The missionary spirit
The command of Jesus to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19) always includes the command of charity in which Jesus tells us that “whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40). In the life of Jozef DeVeuster (1840-1889), who took the religious name of Damien when he entered the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, we see a marvelous example of missionary zeal and heroic charity toward those who were certainly considered the “least” in his day.

During the years of his studies for the priesthood, Damien prayed daily before an image of Saint Francis Xavier, who is the patron saint of the missions, that he also might become a missionary. His wish was fulfilled when he was sent to the missions of his Congregation in Hawaii, in place of his brother, also a priest, who had become ill and unable to take up that assignment. Shortly after his arrival in Hawaii, he was ordained a priest on May 21, 1864.

We know a great deal more today about immunity to disease than was known in past centuries. As we all know, even with our high degree of technological knowledge, diseases still spread and are introduced from one part of the world to another.

In the past, when explorers and tradespeople went to lands that were new for them, often they did not realize that they were also introducing diseases for which the native people had acquired no immunity. This had occurred in the Hawaiian islands. Traders had unwittingly introduced a number of diseases to the islands which the people had no means of resisting. One of these was leprosy.

As a well-meant means of containing the disease and halting its spread, the King of Hawaii ordered those afflicted with leprosy to be brought to a remote part of one of the Hawaiian islands called Molokai. Although the intention of the Hawaiian government was not to abandon or starve these poor people afflicted with leprosy, their circumstances caused the lepers quickly to be reduced to living in terrible conditions. There was a complete breakdown of law and order and the desolation and despair felt by the lepers caused them to sink into a morass of drunkenness and immorality.

The local Superior of the Fathers of the Sacred Hearts who had missions in the Hawaiian islands wanted to help these poor people but, because of the nature of the situation, he asked for volunteers from among his Religious, rather than assigning anyone to Molokai under obedience. Four of the Religious volunteered, among them was Father Damien, who was chosen for this assignment.

Father Damien begins his work
As is often the case with missionaries, Father Damien found himself confronted not only with the spiritual needs of the lepers of Molokai but also their material needs. He immediately began to address both of these. He brought sanitation, order and cleanliness to the inhabitants and attempted to restore a sense of their own dignity to them. He organized the building of houses and a hospital and helped with the work himself. He dug graves and helped to bury the dead with his own hands.

We can only imagine the natural repulsion he must have felt to the sights and smells he encountered as he went about his work. As a member of a Religious Congregation, he would have normally lived in community, with the support that religious life in common brings to each of its members. However, Father Damien was alone in his mission. While I was in the service of the Holy See and assigned to Madagascar, I recall so well visiting the leprosaria there and admiring the heroic charity of the women Religious who took such loving care of those who are still afflicted with this terrible disease today.

Eventually, Father Damien discovered that he had contracted leprosy himself. Here is what Pope Benedict XVI said about Father Damien in his Homily at the Mass of Canonization: “His missionary activity, which gave him such joy, reached its peak in charity. Not without fear and repugnance, he chose to go to the Island of Molokai to serve the lepers who lived there, abandoned by all. Thus he was exposed to the disease from which they suffered. He felt at home with them. The servant of the Word consequently became a suffering servant, a leper with the lepers, for the last four years of his life. In order to follow Christ, Father Damien not only left his homeland but also risked his health: therefore as the word of Jesus proclaimed to us in today’s Gospel says, he received eternal life (cf. Mark 10: 30). Let us remember before this noble figure that it is charity which makes unity, brings it forth and makes it desirable. Following in Saint Paul’s footsteps, Saint Damien prompts us to choose the good warfare (cf. 1 Timothy 1:18), not the kind that brings division but the kind that gathers people together. He invites us to open our eyes to the forms of leprosy that disfigure the humanity of our brethren and still today call for the charity of our presence as servants, beyond that of our generosity” (11 October 2009).

Lessons from Father Damien’s life
The Church always presents the saints to us as models to be imitated as well as heroes to be honored. What lessons do we learn from the life of Father Damien, who lived out his Christian vocation in circumstances which seem so different from ours? The first lesson is that his circumstances were really not all that different.

All around us, we see individuals who are looked upon as having little worth. Likewise, we see the results of human despair and a lack of recognition of one’s own dignity and the dignity of others. The message of Jesus has a “holistic” characteristic. It certainly has as its goal our eternal salvation and that of our neighbor, but since God the Son became flesh and “a man like us in all things but sin,” His message affects the entire person. This is why it brings peace and joy to those who believe in it and this affects not only individuals but families, homes and nations. This is the message of the Kingship of Christ, whose liturgical solemnity we will soon be celebrating and it is the message which brought Father Damien to Molokai.

We must never forget that Father Damien was not just a humanitarian. This is underlined by a woman of our own time who also worked with those who are most abandoned and whose dignity is not always easily recognized: Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Whenever she was praised or honored for her work, she was always quick to point out that she did what she did not because she was a humanitarian, but because she was a Christian. Just as she took the most abandoned from the gutters where they were dying and cared for them with love, so Father Damien did for the lepers of Molokai. Both of them did this because they saw Jesus Himself in those whom they were serving.

While all of us should meditate on Father Damien’s selflessness and Christian charity and find ways to imitate it according to our own vocation, at this time I would like to appeal in a special way to our young people. The young love adventure! They also have a great generosity of heart when they are confronted with a cause which they think is worthwhile. What a great adventure we find in the Christian heroism of Father Damien!

I appeal to our young men and women to listen to the invitation of Jesus to serve Him and follow Him intimately, especially in service to those who are most in need. Give yourselves to Him generously and do not be afraid because, as our Holy Father said at the beginning of His pontificate, echoing Pope John Paul II: “I say to you, dear young people: Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life” (Homily, 24 April 2005).

Saint Damien, pray for us and give us generous hearts after the Heart of Jesus!

In the current debate over health care reform, it has become evident that a number of
Americans believe that the lives and health of only some people are worth safeguarding, while
other classes of people are viewed as not deserving the same protection. Such an attitude is
deplorable, all the more so in the context of health care. Sanctioning discrimination in the quality
of care given to different groups of people has no place in medicine, and directly contravenes the
ethical norms under which Catholic hospitals and health care providers operate.

