Healing Rifts

                                           Healing Rifts

Recently I have been interested to see a long-time Anglican community in College Park join the Catholic Church. They will maintain much of their traditional ritual and church structure under an Anglican diocese independent of the Roman Catholic bishop of Orlando, but subject to the authority of the Pope. While I have no clear understanding of the details of their reunion I presume that they will continue to have married priests, but not female priests. Whether their priests will be allowed to marry after ordination or whether they will ordain men already married I don’t know. What does interest me more is that they represent a traditional wing of the Anglo-Episcopal Church which went into schism and eventual heresy under Henry VIII and his successors. It has taken almost five centuries for them to find their way home.

On the other side of the process we are in negotiation with the Society of St. Pius X who split off after Vatican II, fifty years ago.  So far little progress seems to have occurred, but the Church moves very slowly. Efforts at reunion with the Church of England have been going on for almost two hundred years with these fairly limited results. It is almost 1,000 years since the Roman-Orthodox schism and it was only recently that Rome and Constantinople withdrew their excommunications of each other but got no further.

I also see some Christian communities that have exited their home denomination due to disputes over doctrinal issues which they consider essential. One with which I am familiar, along with their priest and most of their Church staff, left the Episcopal Church a few years ago over practices which they felt were contrary to Scripture. This week they are being formally accepted into the American Communion of the Anglican Church along with several similar groups.

Because I had known come of them socially when they were still Episcopalians, I have watched their progress with interest. They are a very close-knit group, possibly because they took a step into the unknown and supported each other in so doing.  They are open and warmly welcoming to visitors and newcomers. They left their former church without rancor. There are several who were former members of other churches, including the Catholic Church. Catholics would find the Liturgy familiar, with the spontaneity of post-Vatican II. They are an active and accepting community, fully  and comfortably integrated as to age, income  and race. They are committed to the social gospel and to evangelism..

God has blessed this group in many ways. I pray that they may continue to prosper His work in the community. It is my prayer that we Catholics may come to recognize that God works in other Churches too and that we may pray for and with them, learn from them and work with them. Hopefully we will eventually unite once more with them in doing God’s will: “that we all may be one”, both here and hereafter.

Election issues

With the presidential election campaign dominating TV both in advertising and news we get a daily surfeit of information, accusations, half-truths, misinformation and downright lies. Most of us take it for granted as the price of democracy.

 There are certain facts that we should keep in mind. Most candidates are basically decent people who really have the impression that they can do what is best for you. But in their efforts to get elected they try to "spin"  the facts in a way that will appeal to you. That may mean denying their own failures and twisting what their opponents do/say/plan in a way that makes them look bad. So don't believe everything they tell you. They are not angels and their opponents are not monsters. They are human which means they can make mistakes and some of their mistakes come back to haunt them.

You will make mistakes too in the candidates you vote for or against. But you can try to make good choices by listening to and reading what they have to say. Don't vote for somone just because they carry a label of a party your family always voted for. Two of my favorite candidates in the past were Bobby Kennedy and Barry Goldwater who were philosophically  opposed to each other. But both were consistent in their policies and spoke with conviction. I felt that you knew where they stood even when you disagreed with them, that they would make hard choices, not necessarily popular ones. On the other hand I thought Jimmy Carter was a better person than Richard Nixon, yet Nixon was a better president.

Sometimes we need to vote for a candidate with whom we disagree because we respect his character and honesty. Sometimes we will make mistakes about policies but character is harder to fake.

Rampant Restorationism

The attached account grabbed my attention as it is so similar to some of what is transpiring in my own parish since our pastor of a dozen years retired and was replaced by a younger, recently ordained priest. Not all of the restorations described have come to pass yet, but they are looming in the not too distant future. Will this be the same story everywhere?

"My (former) Catholic Parish has been transformed in less than two years. Our last priest was a good solid man but over-shy. Our parish is small-town, immensely good-hearted but not exactly thoughtful or progressive, and not young in this employment-starved area of England. But we were united and loving, and co-operated widely with other Christians in town.

The new man came with a reputation for the old ways - as a 39 year old he had no personal experience of the Church pre-Vatican 2. He had been required to say that he would celebrate Sunday Mass for the Parish in English, and this promise he has kept - thus far. However, within his first fortnight he had abolished the elected Parish Pastoral Council, forbidden services of Word and Communion led by the Deacon in the absence of the priest saying Mass, established a celebration of the Tridentine Latin (1962 authorised) EF Mass 6 days per week, cut the English weekday Masses which he would celebrate at top speed and provided a table-full of literature promoting ultra-retro books, newspapers, liturgy, retreats, pilgrimages.

Within his first two months he had estranged himself from his fellow priests in the Deanery, refused to work with the other local Christian clergy, introduced old-style devotions (eg Quarant'Ore), attempted to oust the deacon from his very much valued chaplaincy in the local prison. His supporters were about 5% of a 100 approx total parish numbers and the remainder laughed at his biretta brandishing and highly decorated vestments but made allowances for 'difference' _ "After all, we still have Mass, and he's very good with the children."

