November 17, 2010
WASHINGTON - Catholics for Equality is concerned about the anti-equality direction of the U.S. Catholic bishops in their election of Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York as the new president, and Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville as vice-president, of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). This election broke the long-standing tradition of elevating the current vice-president.
Catholics for Equality Board member Rev. Tony Adams said, "following their tradition would have meant electing a noted social justice champion, Bishop Kicanas of Tucson, to lead the Catholic Church in America. Instead, the bishops chose two outspoken opponents of pro-equality civil rights measures." Both men are leaders against civil rights equality in their states and across the country.
Board member and political strategist Aniello Alioto said, "this election broadens the gap between the people of the Catholic Church in America and the increasingly uncharitable demands of the Pope in Rome. It also threatens the broad American consensus that began with the election of President John F. Kennedy, allowing American Catholics to contribute more fully to the common good as both Americans and as Catholics. We are concerned that this election will result in a shift from the pastoral nature of American Catholicism to efforts to politicize in America the will of Rome."
Concern is amplified by the election of Archbishop Kurtz as the new USCCB Vice President. Archbishop Kurtz, as head the Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, has led the Catholic hierarchy's national campaign to deny marriage and family rights to gay and lesbian citizens. That campaign has been financially assisted by the national office of the Knights of Columbus, most recently through the production of videos that demean and discredit gay and lesbian relationships, as well as single parent and extended family households. Adams said, "American Catholics are alarmed when tax-exempt church resources are diverted from charity, education and parish work into political campaigns and veiled candidate endorsements."
"In his report from the ad-hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, Archbishop Kurtz makes it clear that our bishops are waging a new political campaign to change the laws in our country" Alioto said. The Committee's report compares court challenges to Proposition 8 in California and the federal Defense of Marriage Act to Roe v. Wade and the battle over reproductive rights. This results in a new "pro-family, pro-life" messaging strategy that harms all non-traditional as well as LGBT families. It contributes to the climate that permits bullying and harassment of youth from such families who become at higher risk for depression and suicide.
Catholics for Equality calls upon our bishops to pledge full transparency in all efforts to shift funding from our national charitable, pastoral and educational efforts into the Pope's interference to deny freedom and fairness in American politics. It calls on all Catholics of good conscience to monitor and challenge the priorities of our bishops.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Pope, cardinals don’t need prayer; they need to listen
Nov. 11, 2010
By Thomas P. Doyle
Recently I finished reading Xavier Rynne's monumental volume on the Second Vatican Council. I didn't read it when it was first published because I was struggling through theology, just trying to get a grip on the dogmatic and canonical mysteries of the Catholic church I was born into and into which I had thought I'd soon be ordained.
Reading the book now was more soul-jarring than had I read it then. What's so shocking?
At the council there were a significant number of bishops, archbishops and cardinals who actually had a handle on the real world and on the reasons the Church Triumphant left by Pius XII was so out of touch. This is shocking in light of the fact that these men were raised in a radically different church, steeped in clericalism, power and control.
Some of the men I read about had a much better grip on reality than most of the gilded hierarchs that have been inflicted on God's people over the past two decades. Pope John XXIII and his cohorts may not have liked everything they saw when they opened the windows of the clerical bunker, but at least they realized that before they condemned what they didn't know it might be smart to check it out.
Today's collection of bishops is radically different. Many of them, at least the ones who are regularly holding forth on what is wrong with everything around them, sound and act as if they are living in a hermetically sealedalternate reality. They are convinced that the world "out there" is wrong about most moral and ethical issues. They of course, being the divinely appointed teachers of the human race, are always right. They act and sound as if the only acceptable way for the world to exist is according to whatever norms, models and structures these satin and silk-enshrouded anachronisms hand down. They firmly believe the outside world, steeped as they claim, in secularism and relativism, must change to the extent that it
clearly reflects their myopic view of existence.
The pope keeps agonizing over these encroaching threats of "secularism" and "relativism." Many of the bishops, wanting of course to gain favor in the pontifical eyes, parrot the papal pronouncements in their own attempts to communicate to their "faithful." I have struggled to figure out just what the pope means. I am losing the struggle because I have only a smog covered clue … what he's afraid of is that people out there in the real world … the
abode of the vast majority who aren't Catholic clerics, don't think the way they're supposed to think and that means they don't think like he does.