Unborn children remain the persons whose lives are most at risk in America: Over one
million children each year die in abortion facilities. The Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 rendered
states powerless to halt this killing. Thankfully Congress and most states acted to prevent public
funding of abortions (with narrowly defined exceptions). Yet despite the opposition of 67% of
Americans to taxpayer-funded abortion, all current health care proposals being considered by
Congress would allow or mandate abortion funding, either through premiums paid into
government programs or out of federal revenues.

It bears repeating: Abortion — the direct, intentional killing of an unborn girl or boy – is not health care. Abortion robs an innocent child of his or her life, and robs mothers of their peace
and happiness. For 25 years, the Project Rachel post-abortion ministry of the Catholic Church
has helped women move beyond their grief and remorse after abortion, helping them find peace
by accepting God’s forgiveness and by forgiving themselves and others involved in the abortion
decision. Abortion funding can only increase the number of dead and grieving.

Unborn children are not the only human beings disfavored under current proposals. Many
people insist that undocumented persons living and working in the United States should not be
allowed in any new system to purchase health-care coverage, and that poor legal immigrants be
denied coverage for the first five years they are in the United States. Do immigrants forfeit their
humanity at the border? How can a just society deny basic health care to those living and
working among us who need medical attention? It cannot and must not.

While most Americans agree that those who cannot afford health insurance should have access to health care, some commentators have gone so far as to suggest offsetting the cost of expanded coverage by curtailing the level of care now given to elderly Americans. Other pundits have suggested that treatment decisions should be based not on the needs of the elderly patient, but on the patient’s allegedly low “quality of life” or the cost-effectiveness of treatment calculated over the patient’s projected lifespan. Such calculations can ignore the inherent dignity of the person needing care, and undermine the therapeutic relationship between health professionals and their patients.

It should not be surprising that the neglect, and even the death, of some people are
offered as a solution to rising health care costs. Population control advocates have long espoused
aborting children in the developing world as a misguided means for reducing poverty.

Some environmentalists now claim that the most efficient way to curb global climate
change is to make “family planning” more widely available in the developing world. They report
that an average of 2.3 pounds per day of exhaled carbon dioxide can be eliminated from the
atmosphere by eliminating one human being. As used by population control advocates, the
innocuous term “family planning” includes abortifacient contraceptives, sterilization, and manual
vacuum aspiration abortions.

Oregon, where health care for low-income patients is rationed by the state, has denied
several patients the costly prescription drugs needed to prolong their lives, while reminding them
that the assisted suicide option is conveniently offered under Oregon’s health plan.
Many scientists justify the manipulation and killing of embryonic human beings in stem
cell research, based on unsubstantiated hopes of finding new cures. Yet the facts increasingly
show this approach to pose risks to patients, and to women who may be exploited to provide
eggs for the research.

Death is not a solution to life’s problems. Only those who are blind to the transcendent
reality and meaning of human life could support killing human beings to mitigate economic,
social or environmental problems.

The antidote to such myopia is to recover an appreciation for the sanctity and dignity of
each unique human being. One could begin by spending a day with a young child. The average
child is a wellspring of joy and giggles, capable of daring leaps of imagination, probing curiosity,
and even reasoned (though sometimes self-centered) appeals for justice. Children delight in God’s creation and love their family unconditionally. God gave every human being these
marvelous aptitudes, and children can help us recover and appreciate them anew.

Since the advent of widespread contraception and abortion, a cultural hostility to children
has grown. They are often depicted as costly encumbrances who interfere with a carefree adult
life. No fewer than six recent books are dedicated to defending the childless-by-choice lifestyle –
for selfish reasons, or to counter “overpopulation,” a thoroughly discredited myth. In fact, if
married couples were to have more children, Medicare and Social Security would not be hurtling
toward bankruptcy. Since 1955, because of fewer children and longer life spans, the number of
workers has declined relative to the number of beneficiaries, from 8.6 to only 3.1 workers paying
benefits to support each beneficiary. Without substantially more young people to enter the work
force as young adults, in 25 years, there will be only 2.1 workers supporting each beneficiary.

Eliminating our young does not solve problems even on pragmatic grounds. It adds to them.
Children, and those who are dependent on us due to disability or age, offer us the opportunity to grow in patience, kindness, and love. They teach us that life is a shared gift, not an encumbrance. At the end of life, we will be judged on love alone. Meanwhile, in the midst of so many challenges to life, we look to "Christ Jesus our hope" (1 Timothy 1:1), who offers to all the world a share in his victory over death.

[Cardinal Rigali chairs the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). ]

Transition from Latin to the vernacular in the Liturgy

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council had this to say about the language to be used in the celebration of the Sacraments: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36).

We know that, in reality, this impetus of the Council eventually led to a New Order of Mass, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969 and the eventual celebration of the sacraments almost entirely in the language of the people.

During the first four centuries of the Church’s existence, as far as we know, the Liturgy was celebrated in Latin, Greek or Aramaic. Eventually, Latin alone was used in the Western Churches. The Churches of the East have their own liturgical languages.

If we were to look at some of the explanations that were given over the course of the many centuries during which the Liturgy of the Western Churches was celebrated in Latin, we would find the following principal points explaining its use: Latin is a universal language; it is able to express doctrine and prayer in a very precise and concise manner;it does not have constant changes to the meanings of words and expressions because it is no longer a spoken language.

As the Western Churches transitioned to the vernacular Liturgy, the great challenge was that of translating the texts. I mentioned the advantages that were always put forth concerning the Latin language in order to show what a challenge it is to translate the Latin words, while bringing forth both understanding and beauty, into language that is used by the people every day.

Different directives for translating the texts

With the introduction of the use of the vernacular into Catholic worship, in their official form, the liturgical texts are still published in Latin. It is then up to the various episcopal conferences to authorize translations into the language of the various countries and peoples of the world. Once those translations have been submitted to the Conferences of Bishops, they are voted upon and then submitted to the Holy See for final approval.

It is the direction or “spirit” of these translations that brings us to the next part of our brief explanation.

In 1969, the group, called the Consilium, which had been entrusted with the reform of the Roman Liturgy by Pope Paul VI, issued guidelines concerning the direction that the translations of the liturgical texts were to take.

