Keep the Faith, Inc.70 Lake StreetRamsey, NJ 07446-2546

Non-ProfitU.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 181

Gordonsville, VA 22942

See Inside for Excellent Catholic Books, Tapes and DVD’s Great Christmas Gifts!! And there's a FREE audiotape with every order!

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the death of the beloved Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen on December 9, 1979See the inside back cover for a selection of his best materialsSa

int C

ecili

a an

d an

Ang

el

Get Mel

Gibson's movie

FREEwith 3-year subscription

see inside back cover

& mailer for details

Fall 2004

Publisher: Keep the Faith, Inc. Editor-in-Chief: Father James McLucas Managing Editor: John W. Blewett Associate Editor: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Art Director: Ronald W. Lawson

Contributing EditorsFather Calvin Goodwin, FSSP

Ronald P. McArthur

Contributors Elizabeth Altham Matthew M. Anger Father William Ashley

Father Ignacio Barreiro Bishop Eugenijus Bartulis Father David R. Becker James Bemis

Father Jerome Bertram, O.P. Laura BerquistMarie Siobhan Boland Patrick Buchanan

Father James B. Buckley, FSSP Neri CapponiFrancis Carey Matthew Childs John Clark

William Coulson Thomas J. Craughwell H.W. Crocker, III Leo Darroch Michael Davies Michael de Tar, M.D.Brett Decker Patrick Delaney William Doino, Jr. Thomas A. Droleskey Father Raymond V. Dunn

Alice Thomas Ellis Father Evaristus Eshiowu Edwin FaustChristopher Ferrara Father Sean Finnegan

Father Kevin Fitzpatrick James K. Fitzpatrick Father Robert Fromageot, FSSP John Galvin

Anne Barbeau Gardiner Lord Brian Gill Cecile Bolling von Goetz Richard Cowden Guido

Norris Harrington Father Brian Harrison, O.S.Father Ignatius Harrison Kathleen Howley

Kenneth Jones Father Peter Joseph Hermann Kelly Thaddeus Kozinski Joseph Kung Edward G. Lengel

Susan Lloyd James Lothian Dino Marcantonio Thomas McArdle Andrew J. McCauley D. Q. McInerny

Diane Moczar Father John Mole, O.M.I. Thomas MolnarJohn Muggeridge Anne Roche Muggeridge

Father Gerald Murray George Neumayr John NeumayrSteve O’Brien Julia Ann O’Sullivan James Patrick

Father John Perricone Jonathan PetersRobert Phillips Father Joseph Ponessa John C. Rao Father Chad Ripperger, FSSP Bishop Fernando Rifan

Michael Rose Jeffrey Rubin Claudio R. SalvucciMsgr. Rudolf Michael Schmitz Msgr. Richard J. Schuler Virginia Seuffert Janet Smith Father Russell E. Smith

Thomas Gordon Smith Joseph Sobran James Spencer Alfons Cardinal Stickler Donna Steichen Duncan Stroik

Robert A. Sungenis Steven Terenzio Jeffrey TuckerDaniel Van Slyke Alice von Hildebrand

Tom J. Walsh, M.D. Bruce Walters, M.D. David White Father Alan Wilders David Williams

Father W. Ray Williams Charles M. WilsonKieron Wood John Wooten Alessandro Zangrando

The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture is published quarterly in March, June, September and December by Keep the Faith Inc. Donations to The Latin Mass are tax-deductible in the United States. Simply make out a check to Keep the Faith, Inc., and write The Latin Mass on the memo line. The views expressed by The Latin Mass contributors are not necessarily those of the publisher, the editors or Keep the Faith, Inc. Please address all subscrip-tion requests or questions to: The Latin Mass – Keep the Faith, Inc.70 Lake Street, Ramsey, NJ 07446-2546

Subscription Rates:

Overseas: $50.00/year (U.S. dollars)Single copy price: $7.25 (includes first class postage)

Letters and articles: Address all editorial mail, submissions, letters to the editor, advertising inquiries to:

The Latin Mass391 E. Virginia TerraceSanta Paula, CA 93060E-Mail: jwblewett@msn.com

Manuscripts should be submitted in manuscript and if pos-sible in electronic format as a Microsoft Word document. We do not return unsolicited manuscripts. Letters to the editor may be edited for length or clarity.