Two years on he has eliminated the free-standing altar though without reference to the deacon or the foreign priest who comes regularly to celebrate a Sunday Mass for our immigrants in their own language, refuses to celebrate Mass facing the people, has expressed hatred of the English of the Ordinary Form of Mass we were formerly allowed to use and has preached publicly his contempt of the Second Vatican Council. He has disobeyed the Bishop when told to restore the free-standing altar - a defiance that has lasted 8 months already.

Some parishioners, myself included, no longer attend. Others, reasonably, refuse to be driven from their own church which they built, and the school to which they sent their children, the place where they have buried and mourned parents, spouses, off-spring and friends. A Requiem these days is celebrated in full black vestments. or if the chief mourner forbids this, in a green so dark that it is indistinguishable from black.

The Latin Mass, now 7 days a week attracts a zealous company on Sunday who drive in from far and wide. Our country parish church is effectively now the Latin Mass centre of the diocese, a diocese which is often regarded as the most open to the Tridentine forms of all the Sacraments, not just the celebration of Mass. The financial collections have been spectacularly boosted, but members of the drive-in congregation play no part in the social life of the parish and have no responsibility for maintenance of church premises let alone supporting the school.

Some contributors to liturgy blog discussions suggest that there is scope for both forms of Mass (Ordinary and Extra-ordinary) to be celebrated regularly in the same parish. I can assure them that where a priest has an overwhelming preference for the EF, he is put under a considerable tension when celebrating OF. This tension can make attendance at his OF Mass so intolerably agonising that it cannot be deemed worship for the parishioner and presumably not for the priest either.

I have to say to our readers, in my experience these words are possibly all too true a description of a parish situation that may arise next to you - or even take you over. Soon. The majority of seminarians in this country are asking for this style of liturgy, theology and management. By the time they.ve learnt better, most of us will be dead."

We need to stand up and remember that WE are the Church. The body of Christ is one,  whole and entire; without the laity the clergy and the hierarchy are a head without a body or limbs.

By their fruits you shall know them.
This simple test tells us a lot about all the venom and hatred spewed out in the last few days against the CEO of Chick-fil-e and many of those who workl for him.

I am not even going to get into the the question which led him to answer honestly what he believed. I was reminded of him when reading how the Pharisees questioned Jesus in order to entrap Him. Apparently he should have lied to satisfy his critics. Alternatively they do not accept that in this country religious freedom is protected by the constitution, at least until now. Perhaps our bishops were not so far off the mark in warning us recently that this freedom was threatened.

But an issue which was ostensibly about the right to love your neighbour even when they are of the same sex as yourself sure produced a lot of hatred without regard for sex.

I apologize to the many gays and lesbians I know and respect who I feel are being used and manipulated for the agendas of those who could not care less about their human rights and dignity.

Lost in the desert

I was reflecting on the tone of my comments in reacting to a variety of articles in the NCR last night. Why are some angry and critical while others appear thoughtful and helpful? To some extent they reflect my mood as I start to write. And I think other writers do the same.

Very often today I feel that we as a Church are wandering in a desert without a compass, angry at our lack of leadership. We look back to the Church of the sixties and seventies, the warm, joyful celebrations, the enthusiastic communities of which we were a part, the larger-than-life shepherds who led us. What has happened, where have they gone?

The metaphor of wandering in the desert drew me to the Israelites led by Moses in the desert of Sinai for forty years. They too started out with high hopes after they had escaped from Egypt and crossed the Red Sea into Sinai. But as they pushed ahead to their ultimate goal, the Promised Land, their leaders seemed to lose their way. They rambled about aimlessly.They grumbled incessantly. They were distracted by a variety of conflicts and just bogged down in the wilderness.

If we substitute "Church" for "Israelites" the story is still the same fifty years after Vatican II. I wonder how the Israelites felt a year or even a month before they stormed Jericho. Does our frustration today match theirs? Apparently the old men who had left Egypt died off before they achieved their final goal. Must the old men, like me, who remember Vatican II, disappear before we reach our goal?

You know it really does not matter. What matters is God's will, not mine.

LCWC & Bishops

Bishop Blair is one of the three bishops appointed by Rome to supervise reforms of the leadership organization of American nuns and he has indicated that they are willing to enter into dialogue with the leaders of the nuns on needed changes. It might help the "dialogue' if we can get a clarification of his vision of "Church" which seems distinct from that which most Christians find in the Scriptures and in the teaching of Vatican II.

Among my favorite ecclesiologists were Adrian Dulles and Edmund Schillebeeckx, neither of whom were notable liberals. Both significantly influenced my concept of the Church as well as that expressed by the bishops at Vatican II, Dulles in delineating various models of Church, Schillebeeckx in forming a vision of the Church as the Body of Christ who acts and speaks through it in the world today. I also have found Richard McBrien to be a most readable writer as well as an outstanding theologian.

