve in their Dioceses have an obligation both to lead their people to the truth and protect them from error.

© 2010, Catholic Sentinel

An evil power akin to Herod still seeks to dethrone Jesus

An evil power akin to Herod still seeks to dethrone Jesus
By Bishop Robert Vasa


BEND — The Advent season begins the Church’s liturgical year. We are already well into the fourth week of Advent, in fact, on the threshold of Christmas itself, and yet the work of the Advent season continues. I have focused my articles during this Advent season on the need to make room for Christ in our hearts and not just any room but room in the very heart of our hearts.

It is not uncommon to have some tragedy strike in life, which results in a temporary realignment of priorities. We may feel there is absolutely no possibility of us taking the time necessary to go to Mass on a particular Sunday and yet if someone in the family suddenly dies we are quite readily able to reschedule our lives to accommodate that family emergency. In other words, we can, if we choose, reorder our priorities. We set those things in priority positions that are the most important to us. Our attendance at regular Sunday Mass is an indication of how much we value faith, faith practice, Church and God. We make time for those things we value and we perceive as important. If someone makes little time for Sunday Mass this is a indication of how much it is valued.

Many more people seem to take the time necessary to attend Mass at Christmas than they do at other times of the year. This is not an entirely bad thing but it is not all that good either. For me, the practice of attending Mass only at Christmas and Easter is very confusing. It is a little like going to work only on the day after Labor Day and the day after Memorial Day and feeling like justice has been done to the employer. It is indeed good that someone chose to show up for work on those two days but no one would see that as exemplary or even adequate. Yet, it seems that there are some who take a rather lackadaisical attitude toward the serious obligation of Sunday Mass attendance. I would surmise that Christ does not reign in the throne of that heart. Something or someone else occupies the throne. Hopefully, the grace of Advent or Christmas sheds at least a little light on the usurper of the throne and provides some prospect of an overthrow of the reigning monarch so that Christ might truly reign.

Herod was on the seat of power in Bethlehem when Jesus was born in the lowly stable and laid in a manger. Yet, Herod, with all his power, was afraid of this newborn king and set out to find and destroy him. He even enlisted the help of the Magi under the pretext that he too wanted to come and worship the one who was the subject of tidings of great joy, but his motives were not pure. He wanted to make sure that his own throne was kept safe. Make no mistake, the same spirit who drove Herod to seek out the child with an intention to destroy him still works to assure that this same newborn king does not dethrone him now. That evil spirit is quite intent on retaining his share of the power of the throne and as long as things of the world or the flesh occupy the throne, he has his share of power. Only if Christ fully reigns does the spirit of evil get fully displaced. Christ, however, engages in that battle in the same way in which he engaged the battle with Herod. He does not seem to contend with Herod at all. He, in great littleness, appeals to hearts. He gently invites all to come to Bethlehem and see; to come and see him of whom angels sing. Even Herod wanted to come and see but the throne of his heart was already, and nearly irretrievably, fully occupied. Thus, he neither came nor believed. Unfortunately, even if he had come, he most likely would not have seen what both the shepherds and the Magi did see. This is the problem with only coming to see Christ at Christmas; He is not really seen at all.

This should not be surprising in our days when even physicians and nurses fail to see the humanity of a pre-born child. How can one who fails to see the humanity of a pre-born child see the divinity of the child in a manger at Bethlehem? I had a very touching conversation recently with a new grandfather. He told me of an experience he had with his, I think, 10th grandchild. He told me that he spent time really looking at the tiny, miraculous hand of that newborn. Every feature, down to the tiniest fingernail of the tiny little finger, was pure and pristine and beautifully formed. In that moment, while he was always completely pro-life, he said he became even more deeply committed to the cause of life. He came to Bethlehem anew and saw and believed. Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe. How can the purveyors of abortion fail to see what is so exquisitely clear? The people who walk in darkness have not yet seen a great light and a light has not yet shone on the people who dwell in the land of gloom (Cf. Isaiah 9:1) It is not that the light is not there for them to see. As the light was there for Herod but he failed to see so the light of human life is magnificently displayed for all to see but it is not yet seen by all. Coming to Bethlehem at Christmas, coming to Church at Christmas, coming to see the child in the manger at Christmas does not automatically guarantee that one will see Christ nor that he will be invited to shed light on one’s darkness.

The remembrance and celebration of the coming of Christ at Christmas is a renewal and a rekindling of hope, par excellence. Every child comes with, and indeed is, a message from God that he still loves his people. The child, whose birth we celebrate with such great solemnity and festivity, brings that message in supernatural and extravagant abundance. I pray that this season for all of us is a season of light, hope and exquisite joy.
“The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; upon those who dwelt in the land of gloom a light has shone. You have brought them abundant joy and great rejoicing, as they rejoice before you as at the harvest. For the yoke that burdened them, and the pole on their shoulder, and the rod of their taskmaster you have smashed. For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace, his dominion is vast and forever peaceful.” (Isaiah 9:1-6) Make a permanent place for Christ in your hearts. May God bless you abundantly this Christmas.

Bishop Vasa on liturgical changes (part 2)

Liturgical language meant to reflect moment set apart
By Bishop Robert Vasa



BEND — It is my intention to make use, during the course of 2010, of the weekly bulletin notices from my office as a vehicle for instruction related to the upcoming liturgical enrichments. While it is not yet known when the final approved version will be announced nor when it will be published in usable books nor how soon, after publication, it will become the new Official Roman Missal but we can say with certainty that the work is drawing nearer to completion. I think it is fairly safe to say at this point that the end of the process is in view and that, barring major unforeseen difficulties, most of us will live to see the finished product. If I were to put on my prognosticator hat I would guess that a year from now we will have received definitive word about both the dates of publication and implementation. Since I believe this to be true I do want to begin some remote preparation and catechesis regarding this latest liturgical work.