The Vatican announced Nov. 8 that the pope would hold a meeting Nov. 19 of the world's cardinals, of which there are 183 according to the 2010 Annuario Pontificio, the topic of which will be the world-wide clergy sex abuse scandal. He's also inviting the latest batch of appointees although technically speaking they won't be real
cardinals until the following day when they get to put on their scarlet raiment for the first time.
The meeting, according to Vatican press dispatches, is supposed to include "prayer and reflection." If nothing else, the proposed gathering shows that the worldwide nightmare of clergy sex abuse, which the popes, cardinals and bishops have been desperately trying to shut down by every means imaginable, has finally gotten the pope's attention. If it has the pope's attention and he took the unprecedented step of calling this kind of meeting, you can be
sure a lot of the Vatican luminaries who surround the pope and "advise" him have finally realized that the problem isn't going away.
The trouble is that this will end up being another meaningless disappointment. The worldwide sex abuse nightmare doesn't need "prayer" and "reflection" now and it never needed it because these pious sound-bites are really ineffectual attempts to shift the attention from the gravity of the real problem. If prayer and reflection worked, the problem would have been gone long ago. What the pope and the cardinals really need is an unvarnished
assessment of just how horrendous the world-wide scourge really is and an unvarnished admission that the pope and the collected cardinals and bishops are not just part of the problem. They are the problem.
Pope John Paul II summoned the U.S. cardinals to Rome in April 2002 and told them sex abuse of a child is a crime and a sin. Duh!!!! After this meeting several of the cardinals continued to confirm their abrasive and uninformed attitudes by mouthing off to the effect that it's all a media exaggeration and that priests and bishops cannot be held accountable to civil authorities.
Nothing happened and nothing could have happened just as nothing can possibly happen in the upcoming extravaganza.
If the pope wants to get a real picture of the sex abuse phenomenon, presuming his emotions and intellect can handle it, he needs to talk to the right people. When he and these people get together all he needs to do is say is "Hello! Have some nice esperesso." Then he needs to sit quietly and listen, no matter how long it takes.
He needs to listen to the victims, not just for two minutes apiece as he has done with the dozen or so he's met, but for as long as it takes for him to get a slight glimpse of the horrific nature of this worldwide pandemic. From all he has said so far it's clear that he's a long way from "getting it." He needs to absorb their fears, their anger, their disappointments and he needs to hear their demands.
He needs to forget about defending the perverse actions of the bishops, archbishops and cardinals because there is no honest defense.
He needs to listen to the men and women survivors who have arisen from their prisons of fear and shame and have pulled other survivors together in world-wide support groups. He especially needs to listen to these people because they are the ones in the driver's seat of this whole debacle, not the churchmen who thought they had control of it throughout the decades and even centuries. The popes and the bishops never had control. If they did they would not have had to lie so much.
He needs to listen to some of the attorneys from the United States, Canada, Ireland and England, especially the ones the Exalted Lord Bishops have vilified because these same attorneys forced them to look at the damage they had caused. Many of these attorneys have done what the bishops and priests were either unable to do or afraid to do … they listened, they believed and they provided support.
He needs to listen to the psychologists and psychiatrists who have struggled to help so many victims find peace.
He needs to listen to the same mental health professionals who have tried in vain to wake the episcopal aristocracy up to the harsh reality that most Catholic priests are very immature and some deeply troubled. Unless something radical is done, the sex abuse debacle we have been living through will hardly be the last one.
He needs to listen to those who have been telling him that mandatory celibacy doesn't work.
He needs to listen to those very few priests and even fewer bishops who have stood with the victims and survivors, always at great cost to their own careers. He needs to listen well as they describe what it's like to try to help people whose souls have been shredded and who can't possibly believe in the same God the holds out.
Above all, the pope needs to sit and listen to the devout, faithful, generous and loyal mothers and fathers of the victims. He needs to hear from these men and women the anguish they felt when they learned their little boy or little girl had been raped and molested. He needs to see and hear the abject horror they experienced when that terrible blow was followed by one
much worse .. that the man who did this was a priest!