Copyright © 2004 Keep the Faith, Inc.

On the cover and inside the back cover: Saint Cecilia and an Angel by Orazio Gentileschi and Giovanni Lanfranco. The reproduction on the inside back cover is designed for display.

Fall 2004

ContentsFeatures

4 Roman Landscape by Alessandro Zangrando

6 The Myth of Secularist Neutralityby Joseph Sobran

12 The Catechism of Beaver Cleaverby Edwin Faust

Seeking the Fair Landby James Bemis

24 Sacred Tradition – A Many Splendored Thing (Part 5)by Father Chad Ripperger, FSSP

Departments

30 Scripture: Scripture Study in this Faithless Generationby Salvatore J. Ciresi

34 Sermon: The Lessons of Compiegne by Father Calvin Goodwin, FSSP

Liturgy: Ecumenical Agendas and Liturgical Anarchy? by Father Romano Tommasi

44 Philosophy: Eclipsing the Son: John Rawls and American Catholicism by Thaddeus Kozinski

50 Science: The Church and the Birth of Modern Science (Part 3)by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

54 History: The Church in the Dark Ages by Diane Moczar

60 History: Catholic Thought and Culture: The Dark Ages by Diane Moczar

64 Cinema: Tolkien and the Herd of Ideologuesby T. Renee Kozinski

Biography: Shooting the Cardinal by Steve O’Brien

72 Book Reviews 72 The Church of England as Viewed by Newman by Father Stanley L. Jaki

reviewed by Anne Barbeau Gardiner

74 Reform of the Reform? by Father Thomas M. Kosic; reviewed by Father Frank Parrinello

76 The Church Confronts Modernity by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. reviewed by Richard Cowden Guido

Marcel Lefebvre by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais; reviewed by Father Frank Parrinello

Where the Right Went Wrong by Patrick J. Buchanan; reviewed by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

The Unmasking of Oscar Wilde by Joseph Pearce; reviewed by Matthew Anger

Homeschooling

Character Formation: Educating the Light of the Worldby Laura Berquist

90 Family Prayer: An Occasion of Sin?by Susan Lloyd

93 FYI on the SATsby Marie Siobhan Boland

A Final Thought

94 Soldiers of Christ in the Communion of Saintsby John W. Blewett

Fall 2004

by Father Romano Tommasi

Liturgy

In the Spring of 2004, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity issued a controversial docu-ment regarding a Eucharistic Prayer used in the liturgy of a heretical sect of Christians found mostly in the Near East. The article that follows is an attempt to raise important questions in regard both to the methodology and the possible effects of the decree Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. The article is rigorous – but well worth the struggle!

In a recent document published by the Holy See

under the auspices of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, an innovation has manifested itself once again in the Ro-man Church. The document advanced the worrisome proposition that the words of institution (This is My Body/Blood) are not at all necessary

in the valid composition of Eucharistic prayers (the Eastern equivalent of the Roman Canon). The Pontifical Coun-cil, which lacked sufficient magisterial authority in its own right, did in fact consult and receive approval from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to advance the newest and most

the consecration of bread and wine for the valid celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass.1

The document addresses specifi-cally the Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorians), which currently has a valid priesthood and sacraments and coexists with Catholics (Chaldeans)

in present-day Iraq, Iran, India and some other loca-tions including diasporas in the United States. For the reader unfamiliar with the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church, it is a Church that originated in the period of controversy following the publication of the Canons of the Council of Ephesus (431).

Perhaps the most out-standing divergence between Assyrians and pro-Ephesus (orthodox) Christians is that the Nestorians refuse our Lady the title of “Mother of God” (Theotokos). The

theological controversy between orthodox Churches and the Nesto-rian Church is most apparent in comparing each one’s respective

The Pontifical Council, which lacked sufficient magisterial authority in its

own right, did in fact consult and receive approval from the Congregation of

the Doctrine of the Faith to advance the newest and most disturbing of the

novelties that the Church has yet known in the post-conciliar era. The words

of institution are no longer considered essential in the consecration of bread

and wine for the valid celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Ecumenical Agendas and Liturgical Anarchy?