When I started to formulate my vision for the Church of the future, not the heavenly New Jerusalem but the church down and dirty in its members, I tried to put that vision in words in the context of the world in which we live and love and strive and fall and rise again today. I think that it is the same vision as that expressed by Vatican II in the document Lumen Gentium.

The structure and authority of the Church, and the way that authority is exercised is not clear in the New Testament, but it developed over centuries. More important: What is the purpose of the Church? Why did Christ establish this community and why does He maintain it in existence in spite of its faults and failures, its betrayals and its rejection of His message?

Scripture tells us that God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants and that this covenant was renewed or extended by Jesus with those who accepted Him and His message until the end of time. "You will be my people and I will be your God." God poured out His everlasting love on us, freely and without merit on our part and wants our love in return.

The Church is a means to achieve this end by introducing us to that loving relationship with the Father for which we are made and to nurture and grow us in that relationship. It is not a legalistic or dominating relationship: God does not force us, He invites us to love Him and trust Him as we journey to that eternal Kingdom where we will be with Him forever.

And that is why I reject the concept of a Church which juridically expels or excommunicates members whom God has called to Him. God calls each one individually to this relationship with Him. The Church exists to help us on our way, to provide doctrinal and moral principles to guide us, but faith is a personal gift, not an institutional one and in the final moments when our life changes the relationship is not with the Church or the hierarchy but with the Father.

Christ's Church is a servant Church, not an authoritarian structure,one where service not power is the keyword. The initial appointments made by the apostles were deacons to care for the needs of the widows, and the only fund raiser described was Paul’s appeal for funds for the needy in Jerusalem. Peter was the leader appointed by Christ to lead His Church, but we know that Paul challenged Peter on some issues and prevailed. That is my vision of the Church – the pope is head of the Universal Church, the sign of unity and spokesman for the Church on issues of faith, on our understanding of the Gospel, but individual bishops are free to express their opinions and seek a consensus as they appear to have done at the Council of Jerusalem. This is the role of the pope in the Church, preserving its unity and fidelity to the teaching of Christ. The pope is "servus servorum Dei", servant of the servants of God, and his primacy is rooted and expressed in that role. In the early Church the bishop of Rome functioned primarily as a mediator of disputes rather than an interpreter of doctrine or an ultimate authority.

McBrien describes the role of Peter’s successor: "The Catholic Church considers the pope to be the Vicar of Peter, that is, the one who personally succeeds to the distinctive ministry of St. Peter for the sake of the unity of the universal Church." "Before the pontificate of Gregory VII (1073-1085) … (the popes) did not appoint bishops. They did not govern the universal Church through the Roman curia." John Henry Newman, who was beatified recently, "contended early in his Catholic career that the laity should be consulted on doctrine, since it was sometimes more faithful to revelation than was the hierarchy (including the pope.) He pointed out that the promise of the Spirit was to the whole Church."

Many Christian theologians of various denominations in the post-Vatican II period seem to have shared that same vision of the servant Church, though it has never been fully grasped or implemented.In 1966, Cardinal Cushing issued an Advent pastoral "The Servant Church." He set forth the image of Christ the Servant who "came to serve to heal, to reconcile, to bind up wounds. Jesus, we may say, is in an exceptional way the Good Samaritan," and argued that the Church must be the body of Christ, the suffering servant and hence the servant Church. "So it is that the Church announces the coming of the Kingdom not only in word, through preaching and proclamation, but more particularly in work, in her ministry of reconciliation, of binding up wounds, of suffering service, of healing . . . As the Lord was the ‘man for others,’ so must the Church be ‘the community for others.’

A similar understanding of the servant church is present in declarations of other church bodies of the period: the Presbyterian Confession of 1967, the Uppsala Report in 1968, the Second General Conference of Latin American Bishops at Medellin in 1968 and the document on Justice in the World issued by the Catholic Synod of Bishops in 1971.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer suggested that the Church should give away all its property to those in need, and the clergy live solely on the free-will offerings of their congregations, or possibly engage in some secular calling. The Church would thus experience the secular problems of ordinary human life. Anglican Bishop John A. Robinson argued that the house of God is not the Church but the world." Robert Adolfs took Paul’s phrase in Philippians 2:7 "Taking the form of a servant" to mean that Jesus divested himself of all craving for power and dignity. The Church, if it is to be like Christ, must similarly renounce all claims to power, honors, and the like; it must not rule by power but attract by love.

While my vision of the Church may not be as radical as Bonhoeffer’s, neither does it include an Episcopal palace such as the one currently on the market for 8 million dollars or a twelve room beach house for the summer. I recall one bishop who lived in a normal family sized home in a middle-class neighborhood, probably valued at less than $100,000, and several others who lived in the parish rectory.

In many ways I think this vision harks back to the early Church we find in the Acts of the Apostles. It is the Church described by Paul who wrote, "Have that mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross". (Phil 2:5-8). It is the Church of the ghetto and the catacombs, the weak and the voiceless, the Church of the Servant Christ who told His Apostles at the Last Supper, "I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do….no slave is greater that his master nor any messenger greater than the one who sent him" (John 13:35-36).