“The guiding principle of the document was ‘dynamic equivalency,’ which means to translate basic thoughts rather than words. Those who use this principle say that they are aiming for a transfer of the same meaning from the original to the receptor language. The original words and form are important only as a vehicle for the meaning; therefore, it is the meaning alone that is truly important in the translation” (The Third Edition of the Roman Missal; web site of the USCCB). Given the nature of the Latin language, which I have attempted to explain briefly, you can see what a challenge this became to translators.

After about thirty years of these directives, the Holy See issued new instructions for the translation of the Roman Missal, which is the book we use that contains the prayers of the Sacred Liturgy.

These instructions took a different direction than those of 1969. They now directed that the translations, while taking style and the flow of language into account, were to be true accurate translations of the Latin texts found in the official liturgical books.

It might be helpful to quote the pertinent part of the Holy See’s document at this point. It reads: “While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.” (Liturgiam Authenticam, 20).

With this directive, the work of new translations, which is now nearing its completion, had its beginning.

In order to assist and guide this work, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments established the Vox Clara (“Clear Voice”) Committee in 2002. This is made up of a group of bishops and consultants from various English-speaking countries, and I am honored to have been appointed as a member of this Committee.

At the many meetings which we have had in Rome over these years, our task has been to review the English translations of the Latin liturgical texts that have been presented to the Holy See for approval.

Our task, and that of the translators and Episcopal Conferences who are working on these translations, is always to work toward implementing the clear directives of the Holy See, which I have quoted above, in the hope of having accurate, uplifting and easily proclaimable translations.

A proper period of preparation

One of the things that we have learned during the past forty years, which have been a time of great liturgical change, is that it is necessary for both priests and the lay faithful to have a period of adequate preparation and explanation for any changes that are introduced. A large portion of the new translations have already been approved by the Holy See and the Bishops of the United States will vote on the final portions at their meeting in November.

I am very grateful to the Office for Worship of the Archdiocese for the plans that have already been made to introduce and explain the new translations and provide a proper catechesis for them.

This Fall, during the workshops for priests that are conducted at this time, the theme will be the introduction and explanation of these new translations.

Through these workshops, and information that will be shared with our deacons and religious during this year-long period of preparation, we hope to build a foundation of understanding and greater appreciation of the Liturgy among our people. In this way, priests, deacons and religious will be able to aid the faithful in their understanding and appreciation of these new translations.

In anticipation of the preparation that will take place in your own parishes as the time of implementation draws closer, you may wish to refer to the web site of the Bishops’ Conference and its special section I referred to at the beginning of this article: http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal.

You may also consult our own Archdiocesan web site at http://archphila.org/evangelization/worship/worship.htm.

I pray that this period of preparation may deepen the understanding we all have of the great Prayer of the Church: the Sacred Liturgy.

The Human Community

The Church does not generally favor a particular form of government in itself. Some forms are or have been more consistent with the Church’s teachings concerning the common good of society, others have even defended moral values in the face of opposition, but the aim of the Church is always what is best for the human person and, therefore, for the human community. This is an important concept to remember as we approach this encyclical because it is one of what are called “social encyclicals,” that is those which address the state of human society, especially in regards to labor and the economy.

It is common for different points of view to look for their justification in encyclicals such as these but that is not their purpose. The purpose of this encyclical, and indeed all the Church’s social encyclicals, is to proclaim and defend the dignity of the human person and proclaim the great possibilities and responsibilities that accompany that dignity.

Pope Benedict specifically states in this encyclical that the principles he puts forth here are consistent with those of his predecessors, Pope John Paul II, Pope Paul VI and all his predecessors before them.

Theme of the Encyclical

It can be said that because we live in an age of such instant communication there is a danger that we will become victims of what we can call “sound-bite philosophy.” In other words, we can easily be swayed by catchy phrases or appeals to our emotions. This manner of viewing the world robs us of the use of our great abilities as human persons: to know, to think and to reason.

This is one of the reasons Pope Benedict has titled his encyclical “Charity in Truth.” Charity is only genuine when it is based upon the truth concerning the individual as a creature of God, redeemed by Jesus Christ. When the truth of the human person, along with his origin and his destiny, is forgotten, untold ills can result. The last century has proven this to be all too true.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, recently summed up the contribution of Benedict XVI’s third encyclical. He said that the encyclical was an attempt to “rediscover the courage to plan the future of humanity, not with the illusions of worn out ideologies, but with the freedom of gathering together in an ample dynamic synthesis all the elements offered by the negative and positive experience of peoples, from the reflections of the various disciplines, from the toil of reason. All of that would be unrealistic and sterile without the breath of life that the inspiration of faith offers.”

The Experience of Gift

A central concept of the Holy Father’s encyclical is that of gift. First, there must be an acknowledgment on the part of each individual that he has been gifted by God with his life and his marvelous human nature, with all its possibilities. To forget the source of energy, ideas and success or to try to live as if we have forgotten them is never a recipe for peace or true charity.

This is why the Pope is encouraging all those of good will to seek charity in truth, and not apart from it. Otherwise, even the best efforts will result in an exercise of naked power and egocentrism.

By our very nature, we are made to live in community and so the gift we have received must be shared with others and exercised for their benefit as well as our own. Our experience of gift must extend to our neighbor and to the greater human community, always based upon a foundation of truth concerning the origin of this gift.

As I said in my statement on this encyclical: “Pope Benedict is saying that love itself, which is charity, is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace. He is proposing now, as a means for the development of peoples, as a means of promoting human dignity, as a means of facing the problems that we are faced with — all these economic problems and all their consequences — the Pope is saying, we do have a solution and we have to begin with love that expresses itself in truth.”

Father Lombardi also highlighted this concept of gift in his news conference, in which he expanded on and explained certain parts of the encyclical. He said: “Charity in truth places man before the astonishing experience of gift. Gratuitousness is present in our lives in many different forms, which often go unrecognized because of a purely consumerist and utilitarian view of life. The human being is made for gift, which expresses and makes present his transcendent dimension.”

Charity Not to be Reduced to Mere Sentimentalism

As we know, the Church always seeks to apply eternal truths, which do not change, to the realities of modern life, which do change. When reading the homilies and addresses given by our Holy Father, we see that he possesses a remarkable awareness of the realities of the modern world, with all of their strengths and weaknesses. Some have attributed the extremely large numbers of pilgrims going to Rome in order to see and hear Pope Benedict, to the ability of the average person to listen to and understand the Pope’s exhortations and challenges.