I suspect that the parochial catechesis which I hope to prepare will begin with the same kind of catechetical citations regarding the Sacred Liturgy which I have cited here on other occasions. Since the last time I talked about the Sacred Liturgy I have had the opportunity to review a few more passages which speak very directly to the meaning and purpose of the liturgy. The first of these is from paragraph 1091 of the catechism: “In the liturgy the Holy Spirit is teacher of the faith of the People of God and artisan of ‘God’s masterpieces,’ the sacraments of the New Covenant. The desire and work of the Spirit in the heart of the Church is that we may live from the life of the risen Christ. When the Spirit encounters in us the response of faith which he has aroused in us, he brings about genuine cooperation. Through it, the liturgy becomes the common work of the Holy Spirit and the Church.” The Holy Spirit is identified as the teacher and the artisan of the Sacred Liturgy. In the liturgy, he works to draw each of us into the life of Christ, into the Paschal Mystery of Christ and into deeper union with God. The liturgy is God working in the world, making present again the saving words and deeds of Jesus. Our efforts on behalf of appropriate liturgy are to make this reality more accessible but they are not to create a new or different reality. We, therefore, do not create the liturgy, nor do we technically “plan” it for the liturgy has already been created by God and planned by the Church. It is important that we, as servants of and participants in the Sacred Liturgy prepare ourselves for a worthy participation, a full, active and conscious participation, so that we might derive the fullest possible benefit from that which the Holy Spirit is doing in our midst.

The catechism continues in 1092: “In this sacramental dispensation of Christ’s mystery the Holy Spirit acts in the same way as at other times in the economy of salvation: he prepares the Church to encounter her Lord; he recalls and makes Christ manifest to the faith of the assembly. By his transforming power, he makes the mystery of Christ present here and now. Finally the Spirit of communion unites the Church to the life and mission of Christ.” If one were to ask at this point, “Whose work is being accomplished in the Sacred Liturgy?” it would be necessary to answer, “The Holy Spirit’s.” The language we use in these sacred events needs to be a language that is understandable but it also needs to be a language suitable for the occasion. The language we have used and are using is perfectly understandable but it does lack a certain element of dignity and it lacks, in some instances seriously lacks, an appropriate similarity to the original and official Latin texts. The Spanish translation I have occasion to use makes this difference entirely clear. There is an extended use of adjectives in the Latin and in Spanish which has been largely suppressed in the present English translation. For some this inclusion of additional adjectives in the latest translation may seem like the gratuitous addition of extra descriptive words and yet it is much more than that. First, it is a more determined attempt to be faithful to the original which is a good thing. Next, it is a concerted effort to elevate the language from that which is very common to something that is a bit more uncommon.

This communicates in a very subtle way that the liturgical action to which we are invited is not common at all but rather something unique and wonderful and set apart. I also believe that the use of uncommon language stretches us in ways in which we need to be stretched. Now I need to be clear, we are not talking here of Olde English like that which we might have encountered in some reading of Shakespeare which can often reach the point of unintelligibility.

The enhanced and more accurate translation uses perfectly ordinary and understandable English but it does not shy away from the more colorful and descriptive. Hopefully, this positively draws us to listen more attentively to the words and their meaning, to enter more efficaciously into the sacred action and to participate in it more fruitfully. For instance, and this is purely of my own creation, there is a difference between saying , “Lord, hear me,” and saying, “Most, gracious, merciful, loving Lord, I, your poor servant, beg you, hear me.” Admittedly, they both say nearly the same thing. They do, however, say it quite differently. It seems to me that the second is richer, more descriptive, more cognizant of the lordship of Jesus and the neediness which we experience. It communicates the same basic message but it also communicates so much more. It is my founded hope that this is what the effort on behalf of the new translation will accomplish.

Since, “In the liturgy of the Church, it is principally his own Paschal mystery that Christ signifies and makes present” (CCC, 1085), I do think it is right and just that we seek to give him thanks and praise in the most proper and dignified fashion possible and how we use language and its concordance with the original is tremendously important. I trust we will all be enriched by the enrichment of liturgical language.

Bishop Vasa on upcoming liturgical changes

To understand liturgical changes, study meaning of liturgy
By Bishop Robert Vasa


BEND — I wrote very briefly last week about the presentation at our presbyteral assembly on the upcoming revised translation of the Roman Missal and I want to reflect a bit more on this topic. It will undoubtedly be a bit difficult for some to accept with peace and tranquility the changes and amendments which are forthcoming for the Sacred Liturgy. The possibility that there may be some difficulty understanding and accepting the changes is understandable. Unfortunately, it can often happen that the reason why we anticipate such a difficulty has less to do with the Sacred Liturgy than it does with our own attitudes. It will indeed be the case that the Church in approving changes to the texts for the Sacred Liturgy will also be asking that we change. In looking at myself, I must admit that I am much less affected by the fact that the sacred language may change than I am by the fact that this change affects me and perhaps, in some ways, also challenges me.

If there is one factor for the laity, in my estimation, which will impact on the ease with which changes are accepted or the strength with which they are resisted it is our fundamental understanding of the nature and purpose of the Sacred Liturgy. The frequency with which comments are heard such as, “I really like Father X’s Mass,” or “I find it very difficult to go to Father Y’s Mass,” or “That Mass did not do anything for me,” or the most common, “I don’t get anything out of the Mass” are all indicators of a certain understanding of the nature and purpose of the Sacred Liturgy. Underlying these comments, and many more variations thereof, is a certain concept of the liturgy. The proposed changes present us an opportunity to reflect, even in a significantly self critical way, on our understanding, or misunderstanding, of the meaning and purpose of the Sacred Liturgy.