I find it troubling that Cardinal George in a recent interview speaks about the bishops’ mandate to be "governors who exercise … the power to punish." He does not make it clear whence they derive this power. It is certainly not from Christ’s command to His Apostles at the Last Supper. Nor is it in Paul's description of what Christ did: "He emptied himself, taking the form of a slave coming in human likeness, and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross." (Phil.2:5-8).

The true definition of the bishop's role in the Church is service and leadership (like the "good shepherd" who leads out his flock), a vision certainly absent in many recent highly publicized statements and actions by bishops, not only in America but around the world. In spite of Cardinal George's opinion to the contrary, most Catholics seek from their leaders clear moral principles on which to base their decisions not moral micromanaging by the hierarchy. Christ’s Church calls for pastoral leadership, not juridical and punitive authority.

In like manner the role of patriarchs and bishops is rooted in the same service to their flocks. Vatican I diminished their role but Vatican II clearly restored it. Statements by the Pope which express the teaching of the universal Church are truly guided by the Holy Spirit but his personal opinions are not infallible.In a Church that seems to be gradually eroding the changes of Vatican II and reversing its teachings, it is important to remember and defend this principle. Unity in faith refers to formal teachings of the universal Church, not personal opinions. And nowhere is there any basis for authoritarian edicts or legal decisions affecting the life of the faithful, only teaching and guidance in the way of the Lord.

Bishop Kevin Dowling echoes this when he says:"It is, therefore, important in my view that church leadership, instead of giving an impression of its power, privilege and prestige, should rather be experienced as a humble searching ministry … which does not presume to have all the answers all the time."

It seems clear that Bishop Blair has a different concept of the nature of the Church and the role of the bishop. It might help if he could clarify the differences.

Movie Massacre

Once again we are faced with the senseless murder of normal people assembled to enjoy a pleasant evening at the movies. What makes it worse is the apparent lack of motive for the massacre. These casual killings seem to occur randomly all over the world, but many of them in the United States. We can only pray for the victims and their grieving families and friends.

We ask ourselves what can be done to prevent a recurrence of the killings. There is no guaranteed solution, but we can think of some ways to help, both the killers and the victims. For the killers also need help. They are sick, mentally ill, deranged. We are our brother's keeper, no matter what Cain thought. We should be aware of their lifestyle, needs and problems, without interfering in their personal lives, and available to help them or steer them toward community resources if it is warranted. Isolation and hopelessness are major forms of mental illness and we can help break through these barriers by being good neighbors. We can also be available to help victims by our sympathy and support in time of need.

Crimes like the Aurora massacre stir recurring demands for gun control. However, the right to bear arms is enshrined in our constitution, and it will take more than a few dead bodies to end America's love of guns. But perhaps we don't need unlimited access to weapons of mass destruction, to weapons that can fire 100 rounds without reloading, or hand-guns that can be modified to use clips with twelve or twenty bullets. And no private individual needs 6,000 rounds of ammunition.

A frequent argument is that if we limit gun ownership, criminals will still get guns. On this argument we should also allow unlimited sale of drugs. We don't because drugs are harmful. We allow limited use and possession of drugs when prescribed by a licensed physician. Limited possession and use of guns could also be permitted under license, with restrictions on the type and number of guns. A very simple control of gun ownership could be achieved by banning online sales of guns and ammunition. A purchase made in person with a valid identification would provide a check much as bank reporting does with money laundering. It would not be perfect but it would provide a paper-trail.

There are numerous ways in which suspicious behavior can be tracked but most of them involve profiling and would probably infringe on individual rights and liberties. The Biblical "Love your neighbor", meaning care about him and his well-being, is the most effective.

Vatican II's Golden Jubilee

Vatican II’s Golden Jubilee

 The fuss about the new liturgical translation and changes that flourished last Fall seems to have petered out. We have much more publicity about the campaign for religious freedom this month. It is not doctrinal teaching even though the fervor with which it is presented at mass might suggest it is. Actually the Scriptural admonition "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" could be construed as "Stay out of politics". But that might involve taking the Scriptures too literally to suit our purpose.

It is also noticeable that the current campaign is organized and pushed by the USCC, the American bishops, not by the Pope or the Church Hierarchy in Rome, undoubtedly an exercise in the recently neglected principle of subsidiarity. (If you don't remember the "principle of subsidiarity", look it up.) It was formally enunciated by Pius XI in the 1930's and strongly endorsed at Vatican II, but conveniently forgotten since then. It says that if you are the people most affected by a law or rule, then you should have a voice in formulating the rule. Of course this would mean that married couples should have a say in discussing contraception, priests in discussing celibacy, nuns in discussing revisions of their bye-laws. 

However I meant to comment on the liturgical restorationism. I understand that it was a gesture to the Society of St. Pius X, which has never accepted the liturgical changes of Vatican II. It seems that pacifying those who reject Church teaching is a greater priority than avoiding the loss of those who have remained faithful to the Church.