One of the observations he makes in Caritas in Veritate concerns the dangers of sentimentalism, which I addressed in this column last year. Pope Benedict points out that if charity is not understood in the light of truth and with a proper understanding of the human person, it can easily lead to an arbitrary sentimentality with a very weak foundation. It can also be manipulated for various purposes by appealing to the emotions alone.

The Pope writes: “Truth needs to be sought, found and expressed within the ‘economy’ of charity, but charity in its turn needs to be understood, confirmed and practiced in the light of truth. In this way, not only do we do a service to charity enlightened by truth, but we also help give credibility to truth, demonstrating its persuasive and authenticating power in the practical setting of social living. This is a matter of no small account today, in a social and cultural context which relativizes truth, often paying little heed to it and showing increasing reluctance to acknowledge its existence.”

The Pope observes that without a firm foundation in truth “charity degenerates into sentimentality and love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way” (paragraphs 2 and 3).

Pope Benedict also points out the tendency of our modern society to think that it can accomplish all things on its own. It can, therefore, plan and control success or failure based upon its own programs and ideas, often seen without the light of objective truth.

This temptation is summed up at the end of the encyclical with the Pope’s heartfelt exhortation to view charity in truth and not apart from it. We would do well to conclude our brief reflection on this encyclical by quoting the Holy Father’s words on this subject. He writes: “Development needs Christians with their arms raised towards God in prayer, Christians moved by the knowledge that truth-filled love, caritas in veritate, from which authentic development proceeds, is not produced by us, but given to us. For this reason, even in the most difficult and complex times, besides recognizing what is happening, we must above all else turn to God’s love” (78).

Always a Mystery

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (1895-1979) spent a great deal of his time in the last years of his life preaching retreats to priests. A few years before his death, he wrote a book entitled Those Mysterious Priests. The title is most appropriate because the Catholic priesthood will always have a certain air of mystery about it, both for those who are called to live it and for those who are touched by it or wish to learn more about it. The basic mystery is that God calls imperfect men to carry on His work. “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew 4:19); “I have called you friends, because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father” (John 15:15); “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20); “Do this in memory of me” (Luke 22:19); “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained” (John 20:23); “Whoever listens to you listens to me” (Luke 10:16). These are some of the words that Jesus speaks to the apostles and to their successors in the priesthood. With God speaking to imperfect men in such words, it is no wonder that the priesthood is mysterious!

How Did You Know?

One of the questions which priests are often asked is: “How did you know that you wanted to be a priest?” It is important to remember that the priesthood is not a “career choice.” It is not a question of someone “wanting” to be a priest and so pursuing that course by his own decision alone. The author of the Letter to the Hebrews puts a vocation to the priesthood in its proper context when he writes: “No one takes this honor upon himself but only when called by God, just as Aaron was” (Hebrews 5:4).

However, since we are dealing with a human person, there must be some means that God makes use of in order to make His invitation known. Those means can take many forms and they can be a combination of several of these forms. A Catholic home in which the priesthood is held in esteem has often been the source of recognizing a vocation. Many priests tell of other priests who influenced them in their youth by giving witness to a joyful and dedicated priestly life. Frequently today, we see young men who rediscover their faith and discern a vocation during their college years. We must pay tribute to the many Religious Sisters and Brothers who, especially when they were more numerous, were the human instruments God used to lead many to recognize and respond generously to a vocation to the priesthood.

All of these possible instruments may change over time but the invitation is ultimately from God and the response must ultimately arise from the free will of the one whom God is calling.

Celebrating a Moment

Recently, a Congregation of Religious Sisters in the United States celebrated an interesting anniversary. It was not the usual anniversary of the founding of a Religious Congregation. Rather, they had the idea of celebrating the anniversary of their Foundress’ recognizing the concept of the Congregation she would found. In other words, the moment when the idea was conceived, which later came to fruition through her zeal.

Although it is difficult to point to a precise moment when a man recognizes a call to the priesthood, there is the maturing of an idea and a generous acceptance of God’s invitation if the young man chooses to respond to this call. Indeed, for all of us, priests and bishops alike, we strive to maintain and build upon the zeal and generosity which we recognized at a moment in our youth, when we responded to God’s call. This is one of the reasons why our Blessed Mother is the particular Mother and model of priests. Her Immaculate Heart maintained a constant generosity and “yes” to God and, in this way, perpetuated the “yes” with which she responded to the angel Gabriel at the moment of the Annunciation.

Different Ministries of our Priests

In a recent issue of the Catholic Standard and Times, you may have seen the special coverage of the Ordination of our new priests and the significant anniversaries of many others. Indeed, in that issue you were able to read about our oldest diocesan priest, Father Daniel J. Kehoe, who has been a priest for seventy years, as well as those newest members of Christ’s priesthood in this Archdiocese, who are ordained this weekend. These priests will be and have been engaged in a wide variety of ministries and I am so grateful to all of them. They are the extension of my role as the Chief Shepherd of this diocese and I could not fulfill that responsibility without them.

The great majority are engaged in parish work, which is the particular joy of the priest. Others, both diocesan priests and those who are members of Religious Orders or Congregations present in the Archdiocese, are engaged in the work of Catholic education. Some have a specialized apostolate, which can range from those who care for the physically and mentally challenged to those who work in the administration of the Archdiocese and that of the various Religious Orders and Congregations. Priests who are sick or retired or engaged in lives of prayer and penance also build up the work of our local Church by their particular role of praying and suffering, in union with Jesus.

All priests exercise the same basic role: to be configured to the person of the one High Priest, Jesus Christ and, when possible, to make His Kingdom present in the world by offering His Sacrifice and preaching His Word. God has willed that they bring their individual talents and unique characteristics to their work but it is always the work of Jesus.

A famous theologian, Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, points out a beautiful truth in one of his books on the priesthood. He writes that since all priests are doing the work of Jesus in offering sacrifice, administering the sacraments and preaching the Gospel, they also affect the work of one another, even if they do not know it. So he points out that the priest who is suffering in union with Jesus is mysteriously working to build up the Kingdom by helping, through suffering, a priest whom he will never know, so that the work of that other priest may be fruitful.