Pope

Joh

n Pa

ul II

mee

ts A

ssyr

ian

Patri

arch

Mar

Kh’

nany

a Di

nka

IV

disturbing of the novelties that the Church has yet known in the post-conciliar era. The words of institution are no longer considered essential in

39Fall 2004

LiturgyEcumenical Agendas and Liturgical Anarchy?

understanding of the Incarnation. Assyrian-Nestorian classical theol-ogy emphasized the separateness or “moral union” between God and man, while the orthodox Christians emphasized that the union resulted in one divine person, inseparable and indivisible. As a result of the political and religious conflict fol-lowing the Council of Ephesus, the Nestorian Church formed a schis-matic patriarchate and eventually evangelized as far as China and India until the Mongol invasions all but destroyed the Nestorian Church by the thirteenth century.2

The feature of the present-day Assyrian-Nestorian Church ad-dressed by the Pontifical Council is in regards to its main Eucharistic prayer that dates at least from the eleventh century in its current form, which contains no words of institution. This Eucharistic prayer is known by the title “Anaphora of Addai and Mari.” The Holy See formerly required all Chaldeans (convert-Nestorians) simply to add an institution narra-tive in order to validate the words of consecration.

During the Middle Ages it seems there was little known or recorded of the Nestorian Church other than information derived from a tempo-rary union between Rome and the Nestorians and the journals of some missionaries.3 The current contro-versy confusing the minds of many Catholics is in relation to two pontifi-cal offices in the Vatican (presumably with the permission of the Holy Father) that have nuanced, perhaps even ignored, traditional criteria of validity for a Eucharistic prayer. It is yet unclear whether this prayer, if used by priests in union with Rome, would be considered invalid. Histori-cally, from the time of the Council of Florence until the year 2001, it would undoubtedly have been rejected by the Church as lacking proper form. The obscurity of Nestorian liturgical

praxis and the ignorance of the West in regard to the Nestorian liturgy would seem to account for the lack of any comment whatsoever in regard to this controversial Eucharistic prayer.

There are principally three arguments produced by the Pontifi-cal Council to validate the current Assyrian practice of omitting words of institution from some of their liturgies that entail about 200 days of their liturgical year. There are a total of three Eucharistic prayers that have recognized usage in the As-syrian practice of today. It is the last Eucha-ristic prayer among these, that of Addai and Mari, that alone omits the words of institu-tion.

The first ar-gument for va-lidity proposed by the Pontifical Council can be summed up as follows:

[T]he Anapho-ra of Addai and Mari is one of the most ancient Eucharistic prayers…. This excep-tion [absence of words of institution], however, may be due to its very early origin and to the later isolation of the Assyrian Church of the East. The valid-ity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, in fact, was never officially contested…. In conscience of faith, the Assyrian Church of the East was

always convinced to celebrate the Eucharist validly…. She expressed this conscience of faith…indepen-dent from the fact that only the first two Anaphoras, of later origin, contain the Institution narrative.

Unfortunately, logic is completely lacking in this argument for validity, for the same document produced by the Pontifical Council also notes:

For many years, scholars discussed which version of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari might have been the original one. Some scholars argued that the original formula of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari was longer and did contain an Institution Narrative. Other scholars are convinced that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari did not contain a coherent Institu-tion Narrative and that the short version is consequently the original one. Nowadays, most scholars argue that it is highly probable that the second hypothesis is the right one.

Anyhow, this historical question cannot be resolved with absolute certainty, due to the scarcity or absence of contemporary sources. The validity of the Eucharist cel-ebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, therefore, should not be

The title “church” can be applied to the Assyrian-

Nestorians because of their retention of the sacramental system and a valid hierarchy within a confession of faith.

This, however, does not guarantee infallibility in

matters liturgical.