.William Dantonio describes the latter as: those who had one foot in the old Latin Mass church and the other foot in the new English-language Mass church. “These were the Catholics most clearly influenced by the changes brought on by the documents and the spirit of Vatican II. Events showed them to be the most active in moving away from being just “pray, pay and obey” Catholics. They became “the people of God,” with emphasis on the community of believers rather than the pre-Vatican II emphasis on priests and religious as somehow closer to God by virtue of their status in the church.”

They had embraced the teaching of the council, most enthusiastically the reformed liturgy in the vernacular. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was the first council document published on 12/4/63 and it states (2,14) "the full and active participation of all the people is the aim to be considered before all else". This was evident in their wholehearted involvement in the liturgical responses, actions and music, in the variety and quality of such responses and particularly in the spontaneity of such reactions.

Inevitably such public identification with the renewed liturgy became the focus of those who rejected Vatican II and all it stood for. Spontaneity in celebration had to be banned, joyful and enthusiastic hymns outlawed, only fully pre-choreographed activities involving a careful walk between the lines permitted.. The reverent assembly circling the altar during the canon was abandoned (only ordained ministers were allowed in the sanctuary), the chaotic sign of peace was reined in, communion under both species no longer permitted. The special character and status of the clergy must be maintained.

Next year we will celebrate the publication of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy with nothing left to celebrate. Maybe we need a John XXIII Society to refuse to abandon what the Church taught 50 years ago!

Philadelphia Veredict

The veredict is in in the trial of the Vicar for Religious in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Guilty! But the veredict is not about Monsignor Lynn who did what he was told by his Archbishop, Cardinal Bevilacqua, who happily died before the trial; it is about all those who lied and covered-up the abusers of children in their care because their religious superiors told them to and it is about those superiors who prefessed ignorance and refused to listen to reports of such abuses by highly plsaced, wealthy and influential figures in the Church. It is about the cult of "clericalism" in the Church which exempted this special caste from the demands of moral decency and civil law.

As a Catholic I am proud of onr thing about this trial: the prosecutor is a Catholic layman who faithfully carried out his duty in spite of the pressure he undoubtedly experienced in doing so. I presume that some of the jurors were also Catholic. It is a sad contrast with the performance of our moral leaders who failed everyone, the children, themselves, the Church by their prevarications and carefully crafted denials of facts.

But the case for the defence accurately poimted the finger at who was ultimately responsible for Msgr Lynn's actions: his boss, the late Cardinal, who determined policies and made final decisions on all those actions. Despite clear statements on the right and responsibility of the individual to follow their conscience, Church authorities from the pope down demand unquestioning obedience to their commands. Ask the LCWR, ask Hans Kung or Charles Curran.

Coincidentally the NCR this week published a review by Jason Berry of a book about the Legion of Christ and the life of their founder,Marcial Maciel Delgallado. It describes in great detail the efforts of many priests to tell Pope John Paul II from 1998 until his death about Maciel's abuse of his followers and his manipulation of supporters. John Paul II refused to hear their accounts and continued to praise Maciel as an example to others. Several authority figures in the Vatican who profited from their relationship with Maciel refused meet with or hear those who made these reports.

To the credit of Benedict XVI, he listened and removed Macial from power, but he does not seem to grasp the failure of John Paul II to act upon reports. He is still surrounded by toadys of his predecessor and seeks to canonize John Paul II, to hold him up as a model, especially to those who exercise authority in the Church. God save us from more unresponsive leaders. We have enough already.

Bishops' Lawsuit

I have very ambivalent feelings about the bishops' suit against Obamacare. On one hand I see medical care for all as good and desirable. On the other I see that current interpretations of the law could destroy the religious freedom enshrined in the constitution.

To force Muslims to eat pork obviously violates their religious convictions. To force them to provide pork for others to eat is less obvious.  However if we frame the question in terms of "Should we pay to provide guns to Al_Quaida or Mexican drug dealers?" the answer iis simpler: NO! Our country has a history of recognizing consciencious objections to  killing. even murderers. These are grounds for excluding someone from jury duty in capital cases.

 On the other hand the explanation that paying for others' contraceptives violates my religious convictions seems very flimsy. Jesus never mentioned contraception. It is generally accepted that up to 80% of Catholics do not see contraception as morally wrong. Vatican Council II never dealt with the topic (Pope Paul VI removed the topic from its consideration). A panel appointed by Pope Paul VI studied the topic and made a report, generally recommending that contraception be accepted as a method of family planning. However, the pope never published the report but issued a personal ban on contraception. This was not a doctrinal decision, infallibility was not involved and all the subsequent statements and controversies on the topic have changed nothing.

We are not dealing with essential Church doctrine when we talk about contraception. I am not promoting or recommending contraception as the .most desirable or effective method of family planning.  In  the judgement of  the pope and of many  committed Catholics  it is morally wrong, but that is an opinion and it is not the doctrine of the Church.