The pope and the cardinals are wasting their time and a lot of the people's money … money the donors naively thought would go towards helping those in need instead of supporting an anachronistic and hedonistic lifestyle. They are setting themselves up to deliver yet another elaborate public relations "happening" to the world. The Vatican spokesman keeps telling us the pope is deeply concerned about the clergy abuse "crisis," There is little doubt that he is, but not because of the massive harm done to countless victims and their families and to the disappointed faithful who are tired of waiting for the "church" to do something meaningful.
He and the cardinals are deeply concerned, but they're concerned for the wrong reasons. They see their credibility, their power and their relevance eroding at an ever increasing rate. They see a rapidly growing number of Catholics who refuse to be treated as children by the bishops and who pose a very serious threat to the crumbling myth that the pope and the bishops know what's best for all. They see the growing chasm between the moral code the
hierarchy is trying to persuade everyone, even non-Catholics, to accept and the reality of what is really happening out there in the world they are so afraid of.
This meeting will come and go as will the elaborate ceremony the next day when the pope will formally invest the 31 new members of the "Sacred" College. In the long run the most concrete effect of it all will be the added business for the Roman robe makers. The pope, the Vatican and the rest of the world's hierarchy will not bring about the needed change because they
are unable and not simply unwilling to do so. Their personal interests are far too deeply ingrained to allow then to make the sacrifices needed to step down from their thrones and be for the suffering and marginalized rather than for themselves.
The pope and the cardinals have betrayed the real church. They have perpetrated the sexual and spiritual violence just as much as the priests who physically violated the victims. They need to be willing to say "I hurt you" and not hide behind Vatican mumbo jumbo and double-speak.
They need to acknowledge that the formalities and legalities they have relied on to protect their own interests have been secondary and equally vicious acts of violence against the victims.
They need to admit that restitution is essential and deserved by the men and women abused by the immediate perpetrators but also by the church.
They need to acknowledge that they have intentionally tried to shift the responsibility for this worldwide debacle to other persons, to societal forces and even to the victims themselves and they need to admit without qualification that they, the hierarchs of the church, are solely responsible for the horrific damage to the victims and to the Body of Christ.
It is beyond hope that anything but more useless words will come out of this meeting. The fallout will be even more evidence that the institutional church is completely incapable of initiating a change in its self-destructive course.
Editor's Note: Read Eugene Kennedy's take on the pope's meeting with the
world's cardinals: Sex abuse doesn't
top cardinals' agenda -- literally.
[Tom Doyle is a priest, canon lawyer, addictions therapist and long-time
supporter of justice and compassion for clergy sex abuse victims.]
By Thomas P. Doyle
Recently I finished reading Xavier Rynne's monumental volume on the Second Vatican Council. I didn't read it when it was first published because I was struggling through theology, just trying to get a grip on the dogmatic and canonical mysteries of the Catholic church I was born into and into which I had thought I'd soon be ordained.
Reading the book now was more soul-jarring than had I read it then. What's so shocking?
At the council there were a significant number of bishops, archbishops and cardinals who actually had a handle on the real world and on the reasons the Church Triumphant left by Pius XII was so out of touch. This is shocking in light of the fact that these men were raised in a radically different church, steeped in clericalism, power and control.
Some of the men I read about had a much better grip on reality than most of the gilded hierarchs that have been inflicted on God's people over the past two decades. Pope John XXIII and his cohorts may not have liked everything they saw when they opened the windows of the clerical bunker, but at least they realized that before they condemned what they didn't know it might be smart to check it out.
Today's collection of bishops is radically different. Many of them, at least the ones who are regularly holding forth on what is wrong with everything around them, sound and act as if they are living in a hermetically sealedalternate reality. They are convinced that the world "out there" is wrong about most moral and ethical issues. They of course, being the divinely appointed teachers of the human race, are always right. They act and sound as if the only acceptable way for the world to exist is according to whatever norms, models and structures these satin and silk-enshrouded anachronisms hand down. They firmly believe the outside world, steeped as they claim, in secularism and relativism, must change to the extent that it
clearly reflects their myopic view of existence.
The pope keeps agonizing over these encroaching threats of "secularism" and "relativism." Many of the bishops, wanting of course to gain favor in the pontifical eyes, parrot the papal pronouncements in their own attempts to communicate to their "faithful." I have struggled to figure out just what the pope means. I am losing the struggle because I have only a smog covered clue … what he's afraid of is that people out there in the real world … the
abode of the vast majority who aren't Catholic clerics, don't think the way they're supposed to think and that means they don't think like he does.
