Jubilee of Ecclesial Movements, Associations and New Communities

 The days 7th-8th June 2025 are being celebrated as a Jubilee of Ecclesial Movements, Associations and New Communities. The days are chosen to be those of the Vigil and celebration of the Feast of Pentecost, when the Church celebrates the coming of the Holy Spirit on the infant Church. Some examples of the movements that might be represented in the celebration of this Jubilee are: Communion and Liberation, the Focolare, the Charismatic Renewal, the Legion of Mary and FAITH Movement. I also include SIGNIS as an ecclesial movement, though it has a specific commitment in the fields of film, media and communications. The Jubilee takes place immediately after the annual meeting of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life with the moderators of international associations of the faithful, ecclesial movements and new communities. Some 70 000 pilgrims are expected to take part.

The movements are due to meet with Pope Leo XIV in St Peter's Square on the Vigil of Pentecost, an event which re-creates a meeting of the movements with Pope St John Paul II on the eve of Pentecost in 1998. The memorable expression of that occasion is the reference that Pope St John Paul II made to the co-essentiality of the institutional and charismatic dimensions of the Church, developing the teaching of Lumen Gentium n.12:

The institutional and charismatic aspects are co-essential as it were to the Church's constitution. They contribute, although differently, to the life, renewal and sanctification of God's People. It is from this providential rediscovery of the Church's charismatic dimension that, before and after the Council, a remarkable pattern of growth has been established for ecclesial movements and new communities.

This meeting with St John Paul II took place in the context of the first World Congress of Ecclesial Movements and New Communities. The Holy Father referred to some of the difficulties that had occurred in the growth of these new movements and their relationship to the wider Church. 

Their birth and spread has brought to the Church's life an unexpected newness which is sometimes even disruptive. This has given rise to questions, uneasiness and tensions; at times it has led to presumptions and excesses on the one hand, and on the other, to numerous prejudices and reservations. It was a testing period for their fidelity, an important occasion for verifying the authenticity of their charisms.

Today a new stage is unfolding before you: that of ecclesial maturity. This does not mean that all problems have been solved. Rather, it is a challenge. A road to take. The Church expects from you the "mature" fruits of communion and commitment.

On the Vigil of Pentecost in 2006, the movements gathered again in St Peter's Square, this time with Pope Benedict XVI. After a reflection on the place of the Holy Spirit in creation and within the life of the Trinity (Pope Benedict's words on the abuse of creation foreshadow Pope Francis teaching on the same theme), Pope Benedict spoke on three words: life, freedom and unity.

When all that people want from life is to take possession of it, it becomes ever emptier and poorer; it is easy to end up seeking refuge in drugs, in the great deception. And doubts surface as to whether, in the end, life is truly a good.

No, we do not find life in this way. Jesus' words about life in abundance are found in the Good Shepherd discourse. His words are set in a double context.

Concerning the shepherd, Jesus tells us that he lays down his life. "No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (cf. Jn 10: 18). It is only in giving life that it is found; life is not found by seeking to possess it. This is what we must learn from Christ; and the Holy Spirit teaches us that it is a pure gift, that it is God's gift of himself. The more one gives one's life for others, for goodness itself, the more abundantly the river of life flows.

Secondly, the Lord tells us that life unfolds in walking with the Shepherd who is familiar with the pasture - the places where the sources of life flow.

We find life in communion with the One who is life in person - in communion with the living God, a communion into which we are introduced by the Holy Spirit, who is called in the hymn of Vespers "fons vivus", a living source. ... 

Dear friends, the Movements were born precisely of the thirst for true life; they are Movements for life in every sense.

Speaking of freedom:

True freedom is demonstrated in responsibility, in a way of behaving in which one takes upon oneself a shared responsibility for the world, for oneself and for others.
The son, to whom things belong and who, consequently, does not let them be destroyed, is free. All the worldly responsibilities of which we have spoken are nevertheless partial responsibilities for a specific area, a specific State, etc.

The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, makes us sons and daughters of God. He involves us in the same responsibility that God has for his world, for the whole of humanity. He teaches us to look at the world, others and ourselves with God's eyes. We do not do good as slaves who are not free to act otherwise, but we do it because we are personally responsible for the world; because we love truth and goodness, because we love God himself and therefore, also his creatures. This is the true freedom to which the Holy Spirit wants to lead us. 

And of unity:

The Holy Spirit, in giving life and freedom, also gives unity. These are three gifts that are inseparable from one another.  ...

He wants your diversity and he wants you for the one body, in union with the permanent orders - the joints - of the Church, with the successors of the Apostles and with the Successor of St Peter. He does not lessen our efforts to learn the way of relating to one another; but he also shows us that he works with a view to the one body and in the unity of the one body. It is precisely in this way that unity obtains its strength and beauty.

May you take part in the edification of the one body! Pastors must be careful not to extinguish the Spirit (cf. I Thes 5: 19) and you will not cease to bring your gifts to the entire community. Once again, the Spirit blows where he wills. But his will is unity. He leads us towards Christ through his Body.

In a concluding word that foresees the theme of the Jubilee 2025, Pope Benedict observed:

The Holy Spirit gives believers a superior vision of the world, of life, of history, and makes them custodians of the hope that never disappoints.

It has been a common place since Vatican II to speak of a "universal call to holiness", that is, a call to Christian living that is derived from Baptism and Confirmation and that is addressed to all Christians. However, the response to that call is given in the specificity of the life of each individual, and for many people that specificity is found in the charism of one or other of the new movements or communities. Without the presence of these movements, pastoral life can too easily lack the element of specificity necessary to a lively Christian witness.

Synodality: the Legion of Mary as a model?

I am not sure I completely understand the UK's system of public honours, but each time a list of awards is published (typically, the New Years Honours and the Queen's Birthday Honours) I am reminded of the practice of the Legion of Mary, which is that no honours or presents are to be given to members. Instead, when there is some occasion that calls for recognition, a spiritual bouquet (ie a promise of prayers) is offered instead (cf p.303 of my edition of the Legion Handbook). 

In this, as in other things, Frank Duff seems to have been very much ahead of his time. Which prompted me to wonder whether he was also ahead of his time as far as "synodality" was concerned... 

The Legion Handbook (pp.11-12 in my edition) states the object of the Legion as follows - I have added the italics to draw attention to the aspect of "walking together" that is contained in this statement. The dimensions of ecclesial communion, participation and mission are also very apparent.

The object of the Legion of Mary is the glory of God through the holiness of its members developed by prayer and active co-operation, under ecclesiastical guidance, in Mary’s and the Church’s work of crushing the head of the serpent and advancing the reign of Christ. Subject to the approval of the Concilium, and to the restrictions specified in the official handbook of the Legion, the Legion of Mary is at the disposal of the bishop of the diocese and the parish priest for any and every form of social service and Catholic action which these authorities may deem suitable to the legionaries and useful for the welfare of the Church. Legionaries will never engage in any of these services whatsoever in a parish without the sanction of the parish priest or of the Ordinary.

The aspect of "walking together" is most clearly lived out when the (parish) priest spiritual director takes an active interest in the work of a praesidium, attending the weekly meetings and indicating work that might be undertaken. The structure of Legion councils also indicates the dimension of ecclesial communion - the praesidium is part of a Curia; Curiae are part of a Comitium; a Comitium comes under a Regia; and, finally, there is the international governing body of the Concilium. But at each level the role  a spiritual director indicates the "walking together" of the lay legionaries and the ordained ministry.

Participation and mission are reflected in the duty of legionaries to attend a weekly meeting and complete a weekly obligation of a substantive apostolic work (cf pp.191-194 of the Handbook). A key theme, both in the Legion Handbook and in the writings of Frank Duff is that of the necessity of a laity imbued with a vivid apostolic spirit, who work in collaboration with their clergy for the good of Church's mission. 