In order to begin to reform or reshape our understanding of the Sacred Liturgy we need to go to the Church and to the catechism which she has given us. There we read and hear that: “Sunday is the pre-eminent day for the liturgical assembly, when the faithful gather ‘to listen to the word of God and take part in the Eucharist, thus calling to mind the Passion, Resurrection, and glory of the Lord Jesus, and giving thanks to God who ‘has begotten them again, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead’ unto a living hope.’” (CCC, 1167) Admittedly, the paragraph addresses the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass rather than Liturgy as a whole but the paragraph is instructive. On Sunday, when we gather for Mass, we do so to listen to the Word of God. While there are a number of other ceremonies which accompany the Liturgy of the Word, the reason we gather is to “listen to the Word of God.” There is thus an importance placed on what God gives to us, His Word. We gather to hear it. We also gather to “take part in the Eucharist.” This involves much more than simply being present and receiving Holy Communion. Centrally, it involves “calling to mind the Passion, Resurrection and glory of the Lord Jesus” and giving thanks to God for the salvation which Jesus has won for us.

These are participatory activities which include everyone without exception. Thus it is not only the reader or the servers or the extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion who participate in the Mass but rather everyone is able to fulfill the mandate of the council about “full, active and conscious participation.” This is so because an essential part of the “activity” is listening, offering, remembering, rejoicing, thanking. These are all interior actions. Without a doubt the participation also includes responding, singing, standing, kneeling, et cetera but these are to be external manifestations of the fact that we are participating interiorly because simply doing these things is not necessarily the same thing as actively participating.

“The Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life.’ The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch. The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit. Finally, by the eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all. In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking.” (CCC 1324-27)

I am particularly struck by the reminder that the Eucharist is the culmination of “God’s action sanctifying the world.” This is what we are called to participate in and belong to when we come to Holy Mass. It is, at the same time, the culmination of the “worship men offer to Christ.” I like to think of our participation in worship as being drawn up into the saving actions of God, being a part of them, remembering and experiencing them and coming away from them knowing that we have been in contact with Him Who is all holy. Ideally, the Eucharist changes us because we celebrate who God is and what he has done and is doing in our midst. As the catechism notes, “Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist,” not vice versa.

The proposed linguistic enrichments of the Sacred Liturgy, or if you prefer, changes, give us the opportunity to reflect upon the Eucharist anew. They certainly give us the opportunity to listen with new ears to new language, to refresh our interior and reflective participation, and to enter more consciously into that which God is doing. If necessary, it provides the occasion for each of us to align our understanding and expectation of the Holy Mysteries more closely with the vision of the Church expressed in the Catechism.

New program to help parents impart morals, human dignity

New program to help parents impart morals, human dignity
By Bishop Robert Vasa

BEND — Besides the usual activities of traveling to parishes for confirmation, such as those at Merrill and Bonanza, the past few weeks have seen a significant amount of activity on the program with which I am very much involved titled, Healthy Families: Safe Children. Most of this article will concern itself with this program but first a couple of comments about my delightful trip to Merrill and Bonanza. Merrill has the distinction of being the southernmost parish of the diocese. As the crow flies it is probably less than 3 miles from California. Its mission at Bonanza has the distinction of being identified with Lost River. Neither Merrill nor Bonanza are “lost.” In fact, I found both of them to be quite vibrant and energetic. Like the other parishes I have visited this year, I found that the children were well instructed and eager to respond to my questions. I thoroughly enjoyed my time there and commend them for their persevering fidelity. It was a delightful visit.

Now for some more extensive comments about Healthy Families: Safe Children. Several months ago the Board of Ardor, Inc. made the decision to publish and distribute the program on our own. This was, in itself, a huge leap. Then we decided that we needed to take the accompanying workbook and produce from it two separate works, a presenter’s workbook and a participant’s workbook. This has now been accomplished. The presenter’s workbook is essentially the same as the original workbook with the addition of a significant number of presenter notes, which give suggestions for introducing the various segments of the program. The participant’s workbook has been streamlined just a bit in order to make it more cost effective and thus more suitable for group use.
I mention this because, while there has been a great deal of interest in the program, that interest has not translated into a purchase commitment on the part of those who have shown interest. While I am very appreciative of the interest and the support which that interest provides for me and for those who have worked so hard on the program, the reality is that interest alone, while encouraging, is not ultimately effective. A very rough tally of the viewers on the program clips provided through Securechild.org indicates that the site and the video clips have been accessed more than 1,100 times. If every one of these had translated into an order for the program, and I know that such a hope is completely unrealistic, I would now be in discussion with the Board about the details of our next foray into program production.

Since I am never averse to reusing my own material I went to the workbook and found the foreword that I wrote for the program. I think it provides a very good overview of the program and I reproduce a significant portion of that here: Healthy Families: Safe Children addresses the moral crisis of culture, parenting styles, and child development, especially the development of moral values rooted in the dignity of human relationships. The program integrates the timeless truths of the human person from the perspectives of philosophy and theology with the most recent findings in neurophysiology, social biology, and psychiatry in order to provide parents with effective methods for communicating with their children, for preventing problem behaviors, and for guiding their children along healthy developmental pathways. Every parent can glean insightful information to reinforce, improve, and heal family relationships. While this program is primarily for parents, it will benefit any adult who is in a position of trust, authority, and responsibility for children. It provides adults of any age with a valuable experience for self-reflection and provides a deep understanding of the roots of morality and healthy relationships.