The Vatican announced Nov. 8
cardinals until the following day when they get to put on their scarlet raiment for the first time.
The meeting, according to Vatican press dispatches, is supposed to include "prayer and reflection." If nothing else, the proposed gathering shows that the worldwide nightmare of clergy sex abuse, which the popes, cardinals and bishops have been desperately trying to shut down by every means imaginable, has finally gotten the pope's attention. If it has the pope's attention and he took the unprecedented step of calling this kind of meeting, you can be
sure a lot of the Vatican luminaries who surround the pope and "advise" him have finally realized that the problem isn't going away.
The trouble is that this will end up being another meaningless disappointment. The worldwide sex abuse nightmare doesn't need "prayer" and "reflection" now and it never needed it because these pious sound-bites are really ineffectual attempts to shift the attention from the gravity of the real problem. If prayer and reflection worked, the problem would have been gone long ago. What the pope and the cardinals really need is an unvarnished
assessment of just how horrendous the world-wide scourge really is and an unvarnished admission that the pope and the collected cardinals and bishops are not just part of the problem. They are the problem.
Pope John Paul II summoned the U.S. cardinals to Rome in April 2002 and told them sex abuse of a child is a crime and a sin. Duh!!!! After this meeting several of the cardinals continued to confirm their abrasive and uninformed attitudes by mouthing off to the effect that it's all a media exaggeration and that priests and bishops cannot be held accountable to civil authorities.
Nothing happened and nothing could have happened just as nothing can possibly happen in the upcoming extravaganza.
If the pope wants to get a real picture of the sex abuse phenomenon, presuming his emotions and intellect can handle it, he needs to talk to the right people. When he and these people get together all he needs to do is say is "Hello! Have some nice esperesso." Then he needs to sit quietly and listen, no matter how long it takes.
He needs to listen to the victims, not just for two minutes apiece as he has done with the dozen or so he's met, but for as long as it takes for him to get a slight glimpse of the horrific nature of this worldwide pandemic. From all he has said so far it's clear that he's a long way from "getting it." He needs to absorb their fears, their anger, their disappointments and he needs to hear their demands.
He needs to forget about defending the perverse actions of the bishops, archbishops and cardinals because there is no honest defense.
He needs to listen to the men and women survivors who have arisen from their prisons of fear and shame and have pulled other survivors together in world-wide support groups. He especially needs to listen to these people because they are the ones in the driver's seat of this whole debacle, not the churchmen who thought they had control of it throughout the decades and even centuries. The popes and the bishops never had control. If they did they would not have had to lie so much.
He needs to listen to some of the attorneys from the United States, Canada, Ireland and England, especially the ones the Exalted Lord Bishops have vilified because these same attorneys forced them to look at the damage they had caused. Many of these attorneys have done what the bishops and priests were either unable to do or afraid to do … they listened, they believed and they provided support.
He needs to listen to the psychologists and psychiatrists who have struggled to help so many victims find peace.
He needs to listen to the same mental health professionals who have tried in vain to wake the episcopal aristocracy up to the harsh reality that most Catholic priests are very immature and some deeply troubled. Unless something radical is done, the sex abuse debacle we have been living through will hardly be the last one.
He needs to listen to those who have been telling him that mandatory celibacy doesn't work.
He needs to listen to those very few priests and even fewer bishops who have stood with the victims and survivors, always at great cost to their own careers. He needs to listen well as they describe what it's like to try to help people whose souls have been shredded and who can't possibly believe in the same God the holds out.
Above all, the pope needs to sit and listen to the devout, faithful, generous and loyal mothers and fathers of the victims. He needs to hear from these men and women the anguish they felt when they learned their little boy or little girl had been raped and molested. He needs to see and hear the abject horror they experienced when that terrible blow was followed by one
much worse .. that the man who did this was a priest!