Is this perhaps the key to Pope Francis' encouragement that we should "walk together" on the synodal pathway?

Evangelii Gaudium: comment on two snippets

Pope Francis observes (Evangelii Gaudium n.127), in connection with the idea that evangelisation necessarily involves inter-personal communication, that:

..... there is a kind of preaching which falls to each of us as a daily responsibility. It has to do with bringing the Gospel to the people we meet, whether they be our neighbours or complete strangers. This is the informal preaching which takes place in the middle of a conversation, something along the lines of what a missionary does when visiting a home. Being a disciple means being constantly ready to bring the love of Jesus to others, and this can happen unexpectedly and in any place: on the street, in a city square, during work, on a journey.

One can see the parallel to recruitment to a trade union. It is a bit of a mantra of trade union recruitment that "most people don't join a union because no-one has asked them". Similarly, the apostolate of a Catholic organisation such as the Legion of Mary draws heavily on creating opportunities for personal contact with those whom one wishes to bring to Christ. Pope Francis (Evangelii Gaudium n.128) gives a very useful exemplification of the form that this every day evangelisation might take.

But there is an intriguing, and quite un-developed, snippet in the next paragraph. Here Pope Francis brings the question of individual personal contact back to that of inculturation:

If the Gospel is embedded in a culture, the message is no longer transmitted solely from person to person. In countries where Christianity is a minority, then, along with encouraging each of the baptized to proclaim the Gospel, particular Churches should actively promote at least preliminary forms of inculturation.

What is un-developed here is that relation between person-to-person contact and that situation where there is a communication at a (community) cultural level. I suspect that a lot more could be made of how these two elements complement each other and arise from/inform each other. The hazard of an evangelisation that occurs exclusively at the level of culture, and does not penetrate to the level of the personal, is only too apparent in those countries of formerly-strong Catholic culture and weak Catholic practice in daily life. Likewise, person-to-person contact has to impact the culture, or it becomes just "what Catholics do in private on a Sunday".

The second snippet I wanted to comment on is taken from Pope Francis' lengthy treatment of the homily (Evangelii Gaudium nn.135-159). It can be found in n.146:

The first step, after calling upon the Holy Spirit in prayer, is to give our entire attention to the biblical text, which needs to be the basis of our preaching.

Pope Francis assumes that the homily will address the Biblical text(s) provided in the Scripture readings of the Mass of the day. This is an assumption shared by a whole generation of priests and, indeed, it would be wrong not to recognise that preaching on the given texts is just as much a feature of Pope Benedict XVI's homilies as it is of Pope Francis' homilies. However, the rubric (General Instruction on the Roman Missal nn.65-66) allows a wider range upon which the homily can be based (my emphasis added):

The Homily is part of the Liturgy and is highly recommended, for it is necessary for the nurturing of the Christian life. It should be an explanation of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners....

On Sundays and Holydays of Obligation there is to be a Homily at every Mass that is celebrated with the people attending and it may not be omitted without a grave reason. On other days it is recommended, especially on the weekdays of Advent, Lent and Easter Time, as well as on other festive days and occasions when the people come to church in greater numbers.

In my own experience, the blind insistence that a homily must be preached at a weekday Mass, and that it must be about the Scripture readings of the day, leads to some of the most dire homilies I have ever heard (cf Pope Francis' comment that "We know that the faithful attach great importance to it, and that both they and their ordained ministers suffer because of homilies: the laity from having to listen to them and the clergy from having to preach them!" in Evangelii Gaudium n.135).  Pope Francis is quite right, I think, to devote the attention to the homily that he does in Evangelii Gaudium - an effective homily impacts greatly on the manner and depth of the participation of the faithful in the Liturgy, lifting it above the "rather average" that leaves them lukewarm.

It is particularly frustrating when one turns to the Collect for the saint being celebrated on the day and can recognise in its words the particular charism of that saint .... which would provide material for a much more useful and succinct homily than a vague wandering around a (more or less) obscure Biblical text. Likewise when one encounters the text of the Preface - yesterday evening, for example, Father used the proper Preface for Eucharistic Prayer 2 which, in the new English translation, provides a wonderful exposition of the core of Christian teaching ("kerygma"), and which is fascinating for its relevance to the idea of the new evangelisation that is the subject of Evangelii Gaudium. The second reading from the Office of Readings can also provide a useful alternative source for a homily.

I suspect that, if we look at his major homilies (rather than the daily homilies at Casa Santa Martha), we will find that Pope Francis widens his scope to move from the Scripture readings to the needs of the particular celebration. This seems to be what the "three words" structure of his preaching is about.

At a human level, I feel that when I am listening to a priest preaching a homily I am entitled to expect him to (a) have something genuinely worthwhile to say and (b) to have prepared properly how and what he is going to say. (I can recognise that I am atypical of most parishioners in my expectations here; but I do see others respond positively to the more "substantial" homily when it is delivered.) The clerical collar does not provide a particular privilege in this regard. When priests insist on preaching every day at Mass, and insist on that homily being about the Scripture readings of the day, it is only the most exceptional among them who will meet these two criteria day in and day out.

Evangelii Gaudium: "missionary disciples", "inculturation" and "popular piety"

In Chapter 3 of Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis turns his attention to "The Proclamation of the Gospel". In a section headed "We are all missionary disciples" (n.119 ff) Pope Francis writes (n.120):

In virtue of their baptism, all the members of the People of God have become missionary disciples (cf. Mt 28:19). All the baptized, whatever their position in the Church or their level of instruction in the faith, are agents of evangelization, and it would be insufficient to envisage a plan of evangelization to be carried out by professionals while the rest of the faithful would simply be passive recipients.

Though he acknowledges the desire for a training or formation for evangelising (cf n.121), Pope Francis is clear that all are called to evangelise and that the answering of that call should not be put off on the grounds that training is needed. The genius of a number of movements or organisations in the Church lies precisely in their ability to empower for evangelising activity Catholics who would otherwise not engage in such activity. I know, for example, of the impression that my own mother made on her contemporaries in her teens/twenties - inspired by their engagement in a Young Christian Worker section in a Lancashire cotton town. (It also prompted her to become an active trade unionist.) The Legion of Mary likewise, and perhaps notably in this context because of its espousal of a "master and apprentice" system of formation (cf p.66 of the Legion Handbook):

The notion is general that the formation of apostles is mainly a matter of listening to lectures and studying textbooks. But the Legion believes that such formation cannot be effective at all without the accompaniment of the work itself; and indeed that talk about the apostolate, divorced from the actual work, can have the opposite effect to that intended.

The system of the "Generazione nuova" (Gen) within the Focolare is similar, with members of the older age groups acting as animators for the younger participants.

In these first pages of Chapter 3, Pope Francis also addresses the question of culture in the context of evangelisation. It is interesting to read how, treating first of the notion of culture, Pope Francis then goes onto speak of the Christian faith being received within the culture of a person (nn.115-117):

The human person is always situated in a culture: “nature and culture are intimately linked”. Grace supposes culture, and God’s gift becomes flesh in the culture of those who receive it.

Rather than the culture changing the Gospel, it is the Gospel that permeates the culture. Inculturation is less an adaptation of the Gospel and more an insertion of the Gospel in the culture.

It is also interesting to note what one can be forgiven for thinking is Pope Francis prime model of a practice of a Christian faith that is truly inculturated: the practice of popular piety (cf Evangelii Gaudium nn.122-126). This is, of course, a very different understanding of inculturation than that which is sometimes proposed.

Once the Gospel has been inculturated in a people, in their process of transmitting their culture they also transmit the faith in ever new forms; hence the importance of understanding evangelization as inculturation. Each portion of the people of God, by translating the gift of God into its own life and in accordance with its own genius, bears witness to the faith it has received and enriches it with new and eloquent expressions. ... Herein lies the importance of popular piety, a true expression of the spontaneous missionary activity of the people of God...