I believe that Healthy Families: Safe Children is an important contribution to the “wider context” of moral renewal recommended by Pope Benedict XVI on the occasion of his pastoral visit to the United States. In his address to the Catholic Bishops on April 16, 2008, Pope Benedict spoke about the issue of the clergy sexual-abuse scandal and the bishops’ response to it. He said: “If the policies and programs to protect children from sexual abuse you have adopted are to achieve their full purpose, they need to be placed in a wider context. Children have a right to be educated in authentic moral values rooted in the dignity of the human person. We need to reassess urgently the values underpinning society so that a sound moral formation can be offered to young people and adults alike. Every member of society can contribute to this moral renewal and benefit from it. Truly caring about young people and the future of our civilization means recognizing our responsibility to promote and live by the authentic moral values which alone enable the human person to flourish.”

Healthy Families: Safe Children strives to do what Pope Benedict proposes. It is a program to assist parents in promoting the sound moral formation of children while protecting their innocence and guarding them from abuse. It is my prayerful hope that Healthy Families: Safe Children will contribute to the moral renewal of our society and the building of the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth — one child at a time.

Several hundred copies of the program have been distributed primarily to those who generously made advance contributions to enable us to move forward with the production of this series. I am very grateful to all who have assisted us financially to produce the program which is now available for all. I invite all recipients of this message to distribute it as a kind of advertising blitz with the hope that the Securechild.org Web site will be flooded with visitors and orders.
I suspect that this article could lead to an accusation of self promotion, but my belief that this program provides a necessary and valuable contribution to the whole area of the protection of children compels me to accept the risk of such an accusation.

© 2009, Catholic Sentinel

Church teaching enjoins all Catholics - even legislators

Church teaching enjoins all Catholics - even legislators
By Bishop Robert Vasa

The headline from Vatican City dated February 18, 2009 as reported by the Catholic News Agency (CNA) should have been neither shocking nor surprising but in many ways, it was both.

The story had been circulated that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be received by the Holy Father after his usual Wednesday Audience and this was accurate. There was a fear that somehow the Holy Father’s meeting would signal some kind of approbation of her erroneous thinking about life issues. The news story was very direct: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s photo-op with Pope Benedict XVI turned sour when the Pontiff used the 15-minute meeting to reaffirm the teachings of the Catholic Church on the right to life and the duty to protect the unborn.” Certainly this would have been “sour” for House Speaker Pelosi and perhaps it may have been a bit “sour” for other erroneously minded “pro-choice” Catholics but I find it difficult to describe it as “sour” in itself. For most in the Pro-Life Community, the news, far from being deemed “sour,” was received as a bit of fresh air, indeed even as “sweet.”

No one of us can afford to take any kind of gaudium or delight in the fact that the Speaker of the House was rather sternly rebuked. Rejoicing in this is to rejoice in her embarrassment and that lacks charity. It would also be uncharitable to rejoice that the gravity of the Speaker’s error necessitated such a reprimand by the Holy Father. Yet, in this, there is a cause for a suitable kind of rejoicing. One of the Spiritual Works of Mercy is to admonish the sinner and we can rejoice that this Spiritual Work is being exercised. We can be confident that the Holy Father did not do what he did in order to embarrass or vilify House Speaker Pelosi. We can be confident that he spoke and acted as he deemed was good and necessary for both the admonishment of the sinner and the instruction of the ignorant, another Spiritual Work of Mercy. This second Work of Mercy is further exercised on behalf of any of those who have been misled by some of Speaker Pelosi’s statements. The clarity of the Holy Father’s words also serve as a bit of counsel for the doubtful, yet another of the Spiritual Works of Mercy.

The news story continued: “No photo of Speaker Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and the Pope will be forthcoming since the meeting was closed to reporters and photographers. The two met in a small room in the Vatican just after the pope’s weekly public audience.” The fact that there were no photographs allowed could be interpreted to mean that the Holy Father did not want the media to send mixed messages, one in words and the other in pictures. I have no doubt that the Holy Father was nothing but extremely gracious when Madame Speaker met with him and a photograph of that graciousness could be used to put a different spin on the seriousness of the meeting. The disallowing of photographs puts an exclamation point at the end of the Official Press Release.

There is yet another Spiritual Work of Mercy which is operative here and it is one directed at all those who have grave concerns about the diminution of reverence for human life in our culture. The Holy Father’s decision and action stands as a great source of encouragement and even comfort to those who work so ardently in the Pro-Life trenches. The Spiritual Work is that of comforting the sorrowful. A vast number of increasingly discouraged Catholics, who are in many ways suffering and sorrowful over the ongoing legal disregard for our pre-born brothers and sisters, were greatly comforted and encouraged by the courage and clarity of the Holy Father.

The CNA news story then quoted the Official Statement of the Holy See’s press office: “Following the general audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage. His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.”

I think this is quite clear. It is even clearer when one looks more carefully at the operative verb, that simple word “enjoin.” The Church’s teaching “enjoins” all Catholics and especially legislators to create just laws which protect innocent human life. The dictionary defines enjoin quite strongly: “to direct, prescribe, or impose by order typically authoritatively and compellingly and with urgent admonition.” Thus the Holy Father is not issuing here a gentle reminder or a subtle suggestion, he is reiterating a directive with an urgent admonition. While this admonition was issued on the occasion of the House Speaker’s visit to the Vatican and while it was clearly issued for her benefit, it was not directed solely to her but rather also to all Catholics. It should serve for us all as a call to Lenten repentance.

Since I have covered four of the seven Spiritual Works of Mercy it is a good time to complete the roster with the final three. These final three are particularly appropriate for our Lenten reflection for they do not look at the weaknesses or shortcomings of others but rather at our own. How about bearing wrongs patiently or forgiving all injuries as a pair of focused Spiritual Works for Lent 2009? There is a lifetime of work in simply trying to achieve some measure of success with regard to these two.