The pope and the cardinals are wasting their time and a lot of the people's money … money the donors naively thought would go towards helping those in need instead of supporting an anachronistic and hedonistic lifestyle. They are setting themselves up to deliver yet another elaborate public relations "happening" to the world. The Vatican spokesman keeps telling us the pope is deeply concerned about the clergy abuse "crisis," There is little doubt that he is, but not because of the massive harm done to countless victims and their families and to the disappointed faithful who are tired of waiting for the "church" to do something meaningful.
He and the cardinals are deeply concerned, but they're concerned for the wrong reasons. They see their credibility, their power and their relevance eroding at an ever increasing rate. They see a rapidly growing number of Catholics who refuse to be treated as children by the bishops and who pose a very serious threat to the crumbling myth that the pope and the bishops know what's best for all. They see the growing chasm between the moral code the
hierarchy is trying to persuade everyone, even non-Catholics, to accept and the reality of what is really happening out there in the world they are so afraid of.
This meeting will come and go as will the elaborate ceremony the next day when the pope will formally invest the 31 new members of the "Sacred" College. In the long run the most concrete effect of it all will be the added business for the Roman robe makers. The pope, the Vatican and the rest of the world's hierarchy will not bring about the needed change because they
are unable and not simply unwilling to do so. Their personal interests are far too deeply ingrained to allow then to make the sacrifices needed to step down from their thrones and be for the suffering and marginalized rather than for themselves.
The pope and the cardinals have betrayed the real church. They have perpetrated the sexual and spiritual violence just as much as the priests who physically violated the victims. They need to be willing to say "I hurt you" and not hide behind Vatican mumbo jumbo and double-speak.
They need to acknowledge that the formalities and legalities they have relied on to protect their own interests have been secondary and equally vicious acts of violence against the victims.
They need to admit that restitution is essential and deserved by the men and women abused by the immediate perpetrators but also by the church.
They need to acknowledge that they have intentionally tried to shift the responsibility for this worldwide debacle to other persons, to societal forces and even to the victims themselves and they need to admit without qualification that they, the hierarchs of the church, are solely responsible for the horrific damage to the victims and to the Body of Christ.
It is beyond hope that anything but more useless words will come out of this meeting. The fallout will be even more evidence that the institutional church is completely incapable of initiating a change in its self-destructive course.
Editor's Note: Read Eugene Kennedy's take on the pope's meeting with the
world's cardinals: Sex abuse
top cardinals' agenda -- literally.
[Tom Doyle is a priest, canon lawyer, addictions therapist and long-time
supporter of justice and compassion for clergy sex abuse victims.]
Saturday, November 6, 2010
"IF WE WAIT, RENTAPRIEST.COM WILL GO AWAY"
“If we wait, Rentapriest.com will go away”
In the late 1960s when it was expected that the Second Vatican Council would vote to end mandatory celibacy in the Catholic Church, priests were poised to get married. Then Pope John 23rd died and Pope Paul VI was in charge. Mandatory celibacy and birth control went out the same window that John 23rd had opened for this new fresh air to come from the Holy Spirit.
Shocked by the results of Vatican II, the climate in the Catholic priesthood changed and a mass exodus began that lasted for almost twenty-five years. Over 25,000 priests in the U.S. left their clerical ministry and nine out of ten did so to get married, many of them marrying nuns, according to a sociological study done in 1985 and reported in “Full Pews and Empty Altars” (Schoenherr and Young, 1990).
Priests got jobs, started families and became part of the mainstream—some may even be your neighbors or co-workers today. When they left, however, resentment set in by the hierarchy, as one archbishop admitted; some were blackballed in their communities and couldn’t get decent work, and they were told by their bishops that under no circumstances were they allowed to function as priests—in fact, “don’t even think of celebrating Mass” and “don’t tell anyone you’re a priest.” Some were forced to move as much as 500 miles away because of “scandal,” as the church put it.
Through the efforts of one married priest Canon Lawyer, Delmar Smolinski of Michigan, research was conducted in the Code of Canon Law to find church laws that validate the priests’ ordination, and “what about those canons that apply to ministry?” Twenty-one canons were in fact found, beginning with, “…after it has been validly received, sacred ordination never becomes invalid,” (290). More importantly, in the laity section of the Code of Canon Laws lies power to invite a married priest to any sacrament for “any just cause” (1335) and that he “may not deny the Sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them” (843).