Fall 200440

based on historical but on doctrinal arguments.

First of all, the second citation immediately above makes clear that historical arguments fail to justify the validity of this Eucharistic prayer. Yet the first “proof” for validity given by the Pontifical Council in the very same document is an historical argument: (a) most scholars currently hold this text to be from among the most ancient of the known historical sources; (b) absence of the words of institution may be due to its probable ancient origin; (c) this form of the Eucharistic prayer is never histori-cally known to have been officially contested.

The first non-sequitur is the propo-sition that this Eucharistic prayer without the words of consecration is most ancient. The citation of the Pontifical Council is very clear that scholars currently debate what the ancient form even looked like. There-fore, if we don’t know whether or not the current text is the same as the authentic ancient form, how can we build an argument on the presumption that the current construction is the ancient form?

Further, it would seem that conclu-sions that favor the position that the original prayer did not contain the words of conse-cration, which is merely a hypoth-esis, are probable in the eyes of today’s scholars. It is a mischaracterization to say that the original form cannot be known with “absolute certainty.” The original form cannot be known even with “certainty.” Neither can it be known

as a “theory,” but purely as a hy-pothesis. Ironically, the conclusion inferred by the Pontifical Council is that when current scholars believe that one hypothesis is more probable than another hypothesis, their conclu-sion ranks just short of absolute certainty!

Also, the document frankly admits to a huge lacuna in regard to sources. Without sources (manuscripts and testimonies) to authenticate this prayer form’s ancient roots, the argument that this prayer is ancient is arguing in a circle since the question is not whether or not the prayer is ancient, but whether or not its ancient form did or did not contain the words of institution, which cannot be known through the means of currently available data. Therefore the lack of words of institution may be due to its ancient origin or may be due to another cause (for example a scribal error, etc.).

Lastly, just because an error by a schismatic-heretical (separated)

Church has never been explicitly described and con-demned by Rome, it does not necessarily follow that no error exists. If the Assyr-ian Church was so isolated until the most recent times, its texts were then inaccessible to the West.

It’s important to mention that even today the organiza-tion and liturgical books in the As-syrian Church are

still very confused and primitive. It is much like the situation with liturgi-cal texts before Trent. Everything essential is more or less there, but not always. Truly the comment regard-ing the “conscience” of the Assyrian

Church is silly. A Church that can “conscientiously” maintain that there were two persons in Jesus Christ can certainly make other doctrinal, moral, and liturgical errors that are lower in the hierarchy of truths.

The second argument is short and to the point: “Secondly, the Catholic Church recognizes the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particu-lar Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyr-ian Church of the East also preserved full Eucharistic faith…in the sacrifi-cial character of the Eucharist.”

Notice that the document refers to the “Assyrian Church” and mentions its being “built” on “orthodox faith and apostolic succession.” Presum-ably, the Pontifical Council under-stands that these references require nuance. The Assyrian Christians con-sider themselves “orthodox” because of their rejection of the heresy of Arianism (which denied the divinity and consubstantial nature of Jesus Christ to the Father). Meanwhile, they themselves remain heretical Nestorians (holding that there are two persons in Christ – not one divine person possessing two natures, the nature of God and the nature of man).

The title “church” can be applied to the Assyrian-Nestorians because of their retention of the sacramental system and a valid hierarchy within a confession of faith. This, however, does not guarantee infallibility in matters liturgical. Since we cannot demonstrate that the absence of the words of institution occurred before the Middle Ages, it seems danger-ous to assume that the Assyrian liturgical tradition is accurate simply because the Church was historically “apostolic.” Those who are familiar with the Oriental churches know that historically some of them have handed on defective translations of Scripture that they consider authori-tative even in their current liturgies, along with giving uninspired texts

The current mode of scholarship is

“ecumenical” and does not, a priori, apply the

Church’s dogmatic understanding of

necessary matter and form when discussing

these issues. The analogy of faith is often

ignored in deference to a nebulous new

ecclesiology.

Liturgy Ecumenical Agendas and Liturgical Anarchy?

