Traditiones Custodes is less about Liturgy and more about Legacy

Yesterday I happened upon a social media post from the great lay theologian, Catholic thinker, and Catholic Work Farm manager Dr. Larry Chapp. Dr. Chapp-who, like many of us, has lamented the promulgation of Traditiones Custodes-linked to an article in which I found the larger conclusions somewhat troubling, but nevertheless true. The article is by Shaun Blanchard in Church Life Journal, which is the premiere ecclesiastical publication of the University of Notre Dame. 

I'm not going to rehash Blanchard's article, but in order to understand the context of this post, readers really do need to click on the article as linked in the text and read it. Blanchard is correct that there is a group within the Church that is reacting to Traditiones Custodes with very uncharitable glee, even celebration. However, the rest of the people who really care about this issue are reacting in three other ways. Some very good liturgists and theologians see the Motu proprio as a matter of unfortunate necessity. A great many practicing Catholics find themselves in the place where I am, which is the posture of "mourn and move on" as Blanchard puts it, especially those of us who are priests and deacons. We don't have to like this Motu proprio and we can believe that it is a very big mistake (I believe it is a historical example of a Papal heavy hand being used to deal with a relatively small problem where the universal Church is concerned, which has happened before), but we are duty bound to obey. This is especially true since we understand that the Pope has ultimate authority over the Church's liturgy. For many observant and practicing Catholics, finding a way to deal with the new situation in light of Traditiones Custodes is something that they understand that they have very little choice but to do, especially when we consider that many Bishops are making (often generous) provisions for those in their dioceses attached to the Tridentine Mass. The fourth posture Blanchard says that we often see now in response to Traditiones Custodes is "refuse and resist." This is most often the posture that we find in many places on Catholic Social Media today, and those who take this posture don't do anything but confirm those who support Traditiones Custodes in the idea that the Holy Father was correct to issue it.

Traditiones Custodes is only about liturgy on the surface, as Blanchard points out in his article, and it's certainly not about Latin. What Traditiones Custodes is really about is the power of the Pope to control the narrative and the legacy of the Second Vatican Council, and every post-conciliar Pope since St. Paul VI has been preoccupied with affirming the Second Vatican Council and controlling the narrative surrounding it. That is not unusual historically, it tends to happen for decades and even centuries after all ecumenical councils, and controlling the narrative and legacy is exactly what Pope Francis is attempting to do.

I also think that it's unfortunate that the analysis of where the camps are is largely correct (and mind you, I think the world of Raymond Cardinal Burke, and he's one of the best canon lawyers if not the best canon lawyer in the Church today. I cannot help but note, however, that in his argument that the Holy Father doesn't have the authority to issue Traditiones Custodes, which I have read, I do not recall one single instance where he actually quotes previous canon law or liturgical law to prove his argument. I can only conclude that this is because canon law does not support his argument and he believes that this is deeper than a canonical argument, he thinks that it is a moral one.)
⁠
I would like to believe Cardinal Burke's argument myself, but I understand that the Pope is the chief liturgist in the Church, especially in the Latin Rite. There is no question that he had the authority to do what he did (CIC 331-333), even if I believe that it was a very dangerous act where unity is concerned.
⁠
There is also the reality that this is largely a First World Problem, with the majority of parishes offering the Tridentine Mass existing in five countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, France, and Germany). When one adds in the parishes that offer the Usus Antiquior in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland, one sees that the matter of the Usus Antiquior, while not exclusively confined to the First World, is dominated by it, and within the First World is largely dominated by the Anglosphere. As Blanchard cites, 40% of all parishes which offer the Usus Antiquior are located in one country, the United States, which only has about 4% of the world's Catholics. The Usus Antiquior is going to become even more of a First World issue as we see Traditiones Custodes implemented. There are large swathes of the world where the Tridentine Mass is largely unknown, as Shaun Blanchard hints at. I don't think that reality has ever helped advocates of the Old Rite, especially as practical power in the Church is increasingly moving away from the First World. The reality is that the Catholic faith on a worldwide level is the faith of the Third World, and in many of those places the allowances of Summorum Pontificum have never been at the top of the Church's priority list.
⁠
I will say that I don't think that the Usus Antiquior is going away, and I believe that it will continue to grow in the Developed World. I do not think that Traditiones Custodes is going to kill it, despite the intentions to do so, and it will likely continue to grow in the places where it is already more available. I don't think the Tridentine Mass is going away... But I also don't think that it's going to expand far beyond the parts of the world where it already is more widely available.
⁠
I suspect that a future Pope will loosen many of the restrictions in Traditiones Custodes, but we will likely never return to the days of Summorum Pontificum.