Popular piety enables us to see how the faith, once received, becomes embodied in a culture and is constantly passed on. 

Pope Francis argues strongly, in three sentences, each of considerable significance, that the practices of popular piety - perhaps more lively in his home continent than in Europe - are an expression of a substantive theological insight:

Only from the affective connaturality born of love can we appreciate the theological life present in the piety of Christian peoples, especially among their poor....No one who loves God’s holy people will view these actions as the expression of a purely human search for the divine. They are the manifestation of a theological life nourished by the working of the Holy Spirit who has been poured into our hearts (cf. Rom 5:5). 

Pope Francis' final thought on inculturation comes at the end of this section of Chapter 3, where he considers the need to proclaim the Gospel to different cultures (nn.132-134), and suggests an evangelising import of the work of theologians:

Proclaiming the Gospel message to different cultures also involves proclaiming it to professional, scientific and academic circles. This means an encounter between faith, reason and the sciences with a view to developing new approaches and arguments on the issue of credibility, a creative apologetics...

A theology – and not simply a pastoral theology – which is in dialogue with other sciences and human experiences is most important for our discernment on how best to bring the Gospel message to different cultural contexts and groups.The Church, in her commitment to evangelization, appreciates and encourages the charism of theologians and their scholarly efforts to advance dialogue with the world of cultures and sciences. I call on theologians to carry out this service as part of the Church’s saving mission. In doing so, however, they must always remember that the Church and theology exist to evangelize, and not be content with a desk-bound theology.  

What are Monsignori for?

The announcement of the New Year's Honours a week or so ago prompted me, for the first time I recall, to ask myself: what is an honour really for? It was the media reports of an award being made to a lady "for services to bell-ringing" that prompted me to ask myself what other areas an award might be made for. The question has recurred in the last two days with media reports of an award "for services to hairdressing", which appears to the slightly cynical to be at least something to do with the recipients work to cover the Prime Minister's balding crown.

Pope Francis has at the same time set about reforming ecclesiastical honours, with the (kind of) abolition of appointments of "Monsignori". According to Vatican Radio:

By circular letter sent to the world’s Nunciatures, the Secretariat of State has informed Bishops’ conferences that, in the world’s Dioceses, the only ecclesiastical title henceforth to be conferred shall be “Chaplain of His Holiness”, to which the appellation, “Monsignor”, shall correspond. The title shall be conferred only upon priests who have reached the age of 65.

The circular further clarifies that the use of the title, Monsignor, in connection with certain major offices – where this is a cultural practice – (eg . Bishop , the Vicar General of the Diocese, inter alia) remains unchanged. With regard to the Roman Curia, no change has been made either in the titles or in the use of the appellation, Monsignor, these being connected to the offices entrusted, and to the service performed.

If I am reading this correctly, it suggests that either Monsignori will be so called because of their holding a particular office or carrying out a particular service in the Church to which the title is customarily attached; or because of their reaching a certain age, when the title will be used as a recognition of a past life of service in the Church.

I do have some understanding of a particular title or form of address attaching to a particular office in the life of a local Church, or the life of the universal Church. I suspect that the best amongst the clergy might be quite happy to forego the use of such title, or at the very least, experience the sting of conscience that Pope Francis' announcement causes should they still wish to continue with its use.

I do find it much more difficult to see a value of the title Monsignor used as an honour, in the sense of the system of honours that we have here in the UK. The practice of the Legion of Mary in this regard seems to me very sensible. The making of presentations to members is explicitly forbidden, and the formation of praesidia that are formed exclusively from a particular group in society is equally forbidden. Instead, a spiritual bouquet provides an alternative way of recognising the contribution of a member. This practice also avoids the potential scandal, seen too frequently of late, where someone honoured by the Church has proven not to have lived up to that honour. Given that we all share in the mix of good and evil that is the drama of Christian life, it also seems a much more practical thing to do.

Perhaps Pope Francis will continue to reform the use of other ecclesiastical honours, too.

Thoughts on "Philomena" [UPDATED]

Philomena has gone on general release in Britain this weekend, after premiering in the UK during the London Film Festival. It is a film that is recommended. A screen caption indicates that the film has been "inspired by true events", so one should perhaps see it as representing the story rather than following it exactly in every respect.  Martin Sixsmith's book is probably where one needs to go to find the story in an exact form: The Lost Child of Philomena Lee. [UPDATE: This piece by the real Philomena at the MailOnline gives some indication of where the film varies from the exact story, and gives a perhaps more realistic picture of Philomena's character. A Google search will throw up a number of media reviews. The MailOnline are also now reporting the response of the religious order involved in Philomena's story to the film: Hit film makes us look like villains, say nuns: Judi Dench movie Philomena 'twisted the truth'. The MailOnline report is based on this report at The Tablet.]Nothing in watching the film suggests that it is misleading in any way, though I make that observation as someone who has no immediate experience of Catholic life in Ireland or of the environment of "cover up" that has characterised the Catholic Church's response to historical abuse.

The World Catholic Association for Communications (SIGNIS) jury at this year's Venice Film Festival gave its award to Philomena:

The SIGNIS Award went to the film Philomena, of Stephen Frears (United Kingdom), a film about an elderly woman who has fought during all her life to find her son, taken from her and given in adoption by the nuns of the convent where she was abandoned by her family after becoming pregnant. In its citation, the jury explains that the Award was given to the film “for its vibrant and touching portrait of a woman whose faith sets her free. In her search for the truth, she is further liberated from the burden of the injustice done to her, when she overcomes it with forgiveness”.  

Philomena was widely greeted by critics and audiences, and went on to receive the award of the official jury of the Festival to the best screenplay, as well as the award of the Interfilm jury. It is particularly interesting that, apart from obtaining the Catholic and Protestant awards, it received the award of the Italian Association of Atheists and Agnostics, in a striking demonstration that cinema is indeed polysemous.

The Catholic Church does not come out of the film without some criticism. One of the representative aspects of the film is the dialogue between Judi Dench (as Philomena) and Steve Coogan (as Martin Sixsmith). At times it is Sixsmith who appears to lead by bringing to light a naivety on the part of Philomena in terms of her relationship to the Church and to the sisters in whose care she had lived as a young girl as they respond to her situation. To me this appeared most clearly in the discussions around sexuality - Sixsmith arguing that surely if God has given us a sexual faculty we should enjoy it, while Philomena, recognising that she enjoyed her one night stand, still seemed to retain some sense of discretion (by which I mean shame in its most healthy sense) about it. At other times, it is Philomena who seems to take the lead - as in the closing scenes where she insists on forgiveness over and against Sixsmith who determinedly refuses to forgive, Philomena asserting that she does not want to hate people like he does.

What remains utterly incomprehensible, though, is the somewhat condescending attitude of the sisters towards Philomena as she visits them trying to gain information about the son they had sent for adoption. Whilst sister appears very gentle and caring in the reception room, she nevertheless blocks as strongly as she possibly can any possibility for Philomena to gain the information she wants. When, at the end of the film, it emerges that Anthony is in fact buried in the grounds of the very convent in which this blocking action takes place, one cannot help but recognise a deeply rooted dishonesty on the part of these religious. As portrayed in the film, this dishonesty is not only a dishonesty on the part of individual sisters, but a dishonesty at the level of the institution of the religious community itself.

In the final scenes, an elderly sister defends the treatment given to Philomena (and, by implication, the other girls in the care of the convent) as being a punishment for their immorality, something they brought on themselves, and contrasts it with the virtue of her own life of self-denial. Some of that treatment has earlier in the film been described as "evil" (though Philomena herself is shown as not sharing the use of that term), and I suspect that it is the behaviour of the elderly sister portrayed in these last scenes that prompts one newspaper review I have seen to refer to the behaviour of the sisters as "pure evil".  What is most striking in this scene is that, while Philomena is shown as forgiving the said sister and Martin Sixsmith as refusing it, the elderly sister herself does not even seem to appreciate that a question of forgiveness exists at all.