Finally, one that we can all relatively easily participate in, to pray for the living and the dead.

In light of the present discussion there are many possible beneficiaries of our prayers and we generally remember the major ones in our petition prayers at Mass. There we always remember Pope Benedict XVI. There we also pray for government leaders and our personal petition for them should always include: “That they work to create a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development. We pray to the Lord.”

© 2009, Catholic Sentinel online edition

Time for truth in labeling?

Some forms of so-called 'contraception' take a human life
By Bishop Robert Vasa


BEND — It is impossible for the Church to treat the subject of the dignity of a human person without reiterating its consistent teaching about the sinfulness of artificial contraception. Dignitas Personae, a 2008 instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, does not make any direct comment about whether contraceptive pharmaceuticals (i.e. the pill) are abortifacient but this does not mean that the question is completely ignored. The document does distinguish between those mechanisms which are contraceptive, which has its own clear meaning, and those which are “interceptive” and “contragestative.” These words, too, have their own clear meaning. These latter two are designed and intended to “act after fertilization.” As such, they directly touch the human being about whom this document is concerned.

A fuller citation is in order: “Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive, that is, which prevent conception following from a sexual act, there are other technical means which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall. Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation and contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted.

“In order to promote wider use of interceptive methods, [IUD (intrauterine device) and the so-called “morning-after pills] it is sometimes stated that the way in which they function is not sufficiently understood. It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse. It must be noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.” (D.P.,23)

This last sentence is most significant: “anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.” While the document very narrowly defines those mechanisms, which are primarily and intentionally designed to work in this fashion, it also acknowledges that “there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate.” The document does not directly state, but it certainly must be inferred, that where “scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present,” abortion is generally intended. This is where the meaning of words is very important. When a “contraceptive” is solely “contraceptive,” in keeping with the clear meaning of that word, then there is no direct offense to the dignity of a newly created human being. The dignity of the spouses is a whole other question. Unfortunately, the clear meaning of the word “contraceptive” (i.e. that which prevents conception or fertilization) has been altered to mean that which prevents pregnancy. That which prevents pregnancy includes not only contraception but also interception and contragestation. Scientific studies indicate that inhibiting implantation is one of the effects of the so-called contraceptive pill. Thus the contraceptive pill is not solely contraceptive, as this document defines “contraceptive.” It would perhaps be more accurate to begin to refer to such pharmaceuticals as contra/interceptive pills. It would seem to stand to reason that what is said about interceptives in this document needs to be applied also to those pharmaceutical contraceptives, which also have an interceptive function.

This is not an easy concept to grasp and it is not any easier to explain than it is to grasp. This document concerns itself with the dignity of a human person, which needs to be extended to every human being. Since the human embryo, even hours after the establishment of a unique genetic signature consisting of 23 pairs of chromosomes, is already a human being, any action on the part of anyone who wantonly disregards that humanity violates the dignity owed to a human person. Such a violation diminishes us all.

Another area, closely aligned with abortion, is embryonic stem cell research. It must be said that the Church does not in any way disdain legitimate and ethical research, even stem cell research. The document notes: “Therapeutic protocols in force today provide for the use of adult stem cells and many lines of research have been launched, opening new and promising possibilities.” (D.P.,31) This research, following proper ethical standards, is legitimate.

The major difficulty with embryonic stem cell research, and the reason why such research becomes a part of a Church document on the dignity of a human person is that: “The obtaining of stem cells from a living human embryo, on the other hand, invariably causes the death of the embryo and is consequently gravely illicit: research, in such cases, irrespective of efficacious therapeutic results, is not truly at the service of humanity. In fact, this research advances through the suppression of human lives that are equal in dignity to the lives of other human individuals and to the lives of the researchers themselves.” (D.P.,32) Endorsing embryonic stem cell research, in the simplest of terms, is to embrace the direct and intentional killing of human beings for the sake of scientific advancement. This is grotesque. Recognizing that such a violation of human dignity is commonplace, and still worse recognizing that our government sometimes provides the money needed for this desecration, ought to be offensive to us all.

“By treating the human embryo as mere ‘laboratory material,’ the concept of human dignity itself is also subjected to alteration and discrimination. Dignity belongs equally to every single human being, irrespective of his parents’ desires, his social condition, educational formation or level of physical development.” (D.P.,22)
This includes the human embryo, a real human being.

© 2009, Catholic Sentinel online edition

From the moment of conception

From the moment of conception
By Bishop Robert Vasa

BEND — Last week I covered the introduction to the document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith known as Dignitatis Personae or Dignity of a Person. In light of recent indications that there may be an expansion of permission to experiment with human embryonic cells the section of Dignitatis Personae, which deals with this topic, is particularly timely.

Once again, Dignitatis Personae reminds us: It is appropriate to recall the fundamental ethical criterion expressed in the instruction Donum Vitae in order to evaluate all moral questions, which relate to procedures involving the human embryo: “Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say, from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life” (D.P.,4 - Citing Donum Vitae).