An excellent sermon delivered during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Usus Antiquior by Father David Carter, Pastor of the Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This was delivered the Sunday following the release of Traditiones Custodes.

The thing that the Holy Father gets very right.

Nearly all of the talk in the world of Catholic social media and Catholic discussion over the last week has centered around the latest Apostolic Letter issued Motu proprio by Pope Francis. That letter, Traditiones Custodes, effectively reverses the provisions of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum issued by his predecessor Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Francis places restrictions on the celebration of the Tridentine Mass which many people believe border on the draconian, and which some commentators believe are designed to eventually eradicate the old Latin Mass from the face of the Earth. Reading the Motu proprio, it is very easy to see why some people would get that impression.

Lots of people have engaged in personal commentary on this document, but I have refrained from posting about it until now, partly so that I could read some educated commentary about it, rather than merely the impassioned views of a few from Facebook and Twitter. I also refrained because I have no desire to appear in any way to disparage or disrespect the Holy Father, I wanted to reserve what comment I do have on this until my own passions could subside enough that I could speak with both clarity and charity. The reality is that some people who fancy themselves to be traditional Catholics have spent an awful lot of time since 2013 saying many bad things about our current Pope in public forums, and in this day and age when even the Vatican monitors social media, that reality is likely one of the things that has brought us to this present situation.

It doesn't matter whether you disagree with the Holy Father on this thing or that. It's not going to change the fact that he is the Pope and he has the authority of the Pope. I have increasingly learned that when it comes to the Church it does me little good to worry about the things that are out of my control, but does much spiritual good to concern myself with the things which are in my control.

As for my personal opinion of Traditiones Custodes, I dearly wish that the Holy Father had not issued it, and I pray that he would reconsider some of its harsher provisions. I share the concern of good men of God like Monsignor Charles Pope that this document is taking into consideration the words and views of extremists (many to be found on social media), but that the overwhelming majority of people who attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form are there for the right reasons and they need spiritual care. Perhaps the most harsh provision of Traditiones Custodes is that when the Mass of Trent is celebrated, the Holy Father does not want it to take place in ordinary parish churches. It can take place in chapels and oratories and parishes specifically designated for that purpose, such as parishes staffed by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) or The Institute of Christ The King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP). 

However, those places make up a very small percentage of places where the old Latin Mass is celebrated. Most places where it is celebrated are ordinary diocesan parishes, and it is offered by everyday diocesan priests. That is why in the Diocese of Knoxville, Bishop Richard Stika has invoked Canon 87 Sec. 1 of the Code of Canon Law in our diocese and dispensed from this requirement, at least temporarily, the priests and the faithful of this diocese. What this means is that the schedule of Latin Masses will continue as normal in East Tennessee for the time being. It is almost certain that there will be some changes to that at some point in the future, but I am equally as certain that the celebration of the Extraordinary Form will not go away in the Diocese of Knoxville.

It would be easy for us to spend time lamenting that the Holy Father has issued Traditiones Custodes, but he has done so and he is the Vicar of Christ. Hence, we are obligated as best we can to give heed to what he has told us, and the clergy are obligated to act in obedience as best we possibly can. In such a time as this, we can also be reminded that "all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to his purpose..." (cf. Romans 8:28). One way that we can see that all things work together for good is that the Holy Father at least seems to see one of the major reasons why people are initially drawn to the Tridentine Mass, liturgical innovation which can lead to banality in our worship, and even liturgical abuse. In the introductory letter which accompanies Traditiones Custodes, the Holy Father writes:

"At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that 'in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions.'"