A person may need to hear a homily that may cause him or her to make a conversion in their lives. The priest whom he or she hears on a particular day may not be particularly talented as a preacher. However, the merits of the far-away, suffering priest will help the person in the pew to be mysteriously touched by grace through the words of the imperfect preacher.

Always a Tension

There will always be a certain tension in the life of a priest striving to be faithful and desiring to grow in holiness. Each day, he comes so very close to the things of God, indeed to God Himself who comes down upon the Altar at his word, and yet he is only too aware of his own imperfections.

In every age, the priesthood has been faced with its own particular challenges. There have been times of persecution that have produced priests who were martyrs, and times of trial that have produced great models of priestly charity. The priest does not live in a vacuum and so he is also challenged by the weaknesses of the world in which he lives and works. There have also been sins and scandals that affect all who share in the priesthood of Jesus Christ.

For all these reasons, I ask you to pray in a particular way for your priests. Pray also for an increase in the number of generous young men in our own Archdiocese who will answer the call of Jesus with a willing heart. So many of our priests tell me how you encourage them and support them in so many ways. They need this so much and I ask you to continue it. If you have been putting off saying a kind word or sending a note of gratitude to a priest who has touched you in a special way and has brought you closer to Jesus, do not put it off any longer. They need and appreciate your prayers, support and encouragement.

Finally, as the Shepherd of this Archdiocese, who is assisted in fulfilling his task by so many faithful priests, I say of them what I have said before: “They mean everything to me.”

In most respects these draft guidelines reflect the policy approved but never implemented by the Clinton administration in 2000. However, the Clinton policy was limited to embryos that had been frozen, to ensure that parents had time to consider the decision to donate them for research; the new guidelines are broader in allowing destruction of newly created embryos that were never frozen, increasing the prospects for a rushed and biased consent process.

Despite supporters’ constant claim that this agenda involves only embryos that "would otherwise be discarded," the guidelines provide that the option of donating embryonic children for destructive research will be offered to parents alongside all other options,
including those allowing the embryos to live. For the first time, federal tax dollars will be used to encourage destruction of living embryonic human beings for stem cell research – including human beings who otherwise would have survived and been born.

It is noteworthy that, despite calls for an even broader policy by some in Congress and the research community, the draft guidelines do not allow federally funded stem cell research using embryos specially created for research purposes by in vitro fertilization or cloning. We can hope that the NIH and Congress will continue to respect this ethical norm, and will realize that the alleged "need" for violating it is more implausible than ever due to advances in reprogramming adult cells to act like embryonic stem cells. However, congressional supporters of destructive human embryo research have already said they will pursue a more extreme policy. The Catholic bishops of the United States will be writing to Congress and the Administration about the need to restore and maintain barriers against the mistreatment of human life in the name of science, and we urge other concerned citizens to do the same.

This week, however, we recall the anniversary of a very tragic event. We use our memory not to delight in the thought of the blessings that an event has brought to us over the years but to recall with sorrow and shame an infamous day in the history of our country: January 22, 1973. On that tragic day, the United States Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision, legalizing abortion in our country.

At that moment, this aspect of our civil law, which was once based upon natural and divine law, divorced itself from those firm foundations. On that day, a human court gave to itself a right which no court can ever possess: the right to make laws that transgress both the divine commandment of “Thou shalt not kill” and the law placed within the heart of every human person telling us that it is wrong to take the life of another unjustly.

There is something in our human nature that does not want to remember what is unpleasant. However, the anniversary of this tragic event cannot be forgotten. This is why for thirty-five years, hundreds of thousands of people have traveled to Washington, D.C., often in the bitter cold, to remember this tragic anniversary, not with joy, but with profound sorrow. This is why the Bishops of the United States have designated this day as one of prayer and penance to make atonement for the events commemorated on this sad anniversary. We do this because the effects of this infamous abuse of law continue to be with us like an open wound on the body politic of our nation.

Since that day in January, 1973, some 50 million children have been denied the most basic right of all: the right to life. Perhaps among those would have been someone who would have discovered a cure for cancer. Perhaps there would have been sons and daughters to console their parents in sickness or old age. Surely there would have been young men and young women who would have been wonderful wives and husbands, mothers and fathers. Surely, among those not permitted to be born there would have been those who, through kindness and generosity, would have brought great joy to the world. For all these reasons, this anniversary is by no means a happy one but one of profound sadness.

Pope John Paul II wrote in this way about the prayer and penance needed to atone for this blot on our nation and to bring about a change of heart in those responsible for it: “A great prayer for life is urgently needed, a prayer which will rise up throughout the world. Let us therefore discover anew the humility and the courage to pray and fast so that the power from on high will break down the walls of lies and deceit: the walls which conceal from the sight of so many the evil practices and laws which are hostile to life” (Evangelium Vitae, 100).

Postcard campaign to oppose the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)
This year, we face yet another challenge, which threatens to widen even further the so-called rights to an abortion in our country. It is the Freedom of Choice Act which will, if passed into law and signed by the new President, as he promised, eliminate all national and state restrictions on abortions enacted over the past thirty years. In a letter I recently sent to all the Pastors in the Archdiocese, I summarized this Act’s intentions in this way: “It will require all states to allow partial-birth and late-term abortions, taxpayer funding for abortion, and will eliminate conscience clauses for religious beliefs.” I went on to say that “although some political commentators have suggested that FOCA may never be reintroduced or voted on, we cannot afford to be unprepared for the possibility that it may be. Now, more than ever, it is important to be pro-active.”

The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (NCHLA), in conjunction with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, has developed a postcard campaign to oppose passage of the Freedom of Choice Act. These postcards will urge our United States legislators not to give their support to FOCA or to similar legislation, even if presented under a different name. I have given my full support to this campaign and I have encouraged every parish to be active in educating their parishioners about this issue and to participate fully in this campaign. This weekend, you will no doubt see these materials in your parish Church and I ask you to take the time to fill out these postcards expressing your views.

Truths which transcend what is material and passing
We have heard a great deal about the financial challenges facing us at this time. They are indeed a source of great concern. This crisis in things that are material and transitory should also present us with the opportunity to dwell more than ever on those things which are eternal.