The Catholic Church in Ireland does have a very striking counter-example to the practice with regard to unmarried mothers reflected in the film Philomena. It lies in the work of the Regina Coeli hostel operated in Dublin by the Legion of Mary. This opened in 1930, and part of its work was intended to provide an environment in which unmarried mothers could keep the care of their children - with no other such arrangement existing anywhere in Ireland at the time. The fullest account that I can quickly find of the work of this hostel is on pp.91-98 of Finola Kennedy's Frank Duff: A Life Story. The arrangements in the hostel, operated by volunteers from the Legion, seemed deliberately to go against that of the provision in convents at the time:

Every woman would pay a small contribution towards her keep, and a "task system" of laundry or domestic work would be avoided at all costs.... The object was to create a "home-life feeling about the place". Duff stressed that the surrounding should be as beautiful as possible because "the silent influence of beautiful and artistic surroundings is incalculable"...

In the first week fifteen women were admitted to the hostel. Soon after the opening, a pregnant woman sought admission. Her entry to the hostel and keeping her child led to the inauguration of the Mater Dei aspect of the hostel, a type of hostel within a hostel specifically organized on the basis of units for mothers and children. One of the mothers in each unit elected to stay at home and care for the children, while the others took jobs to pay for household costs. Thus began a revolutionary system for assisting lone mothers to keep their children.

The depth of Frank Duff's feelings in favour of enabling single mothers to successfully keep the care of their children is revealed in a letter written in 1970, forty years after the opening of the hostel, a letter which has earlier recognised the opposition to its work. The following observation from that letter, cited by Finola Kennedy on p.98 of her book, is indeed extremely hard hitting in the context of the events portrayed in Philomena and the recent legalisation of abortion in Ireland:

I find it a little difficult in my own mind to make a broad differentiation between the determined separating of the unmarried mother from her child and the relieving of the unmarried mother from her unwanted child by way of abortion. Deep down it seems to me that those two processes have an identical root. This root would be the denial of the fact that a spiritual relationship of the supremest order exists between a mother and her child, inclusive of the unborn child.

UPDATE: Among the reviews now appearing on Google is one at the Guardian. This is not particularly sympathetic to the Catholic Church - though its description of the process of adoption experienced by Philomena/Anthony as 

.... stealing babies from vulnerable teenagers, selling them overseas and then preventing them tracing their parents by burning records of the transactions...

is pretty much what the film portrays though, for the record, it is not clear from the real Philomena's account in the MailOnline  whether or not any money was paid to the sisters at the time of adoption. It is the final paragraph of the review, though, that prompts my linking to it (with my italics added):

At the end of the film, it's Martin who's bitter and confounded. Philomena, for all that she's been through, is both cheery and serene. Such is the priceless reward that only her faith can yield. How she managed to cling to it while it slipped from Martin's grasp remains beyond his understanding. Yet her ingenuousness turns out to have been more productive than his scepticism. The Catholic church survives its scandals, Philomena's story shows us, because it delivers the goods.

SECOND UPDATE:  The MailOnline are also now reporting the response to the film of the religious order involved in Philomena's story: Hit film makes us look like villains, say nuns: Judi Dench movie Philomena 'twisted the truth'. The MailOnline report is based on this report at The Tablet. Perhaps the most significant points made in the response are that the elderly sister portrayed in the film's final scene,  a scene added in the film and not occurring in Martin Sixsmith's book, had in fact been instrumental in reuniting many mothers with their children.  The sister speaking for the order also denies that any records were destroyed and said they never received any payment in relation to adoption. What I have written in my original post will indicate that I believe the film represents a dialogue - in the film this occurs between Philomena and Martin Sixsmith - exploring the Catholic Church's participation in and response to the abuse involved, rather than any anti-Catholic diatribe. In this, I agree with the observation reported of the film makers at the end of this MailOnline report, and can understand the representive/dramatic character of the addition of the final scene.

UPDATE AT 2nd MARCH 2014: Oscar Night

This is the text of a comment I posted at another blog, responding to a critical stance towards the film.

1. In evaluating the film Philomena, I do think it is useful to be aware of where the film differs from the actual events that, to quote the film’s credits, “inspired” the film. The statement from the Sisters reported in the Tablet is useful in this. There are other significant differences too. In real life, for example, Philomena Lee did not accompany Martin Sixsmith to the United States, something that is quite central to the narrative of the film. If I understand correctly, too, Philomena was for many years not a practising Catholic, where the film suggests that she is.
2. I do not believe the film to be an anti-Catholic film. One feature of the film is a kind of dialogue between (sceptical) Martin Sixsmith/Steve Coogan and the (believing) Philomena/Judi Dench around their respective responses to the situation of Philomena’s search for her son and the difficulties to this search presented by the sisters. This gives the film a representative rather than a literal/documentary character – and it is in this context that I think the final scenes (which show Sr Hildegard in a less than positive light) need to be understood. While it may be legitimate for the sisters to point out that Sr Hildegard as portrayed in the film, is not the real Sr Hildegard, nevertheless the significance of what her character represents in the film is something that needs to be recognised.
3. I believe the film usefully represents different responses to the experience of women such as Philomena, and represents those responses in a genuine dialogue with each other rather than as conflicting ideologies.
4. The obstructive attitude of the sisters to Philomena’s efforts to find her son, as portrayed in the film, is utterly incomprehensible – and it was that which struck me rather more in watching the film than Sr Hildegard’s unfeeling attitude portrayed in the final scenes. So far as I have been able to determine, the representative character of the film in this regard is accurate to the real events. (I would be happy to be corrected if this is wrong …) The unfortunate aspect of the sisters statement, as reported, is that it does not appear to address this aspect of the film, and nor does it appear to address the practice of involuntary adoption.
4. I recommend seeing the film. As the SIGNIS jury indicated when they gave Philomena their award at the Venice Film Festival: the Award was given to the film “for its vibrant and touching portrait of a woman whose faith sets her free. In her search for the truth, she is further liberated from the burden of the injustice done to her, when she overcomes it with forgiveness”. By all means be aware of where the film differs from reality … but that does not undermine the film’s real and quite genuine value.
[And for the journalists ... there is a sub-theme involving the ethics of journalistic practice ...I missed it watching the film, and only recognised it after reading reviews.]

Personal relationship with Christ?

From time to time there is discussion in Catholic blogs about the idea that we are called to an individual relationship with Christ, and so with the life of the Trinity.  This is sometimes flagged as a "Catholicism-lite" when this call made on the part of Catholics is perceived as being a call that is indifferent to doctrinal content; and it has also an affinity to the life of non-ecclesial Christian communities that, despite a Biblical base, do lack real sources of doctrinal belief. There is also a suspicion by Traditionalists of anything that appears evangelical in its origins and impact rather than ecclesial.

In this context, it was interesting to read the "Meditation of the Day" in MAGNIFICAT for this coming Thursday, the feast day of St Dominic. The text was taken from Pope Benedict XVI's General Audience address for 8th August 2012.  One thing that vividly emerges from Pope Benedict's presentation of the prayer of St Dominic is the movement from Liturgical prayer to personal meditation "in which prayer acquires an even more intimate, fervent and soothing dimension":

.... personal meditation, in which prayer acquires an even more intimate, fervent and soothing dimension. After reciting the Liturgy of the Hours and after celebrating Mass, St Dominic prolonged his conversation with God without setting any time limit. Sitting quietly, he would pause in recollection in an inner attitude of listening, while reading a book or gazing at the Crucifix. He experienced these moments of closeness to God so intensely that his reactions of joy or of tears were outwardly visible. In this way, through meditation, he absorbed the reality of the faith. Witnesses recounted that at times he entered a kind of ecstasy with his face transfigured, but that immediately afterwards he would humbly resume his daily work, recharged by the power that comes from on High.