The teaching that every human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception has consequences for both how that human being is conceived and how he or she is treated immediately after conception. Thus the teaching directly touches infertility treatments. “With regard to the treatment of infertility, new medical techniques must respect three fundamental goods: a) the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being from conception to natural death; b) the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse; c) the specifically human values of sexuality which require ‘that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses.’ Techniques which assist procreation ‘are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life.’ In light of this principle, all techniques of heterologous artificial fertilization, as well as those techniques of homologous artificial fertilization which substitute for the conjugal act, are to be excluded.” (D.P., 12)

The teaching of the church is clear. All forms of artificial fertilization, and the subsequent insemination which normally follows, whether the gametes are from a suitably married couple or not, are a violation of the dignity of the person. In our society pragmatism and utility are principles that rule the day. Thus the general perception is that anyone who wants to have a child is deemed free to do whatever needs to be done in order to achieve the fulfillment of this desire. No one of us is free from pangs of heart as we hear of the heartfelt longing of a couple for a child. Yet that longing does not justify a violation of the fundamental principle that every human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception, indeed, in the very act of being conceived. The document makes a distinction between those methods which “substitute for” and those interventions that “assist” procreation. I do not intend to give any kind of in-depth scientific exposition other than to note that anytime human embryos are created in a setting other than the woman’s body (conception usually occurs within the fallopian tube) there has been a “substitution for” the conjugal act.

A very sad corollary to much of the present day reproductive technology is the destruction of unwanted or unused embryos or their cryogenic preservation. Neither is acceptable. As the document notes: “These losses are accepted by the practitioners of in vitro fertilization as the price to be paid for positive results. In reality, it is deeply disturbing that research in this area aims principally at obtaining better results in terms of the percentage of babies born to women who begin the process, but does not manifest a concrete interest in the right to life of each individual embryo.” (D.P., 14) The document continues: “The blithe acceptance of the enormous number of abortions involved in the process of in vitro fertilization vividly illustrates how the replacement of the conjugal act by a technical procedure — in addition to being in contradiction with the respect that is due to procreation as something that cannot be reduced to mere reproduction — leads to a weakening of the respect owed to every human being.” (D.P., 16) The document links the utilitarian desire for a child with the same utilitarianism, which fosters direct abortion: “The desire for a child cannot justify the ‘production’ of offspring, just as the desire not to have a child cannot justify the abandonment or destruction of a child once he or she has been conceived.” (D.P., 16)

While it is not possible for us to see these tiny microscopic embryos as God sees them, the document very beautifully includes, in this same paragraph 16, a citation from Pope Benedict, which should touch us deeply: “God’s love does not differentiate between the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother’s womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness (Gen 1:26) in each one. Therefore, the Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the sacred and inviolable character of every human life from its conception until its natural end. Benedict XVI, Address to the General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life and International Congress on ‘The Human Embryo in the Pre-implantation Phase.’” (February 27, 2006) (D.P., 16)

I did not yet get to embryonic stem cell research, but in light of what we have already seen, we would conclude, in advance, that the dignity of a person precludes such experimentation. It is not right to treat that in which God “sees an impression of his own image and likeness” like a common laboratory rat. To do so does immeasurable harm to us all.

© 2009, Catholic Sentinel online edition

Those who profess to love God, but back abortion, are liars

Those who profess to love God, but back abortion, are liars
By Bishop Robert Vasa

BEND — The Mass readings for the week between Epiphany and the Baptism of the Lord are taken from the First Letter of St. John. These readings are not always used for it often happens, depending upon the day on which Christmas falls, that the season of ordinary time begins immediately after the celebration of Epiphany. This year, however, the occurrence of Christmas allowed for a full week between these two post-Christmas celebrations and thus the readings from St. John’s first letter. As often happens, the daily Mass readings are both appealing and challenging. The reading of Thursday from I John 4:19ff is particularly appropriate in this year when the life issues are very much on the minds of pro-life persons.

The reason for the increased awareness and even concern on the part of the pro-life community is the specter of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which is highly rumored to be in the works at the federal level. It is this act which has stimulated the bishops of the United States to launch a massive postcard campaign calling upon the House and Senate to abandon FOCA. While further details about the dramatic impact of FOCA on our American culture can be found in many places, I will simply say that it would establish abortion as a federally protected right and, as I understand it, preclude state limitation or regulation of abortion. Further, since abortion would be a federally protected right, it is very possible that even Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Physicians would be mandated to provide this heinous service.

Thus I strongly urge all who have a glimmer of concern for the lives of pre-born children to engage themselves in this postcard campaign. This is not an action which would limit or alter present permissive abortion laws, which some so-called Catholic pro-choice persons might object to, it would simply preclude a dramatic expansion of that permissiveness. Thus it would be very difficult for any Catholic, no matter how much in favor of abortion itself, to find a reason to refuse to participate in this campaign. At the same time, I do not see how any Catholic senator or representative could vote for the passage of FOCA without recognizing that such a vote would constitute a direct and intentional declaration of their disdain for Catholic teaching. Such a vote would be tantamount to a public declaration of their intention to abandon the Catholic faith. It would be imperative that the faith consequences of such a declaration be allowed to fall fully on the heads of those who would make it.
The writing from St. John applies: “Beloved, we love God because He first loved us. If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from Him: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.”
We of the Catholic faith certainly know that love of God is central to our tenets, this is the appealing part. It is hard to imagine a Catholic saying, “I am a Catholic in good standing but I do not love God.” But the inspired scriptures tell us that whoever does not love his brother or neighbor does not and, indeed, cannot love God. This is the challenging part. The people of Jesus’ day understood this and it was this understanding that prompted them to ask, “And who is my neighbor?” For all of us, and especially for Catholic legislators in every strata of government, it is necessary to declare, in conformity with the Natural Law and the teaching of the Catholic Church that, the pre-born child is our brother, our sister, our neighbor!

It may sound a little strong to state that legislators “hate” the pre-born child but hate is an absence of love and love means to wish another well. There is nothing about abortion that wishes the pre-born child well. The preservation of abortion “rights” is already an absence of love for the pre-born child but the passage of FOCA could be construed as nothing less than active and positive disregard, even hatred, for these our brothers and sisters. To paraphrase St. John, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but votes for FOCA, thus showing a disregard for his pre-born brother or sister, he is a liar.” Lots of things can be rationalized in government but I do not see any way in which any Catholic could rationalize or justify an affirmative vote for FOCA.