The gift of truth and eternal life, which Jesus came to earth to bring us, is not determined by the financial condition of the world or of the individual. It is not controlled by others and we are not powerless in receiving and acting upon it. It is precisely in the area of those truths which are eternal that we are not only called upon at this time to take a firm stand but also the area in which we ourselves determine what our response will be. Saint Paul tells us: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Our responsibilities while living in this “earthly city”
The Second Vatican Council reminds us that this does not mean that we can neglect our duties in this “earthly city.” In the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, the Council teaches: “Christians, as citizens of both cities, are called to perform their duties faithfully in the spirit of the Gospel. It is a mistake to think that, because we have here no lasting city, but seek the city which is to come (cf. Hebrews 13:14), we are entitled to shirk our responsibilities; this is to forget that, by our faith, we are bound all the more to fulfill these responsibilities according to the vocation of each one (cf. Thess. 3:6-13; Eph. 4:28). The Christian who shirks his or her temporal duties shirks the duties towards one’s neighbor, neglects God himself and endangers his or her eternal salvation” (Gaudium et Spes, 43).

The Gospels remind us that we cannot say that we love God if we do not love our neighbor. When Jesus is asked the question, “Who is my neighbor?” He responds by telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, who helped the man who had been attacked by robbers and left for dead. The Samaritan took pity on the man, even though many others who should have known better passed him right by. There are many ways in which we are called to show love of neighbor. We are especially conscious of showing this love towards the poor, as indeed we should be.

Let us remember what Blessed Teresa of Calcutta said in this context, in the presence of President and Mrs. Clinton and over four thousand others at a National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. in 1994: “Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today – abortion which brings people to such blindness.”

Our prayer, in the face of this blindness, must be that of the blind man in the Gospel: “Master, I want to see” (Mark 10:51).

Love of home and love of the place where we live can be said to be as old as the human race. Perhaps it is a reflection of the fact that our first parents lived in a place which was sacred because of God’s communion with them there in the Garden. The pagan Roman authors wrote of the patria, the land beloved by a people because they lived there. Jesus is very much associated with the places where He was born, where He lived His early life and where He fulfilled His public mission of preaching, teaching, dying and rising for our salvation. We have been created in such a way that we are called to live in a community of persons and the distinct communities we are a part of become important to us.

The development of forms of government

In order to promote the common good and ensure the well-being and safety of individuals, local and national governments have grown out of humanity’s need for order and protection. These governments may take many different forms and they have evolved in different ways over the ages. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that the citizen “owes loyalty to the communities of which he is a part and respect to those in authority who have charge of the common good” (CCC, 1880). In his Encyclical Pacem In Terris, Blessed John XXIII wrote: “Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all” (no. 46).

The relationship of the Church to various types of government has taken on many different forms over the course of her long history. There have been governments which have persecuted the Church and its members, there have been governments which made the Church a part of their identity and there have been governments within which the Church enjoyed the freedom to pursue her mission, with the state being neither friend nor enemy of her beneficial work.

In the United States of America, our own country, the Church has generally enjoyed the freedom to pursue her mission and in turn has brought many benefits to American society, especially through our institutions of charity and our schools. Catholic schools have not only saved taxpayers billions of dollars, they have also taught patriotism and love of country within their walls. I am sure that many of you reading this will recall the patriotism and responsibility to our country that was taught to you when you were a student in one of our parish or archdiocesan schools.

The faithful citizenship of American Catholics

Faithful citizenship has been carried out by hundreds of thousands of Catholic soldiers in defense of our country. It is particularly significant to note the many Catholics who fought during the Second World War because, in many cases, these soldiers were the children or grandchildren of immigrants from the very countries they were fighting, as in the case of the Italian-American and German-American soldiers. Many Irish-American soldiers fought at the side of an ally, the United Kingdom, which at times had been unjust to Catholics in Ireland.

Yet these faithful American Catholics fought bravely for their country. In this age of the “sound bite” and the manipulation of the mind by clever advertising and appeals to emotion, it is important to know history and to see issues in their proper context.

The Catholic Church in the United States has left to “Caesar” the things that are proper to government, when issues do not involve the abuse of human rights or the rights of the natural and divine law. Government has sometimes sought out the support of Church leaders in certain circumstances. For instance, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to pursue friendly relations with Cardinal George Mundelein of Chicago in order to receive the Cardinal’s support of his social programs, and Cardinal Francis Spellman of New York, in order to reassure American Catholics that it was not immoral to aid communist Russia during World War II.

If an issue involves the common good of the American people or the resolution of a moral question, the bishops of the United States have been willing to be of assistance to the state. However, the affirmation of the Catholic Bishops of Pennsylvania, contained in our recently-issued public statement, remains true: “We bishops do not endorse any candidate or party. Our role is to teach and form consciences” (A Call to Faithful Citizenship and Respect for Life, The Catholic Bishops of Pennsylvania).

Issues involving human dignity can be known by our reason

You know how often I have addressed the dignity of the human person in this column. I have done so in many different circumstances. One aspect of the dignity of the human person is the ability to reason and to know. Another aspect of human dignity is the affirmation of the rights of the individual’s conscience. However, if we fail to acknowledge any natural or revealed norms to guide and properly form our consciences, each of us could wind up justifying almost anything.

The human conscience is always at the service of truth and virtue, but it must be properly formed in order to function properly. We believe that because we are made in God’s image we have within our very nature a fundamental understanding of right and wrong. To us as human persons, this “law of the heart,” as it is sometimes called, requires a responsibility beyond laws enacted by governments.

We have seen an example of this very recently. One hundred Philadelphia police recruits were taken on a tour of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. The leadership of the Philadelphia Police Department wanted these recruits to see examples of cases in which the police in Nazi Germany carried out policies which were legal in that country at that time but immoral and unjustified in the eyes of civilized human persons, whose consciences told them that this was evil.

The conviction of Nazi war criminals after the Second World War was not based on the fact that what they did was illegal but that it was a crime against humanity, which can be recognized by any person of good will. Consequently, these leaders were held responsible for their actions, which had been legal but grossly evil and immoral.

Even in our own country, there were practices such as racial segregation or slavery, which were legal but evil and immoral. We are all familiar with the photographs of Catholic priests and Religious Sisters, as well as many members of the Catholic lay faithful, marching side by side with African-Americans to end the discrimination that was legal but evil and immoral. The Church is not only permitted to proclaim moral truths in the face of opposition but is obliged to do so as a proclamation of the dignity of the human person.