St Dominic, in his life of prayer, expresses quite precisely the appropriate mutual relation between Liturgical prayer and personal devotion, between the ecclesial encounter with Christ and the personal encounter with him. We can perhaps add to this Pope Francis' repeated insistence that it is not possible to come to know Christ without the Church.

The language of "personal relationship with Christ" might well be an unfamiliar language for some Catholics; and it is, I suspect, more to be associated with the newer movements and ecclesial communities than with older Catholic organisations. Whilst a vocation to the priesthood or religious life might have always been seen as a way of living a closer personal relationship with God, that the life of lay persons should be seen in the same way has a certain novelty about it. I would suggest, however, that Catholic life has always included ways for lay people to live this closer personal relationship with God - through sodalities and a whole range of pious associations. According to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, it is the sacraments of baptism and confirmation that call each and every Christian to a vocation in the Church - and the danger for the Catholic is that this where that vocation comes to a stop (the danger for the pentecostal is that it does not reach this point at all). What the newer ecclesial movements explicitly do is articulate the forms of commitment associated with a life lived according to their charisms as a specification to a particular form of the vocation received in a general way through baptism and confirmation.

So, for example, the Marian consecration according to the teaching of St Louis Marie de Montfort promoted by the Legion of Mary and the Foyers of Charity (it is the concluding act of the "fundamental retreat"). The Catholic Charismatic Renewal also understands the gift of "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" in a relation to the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, seeing it as an opening out of the grace of those sacraments.  I have posted on this theme here. Fr Cantalamessa wrote of his own experience of Baptism in the Holy Spirit:

For me, baptism in the Spirit was a chance the Lord gave me to ratify and renew my Baptism...

The pastoral implication of all of this is that, if formation programmes in Catholic parishes are limited to the immediate preparation for the sacraments of initiation, then there will be an intrinsic failure to consistently develop the (additional) specification of the grace of those sacraments that constitutes the "living personal relationship with God". The additionality provided by formation to a particular charism in the Church is needed to achieve this - I suspect I am not alone in feeling that those one meets in parish life who have a more-than-average sense of Christian life have almost without exception gained that sense of Christian life from experience of one or other of the new ecclesial movements.

[A development of the them of this post would be to evaluate the Marian character and sense of the evangelical counsels that can be seen in many of the new movements.]

Our Church

Vatican II - Voice of the Church is a site to which I have a link in my side bar headed "Implementing the Second Vatican Council". A strength of this site is that it posts and links to original documentation relating to the Council and to participants in the Council.

An article entitled "Our Church" has been added to the site. This appears, so far as I can tell, to be the text of a pamphlet published around 1970. The author is Cardinal Suenens. The majority of the text, though not the last three sections, is taken more or less verbatim from Cardinal Suenens book "Co-Responsibility in the Church", published in 1968. A scanned copy of the this book can be downloaded from the site of the Cardinal Suenens Center. The article is made up of several sections from the book, with the concluding three sections either written specially or drawn from another of Cardinal Suenens' writings.

I do think that Cardinal Suenens' article is worth reading, but it is not really possible to read it "in parts". You need to read the whole to gain a fair understanding of what the Cardinal wishes to say.

I know that some will find it unexpected in a writer such as Cardinal Suenens, but I believe that the first section of "Our Church" can be understood as an articulation of what would now be known as a "hermeneutic of continuity". The Second Vatican Council exists both in a relation to its past and in a relation to its future, and whilst present day advocates of the "hermeneutic of continuity" might feel that the implications of this differ from those that Cardinal Suenens might see, he nevertheless recognises an importance in this mutual relation:

However, to grasp the full meaning of the Council, it is not enough to view it only in relation to a past which it concludes. We must also consider it in the light of those forces of the future which it contains. It is, in its own turn, a point of departure, as Pope Paul VI forcefully reminds us: "The conciliar decrees are not so much a destination as a point of departure toward new goals. The renewing power and spirit of the council must continue to penetrate to the very depths of the Church’s life. The seeds of life planted by the Council in the soil of the Church must grow and achieve full maturity".

The identification of the importance of Baptism for a common equality of all the faithful, and of their calling to different vocations and apostolates in the life of the Church, is now a commonplace in the Church. It underpins such experiences of Catholic life as consecration to Mary (cf the spirituality of Louis Marie de Montfort as lived by the Legion of Mary and the Foyers of Charity) and "baptism in the Spirit" as lived out in the Charismatic Renewal; it is the basis of understanding different vocations in the Church as different specifications or ways of living out the original baptismal consecration of all the faithful.

I think that Cardinal Suenens discussion under the heading "Is the Church a democracy?" is particularly interesting. He notes the ambiguity and need for clarification of the criticism that the un-democratic nature of the Church's structures put it out of step with the atmosphere of our time.

To wish to catalogue the Church under the label of monarchy, oligarchy or democracy is a futile task. The Church’s reality is too rich and too complex to fit within human categories. There are within the Church elements which are monarchical, others which are oligarchical, and others which are democratic. The papacy, the bishops, and the laity could be invoked as illustrative of these elements. Within the Church there is at one and the same time one principle of unity (monarchy), a pluralism of hierarchical responsibilities (oligarchy), and a fundamental equality of all in the communion of the people of God (democracy). All of these must mutually integrate with one another since they are all essential to the truth of the Church.

An interesting observation towards the end of this discussion:

Every bishop accomplishes his mission in a partnership of shared responsibility with the whole body of bishops united to its head. Doubtless, the magisterium must take account of the common belief of the faithful before making a pronouncement. But the body of bishops has not only the mission of recording this faith as it is lived, it must also discern the elements of this faith and pass judgment on them. And this judgment is binding on the consciences of the bishops as well as upon the faithful.

In the next section, where Cardinal Suenens makes a short practical observation on the contribution of the lay faithful, particularly in the context of diocesan pastoral councils, it is interesting to see his emphasis on the professional skills and experience that the laity bring to such bodies. One wonders how the idea of commissioned parish ministers would fit in to this framework.

And to take a couple of paragraphs from the concluding section:

The younger generation have a profound sense of man, and this is a great asset. However, they could be tempted to be not quite so open to a sense of God....If an apostle does not realize the value of a silence filled with God, his activities will be philanthropic, noble social work, but they will not be a Christian apostolate, the extension of the unique priesthood of Christ.

Our younger people must also have a living and affectionate love for the Church. Too often one hears ruthless criticism.... Sad to say, there are Christians who have left the Church because they were too bruised by its structures. The Church seemed to them too human to be a sacrament of God. But has not the Church from the very beginnings of its history been made of men of flesh and blood, beset with weakness and mystery just like the rest of us?...No amount of disappointment can be a legitimate excuse for leaving our mother, the Church. It is to this mother even today that humanity owes what is best in itself. The Church and those who remain faithful to her have, through the centuries, carried the torch of the gospel, thus enabling others at times to see better than we do by its light.

These last words do, of course, today have a different reference than that intended by Cardinal Suenens when he wrote them. Now we see all to clearly the damage that is done to the mission of the Church when those in positions of leadership and ministry do not remain faithful to their calling.

Canticle to the Holy Spirit

Fr Aladics has posted the text of St Louis Marie de Montfort's Canticle to the Holy Spirit. For those familiar with the system of the Legion of Mary, inspired as it is by de Montfort's "True Devotion to Mary", the place of the Holy Spirit in de Montfort's thought is not a surprise. Quite pertinent in view of my earlier post today: Our Lady of the Cenacle.

True Devotion to the Nation

The season of political party conferences here in the UK prompted me to look at a style of (potentially political) engagement envisaged by a project of the Legion of Mary called "True Devotion to the Nation". There are a couple of contemporary projects that I know of that reflect the principles underlying this Legion idea. One is the movement for unity in politics of the Focolare, the other London Citizens.