This passage means that, at the very least, Pope Francis understands one of the most critical realities that has driven many people- especially younger people - into the embrace of local Latin Mass communities is the reality that in many parishes today, there is a whole lot of liturgical innovation going on, much of it in the name of trying to make the Mass somehow more appealing or participatory than the rubrics, the texts, or the Church documents themselves do. When this is done, what ends up happening instead is that the Liturgy can become a kind of personal entertainment, whether that is the intent or not. What's more, in some cases if people actually bring up this problem they are told that the Second Vatican Council authorized a lot of this innovation. The Council authorized texts and liturgical activity in the vernacular, it didn't authorize people to turn the Liturgy into some form of contemporary schtick. 

If the end result of Traditiones Custodes is that the Missal of St. Paul VI as modified by St. John Paul II (and released in the English speaking world at Advent of 2011) becomes in fact as well as in law "the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite," (Traditiones Custodes Art. 1) then we should revisit afresh the ultimate liturgical document which governs this rite, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. SC 36 tells us that:

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

In other words, yes the liturgical texts may be translated into the vernacular language and used, but this doesn't do away with the Church's patrimony of Latin. We in the Western Church are part of the Latin Rite. Parts (or even conceivably all) of a Mass in the Rite of St. Paul VI could be said or sung in Latin. Realistically, the parts most likely to be in Latin would likely be major chants such as the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, and perhaps even the Gloria, especially for major feast days. Related to this is what Sacrosanctum Concilium said with regard to the use of Gregorian chant:

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

Gregorian chant should be given pride of place in our liturgy? In many parishes today, you wouldn't even know that the document said this, you'll be hard-pressed to find chant in many places, even though there are beautiful anglicized versions of Psalmody and musical chants in the Gregorian style for the Mass. Yes, they can be had, some parishes use them. Many do not. 

The section I mentioned above mentions Article 30. That article talks about the full and conscious and active participation of the people, but what exactly does it say?

30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence. [Emphasis mine]

Many of our parishes in the Diocese of Knoxville clearly get this part of the message of Sacrosanctum Concilium. If you come before Mass you can find the naves of many of our parishes observing an appropriate level of silence. However, I have visited many parishes over the years in many places in various States and localities, and there are plenty of parishes where the period immediately before and immediately after the liturgy becomes Social Hour in the presence of the Tabernacle. I have written about this particular problem before. I'm a big believer in parish fellowship and in the communio of brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus. But the nave of a church and the area near the sanctuary is not a place of conversation, God's House is a House of prayer. Most Parish grounds have plenty of places where people can go to carry on fellowship, conversation, and enjoyment of each other in the Lord. We should make better use of those places more often.

Many people have made their way to the Latin Mass because they are desperately looking for the reverence and awe in the worship of a Holy God that they should be able to find at their parish of residence. Sadly, I have known priests over the years who have faced great persecution from parishioners and even people in authority for attempting to do nothing more than the things that Sacrosanctum Concilium encourages us to do in our worship.

The Church has the liturgical and musical heritage to be able to give parishioners who have become attached to the Latin Mass-and to all of God's people-the reverence and awe of worshiping the Thrice Holy God within the Ordinary Form of the Mass itself. Nowhere in the documents of the Second Vatican Council is it even suggested that traditional behavior such as sacred silence in the presence of the Tabernacle, Communion rails, kneeling, chalice palls or chalice veils, fine vessels for the elements of the Eucharist, Sanctus bells, or Gregorian chant should be done away with. Some of the things on that list are more required than others, but all of them bespeak an atmosphere of reverence and holy worship for Our Lord.