The challenge of our own times

Our own common sense tells us that not every issue is of the same importance. At various times in history, a people or nation is confronted with an issue that transcends others in importance and that demands a courageous response.

The transcending issue of our day is the intentional destruction of innocent human life, as in abortion. We wish with all our hearts that no candidate and no party were advocating this heinous act against the human person. However, since it is a transcending issue, and even supported in its most extreme and horrific forms, we must proclaim time and time again that no intrinsic evil can ever be supported in any way, most especially when it concerns the gravest of all intrinsic evils: the taking of an innocent life.

We bishops of Pennsylvania quoted from the late Pope John Paul II’s Post Synodal Exhortation on the Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful and I quote him again here: “The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination” (Christifideles Laici, 38).

At this moment in our country’s history, defense of innocent human life is a moral responsibility for all of us. The same God who thundered from Mount Sinai: “Thou shalt not kill,” thunders still. When life in the womb is destroyed, God thunders: “This is a child!” When by the most barbaric means, unworthy of any civilized people, the brain of a child is sucked out of his or her head by a vacuum, God thunders: “This is a child!” When a baby is left to die of exposure on a shelf because of a failed abortion, and this is considered a “right” by any leader, God, the Source of all law and authority, thunders: “This is a child!” When we are faced with every modern means of education and communication, in addition to the law placed in our hearts at creation, no one, and most especially, no Catholic, can ever say: “I did not know.”

The human dignity that we proclaim works two ways: it affords us a great privilege but it also demands a responsibility. The feeble defense “I did not know” cannot be used by any responsible person in our time when confronted with the reality of abortion. We do know. We know because we can reason and think and see. Along with this position, which is confirmed by modern science, comes a command: “Thou shalt not kill.” It is not a question of politics but a question of the gravest of intrinsic evils; and just as the reality of what it is cannot be explained away, neither can our responsibility.

Throughout our history, Catholics have earned their right to call themselves patriotic Americans. Faithful citizenship not only includes dying for one’s country or working towards its prosperity, it also includes being faithful to a law which is higher than the expediency of the moment with the same generosity of body and heart, and the same courage that is given on the battlefield and in the workplace. We remind ourselves of this as we continue to be called to faithful citizenship and respect for life in the “earthly city” without forgetting that we are ultimately called to live as citizens of heaven forever.

Revealing who we are in our human relationships

We know that if we are to enter into healthy relationships, there is a necessity on our part and on the part of the other person to reveal something of ourselves. In fact, those who have an inability to reveal themselves in any way are generally incapable of intimate relationships with another person, whether that be in friendship or in marriage. In revealing ourselves, it is also imperative that we reveal the true person! Studies into the use of the Internet have shown that many use this latest technological marvel as a means of projecting different and assumed personalities. “Scientific American” magazine has even published a study showing that 90% of the people who use online dating services lie about who they really are!

As part of our glorious human nature, God has given us the ability to know reality and to know what is true or false. Beginning in the eighteenth century, certain philosophers put forth the idea that the human person is incapable of knowing the truth. They said that we might observe external signs but we cannot recognize reality or make a distinction between what is true or false. This ultimately led to the idea, which we frequently are confronted with today, that each person creates his or her own reality. According to this view there is no true or false or right or wrong. What is true for you may be false for me and vice versa. Your perception of something may be different from mine but the only “wrong” is to say that anything is “right” or “true!” Our good common sense should help us to realize that this is a faulty way of reasoning. It is also an insult to the dignity of the human person, whom God has endowed with the ability to reason, to know and to make judgments.

What is it not?

Some of the older priests of our archdiocese mention in their recollection of seminary days a particular professor of theirs, who used the question, “What is it not?” as an effective means of teaching. It is sometimes helpful to point out what something is not in order to better understand what it is. Let us look at what truth is not.

Truth is not public opinion

We are blessed to live in our beloved United States, where many have prospered and enjoyed the liberty given to us by our particular form of government. Our electoral processes are something we are proud of and we have become used to elections determining many aspects of our American life. All of this has served us very well and we should indeed be proud of it. However, this very process can also, little by little, give us the impression that the majority determines what is true and false and right and wrong just as it determines who will be president, governor or mayor. We have only to think of Jesus standing before Pilate, with the taunts of the crowds behind Him, as well as the many martyrs down through the centuries, to bring ourselves back to reality. Jesus was also the object of public opinion, both on Palm Sunday and on Good Friday! How could the glorious human mind be made just to be the slave of the fickle sway of public opinion? Just as our Creator endowed us with reason, just as the Father revealed to our Jewish ancestors in the faith the truth about Himself and just as Jesus, “the way, the truth and the life,” promised to send us the Spirit to lead us into all truth, so we wonderfully made men and women can know and embrace what is true of and in itself. What we know as “the majority” or “public opinion” may be very effective in electing public officials in a peaceful way but it does not determine what is true and false.

Truth is not emotion

On another occasion, I wrote about the true use of emotion, which is yet another part of our dignity as creatures made in God’s image. Under that topic, we discussed the good qualities of emotion but the dangers of emotionalism. Emotions are good but they are not the “fuel that runs the engine.” As with public opinion, our emotions can also be fickle and can make us their slaves. The use of emotion to rouse a crowd or to sway the opinion of a person or large groups of people can be very dangerous because it can bypass the natural order of thought and reason. History is filled with examples of this and our own lives are filled with examples of it as well. Tragically, an entire generation was told: “If it feels good, do it.” Many of the results of those choices, made without reflection but based merely upon emotion, have been tragic for so many of those concerned.

Proclaiming and recognizing truth is not being intolerant

If you knew someone who was color blind and, without help, chose an outfit of clothing which wound up looking comical, would you condemn that person? No, because there was a weakness which made it impossible to recognize color. On the other hand, would you say that brown was grey and blue was white because that’s how that person perceived those colors? No, because his or her honest mistake doesn’t change reality! So it is in the recognition of truth. Another may not recognize what is true because of lack of knowledge or because of some human weakness. That person may even be virtuous. However, it does not change the objective reality of what is true and what is false. It is comforting to know that while we preach the truth from our pulpits, according to the mission entrusted to us by Jesus, we apply it with mercy, understanding and forgiveness in the confessional.