Spiritual Reading: Official Handbook of the Legion of Mary pp.76-77

The Legion has a compelling motive for that service of the community. It is that Jesus and Mary were citizens of Nazareth. They loved that town and their country with a religious devotion, for to the Jews faith and fatherland were so divinely intertwined as to be but one. Jesus and Mary lived the common life of their locality with perfection. Every person and thing there was an object of deepest interest to them. It would be impossible to conceive them as indifferent or neglectful in any respect.

Today the world is their country and each place is their Nazareth. In a baptised community they are bound more intensely to the people than they were to their own blood-kindred. But their love has now to issue through the Mystical Body. If its members exert themselves in this spirit to serve the place in which they live Jesus and Mary will move through that place shedding their beneficial influences not only on souls but on the surroundings. There will be material betterment; problems will shrink. Nor is true betterment to be gained from any other source.

This attention to Christian duty in each locality would add up to patriotism for the nation. This word denotes uncharted territory, for what is true patriotism? There is no map or model of it in the world. An approximation is the devotion and self-sacrifice which develop during a war. But this is motivated by hate more than by love, and appropriately it is directed towards destroying. So it is imperative that a correct pattern of peaceful patriotism be provided. It is this spiritualised service of the community which the Legion has been urging under the title: True Devotion to the Nation. Not only is that service to be undertaken out of the spiritual motive but it and all the contacts arising from it must be used to promote the spiritual. Operations which produced advance but only on the material plane would falsify the whole idea of True Devotion to the Nation. Cardinal Newman perfectly expresses that basic idea when he says that a material advance unaccompanied by a corresponding moral manifestation is almost too awful to consider. The correct balance must be preserved.

Allocutio

The Legion of Mary has a clear rule that there is “no politics in the Legion”[1]; a rule whose relevance can be seen in the historical context of Ireland at the time the Legion began[2] and whose relevance continues for most circumstances in which the Legion operates today. The Legion needs to be able to bring to membership Catholics who might in their political allegiances have great differences between them, and the “no politics in the Legion” rule enables this unification in the society of the Legion. In a similar way, the giving of material relief and the collection of funds for the giving of material relief, are prohibited by the Legion system.[3]

And yet the Legion does, in the idea of “True Devotion to the Nation”, propose a type of engagement that might be called “social” or “economic” and might, in some situations, be called “political” - with a small “s”, and small “e” and a small “p”.

“We must not for a moment lose sight of the soul.”[4] The first point in understanding the idea of True Devotion to the Nation lies in recognising what is primary and what is secondary. What is, and must be, primary is the religious motivation and the religious object of the work undertaken. Where those who are the object of the work do not have a religious belief, then the primary object becomes that of their spiritual and moral betterment. Frank Duff was strongly critical of the tendency to rule out this motive and to reduce Christian action to only the material. He argues, however, that this should not be viewed too narrowly, because all of those specific initiatives that are considered secondary are in reality related to what is primary, related to the spiritual. “If we have to distinguish between what is primary and secondary, it should not result in the neglecting of either”[5].

“Mary’s own outlook must be ours”[6]. The model or criterion that we can use to judge a correct course of action with respect to True Devotion to the Nation is that of the Virgin Mary. As our spiritual reading suggests, this model combines an immediate concern for the spiritual with a real concern for the betterment of the things of every day life; a real concern for Jesus present as our neighbour and a real concern for his happiness, prosperity etc.[7]

What are the secondary, but still essential, elements envisaged by True Devotion to the Nation? “Included in that process of Christianising must be the making of one’s place more happy, more prosperous, more beautiful, more enlightened; the creating of employment, the stopping of emigration”[8]. The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, a motive power of Legion activity, “obliges us to think in terms of every person in each place and of all aspects of life there, cultural, economic, recreational, and of development in every sense”[9]. Frank Duff cites an un-named successful example of this activity, which turned round a village that was previously dying out in every respect: “The place had put itself on the tourist map. Early vegetables were being profitably grown. A knitting industry had been launched. Every aspect of its defect had shown striking amelioration. The revival has taken in all sections of life, the spiritual, the economic, marriages, culture”[10].

The successful engagement with these secondary elements envisaged by the programme of True Devotion to the Nation is achieved by members of the local community being enlivened to take responsibility for them. This is something that has both a political implication and an ecclesial implication. “This is doubly necessary having regard to the way in which the modern state tends to widen its functions … It moves more and more towards thinking for each one, arranging his life in detail. By a creeping process it is appropriating to itself rights which Christianity has always regarded as belonging to the individual …. That tendency towards taking over by the State is largely due to the passivity of the citizens. Having been taught no sense of responsibility in respect of the defects around them, they do nothing towards remedying them. So it is inevitable that the state is forced to intervene in regard to the greater evils. Then the intervention and the inertia are both progressive…. If the people had shown a proper sense of responsibility much of this would have been avoided and healthy communities would be the result. Most of the graver problems are due to maladjustment of some kind, and would yield to principles of self-help and Christian living. So there is no need for the individual to forfeit his rights to the State in order to be able to live”.[11]

The ecclesial implication arises from the consideration that a Legion of Mary praesidium, or some equivalent structure of the apostolate, is the ideal mechanism needed to do the “enlivening” needed by the idea of True Devotion to the Nation[12]. It is a programme that needs to be led by a well formed laity, well formed both spiritually and in the methods of the apostolate; a praesidium achieves both of these. The praesidium structure also contains the correct balance between the part to be played by the lay faithful and the part to be played by the priest. Whilst the spiritual director guides and forms the praesidium, he does not do its work for it. Expertise in economic, social and cultural spheres is proper to the laity, and is part of the mission of the Mystical Body which is rightly theirs. [13]

Bibliography

Official Handbook of the Legion of Mary (2005 edition).

“True Devotion to the Nation” in Frank Duff Virgo Praedicanda pp.214-230

Second Vatican Council Decree Apostolicam Actuositatem on the Apostolate of the Laity

Pope John Paul II Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici

Pope Benedict XVI Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est

Pope Benedict XVI Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate


[1] “No legionary body shall allow its influence or its premises to be used for any political purpose or to aid any political party”, Official Handbook of the Legion of Mary p.293.
[2] ie, the civil war that followed independence from Britain.
[3] cf Official Handbook of the Legion of Mary pp.291-293.
[4] Frank Duff “True Devotion to the Nation” p.217; cf spiritual reading above.
[5] Frank Duff “True Devotion to the Nation” p.217.
[6] Frank Duff “True Devotion to the Nation” p.218.
[7] cf Frank Duff “True Devotion to the Nation” pp.216-218.
[8] Frank Duff “True Devotion to the Nation” p.218. The reference to emigration has a particularly specific reference to the situation in Ireland.
[9] Frank Duff “True Devotion to the Nation” pp.223-224.
[10] Frank Duff “True Devotion to the Nation” p.227.
[11] Frank Duff “True Devotion to the Nation” pp.218-220; cf “the spontaneity of charity” described in Pope Benedict XVI Deus Caritas Est n.28 (b); cf also the idea of an “economy of gratuitousness and fraternity” as expressed in Pope Benedict XVI Caritas in Veritate n.38
[12] cf Frank Duff “True Devotion to the Nation” pp.223-226.
[13] cf the account of the “secular character” of the lay vocation in John Paul II Christifideles Laici n.15; cf Apostolicam Actuositatem n.7, which describes the part to be played by lay people in renewing the temporal order, and includes a paragraph illustrating the part to be played by pastors in relation to that to be played by the lay faithful.

St John the Baptist part 5: a patron of the Legion of Mary

This is the last part of this series, which has been made up from the last five weeks of allocutios for our Legion praesidium. Apart from this last post, the titles/themes of the other posts have been taken from the Preface of St John the Baptist in the Roman Missal. As is often the case, if you want a "quick guide" to understanding the meaning of a liturgical feast, look at the Preface for the feast. In the case of John the Baptist, the Preface gives a neat summary of how his role in the mystery of salvation is understood by the Church. This allocution tries to look at how St John the Baptist is a model for Legionaries, and, indeed, for all active Catholics.