It is not necessary for your postcards to be as outspoken as this bishop but you do have an obligation to participate in this concerted effort to show love for the tiniest and most defenseless of our brothers and sisters. President-elect Obama made it very clear, prior to the election, that he would happily sign FOCA and the millions of Catholics who voted for him hopefully did so for reasons other than this promise and certainly not because of it. It seems to me that it is particularly incumbent upon these same voters to make it clearly known to their representatives that their vote may not in any way be taken as a sign of support for FOCA.

Another way in which we show our affirmative love for our pre-born brothers and sisters is by way of our annual memorial on Jan. 22. This year the Diocesan Office of Pro-life Activities has scheduled a rosary and Mass at St. Joseph’s in Prineville on Thursday evening, Jan. 22. The rosary will commence at 6:30 p.m. with Mass beginning at 7 p.m. While I recognize that many parishes host similar memorial Masses to pray for the two-fold victims of abortion, the child and the mother, I invite any who can to join me at the rosary and Mass at St. Joseph’s in Prineville.

Regardless of how many years have passed since the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court Decision and regardless of how prevalent and routine abortion has become in this country, the simple truth remains, it is an act of extreme violence to the pre-born child and to the distressed mother. Thus, if anyone says, “I love God” and still favors abortion, he is, to quote St. John, a liar. May we all live out faithfully what it means to love God.

From the Catholic Sentinal Online edition

Bp. Vasa reminds us to pray for the poor souls

Since my visit coincided with the celebration of All Saints Day and All Souls Day it was not possible to avoid the topic of purgatory. It often happens at funerals that the consoling hope that the dearly departed is in heaven with God leads to an over-exaggerated statement that the newly departed is in heaven already. This, of course, is merely conjectured and not known. It is hoped for but not certain. Nonetheless these compassionate sermons can generate within us a profound sense of peace and even joy at the thought that our loved ones are with God. This does sound wonderful but we do not know if it is true or not. Imagine yourself having just died and having discovered that all of your past attachments to sin, which were never completely denounced, have trailed you into eternity. Imagine your shock as you discover that you must now spend (by analogy) one hundred years in purgatory. Imagine your hope as you recognize that the assiduous prayers and Masses offered by your friends and relatives on earth will greatly reduce your purgatorial sentence. Finally, imagine your shock and dismay as you see your family and friends still on earth “canonizing” you and rejoicing that you have no need of their prayers because you are already enjoying the beatific vision, already seeing God face-to-face. These are the ones whom we in the Church refer to as the Poor Souls.

Undoubtedly, it is consoling for us on earth to envision our loved ones as already united with God in heaven but it is much more consoling for the poor souls in purgatory for us to presume that they are not yet fully reconciled with God. There is no harm done in praying for someone as if they were still in purgatory even if they are, in fact, in heaven. There is, by contrast, great harm done in not praying for someone because of a conviction that they are in heaven when they are, in fact, among the Poor and forgotten souls in purgatory. Put yourself in their shoes and pray for them as you will want your children and grandchildren to pray for you. A simple test. Call to mind those whom you know and love who have died in the past year. While you will certainly have recalled them many times in memory, have you also remembered on those occasions to say a decade of the rosary for them, have a Mass offered for them or gathered the family together to pray a rosary for the happy repose of the soul of that loved one? It is good to be remembered, it is better to be remembered in prayer.

All Souls Day this year was particularly poignant for me because one year ago my family and I were keeping vigil with Mom during her last days. She died on November 3 and so the approach of that one year anniversary made this year’s liturgical passage through All Saints Day and All Souls’ Day very memorable. Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon her. May her soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen. Let us remember to pray throughout the year for the poor souls in purgatory.

from the Catholic Sentinel online edition.

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...

Satan, while hidden, remains active in us and in society
By Bishop Robert Vasa

[]It is certainly important that we not become excessively consumed or obsessed by the presence and activity of the evil one but it is also most important that we not be oblivious to his presence or activity, for it is real. All one needs to do is look at the state of moral confusion which reigns in our present society. The killing of the sick or elderly because they want it is being promoted as some kind of right or good but this can be so only in the topsy-turvy world of Screwtape and Wormwood. When taking the life of an innocent pre-born child is seen as right and a right and when the preservation of precisely that right becomes the object of a political campaign, I suspect the letter from Screwtape to the demon master of that campaign would be filled with praise. When a whole society begins to question whether marriage really requires one man and one woman, faithfully committed to each other in an exclusive and child-centered relationship, Satan must be very pleased indeed. Screwtape’s letters to the untiring tempters who pulled off that coup would have to be filled with devilish pride. For that kind of confusion and moral inversion to have made this kind of progress in our society, it was and is necessary for Satan to have been very active and at the same time to remain very hidden. When he is so subtly hidden, there is no limit to the wickedness and snares of the devil.

When we look at our society and see the depths of depravity to which it has already sunk we must, like in the parable of the wheat and the tares, come to the unmistakable conclusion that “an enemy has done this.”

Read the full article here!

Our weapons are not those of strength, but of light. Gideon had to reduce his army from 10,000 to 300, so that it would be evident that victory was from God, not man. Why 300? St. Augustine points out that the number 300 is the Greek letter τ, in other words, victory is in the cross of Christ. Light in earthen vessels; what are we, but dust, to which we shall return? The dust of the earth, which carries the light? Is that light hidden, or does it shine? and why should not the Lord subject us to trial, in order that the light will be seen by others?