However, there is more to the current controversy than contraception. There is the issue of abortion and the obligation the law imposes to pay for it. If as a mobster I pay a goon to murder a rival gangster, I am guilty of murder. If I pay to procure an abortion, I likewise share the guilt. The state says that Churches will not have to pay for the abortion, the insurance company will. "Out of the goodness of its heart", I'm sure! The Church will pay through higher premiums.

Another issue seems to be a redefinition of "religion" and "church", limiting them to what occurs in the church sanctuary. Services the church provides, such as education, health and social services are excluded from this new definition.

So I'm ambivalent. I have problems with the Church's involvement in partisan politics. It diminishes the Church's prestige and the credibility of the bishops. We don't trust politicians, even when they trumpet their faith. This is an area where lay organizations like the Knights of Columbus and others should be carrying the ball, not the bishops. They should be the coaches, enunciating the moral principles, not the linemen in the trenches.

(P,S. I note that the CHA (Catholic Health Association) has taken such action in an objection filed today, 6/15/2012)

                         Trauma's effects

 I was just thinking about family ties and support, especially who becomes a surrogate Dad or Mom when a parent dies and leaves a young child. Actually I was thinking of John the Baptist. His parents were in their old age when Elizabeth became pregnant with John and they probably did not see him grow up.

Mary was much younger than Elizabeth, although close to her cousin, so that she went to visit her when told of Elizabeth's pregnancy.  Although they apparently did not live close to each other, in the normal course of events they would have stayed in contact and their sons would have probably met from time to time. John would certainly have been among the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament.

 Since their boys were the same age Mary would have been concerned for John when his parents died. Did she and Joseph consider fostering the orphan? Would such a solution have been possible? Did John spend some time with his cousin? We don't know.

 How did John survive? How did losing his parents at an early age affect him?  Today we hear about the traumatic effect of losing a parent. So often traumatic loss is offered as an excuse for delinquent behaviors, drug addiction, alcoholism etc.. But just as often the victim instead of turning inward to brood on his own loss turns to others who have endured similar losses to help them cope with their pain. We all have choices to make, to become a victim or to help one.

 John seems to have been a loner as he grew up, living in the wilderness, usually depicted as what we would regard as a long-haired hippie. But there is no evidence of delinquency or addiction. In fact he drank no alcohol, ate no rich foods, lived simply.

We do know how he died.  He condemned wrong-doing by a powerful political figure and was imprisoned and eventually executed for doing so. Of him Jesus said: "among those born of woman there was none greater than John the Baptist!"

Church Shopping (4)

                                 Church Shopping (4)

The program I described also demonstrated the abandonment of the principle of subsidiarity, that decisions should involve those who must implement them and be made at the lowest level possible, It was imposed from the top without consultation as to the need or the appropriateness of the material.

No two communities are identical in their needs or their composition and such programs should be tailored to the needs and also to the abilities of the participants. Many parishes must adapt their programs to accommodate different levels of spiritual maturity as well as educational backgrounds.

Perhaps what I am saying is that while the neophyte may be seeking an introduction to Christ for the first time, others may be seeking a deeper personal relationship with Him and a fuller understanding of His Gospel. If a church or the church community is not prepared to respond to this search, the seeker may go elsewhere, to another church of the same or of another denomination. If we fail to meet this need, which is actually universal, we tend to blame the seeker, but the failure us ours. Since only 50% of those who leave join another church, we all fail the other 50%.

But if we meet the need, if we have a warm, vibrant, welcoming community, if the joy and love of Christ is evident in our celebrations, and His message is faithfully and enthusiastically proclaimed in the homily, then the seeker has found a home where their faith is fed and nurtured and grows to maturity and bears fruit in abundance.

Doctrinal orthodoxy, a Scripture-based theology, may be what the visitor is seeking, but it also seems that the presentation of the message, the welcome and the friendly atmosphere in which it is communicated may be the factor which determines the choice. Only you can provide that.

(The end.)

Church Shopping (3)

                            Church shopping (3)

 Christ told His Apostles to go and teach all nations, so sharing the gospel is essential to the Church’s role. Church schools, preaching and Sunday school all obey this command. But I feel that we are failing in the area of ongoing faith formation for adults, particularly doctrinal education. After Vatican II there were efforts to provide such programs , but as time passed , the initial fervor waned and religious formation reverted to a formal and legalistic presentation of traditional apologetics.

The bishops have  initiated a program to call Catholics who have drifted away from the Church to come home and many parishes are making an effort to welcome home the prodigal sons and daughters. I was recently irked by a national program, ostensibly of renewal, which would have delighted Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre or Fr. Leonard Feeney. Its focus was what to do as a Catholic rather than why one should be a Catholic.  It was an exercise in ecclesiastical narcissism rather than evangelism. My initial misgivings arose when a presentation on the program never mentioned Vatican Council II.  These sessions were supposed to explain our faith and renew the spiritual life of our parish, but it became clear that it was merely a make-over of a generation-old program which I believe was very successful in its time. However, times have changed.  As an inducement to come home it elicited a big yawn: "Why?'