In addition, both clergy and the People of God at large should comport themselves appropriately for Divine Worship. The hymns used ought to be more traditional in their composition, not simply because they are old (for we know that things that are old are not always necessarily good), but because more traditional hymnody often reinforces essential Christian doctrine in the lyrics, and we all know that for some people, often through no fault of their own, the Liturgy will be the only Christian education they get this week. Psalmody should be simple, preferably in some mode of chant (remember that bit about pride of place). [For more about the Church's teaching on the use of music in liturgy, it is helpful to read the Church document from the Second Vatican Council Musicam Sacram given to us by Pope Saint Paul VI.]

 The clergy ought to wear beautiful and reverent vestments as their Parish can best afford, because this is for Jesus, and that's Him on the altar. A Byzantine Catholic priest friend of mine wisely says that our vestments should be seen as a form of sacred iconography. They should not look like something out of That 70's Show. Yes, use Latin from time to time at points in the liturgy, and we should teach the people some of the simple Latin chants so that they know and understand what they mean, such as the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, and even the Gloria. Sometimes Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are necessary in the Mass, but the number should never be a great many because deacons ought be prepared to make themselves available to distribute Holy Communion if needed, and priests should never be afraid to use their deacons, that is why we are here. If your parish has a Communion rail, use it.

Priests and deacons should be unafraid to preach the Word of God, and even to wax theological or doctrinal in their sermons/homilies. The people of God can take the Truth, and if they can't, they need to examine their consciences, and yes, brother clergy, that includes us as well, sometimes we need to be preaching to ourselves. To that end, increased time should be made for confessions on the part of priests, and priests and deacons should figure out how to schedule more time for Eucharistic adoration and Benediction. 

These are just a few of the things that we can do to make the Ordinary Form of the Liturgy in the Latin Rite something that is filled with reverence, beauty, Truth, and the fear of God. There is much more that can be done, but I am convinced that if some of the things I have mentioned here were actually carried out with care and love of God, we might see some of those young people with families in our diocese who prefer the Extraordinary Form for the reasons of reverence be able to feel more at home in a regular Parish Ordinary Form setting. 

We should be able to go to Mass and truly feel an otherworldly experience, because it is otherworldly, it is meant to be a type of Heaven on Earth.


NOTE: It should be noted, as His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke and others have pointed out, Traditiones Custodes has apparently been prepared in such haste that a Latin typical edition of the document has yet to be prepared, and there are translation differences between the Italian and English documents that may prove significant. I myself note that the document does not even appear to be properly numerically divided, which is why I did not cite its sections in the way that I normally would any other Church document.

In making this weblog post, I feel compelled to point out that I am asserting my canonical rights under Canon 212 §2-3 of the Code of Canon Law.

The Case of (Father) Jonathan Morris

By now, most of the world of Catholic Social Media, at least in the United States, is aware of the situation regarding (Father) Jonathan Morris. Morris, a former member of the Legionaries of Christ who was released from his vows in that tortured religious order, and later became a priest of the Archdiocese of New York, also became a valued contributor to Fox News for over 14 years. As a result of this, Father Morris developed a well-rounded social media presence, and certainly became one of the most visible priests from his already very visible Archdiocese.

His public announcement some weeks back that he has petitioned Pope Francis to be allowed to be dispensed from his solemn promises as an ordained priest and allowed to return to the lay state caused some of his followers to wish him well, and some to label him a coward who had abandoned his commitments as an ordained man in the Church.

To be very clear, I am not a great believer in the ease with which laicization (which should be more properly referred to as the release from clerical promises or vows) is often obtained by many ordained clerics. Many priests do this so that they can have the freedom to marry after having taken vows or made solemn promises of celibacy and chastity. Many deacons request a return to the lay state in order that they might marry after their wife dies, something the Apostle Paul forbids in ordinary circumstances even in Scripture itself (1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12, Titus 1:5-7) when he says that an ordained man is to be "the husband of one wife" (he wasn't talking about polygamy, no Christian has ever been allowed to live a polygamous life validly or licitly).