Pope Benedict XVI

In Pope Benedict’s clear and easily understandable manner, he sums up in the following words the message of this week’s topic: “Today, as in the past, it is not enough to be more or less like everyone else and to think like everyone else. Our lives have a deeper purpose. We need God, the God who has shown us His Face and opened His Heart to us: Jesus Christ. If we Christians call Him the one universal Mediator of salvation, valid for everyone and needed by everyone, it is because we are gripped by Him who has touched our hearts and lavished gifts upon us so that we, in turn, can offer them to others. Thus our faith is decisively opposed to the attitude of resignation that considers man incapable of truth. This attitude, I am convinced, lies at the heart of the crisis of the West. If truth does not exist for man, then neither can we distinguish between good and evil. Truth proves itself in love. It is never our property, never our product, just as love can never be produced but only received and handed on as a gift. We need this inner force of truth. We are its witnesses. We must hand it on as a gift in the same way we received it, as it has given itself to us” (Homily, Shrine of Mariazell, Austria, 8 September 2007).

Father Ciszek’s book describes his experiences in those horrible, yet grace‑filled years. The title of the book seems to be self-contradictory: “With God in Russia.” Considering the times and circumstances he was describing, how could God appear to be present? These events took place in an atheistic state, which had officially declared that God did not exist, which had closed practically every Church in the Soviet Union, killed and persecuted countless priests and Bishops and made every effort to export its atheistic communism throughout the world. Yet, through the miracle of faith and grace, Father Ciszek was able to write of God’s presence, even in those circumstances.

I share this inspiring story with you this week as we enter the heart of the summer and as so many who are able prepare to spend some much-needed and much-deserved vacation time. There can be a tendency to treat God as an intruder when we are on vacation! Subconsciously, we can treat the idea of God, or spending any time thinking of Him while on vacation as being the ultimate “damper” or “killjoy” for our vacation period. In that sense, we can think of the title of this week’s reflection as containing two contradictory ideas, God and vacation, just as Father Ciszek caught the attention of the world when he gave his book the title “With God in Russia,” which seemed to present two completely contradictory ideas. I hope that we can reflect this week on the fact that, just as Father Ciszek was not presenting two contradictory ideas, neither are we when we speak of giving God a place during our vacation time.

God is the source of all our blessings

In the Old Testament there is a wonderful understanding of God as the source of all blessings on the part of our Jewish ancestors in the faith. This was a very important part of God’s revelation to them and it was a frequent theme of the Prophets, whose vocation was to constantly recall the Chosen People to fidelity and to a consciousness of all they had received from God. This idea of God as the source of all blessings and human ability is frequently expressed in the Psalms. Perhaps you might listen for this idea during the Responsorial Psalm when you are at Mass or when you are reading the psalms as part of your prayer life. In Psalm 127, verse 1, we find one phrase in particular which expresses this idea: “Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build. Unless the Lord guard the city, in vain does the guard keep watch.” We might extend this idea to our vacation time, reminding ourselves that our ability to work, to earn money, to have leisure time and to have a vacation all come to us from the Providence of God. It really doesn’t make much sense to exclude Him from what He has actually made possible! Saint Paul puts it this way: “What do you possess that you have not received?” (1 Corinthians 4:7). Saint Teresa of Avila writes: “To be humble is to walk in the truth, for it is absolutely true to say that we have no good thing in ourselves and anyone who fails to understand this is walking in falsehood” (Interior Castle, VI, chapter 10).

In an address Pope Benedict XVI recently gave to a Congress taking place in the Diocese of Rome, he spoke about the danger of “putting God in parentheses” in our lives. This would seem to address what our topic is this week as well. Pope Benedict lamented how “our civilization and our culture too often tend to place God in parentheses, to organize personal and social life without him, to maintain that nothing can be known of God, even to deny his existence. But when God is laid aside, all our hopes, great and small, rest on nothing” (Address at Saint John Lateran, 10 June 2008). Similarly, at the Inauguration of his Pontificate, Pope Benedict reminded us that we should not be afraid to give God His proper place in our lives, as if He will deprive us of freedom or of joy. He said, also echoing the words of Pope John Paul II at the beginning of his own Pontificate: “Are we not perhaps all afraid in some way? If we let Christ enter fully into our lives, if we open ourselves totally to Him, are we not afraid that He might take something away from us? Are we not perhaps afraid to give up something significant, something unique, something that makes life so beautiful? Do we not then risk ending up diminished and deprived of our freedom? No! If we let Christ into our lives, we lose nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing of what makes life free, beautiful and great. No! Only in this friendship are the doors of life opened wide. Only in this friendship is the great potential of human existence truly revealed. Only in this friendship do we experience beauty and liberation” (Homily, 24 April 2005).

The observance of the Sabbath on the part of the Jewish people was connected to the ideas we are speaking of. The reason that they abstained from unnecessary work on the Sabbath, just as we are called to do, was a means of acknowledging that if God didn’t bless their work, they would not receive any blessings upon what they did. In other words, everything wasn’t up to them. So they were commanded to set aside a day when they did no work as a means of acknowledging God’ s sovereign power as the source of all good things. This should be part of our conscious celebration of Sunday each week and it should be a part of our legitimate time of rest on vacation. The loving Father who makes everything possible is not an intruder or a “killjoy” when we enjoy our leisure time; He is the source of it.

It is curious to note that as societies and individuals exclude God from their lives and from the marketplace, statistics do not show that there is a greater joy accompanying this trend. In fact, the opposite is shown to be true. When we think that everything depends on us and we treat God as an intruder, the result is not peace and contentment but a never-ending search for an ever-elusive joy, often sought apart from God. As you read these words, I am attending World Youth Day in Sydney, Australia. The tens of thousands of young people who are gathered here are proclaiming in a very public way that God is the source of their joy. The joy that I observe among them is authentic because it comes from Jesus, the only way, truth and life.

I hope that as many of you as possible are able to have some leisurely vacation time this summer. Do not forget to invite God to be a part of that time. He who grants all blessings and makes both work and leisure possible is not an unwelcome intruder but a much-loved friend, who only increases our joy when we invite Him to be part of lives. “With God on vacation” is not a contradiction in terms; it is the only way to peace and serenity.