The program concentrated on “How to” rather than “Why.” The content was similar to what I got in my third grade catechism seventy years ago.  Reading it one would never know that Vatican II occurred. There was no mention of ecumenism, of the empowerment of the laity, of liturgical changes, of freedom of conscience. It was a repeat of the old caricature that the role of laity in the Church was to “pay, pray and obey.” There was no recognition that since Vatican II Catholics have learned to think for themselves, to make their own decisions and to be responsible before God for their own actions. They are no longer a nineteenth century Church of illiterate immigrants looking to their priests to tell them what to do. They are successful, intelligent, well-educated men and women who do not need the hierarchy to micromanage their personal lives or their relationship with God.

 Richard McBrien in The Church expresses it well:”Educated Catholics still look to the Church for moral guidance but they are searching for principles not rules.” Incidentally the booklets used for the six sessions of the program cost $10.00 each ($60.00 total) while copies of McBrien’s The Church could probably have been purchased in bulk for less than half that cost and would have presented a far more complete exposition on the Church.

I have reviewed  other materials from Catholic and non-Catholic sources which are solidly Christian in content and present a far more inviting image of the Church than the rigid, comdemning institution  which many deserted years ago. We need to love the Church, not fear it and that is the message which we need to share. Above all those who come need to hear that we welcome them, we  accept them, we listen to them and we love them.

 (To be concluded)

Church Shopping (2)

                               Church Shopping (2)

Scandles however are not the major cause of leakage if faced honestly and dealt with promptly. In most cases loyal parishioners will close ranks and pick up the pieces. According to a national survey in 2011, 70% of those who left Catholicism for another church say they did so because their spiritual needs were not being met.  Richard Gaillardetz, professor of theology at Boston College, explains this as “because the quality of Church life is poor and church leadership is inattentive to their real pastoral concerns.” By “quality” he seems to refer to teaching, preaching or community life and liturgy. My personal experience suggests that the quality of the preaching has improved but that the content has not. Homilies are more Scripture based and better prepared, but still comfortable and unchallenging. Community life and liturgy have deteriorated in the last thirty years.  Gaillardetz also points out that our hierarchy seems to focus its recent teaching on abortion, same-sex marriage and artificial birth control – all serious issues but indicative of an emphasis on human sexuality --while ignoring other issues including clerical pedophilia, which is disturbing to many. Twenty years ago the Church dealt with human life as a “seamless garment” that included issues of war and peace, capital punishment and social justice, which are still critical but no longer a priority from the bishops’ perspective.

I am impressed by the emphasis on ongoing adult religious education and formation by many other Christian communities in their Sunday School programs and various groups which focus on Scripture study and family living and by their outreach through home and foreign mission trips. I welcome the efforts which have developed to build such programs among Catholics, though I think more home visits by pastors or parish associates would be more effective in building up the parish community. I know it worked in the past. A priest and his parishioners can get to know each other, to share their needs and vision, far more effectively in the family living-room than from the pulpit to the pew. People will utter criticisms far more easily and honestlyin the privacy  of their home than in public.

Other churches utilize home visit programs with sufficient frequency to suggest that it still works. I think the social gospel of the Church has been reasonably promoted in spite of the amount that is still lacking.  The current economic recession has demonstrated that Christians of all denominations have grasped their responsibility for those who are hungry or homeless. I realize that Christ told us we would never get it perfectly: “The poor you have always with you.”

(To be continued)

                               Church Shopping (1)

I was baptized a Catholic when I was three days old and have been a loyal member of the Church all my life. Recent events have made me ask “Why?” but I am still here.  I have a number of good friends who are committed Christians who have switched their allegiance from one denomination to another over the years

I recently found myself involved in several discussions about why people choose to join a particular church or denomination. In all of them at least one participant was a “former Catholic” who had left the Church for some reason.  (10% of most non-Catholic church members are "former" Catholics), Since surveys show that about 28% of parochial school graduates leave the Catholic Church as adults and that 50% of these join another denomination,  their reasons interest me.

Responses may be indicative of a denomination's liturgy, ecclesiology or rule of faith. Some stress the source of doctrinal orthodoxy, the nature of authority in the church, the style of liturgical celebration, the quality of preaching, the sacramental system or the nature of clerical leadership. The role of women in church ministry is an issue in today’s society. Some focus on the personality of the pastor or the friendliness of the church community. Other churches stress a community outreach to serve those in need while still others are primarily seeking to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. Programs which serve children often have significant effect either through a church school or a religious education program. Generally all of these factors are involved to some degree.

For me Church is a committed community sharing the same vision of the Gospel, who come together to celebrate Christ’s gift of Himself and to live out His message in the world. It is an experience of His presence in the community and once shared is never totally lost.
All these are positive factors in attracting new members but some  negative issues may drive long-time Catholics to leave the Church. Pedestrian liturgy, poor preaching, inadequate or dishonest responses to moral or financial scandals on the local level, insensitive and autocratic decisions by church officials and a reactionary clericalism and return to the pre-Vatican II style church at all levels have led many to say “I have had it”. In some areas, such as Philadelphia or Cleveland today, very public scandals make it embarrassing to say you are a Catholic.