While Canon Laws may not be the reason hundreds of thousands of people have contacted rentapriest.com over the last 15 years, it has helped many priests realize that what the bishops told them upon leaving about their priesthood and ministry was not true. It may also explain the reason there has been no cease and desist from the Catholic institution. What CITI Ministries is doing in promoting their availability falls within these Canon Laws—we are valid. The people may not care, but CITI protects married priests in its defiance of the hierarchy, but not its laws.
A few facts:
1. In 1996, Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) based at Georgetown University, conducted a study of Catholics who no longer attended Catholic Church. The results, reported in Maine’s Church World in Feb. 1996 indicated that 73.3% of American Catholics (48 million) had stopped attending Catholic Church. Clergy sexual abuse revelations since 2002 only added to that figure so the publicly held FIGURE OF 30 million is grossly incorrect.
2. When CITI MINISTRIES INC first went into “business” in 1992, it was with the notion that married priests would be invited by bishops and the parishioners to fill in where there were shortages in the church buildings. However, no one called.
3. Much to our surprise after some national publicity due to the name Rent A Priest (received by the Holy Spirit's inspiration in a dream), calls came from the unchurched. While mostly for marriage and remarriage because of denials by their pastor, many calls to rentapriest were also surprisingly received from those whose babies were refused baptism because the parents no longer attended Sunday Mass and “put money in the collection plate."
But, people get complacent and priests get even more complacent. Without the availability of married priests, many important life cycle events may not have the Catholic traditions we grew up with. Married priests may forget what was afforded to them by CITI Ministries by making this service available was out of their lives, in some cases for as much as 20 or 25 years.
Now, CITI is struggling to stay afloat. Is this the end of our mission? Maybe it’s the end of the commercial aspect of our mission and the referrals for marriages are taking care of themselves. Is this all married priests were looking for? A marriage business?
If it's the end of our mission, why are Home Churches popping up? A few of the laity are beginning to notice the value of CITI/Rentapriest because of its association with Roman Catholic married priests. In the past three years, 75 lay people have become support members of CITI. In addition, a clergy sexual abuse survivor and his wife who were responsible for starting a Home Church with married priests are now members of the CITI Board.
While these numbers may not seem like a lot, we are remindful that in 1994 with all its efforts at Corpus/FCM/CTA and other church reform meetings, CITI had only signed up six married priests for its referral service because the others were skeptical. Home Churches are a new phenomenon with Catholics, especially the ones on the fringe, and they too are skeptical. It will take time, but CITI’s laity support member base grew by 23% in 2010 over 2009. Something is going on!
Please help support this effort to the end. We’re crossing a new threshold and really becoming the lay organization that we have been promoting, and we really need your help to continue. There is nothing better that the institution would like at this point than to see us disappear. That is their mantra. Will we succumb to their “If we wait, Rentapriest will go away?” or will we continue to support an organization that has (maybe too quietly) been using our ministry as our protest or our advocacy -- we don't picket -- no time because people need us for spiritual assistance. Close to a half million folks have contacted CITI/rentapriest for a free married priest referral in the past 15 years or so.
How can you help? If you’re a married priest certified member, continue your certification with an added donation. If you’re a sacramental recipient, become a support member at $50 per year for the couple. If you are a Home Church member, do likewise; maybe set up a special collection once a month to benefit CITI's work. If you are none of these things but believe in our ministry, please send a donation so it can continue--so we can continue to recruit married priests and so we can continue to supply referrals. CITI is a 501.c3 non profit and all donations are tax deductible. You can donate online at www.rentapriest.com or send a donation to CITI Ministries, Inc. 14 Middle Street, Brunswick, ME 04011.
Thank you and God bless you.
In behalf of all of us,
Sincerely,
Louise Haggett, Founder/President
CITI Ministries, Inc.
In the late 1960s when it was expected that the Second Vatican Council would vote to end mandatory celibacy in the Catholic Church, priests were poised to get married. Then Pope John 23rd died and Pope Paul VI was in charge. Mandatory celibacy and birth control went out the same window that John 23rd had opened for this new fresh air to come from the Holy Spirit.
Shocked by the results of Vatican II, the climate in the Catholic priesthood changed and a mass exodus began that lasted for almost twenty-five years. Over 25,000 priests in the U.S. left their clerical ministry and nine out of ten did so to get married, many of them marrying nuns, according to a sociological study done in 1985 and reported in “Full Pews and Empty Altars” (Schoenherr and Young, 1990).