Spiritual Reading: “I believe in You”, from Joseph Ratzinger Introduction to Christianity, pp.79-80

Christian faith is more than the option in favour of a spiritual ground to the world; its central formula is not “I believe in something”, but “I believe in you”. It is the encounter with the man Jesus, and in this encounter it experiences the meaning of the world as a person. In Jesus’ life from the Father, in the immediacy and intensity of his converse with him in prayer and, indeed face to face, he is God’s witness, through whom the intangible has become tangible, the distant has drawn near…. he is the presence of the eternal in the world. In his life, in the unconditional devotion of himself to men, the meaning of the world is present before us; it vouchsafes itself to us as love that loves even me and makes life worth living by this incomprehensible gift of a love free from any threat of fading away …

Of course, this does not do away with the need for reflection, as we have already seen earlier. “Are you really he?” This question was asked anxiously in a dark hour even by John the Baptist, the prophet who had directed his own disciples to the rabbi from Nazareth and recognized him as the greater, for whom he could only prepare the way. Are you really he? The believer will repeatedly experience the darkness in which the contradiction of unbelief surrounds him like a gloomy prison from which there is no escape, and the indifference of the world, which goes its way unchanged as if nothing had happened, seems only to mock his hope. We have to pose the question, “Are you really he?”, not only out of intellectual honesty and because of reason’s responsibility, but also in accordance with the interior law of love, which wants to know more and more him to whom it has given its Yes, so as to be able to love him more. Are you really he? Ultimately, all the reflections contained in this book are subordinate to this question and thus revolve around the basic form of the confession: “I believe in you, Jesus of Nazareth, as the meaning (logos) of the world and of my life”.

Allocutio

It was only in December 1949, some twenty eight years after the beginning of the Legion, that St John the Baptist was included among the patrons of the Legion. This followed some two years of debate and persuasion within the leadership of the Legion. Those opposed to including St John the Baptist as a patron were reluctant to allow a change to the Legion system that might open the way to endless changes or to the inclusion of every saint who ever lived as a patron of the Legion.[1]

In an essay entitled “The Legion is pure Christocentrism”, Frank Duff places the understanding of how the Legion has chosen its patrons in the context of the doctrine of the Mystical Body. That doctrine sees the Church as the continuation on earth of the work undertaken in his physical body by Jesus himself. Those elements that are to be found in Jesus earthly life are also to be found in the life of the Church. Apart from the Blessed Virgin and the angels, the choice of other patrons for a mission of the Mystical Body is determined by their association with the earthly mission of Jesus. It is this principle that allows the admission of St John the Baptist as a patron of the Legion.[2]

In adopting St John the Baptist as a patron, the Legion is suggesting to its members that, like John the Baptist, they should be:

- prophets who prepare the way for the Lord, through their weekly work obligation[3]

- people who have been marked out with a special favour, through their baptism, and called to prepare the way for a new heaven and a new earth

- people chosen to show the world its redeemer, through their participation in the Church’s mission of evangelization, in some or all of its different stages

- people with an unshakeable commitment to the mission of the Church, in all the difficult circumstances they might encounter.[4]

The Legion Handbook also suggests that St John the Baptist is a model for Legionaries in two more specific ways. He is formed in the school of Mary, during the time of the visitation of Elizabeth by Mary. As a beneficiary of this “first Visitation”, St John is also a patron of Legionary visitation in all the different forms that it takes. The Handbook sees St John the Baptist as the first to receive from Mary’s role as mediatrix.[5]

[1] cf Official Handbook of the Legion of Mary p.143; cf Frank Duff A Living Autobiography. This is the transcript of a series of videotaped interviews with Frank Duff, made in 1979-1980.
[2] cf Frank Duff, in “The Legion is pure Christocentrism” in Virgo Praedicanda pp.107-109. St Louis Marie de Montfort is recognised as an exception to this principle, being included as a patron of the Legion because of his inspiring the Marian charism of the Legion.
[3] cf Official Handbook of the Legion of Mary p.143.
[4] cf Official Handbook of the Legion of Mary p.143.
[5] cf Official Handbook of the Legion of Mary p.143.

St John the Baptist part 4: "found worthy of a martyr's death"

Spiritual Reading: St Mark’s account of the beheading of John the Baptist

And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics. And he said to them, "Where you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place. And if any place will not receive you and they refuse to hear you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet for a testimony against them." So they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.

King Herod heard of it; for Jesus' name had become known. Some said, "John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him." But others said, "It is Elijah." And others said, "It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old." But when Herod heard of it he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised." For Herod had sent and seized John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; because he had married her. For John said to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." And Herodias had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not, for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. When he heard him, he was much perplexed; and yet he heard him gladly.

But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and the leading men of Galilee. For when Herodias' daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests; and the king said to the girl, "Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will grant it." And he vowed to her, "Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom." And she went out, and said to her mother, "What shall I ask?" And she said, "The head of John the baptizer." And she came in immediately with haste to the king, and asked, saying, "I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter." And the king was exceedingly sorry; but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her. And immediately the king sent a soldier of the guard and gave orders to bring his head. He went and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother.

When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb. [1]

Allocutio

The duty of Christians to take part in the life of the Church impels them to act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it. This witness is a transmission of the faith in words and deeds. Witness is an act of justice that establishes the truth or makes it known

Martyrdom is the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith: it means bearing witness even unto death. The martyr bears witness to Christ who died and rose, to whom he is united by charity. He bears witness to the truth of the faith and of Christian doctrine. He endures death through an act of fortitude.[2]

From this definition of martyrdom in the Catechism we can identify a number of different elements the most fundamental of which are the elements of witness to the person of Christ and the fact that this witness leads to death of the person giving witness. After these two elements, however, there are a number of different ways in which martyrdom is manifested in the life of the Church.

In the case of John the Baptist, the direct witness that he gave that led to his death was a witness to fidelity in marriage. It was his condemnation of Herodias relationship with Herod that provoked the anger of Herodias, and led her to ask for his death. This is a witness to a particular teaching about Christian living, a particular point of Christian doctrine.

We can suggest a parallel between this witness to teaching about fidelity in marriage and the wedding feast at Cana, which in St John’s Gospel, foreshadows the events of the Last Supper and Calvary as the “wedding feast of the Lamb”. The witness to fidelity in marriage is therefore much more profoundly a witness to the person and mission of Jesus than at first appears.

This can be further developed if we see in the structure of St Mark’s account of the death of John the Baptist a foretelling of Jesus’ own passion and death.[3] This can be done by comparing the account of his death to the passion account in St Mark’s Gospel. John the Baptist’s martyrdom then follows integrally from his mission as the forerunner of Jesus:

Herod is wrong about John being raised up from the dead; Jesus will rise from the dead (Mk 16:6-8)

Herodias had to be devious about achieving John’s death, because of the respect that Herod had for him; the Chief priests will also have to be devious in bringing about Jesus death because of what the people might do (Mk 11:18, 14:1-2)

Herod has John beheaded even though he knows that he has done no wrong, under pressure from Herodias and his guests; Pilate will have Jesus put to death, though he knows he has done no wrong, and acting under pressure from the chief priests and the people (Mk 15:14)

John’s disciples lay his body in a tomb; a disciple of Jesus will lay his body in a tomb (Mk15:46)[4]

This understanding recognises, too, that all martyrdom is aligned towards and gains its meaning from the death of Jesus himself on the Cross.

