Communion and Fasting

In the novus ordo lectionary today the Gospel speaks of a time to fast, and a time not to fast. The principle is simple: when the Bridegroom is with us we do not fast; when he is taken away, we do. This has an obvious application: in that the Lord has been taken up to heaven, and in that sense is not with us, there is a place for fasting in our lives. But because in another sense the Lord is with us, in the various modes of his presence, our fasting need not be uninterrupted. There are times of fasting in the Church's calendar, and times of not fasting. There is Lent, and there is Easter. But in addition to this obvious sense, I should like to point out a less obvious road of interpretation, regarding Holy Communion. This Gospel could provide the occasion to preach on two important points. Firstly, the need to fast before receiving the Body of the Lord. Before we receive, the Lord is not with us - and so we should fast! But if we are worthy to receive him, then both our breaking of our fast, and our union with the Bridegroom take place in the same instant. That brings us along to the second point: whether we may receive or not. Mortal sin results in the loss of grace, and the loss of the Lord's presence in our souls. Thus, those who are in mortal sin must fast from the food of life. When we confess our sins, grace re-enters our souls, and the Lord is with us once more. We need fast no longer from the Bread of Life.

The Clear-out begins

It was announced today that Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald is no longer to be President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue: he is now to be Apostolic Nuncio to Egypt and Delegate to the Organization of the League of Arab States. There should be plenty of opporunity for REAL interreligious dialogue there! So far no replacement has been named; could this be the beginning of the great purge?

Westminster almost gets it right

Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, has declared his priorities. In today's Zenit we read:

"The five priorities are (1) call to holiness, prayer and Eucharist; (2) formation of adults and young people; (3) encouragement of small communities; (4) encouragement of priesthood and vocations; (5) structures for participation, change and accountability."

I like no.s 1, 2 and 4; I'm not sure what 3 means; and 5 is very dubious indeed.

But there is an obvious flaw: no. 4 should be no. 1. Why? Because that's the first priority of Our Lord in the Gospels.

Let's do a little survey, shall we?

St Matthew. What's the first thing Our Lord does? Call the apostles (Matt 4:18).

St Mark. What's the first thing Our Lord does? Call the apostles (Mk 1:16).

St Luke. What's the first thing Our Lord does? Well, he seems to launch into his ministry alone, but it is clear he already knew Peter (Lk 4:38) and the official call comes in Lk 5:10.

St John. What's the first thing Our Lord does? Call the apostles (Jn 1:39).

I wish bishops would simply read the New Testament and accept what they find there. Their first priority must always be vocations to the priesthood. Why? Because that was the first priority of Our Lord.

By the way, I have discovered no scriptural references to Our Lord's interest in "structures for participation, change and accountability."

Likelihood of Reunion

The Church is abuzz with speculation about reunion between the Society of St Pius X and Rome. Let's hope and pray that it happens. Doubts have been expressed, however, as to whether it will. Many seem to think that, whereas attitudes in Rome have softened, attitudes in Econe have hardened correspondingly, thereby cancelling out any real development. I am not of this opinion. One does hear rather exteme things from the Society, especially from a certain bishop; but that bishop is a rather colorful character whose words are to be taken cum grano salis, and in any case trencant statements are to be understood in a group which had to forge a very strong sense of identity to survive. What I'm saying is: I don't believe the Society's bite in negotiations will be all that its bark may suggest. Let's remember too how Archbishop Lefebrve held out so long before breaking with Rome. His memory is alive and venerated in the Society. No group is more ROMAN Catholic than the Society; reunion with Rome cannot but be their deepest desire. The terms of reunion must be adequate, of course. There must be much give, and really no take, on the part of Rome. The Society is far more sinned against than sinning, and really deserves an apology. In fact the whole Church deserves such an apology from those who deprived us of so much of our inheritance. So much of this inheritance has been carefully guarded by the Society, and now they should be welcomed back so as to help re-introduce us to what we have lost. Some of us have fought within the fold, some from outside, but I like to think that ultimately we have all fought together. But, the objection may arise: should this two-front strategy not continue? The answer is that it is wearisome, and dangerous, to fight from the outside for too long. No, it is now time to come in. Let us pray that all will go well.