Priests got jobs, started families and became part of the mainstream—some may even be your neighbors or co-workers today. When they left, however, resentment set in by the hierarchy, as one archbishop admitted; some were blackballed in their communities and couldn’t get decent work, and they were told by their bishops that under no circumstances were they allowed to function as priests—in fact, “don’t even think of celebrating Mass” and “don’t tell anyone you’re a priest.” Some were forced to move as much as 500 miles away because of “scandal,” as the church put it.
Through the efforts of one married priest Canon Lawyer, Delmar Smolinski of Michigan, research was conducted in the Code of Canon Law to find church laws that validate the priests’ ordination, and “what about those canons that apply to ministry?” Twenty-one canons were in fact found, beginning with, “…after it has been validly received, sacred ordination never becomes invalid,” (290). More importantly, in the laity section of the Code of Canon Laws lies power to invite a married priest to any sacrament for “any just cause” (1335) and that he “may not deny the Sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them” (843).
While Canon Laws may not be the reason hundreds of thousands of people have contacted rentapriest.com over the last 15 years, it has helped many priests realize that what the bishops told them upon leaving about their priesthood and ministry was not true. It may also explain the reason there has been no cease and desist from the Catholic institution. What CITI Ministries is doing in promoting their availability falls within these Canon Laws—we are valid. The people may not care, but CITI protects married priests in its defiance of the hierarchy, but not its laws.
A few facts:
1. In 1996, Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) based at Georgetown University, conducted a study of Catholics who no longer attended Catholic Church. The results, reported in Maine’s Church World in Feb. 1996 indicated that 73.3% of American Catholics (48 million) had stopped attending Catholic Church. Clergy sexual abuse revelations since 2002 only added to that figure so the publicly held FIGURE OF 30 million is grossly incorrect.
2. When CITI MINISTRIES INC first went into “business” in 1992, it was with the notion that married priests would be invited by bishops and the parishioners to fill in where there were shortages in the church buildings. However, no one called.
3. Much to our surprise after some national publicity due to the name Rent A Priest (received by the Holy Spirit's inspiration in a dream), calls came from the unchurched. While mostly for marriage and remarriage because of denials by their pastor, many calls to rentapriest were also surprisingly received from those whose babies were refused baptism because the parents no longer attended Sunday Mass and “put money in the collection plate."
But, people get complacent and priests get even more complacent. Without the availability of married priests, many important life cycle events may not have the Catholic traditions we grew up with. Married priests may forget what was afforded to them by CITI Ministries by making this service available was out of their lives, in some cases for as much as 20 or 25 years.
Now, CITI is struggling to stay afloat. Is this the end of our mission? Maybe it’s the end of the commercial aspect of our mission and the referrals for marriages are taking care of themselves. Is this all married priests were looking for? A marriage business?
If it's the end of our mission, why are Home Churches popping up? A few of the laity are beginning to notice the value of CITI/Rentapriest because of its association with Roman Catholic married priests. In the past three years, 75 lay people have become support members of CITI. In addition, a clergy sexual abuse survivor and his wife who were responsible for starting a Home Church with married priests are now members of the CITI Board.
While these numbers may not seem like a lot, we are remindful that in 1994 with all its efforts at Corpus/FCM/CTA and other church reform meetings, CITI had only signed up six married priests for its referral service because the others were skeptical. Home Churches are a new phenomenon with Catholics, especially the ones on the fringe, and they too are skeptical. It will take time, but CITI’s laity support member base grew by 23% in 2010 over 2009. Something is going on!
Please help support this effort to the end. We’re crossing a new threshold and really becoming the lay organization that we have been promoting, and we really need your help to continue. There is nothing better that the institution would like at this point than to see us disappear. That is their mantra. Will we succumb to their “If we wait, Rentapriest will go away?” or will we continue to support an organization that has (maybe too quietly) been using our ministry as our protest or our advocacy -- we don't picket -- no time because people need us for spiritual assistance. Close to a half million folks have contacted CITI/rentapriest for a free married priest referral in the past 15 years or so.