41Fall 2004

(3 Machabees, Enoch) deutero-ca-nonical Scripture status. Some of the Orthodox churches, on the opposite end, reject the deutero-canonicals. Simply because these churches are “apostolic” does not mean we need to reopen the question of the Canon of Scripture due to their deficient traditions.

Another and more ominous in-novation inheres in this “Chaldean development.” There is a new sacra-mental theological distinction being made between ad litteram (literal) and “dispersed” explicit euchological modes of expressing the same truth. An explicit euchological dispersion seems to mean that, in place of the exact or near-exact words of Christ, the Eucharistic prayer as a whole explicitly expresses the same theo-logical and sacramental concepts as the Lord’s precise words, but over the course of a lengthy prayer (rather than in the direct words of institu-tion). This is defended as a cultural mode of literary expression employed by the Chaldeans in place of the Semitic mode of expression as found in the Bible.

Against this supposition would be the fact that the liturgical languages used by the Assyrians previous to the Arab invasions of the seventh century were predominantly either Aramaic or Syriac, both of which languages are themselves Semitic. Secondly, there is the problem that the majority of the Scriptures are of Semitic ori-gin. Even the New Testament is heav-ily influenced by Semitic thought and expression, and some text transla-tions may be from a Semitic original. Culturally, the Lord Himself, St. Paul, and the manuscript tradition within the Assyrian Church itself (Anaphora of Nestorius, Anaphora of Theodore of Mopsuestia)4 have all, as Semitic persons and institutions, historically chosen the same mode of confecting the Eucharist: namely, containing the words of institution.

Therefore, it seems that this argument can-not be upheld on cultural grounds.

What about the theological proposal of “explicit eucho-logical disper-sion”? If this hypothesis is extended to the sacraments in general, which the Pontifical Council implies is possible, then what is the result? The danger is that all sacraments could take on any form whatsoever according to the mind of the minister, provided that the theological integrity of the sacra-ment is preserved within the confines of some sacramental formula as a whole. Remember, it is not an ex-traordinary use of the apostolic keys of Peter that concedes the possibility of omitting the words of institution, but the argument of the Pontifical Council which seems to assume the absolute changeable nature of the form of sacraments.

The fear is that the door is being left open to enable the change or omission of any sacramental formula, provided that the “euchologically explicit dispersion” of the same con-cept is found in the new composition.

Father Richard McBrien, com-menting in the National Cath-olic Reporter, pointed to that very conclu-sion soon after the Holy See’s publication of the document under discus-sion.

Perhaps it would be help-ful to summa-rize the status

questionis of the Eucharistic prayer of Addai and Mari for the sake of the reader, in order to see how tenuous the matter really is.

1. The previously earliest form of these manuscripts had been found in two sixteenth-century texts and four from the seventeenth. W.F. Macomber was responsible for publishing a text that seems to be from the tenth or elev-enth century. This is the unique text containing the omission of the words of institution within the Eucharistic prayer, and has been available only since it was edited and published in 1966.5

2.There is missing from this Eucharis-tic prayer a key verb from a sentence within the main paragraph that ren-ders any translation of the sentence

This document, Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist

between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian

Church of the East, presumes far too much – and until the presuppositions are

scrutinized sufficiently, the fear among many is that it will serve to accelerate theological

and liturgical anarchy.

Members of the Assyrian-Chaldean Joint Commission for Unity (standing) with both Patriarchs (seated)

LiturgyEcumenical Agendas and Liturgical Anarchy?

Fall 200442

extremely problematical. Secondly, there seems to be a lack of context and coherence in the individual sen-tences that make up the paragraph, which may indicate textual omis-sions where the institution narrative was originally located. Numerous hypotheses have been proposed that offer alternative solutions that would contradict the conclusion that the Eucharistic prayer did not originally contain an institutional narrative.6

The cur-rent mode of scholarship is “ecumenical” and does not, a priori, apply the Church’s dogmatic understanding of necessary matter and form when discussing these issues. The analogy of faith is often ignored in deference to a nebulous new ecclesiology. The presumption is that objective scholarship exists only by ignoring one’s confessional lines. This is ideal-ized by the celebrated scholar Robert Taft, SJ, in his assumption that Unita-tis Redintegratio recognizes not only the value and legitimacy of the Ori-ental Churches, but also authenticates the tendency toward accepting these Churches’ national or ecclesial tradi-tions, granting them the presumption of apostolicity, even if in the case of Addai and Mari it cannot be demon-strated that this prayer’s current form predates the Middle Ages.