[1] Mk 6:7-27; cf Mt 14:1-12 (in this shorter account it is Jesus’ own preaching that comes directly to the attention of Herod, rather than that of the twelve; in both accounts, however, it is essentially Jesus reputation that is involved.); St Luke records only the imprisonment of John the Baptist Lk 3:19-20.
[2] Catechism of the Catholic Church nn.2472-2473.
[3] cf The Collegeville Bible Commentary p.916.
[4] cf The Collegeville Bible Commentary p.916

St John the Baptist part 3: "chosen to show the world its Redeemer"

Spiritual Reading; Luke 1:68-79 - the canticle of Zechariah, included by the Church in Morning Prayer (Lauds) of the Liturgy of the Hours each day

"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people,
and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David,
as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old,
that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us;
to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant,
the oath which he swore to our father Abraham,
to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear,
in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life.

And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,
to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins,
through the tender mercy of our God, when the day shall dawn upon us from on high
to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet intothe way of peace."

Allocutio

The suggestion that John the Baptist was “set apart” and “marked out with a special favour” contains in itself the concept of an individual and specific mission that is entrusted to him. If that mission is in the first instant a mission directed towards the physical flesh of Jesus Christ, it also becomes in turn a mission in the mystical body of Jesus Christ that is the Church. The mission of John the Baptist is representative of a mission that continues in and is, in some measure, constitutive of the Church.

The words of the canticle of Zechariah, the “Benedictus”, used each morning in the Liturgy of the Hours, express this mission of John the Baptist in its ecclesial form.

The words of the first part of the canticle[1] are focussed on God (the Father) and on the salvation that has come to us through his “visiting” of us in the person of the Son. The Baptist’s mission, like that of the Church, has its origin in the Father and the sending of the Son; and it has its purpose in pointing towards the Father through the Son. The mission of evangelisation in the Church, and indeed every aspect of the Church’s life and activity, needs to reflect the transparency towards the Lord that is part of John the Baptist’s charism:

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for testimony, to
bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light….

He must increase, but I must decrease.[2]

The second part of the canticle[3] directs us towards John the Baptist himself. In so far as it describes the office of the Baptist in announcing the presence of Jesus and his saving work, and in introducing Jesus to others, it describes a mission that in the Church now would be termed that of “evangelisation”. Indeed, it is possible to draw a close parallel between the verses of this second part of the canticle of Zechariah and the way in which the Church understands different stages in the work of evangelisation[4]:

you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways

Christian witness, dialogue and presence in charity

Evangelization:
– is urged by charity, impregnating and transforming the whole temporal order, appropriating and renewing all cultures;
– bears witness amongst peoples of the new way of being and living which characterizes Christians;

(to give knowledge of salvation to his people) in the forgiveness of their sins, through the tender mercy of our God

Proclamation of the Gospel and the call to conversion

Evangelisation:
– proclaims explicitly the Gospel, through "first proclamation", calling to conversion

to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death

Catechumenate and Christian Initiation

Evangelisation:
– initiates into the faith and the Christian life, by means of "catechesis" and the "sacraments of Christian initiation", those who convert to Jesus Christ or those who take up again the path of following him, incorporating both into the Christian community


to guide our feet into the way of peace

Formation of the Christian communities through and by means of the sacraments and their ministers

Evangelisation:
– constantly nourishes the gift of communion amongst the faithful by means of continuous education in the faith (homilies and other forms of catechesis), the sacraments and the practice of charity

you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways

Evangelisation:

– continuously arouses mission, sending all the disciples of Christ to proclaim the Gospel, by word and deed throughout the whole world.


This specific mission of John the Baptist therefore continues in the work of the Church for the evangelisation of the world.

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, `After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.' I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel." And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, `He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God." [5]

[1] Lke 1:68-75
[2] Jn 1:6-8, 3:30
[3] Lke 1:76-79
[4] The table that follows compares the verses of the canticle to the presentation of the stages of evangelisation in the General Directory for Catechesis nn.47-48.
[5] Jn 1:29-34

St John the Baptist part 2: one marked with a special favour

Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.[1]

.. for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.[2]

John was ‘filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb’ by Christ himself, whom the Virgin Mary had just conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary’s visitation to Elizabeth thus became a visit from God to his people… In John, the precursor, the Holy Spirit completes the work of ‘[making] ready a people prepared for the Lord’…. with John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit begins the restoration to man of ‘the divine likeness’, prefiguring what he would achieve with and in Christ. John’s baptism was for repentance; baptism in water and the Spirit will be a new birth.[3]

It is possible to understand the coming of Christ as foreseen from the first moment of creation; and, in the same way, the part that the Virgin Mary was going to play in the mystery of the Incarnation can also be understood as foreseen from the first moment of creation. This is summarised in the images of Christ as the “new Adam” and the Virgin Mary as the “new Eve”; Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis, Christ and the Virgin Mary in the New Testament. The story of the physical creation, the history of mankind and the history of God’s dealings with his people in the Old Testament can all then be understood as a “salvation history” focussed on and directed towards the coming of Christ. Within this vision, the part played by John the Baptist is also foreseen from the beginning of creation.

Pope Benedict XVI suggests that we should see in the event of the Baptism of Jesus by John an anticipation of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus going down into the water of the Jordan river is an anticipation of his death and descent into hell to liberate those held captive there[4]; the appearance of the Holy Spirit and the voice of the Father - “"Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased" - are an anticipation of his resurrection.[5] This is taken up by St Paul in his teaching on the sacrament of Baptism[6]. The reply of Jesus when the Baptist suggests that he should not baptise him - “"Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness"[7] - is an indicator of this anticipation, in much the same way that Jesus' observation recorded in the fourth Gospel - “"O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come"[8] - portrays the wedding feast at Cana as an anticipation of the moment of the passion.

In its turn the sign of the water of the river Jordan is anticipated throughout the Old Testament: the crossing of the river Jordan into the promised land, the water emerging from the rock when it was struck by Moses staff, the water of the Red Sea through which the Jews passed on their escape from Egypt, the water of the flood from which Noah was saved in the Ark. If the saving work of Christ and baptism are understood as a re-birth, as a new creation, it can be argued that the mission of John the Baptist is pre-figured in the water of the first verses of the Book of Genesis, water over which God’s spirit hovered. In this way, we can suggest the pivotal role of John the Baptist with respect to Jesus baptism is implicit from the first moment of creation.

Jesus’ Baptism, then, is understood as a repetition of the whole of history, which both recapitulates the past and anticipates the future … This struggle is the ‘conversion’ of being that brings it into a new condition, that prepares a new heaven and a new earth.[9]

It is this pre-destination of the vocation of John the Baptist from the beginning of creation, a pre-destination to be the end-point of the covenant of the Old Testament, that underpins the privileges attributed to him by the New Testament texts. He is greater than any other born of a woman and he is filled with the Holy Spirit even in his mother’s womb. This particular dignity of the vocation of John the Baptist is reflected in the liturgical celebration, not only of his death on the 29th August, but of his nativity on 24th June[10].


[1] Mt 11:11; cf Lke 7:28
[2] Lke 1:14-15
[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church nn.717-720.
[4] Pope Benedict points out that Eastern iconography frequently represents the Jordan by a cave or tomb representative of Hades. In the Eastern Liturgy, hymns celebrating the feast of the Epiphany are also used in the last days of Holy Week. See Jesus of Nazareth p.19.
[5] cf Pope Benedict XVI Jesus of Nazareth p.19.
[6] cf Rom. 6:3-4: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.”
[7] Mt 3:15
[8] Jn 2:4, cf Jn 12:23 and Jn 13:1, Jn 17:1.
[9] Pope Benedict XVI Jesus of Nazareth p.20.
[10] Though it has not been defined by the teaching authority of the Church, and is not reflected in the liturgical texts for the solemnity of the Birth of John the Baptist, the moment of the visitation of Elizabeth by Mary - when John leaps in his mothers womb - is seen by some writers as the moment of his redemption; the Baptist is born immaculate though he is not conceived immaculate. This is based on understanding the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as incompatible with the presence of sin.