 (To be continued)

Don’t Miss the Trees in the Forest!

There's been a lot of negative publicity about the Catholic hierarchy recently: financial problems with the Vatican Bank, leaking of confidential information linked to accusations of a power struggle and corruption among leaders of the Church, a well-founded perception of sexism in the appointment of an Archbishop to take charge of the Leadership Council of Women Religious (the umbrella group for most orders of nuns) in America, which seemed to be a grab for control of their activities and finances.

Parishes and schools are being closed in some major cities in the north-east and a three month-long trial of a senior pastor in Philadelphia on charges of covering-up child abuse by priests over several decades is ending. Here the jury must assign the responsibility to the priest or to his boss, the now deceased Cardinal-Archbishop.

All of this is nasty news and it has damaged the image and the credibility of the Catholic Church immensely. Even though most of it is occurring far from Orlando, it still deeply concerns most Catholics. The Church is not just the

Vocations to the Priesthood - Part V (Conclusion)

What is a priest?

The role of the priest is described by Christ as the good shepherd, the one who leads and guides the flock. He was also the mediator between God and man, described by Paul (Heb.5:1) as "taken from among men and made their representative before God." Vatican II echoes this same ambivalence about the priests’ role when it writes in the Constitution on the Church : "They are consecrated in order to preach the gospel and shepherd the faithful as well as to celebrate divine worship as true priests of the New Testament."

While the two roles are not exclusive, we tend to emphasize one or other and the functions associated with them: preaching, teaching, administration, presiding at or leading the liturgical celebrations, sanctifying and administering the sacraments. One or other role dominates in the life achievements of most priests, though some can balance both roles remarkably well.

In the traditional role of the pre-1960 priest: he administered the parish, counseled the parishioners, celebrated the mass and sacramental activities of the parish and directed all that went on in the

Election Issues

                                                       Election Issues

The presidential race has been clarified finally by the withdrawal of Ron Paul from the Republican race. So now things get serious. Up to this candidates at least paid lip service to the old principle that you don't soil your own nest, though it seems to have been mainly lip service.

 A few younger politicians actually seem to have tried to discuss issues rather than personalities and hopefully this will benefit them in the long run.  Jimmy Carter was elected president because people saw him  as honest and moral. They eventually get tired of scandal and sleaze in high offuce and

Why Catholic

                                              Why am I still a Catholic?

I blogged the other  day about my concerns with the negative publicity the Church hierarchy is attracting recently, about rigid  responses to nuns, priests and laity and cover-ups by bishops which are clearly dishonest. 

After one has spent pages detailing the failures of Church leaders to live up to the ideals of Christianity, it is necessary to say why I am still Catholic. Every day I run across people who ask “why are you still a Catholic?” The simple answer is Peter’s: “Lord, to whom should we go? You have the words of eternal life!” But those words are increasingly difficult to distinguish in all the clamor and debate today.

As one realizes that the Church only gives us the principles but we must make our own decisions as to their application, right and wrong are no longer simple obedience to another human, be they bishop or pope. Before God

The Irish Church

The Church in Ireland

I have not written much  here lately as I have been writing about the crisis I see developimg in the Church in recent months. We have reactionary responses by bishops to their flocks, a clamp-down by Rome on women religious and the silencing of priests in Ireland for daring to question the edicts of curial big-wigs in the Vatican. All of these are in contraventiom of Vatican II but probably sweet music to the members of  the Society of St. Pius X.

But today's news is a different story. It comes from "Holy Ireland", the land of traditional orthodoxy, where when Rome said "Jump", they asked "How high?" A few daring priests asked "Why?" and decided to meet to discuss a response.  They felt there would be few willing to speak up, at most  they hoped for 100/200. They finished with over 1000, not just priests but lay Catholics, men and (whisper it) even women who felt they too were Church and had a voice. These people had read the Documents of Vatican II, had read the Bible and used their God-given brains under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to understand them.They seem to think that Christ told His Apostles at the Last Supper t6hat they were to serve the Church, not to rule it.

What has the world come to?

Stand by for further bulletins.

The Servant Church

My favorite writers on the Church are Adrian Dulles and Edmund Schillebeeckx, neither of whom were notable liberals. Both have significantly influenced my concept of the Church as well as that expressed by the Bishops at Vatican II, Dulles in delineating various models of Church, Schillebeeckx in forming my vision of the Church as the Body of Christ who acts and speaks through it in the world today. Richard P. McBrien’s “The Church” is probably the best and most readable book on the subject in fifty years. When I started to formulate my vision for the Church of the future, not the heavenly New Jerusalem, but the church down and dirty in its members, I tried to put that vision in words in the context of the world today. I think it is the same vision as that expressed by Vatican II in the document De Ecclesia (About the Church).

My vision harks back to the early church we find in the Acts of the Apostles. It is the church described by Paul who wrote, “Have that mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross”. (Phil 2:5-8). It is the church of the ghetto and