Father Taft (see note 7) argues the same point as the Congregation. In summary: “This prayer is ancient and apostolic; therefore it is valid.” But the question is: “Which form of the prayer is both apostolic and valid?”

Furthermore, this general ap-proach is emblematic of pluralistic ideology that chooses to ignore the historically heretical and schis-matic nature of certain churches and theologies, as if their errors did not either contribute to or detract from a respective Church’s liturgical praxis and rites.7

In his summation of arguments in support of the Pontifical Council’s decision, Father Taft also makes oth-

er assumptions. For instance he argues that the Didache8 of the first or second century con-tained no words of institution, not mentioning the fact that not all scholars of note have accepted the pertinent prayer as a consecra-tory formula.9 He references ancient Eucha-ristic prayers

that also lack these words, like the Gospel of Thomas or the Apos-tolic Constitutions. Should it be a surprise that the former, a Gnostic gospel, lacks not only those words, but also any reference in the entire Eucharistic prayer that the Eucharist is a participation in the death or sacrifice of the cross?10 As regards the Apostolic Constitutions, alterna-tive explanations are not unknown.11 Fragments that he references with-out words of institution also are of questionable authority since they do not represent a complete prayer and require a lot of inference and guess-work. Lastly, he argues that other later compositions of the Syrian Church also are missing words of institution – all of which are subject to various explanatory hypotheses

that cannot be addressed here.This document, Guidelines for Ad-

mission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, presumes far too much – and until the presuppositions are scrutinized sufficiently, the fear among many is that it will serve to accelerate theological and liturgical anarchy.

Notes1. Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist Between

the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_do, May 4, 2004.

2. For a fuller discussion of the history of the Nestorian Church, see Warren H Carroll, The Building of Christendom (Front Royal, Va.: Christendom Press, 1987).

3. Archdale A. King, The Rites of Eastern Christendom (Rome: Catholic Book Agency, Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1948), vol. 2, pp. 417 et seq.

4. Although these two prayer were originally translated from Greek. Stephen B. Wilson, Essays on Early Eucharistic Prayers (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1997), p. 20.

5. Essays on Early Eucharistic Prayers, ed. Paul F. Bradshaw (ed.) (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1997), p. 24.

6. Ibid., pp. 22-23.

7. Robert Taft, “Mass Without the Consecration? The Historic Agreement on the Eucharist Between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East Promulgated 26 October 2001,” Paul Wattson-Lurana White Lecture at the Centro pro Unione, Rome, 2002.

8. Early Church disciplinary document that is probably a compilation of sources and which until recently was debated as to its date and the nature of its individual texts.

9. Liturgia eucaristica. Mistagogia della Messa: dalla storia e dalla teologia alla postorale practica (BEL, 100), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche (Ed. 2a), Roma 2003, pp. 412-446. For a modern non-sacramental interpretation, the distinction is made between Eucharistia maior et minor among some scholars.

10. Prex Eucharistica, Textus e variis liturgiis antiquiori-bus selecti, Albert Gerhards et Heinzgerd Brakmann (editio tertia), vol. 1 , Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1998, pp. 76, 78. Mentions the resurrec-tion and deeds of Christ explicitly but ignores the passion, cross, and sacrifice for sin.

11. Liturgia eucaristica. Mistagogia della Messa: dalla storia e dalla teologia alla postorale practica, 594-600.

Liturgy Ecumenical Agendas and Liturgical Anarchy?

Father Romano Tommasi received his Licentiate in Sacred Theology (S.T.L.) from the Pontifical University of San Anselmo in Rome.

Father Robert Taft, SJ