Even though clerical celibacy did not become the official rule in the West until the Middle Ages, the practice that no cleric could marry once they were ordained dates to antiquity itself. If a man was already married and sought ordination, his family was thoroughly scrutinized, as Paul himself discusses in Scripture, so that they would not bring scandal upon the Church. This idea that members of the clergy could be released from their promises in order that they may live as they please is a thoroughly modern one. If the release from promises, the removal of faculties, and the return to the lay state voluntarily is too easily obtained, this truly shows an ill regard for the clerical state, and that is every bit as bad as the clergy showing an ill regard for the laity.

I stand by this belief, but it's also clear to me that Father Jonathan's case is far from normal. There are always exceptions to every rule, and we can't be anyone's ultimate judge. The perversion of the Legionaries of Christ under their founder, the late Father Marcial Maciel, is by now very well known to many people. Maciel was an abuser, pedarist, pedophile, and sexual predator, who used the religious society that he founded as a front for much of his perversion. Good holy young men like Jonathan Morris were really "peer pressured" into being ordained, as opposed to being authentically called by the Holy Spirit.

Late last week, Morris revealed that he had agreed to an interview on Fox News, where he had served for so long as Religious Affairs contributor because of his position as a priest and a moral authority. There were a lot of people, including myself, who wondered if such an interview was a good idea. Many of us worried that Morris was merely attention-seeking, trying now to capitalize on his position as a laicized priest. In watching the interview, this is not what I found.

The interview itself was around nine minutes long, hardly much time to grab a lot of publicity or do much "damage." Instead, I found that Morris was far from the media savvy man we often saw on Fox in a Roman collar, and he instead appeared nervous, a little repetitive, and unsure of himself. He clearly wasn't quite in his element, but he was desperately trying to explain to the many viewers who had come to appreciate his counsel what had happened in his life.

He admitted to having a relationship with a woman while he was in the seminary. He was ready to leave then, and was pressured into staying by Mariel Maciel himself. Based on Father Jonathan's description of what happened to him, it can hardly be said that his acceptance of religious life and ordination to the priesthood occurred because of authentic discernment. Jonathan Morris does not appear to have been allowed truly authentic discernment of his vocation.

I will discuss the Catholic theology of Holy Orders and ordination in a future post, but the reality is that there is really no such thing as a "former priest," "former deacon," or "former bishop." Those terms may be used, but they are not theologically correct at all. Ordination is permanent, and that means that Father Jonathan Morris will be "a priest forever." However, he will be a priest who has had his faculties to minister removed (albeit by his own choosing), and thus returned to the practical state of a layman.

We may be somewhat unfair to Morris in saying that he is attention-seeking. He is now cut off from the means of ecclesiastical support normally given to diocesan clergy-but especially priests- who are entitled to pay and pension, and often health insurance. Now he has to fend for himself. I don't know if I can blame him for intentionally snooping around in the media world where he has some experience.

I don't know if he has made the right decision, and it's not our place to say. But I do pray for Father Morris, I know he needs it.

A Marian Memorial of the Holy Spirit

One of the great reforming actions of Pope Francis' pontificate might be the small but spiritually significant reforms to the liturgical calendar and praxis that could actually help enhance her spiritual life.

One of these changes is to mandate the inclusion of St Joseph in the Eucharistic prayer. A far more significant change, in my mind, is the addition of today's Memorial to the calendar of the Church.


Today is the memorial of Mary, Mother of the Church, appropriately held on the Monday following the feast of Pentecost.

This feast day calls attention to one of Mary's most important titles next to the title of Mother of God. it speaks to the reality that Mary is the mother of the Church, and that indeed without Mary saying yes to God, there would be no Church!

It also serves to remind us something reality that Mary was actually present on the Day of Pentecost in the upper room with the disciples. That means that like them, she was a part of the particular outpouring of the Holy Spirit that occurred for the Apostolic College on that day. indeed, the mention of Mary on the Day of Pentecost is the very last direct mention of her in Sacred Scripture.