---

From the diocese of Baker, Pastoral Guidelines, a document which is good to read now and again, these sections in particular:

Pg 148: GIVING TESTIMONY TO THE TRUTH
Pg 156: AFFIRMATION OF PERSONAL FAITH
Pg 157: APPENDIX-ENTRUSTED WITH SACRED DUTIES

JUDGMENTALISM

46. As I mentioned above still others have expressed concern that my insistence upon an affirmation of faith is a form of ‘judgmentalism’. Some have indicated to me that the task I have undertaken of trying to "oversee" ministry, liturgy and ministers of the Diocese is not "my job". This perspective is most interesting particularly since the very title Bishop means precisely that, "overseer". [...]

Bp Vasa, Pentecost

Spirit of Pentecost, Mother's Day marks the sign of faith
By Bishop Robert Vasa

BEND — “Come, O Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy faithful and enkindle in them the fire of Thy love. Send forth Thy Spirit, O Lord, and they shall be created and Thou shall renew the face of the earth.” The Solemnity of Pentecost, this year, coincided with the celebration of Mothers’ Day. This provides us with two very appropriate topics upon which to reflect.

Mothers’ Day this year was just a bit different for me in that it was the first such day since the death of my mother in November. Nonetheless, there was not even the slightest hint of sadness about the absence of my mother on this day for the honoring of mothers. I hope that the absence of sadness is a mark of the tranquility and peacefulness of the mother-son relationship itself. As I write this, I am reminded of the scene of the death of the mother of Saint Augustine. Not that I would dare make any comparison between myself and this great saint but rather because of the ultimate tranquility with which Monica faced her final end.

Several days before she died, Augustine reports that she said: “What more I have to do here and why I am still here I do not know, since I have no longer anything to hope for in this world.” Then as the day of her death neared, she informed Augustine and his brother that they were to bury her where she was, namely at Ostia in Italy. Augustine’s brother protested that she should die in her own country and be buried there. She replied: “See what he is saying! You may lay this body of mine anywhere. Do not worry at all about that. All I ask you is this, that wherever you may be you will remember me at the altar of the Lord.” (Confessions, IX, 11)

This was amazing for Augustine and his brother for Monica had often expressed worry and anxiety about the question of her death and burial and this peace at her death was seen as a great gift from God. Several days later, on the day of her death, she expressed a bit of the reason for her tranquility. “Nothing is far from God, and there is no reason to fear that, at the end of the world, He will not recognize the place from which to raise me up.”

There are perhaps as many of us whose mothers have died as there are of those whose mothers are still alive. We have a bit of responsibility to both. For those who are alive we owe reverence and respect and a duty to live as they would have us live. For those who have gone before us “marked with the sign of faith” we owe that which Monica asked of Augustine, that is, to remember them at the altar of the Lord. It is a good and holy thought to remember the dead in our prayers and this most especially applies to those who brought us to life and nourished in us the life of faith. Trusting in the hope of future resurrection Augustine writes that “we did not think it right that a funeral such as hers should be celebrated with tears and groans and lamentations. These are ways in which people grieve for an utter wretchedness in death or a kind of total extinction. But she did not die in misery, nor was she altogether dead. Of this we had good reason to be certain from the evidence of her character and from a faith that was not feigned.”

I was most fortunate that something very similar could have been said of my mother’s death and funeral. Nonetheless, Augustine prayed for his mother and I pray for mine. May we all extend to our mothers the wishes of a happy mothers’ day and, if applicable, promises to remember them at the altar of the Lord.

It was also Pentecost. The birthday of the Church. The day of that special coming of the Holy Spirit. The reading from the Acts of the Apostles, detailing that first Pentecost, is in sharp contrast to the Old Testament story of the Tower of Babel. They have always struck me as polar opposites. In the Old Testament, men quite capable of understanding one another embark on a concerted plan to build a tower to heaven and make a name for themselves. The unanimity of speech gave rise to a pride which led them to seek to “be as gods” and to be independent of the One who was God. The Lord’s response, aimed at disrupting their plans was simple, “Let us then go down and there confuse their language, so that one will not understand what another says.” (Genesis 11:7) How different this is from the Acts of the Apostles where we read that the people were confused by the speech of the Apostles at Pentecost “because each one heard them speaking in his own language.” (Acts 2:6)

I sometimes wonder if the spirit of our age is the spirit of Pentecost or a spirit of Babel. There is such a cacophony of voices each claiming to be speaking the truth about the meaning of the Gospels that it sounds more like Babel than the Church. One voice, claiming the inspiration of the Spirit, contends that there is not one truth in God but many truths, indeed one for each person. Another voice proclaims that there is such a thing as one objective truth. One claims that what we do and how we live does make a difference to God. Another asserts that all that is important is the we love God in our hearts and that we are conscientious. One insists that some things are always evil and ought never to be done while another maintains that every decision about good and evil rests with the intention of the person. Some hold that it is unfair, unjust and judgmental to insist upon some kind of standard of conduct in order to be “worthy” to receive Holy Communion while others hold that no such standard should be considered.

Thus, instead of a unity wrought by and of the Spirit there exists a Babel of opinions each contending for its position in the marketplace of ecclesial ideas. Such a state of disharmony exists that it is not even possible for all who claim membership in this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to agree that the innocent life of the pre-born child ought to be assiduously protected always and everywhere. If we cannot even be certain of the sanctity and inviolability of the life of the tiniest babe in or outside of the womb of its mother, then we cannot all be listening to the same Spirit.

So we pray, certain that the Holy Spirit has come, but doubtful about how well we have listened. Yet, we pray and we are hopeful that He might come again and that we might be properly responsive to hear and understand His words: “Come, O Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy faithful and enkindle in them the fire of Thy love. Send forth Thy Spirit, O Lord, and they shall be created and Thou shall renew the face of the earth.”

© 2002-2008, Catholic Sentinel