It is most fitting that we should remember the Mother of the Church on the day after we officially celebrate the birth of the Church

Come and follow me

I recently engaged in an internet discussion with a very nice lady who has shown some rudimentary interest in the Catholic faith. I don't yet know enough about her, other than just a little about her personal faith background, to know how best I might help her in her faith journey or whether I am the one to help at all. The exchange has gotten me to thinking, however, of the importance of our lives acting as witnesses to call others to Jesus Christ, who would call all people to himself.

Pope Francis has said in a recent homily that without evangelization, the Church doesn't act as our Mother, but as "a babysitter." The Holy Father said that when we evangelize others “the Church becomes a mother church that produces children (and more) children, because we, the children of the Church, we carry that. But when we do not, the Church is not the mother, but the babysitter, that takes care of the baby – to put the baby to sleep. It is a Church dormant." Pope Francis called on all Catholics “to proclaim Christ, to carry the Church – this fruitful motherhood of the Church – forward." The Holy Father's call echos the very words of Jesus when he told the Apostles in Matthew 28:19-20:

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; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

The Holy Father also pointed out that the very first believers in the book of Acts had only recently been baptized, but had the courage to go out and proclaim the Gospel to others. Certainly we aren't called to do any less than the first Christians. What we cannot do with any effectiveness is to be witnesses "in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth (Acts 1:9)” without our lives reflecting that which we proclaim and being the primary witness to the faith we profess.



My internet conversation with someone interested in our faith got me thinking seriously about how the words and actions that I use around others reflect on the faith that I profess with my lips. We are called to issue the same summons that Jesus did, to encourage others to follow him.

Are we really doing that?

Thoughts on Pope Francis

I knew the moment that Pope Francis stepped out on the loggia that there was something I really liked about him. I was first struck by the way he appeared on the balcony, and asked that before he imposed the Apostolic Blessing, the people should pray for him. He led people in an Our Father, a Hail Mary, and a Glory Be for him and for Benedict XVI. For awhile he bowed his head in silent prayer-the massive rain-soaked crowd was silent. His entire first appearance to the world was centered on prayer.


Since his election yesterday, I've learned quite a lot about Pope Francis. I've learned that as Archbishop of Buenos Aries, he was offered a permanent post in the Roman Curia by Blessed John Paul II, but he politely and respectfully turned it down. Instead, he remained Archbishop of the Argentine capital, and eschewed the well-appointed episcopal residence for a sparse apartment. He turned down the car and driver which the Archdiocese provided for him and took the bus and the subway instead. One person from Buenos Aries said in a news interview that if you wanted to have an audience with Cardinal Brogolio, you just needed to know which train or bus he was taking. Oh, and in addition to his ecclesiastical duties, he apparently cared for a fellow Jesuit priest with a disability who stayed with him at his little apartment. I identify with the Holy Father, because when I was a single man, I lived in the city and I took the bus everywhere-I had to because of my own disability (the Holy Father obviously identifies with disabled people since he was close friends with and cared for a disabled person).


He apparently turned down his official Vatican car and decided instead to take the bus with the cardinals back to Casa Santa Martha. He took the Vatican's equivalent of a taxi to the Basilica of St. Mary Major this morning, and celebrated the Mass to close the conclave at the Sistine Chapel where he said in his homily “we can build so many things but if we don’t confess Jesus Christ, then something is wrong. We will become a pitiful NGO [non-governmental organization], but not the Church, spouse of Christ.”


In formation, we are taught about the meaning of diakonia, from which we get the word "deacon." That word, in the Greek, means "servant" or "slave." One of the most obvious uses of the word is to be found in Philippians 2:7-8, where we are told that Jesus "emptied himself, taking the form of a servant [diakonia], being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross."


In his homily today, Pope Francis talked a lot about the cross and the need for believers to take it up. In fact, he said that to claim Christ but be unwilling to take up his cross doesn't make us believers at all. It has struck me that we talk a lot about diakonia and servanthood, and with good reason, because that is part of the calling of a deacon. In Pope Francis, it seems that we have a living example to the whole world of what diakonia is really all about.