How can you help? If you’re a married priest certified member, continue your certification with an added donation. If you’re a sacramental recipient, become a support member at $50 per year for the couple. If you are a Home Church member, do likewise; maybe set up a special collection once a month to benefit CITI's work. If you are none of these things but believe in our ministry, please send a donation so it can continue--so we can continue to recruit married priests and so we can continue to supply referrals. CITI is a 501.c3 non profit and all donations are tax deductible. You can donate online at www.rentapriest.com or send a donation to CITI Ministries, Inc. 14 Middle Street, Brunswick, ME 04011.
Thank you and God bless you.
In behalf of all of us,
Sincerely,
Louise Haggett, Founder/President
CITI Ministries, Inc.
Friday, October 22, 2010
John Paul II: The real reason for church polarization
by Richard McBrien
http://ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/john-paul-ii-real-reason-church-polarization
In mid-August a group of young theologians, all under the age of 40, teaching at Catholic colleges, universities, and seminaries met at Fordham University in New York City to discover ways to overcome the polarization they find in today’s Catholic Church.
Although the group did not draft a mission statement as such, it formulated a paragraph as a kind of self-description of their work on behalf of the Church:
“We are young Catholic theologians at colleges, universities or seminaries, who desire to shape our careers in ways that reduce polarization in the American Catholic church. Each of us came of age at some distance from the ideological debates of Vatican II and the immediate postconciliar era, and we believe that our Catholic generation has new opportunities to heal divisions in the body of Christ. We proceed with profound humility toward the previous generation’s tilling of common ground, even as we hope to plant new seeds of faith and charity in our church. As Christians committed to the unity of the Holy Spirit, we approach our task with intellectual solidarity toward one another.”
What does the Fordham group mean by the “ideological” character of the debates at Vatican II? Did those debates represent differences in theological and pastoral emphases, or were they reflective of radically different understandings of the nature, mission, and structural operations of the Church?
Were the debates, however characterized, carried on by two more or less evenly divided groups, or were we dealing instead with an overwhelming majority of bishops and theologians on the one hand and a relatively tiny minority of bishops and their theological allies on the other?
One of the organizers of the Fordham group is a former student of mine at the University of Notre Dame, Charles Camosy. He is now an assistant professor of moral theology at Fordham. Camosy wrote that the controversy at last year’s graduation ceremony at Notre Dame “helped spur the group’s commitment to moving past the polarization that often afflicts internal Catholic discussions.”
But how exactly were the disagreements about President Obama’s invitation to address the graduates of Notre Dame examples of polarization in the Church? And how did these disagree-ments “spur the [Fordham] group’s commitment to [move] past the polarization?” Camosy doesn’t say.
Camosy did suggest, however, that the divisions within the Church were “widened and deep-ened” as a result of the controversy. Again, he doesn’t say how.
He expressed admiration for graduating seniors who cheered President Obama, as well as for those who staged a separate ceremony in protest.
The impression may have been left, however, that both sides were about equal in size. Such was not the case.
The overwhelming majority of graduates were in the Joyce Athletic and Convocation Center. As soon as a few adults who had received entry tickets from anti-Obama students began to shout epithets at the President, the assembled student body -- spontaneously and without any prompt-ing -- began chanting “We are ND!” and continued doing so until the disrupters were removed from the building.
To be sure, the alternative ceremony held elsewhere on campus was conducted peacefully and with dignity, but it never consisted of more than a tiny minority of graduates and their supporters from outside the university.
If the Fordham group of young Catholic theologians were guilty of anything -- beyond their evident good will -- it may have been naivete.
They implied that an older generation of Catholic theologians may have been somehow responsible for the polarization in the Catholic Church by fomenting the so-called culture wars of the 1960s and 1970s “through which much of the council and its aftermath were read.”
But the Fordham group’s sense of history seems truncated. Have they forgotten that after Pope Paul VI, the man elected to the papacy was John Paul I -- the Patriarch of Venice -- and that he died after only 33 days in office?
Had John Paul I not died prematurely, we would never have had John Paul II, who came into office with a clearly conceived plan to re-make the face of the hierarchy -- a plan that involved the dismantling of much of what Paul VI tried to create, particularly a cadre of pastoral bishops committed to carrying out the reforms and renewal launched, under Paul VI’s direction, by Vatican II.
Thus, if there is any single reason why polarization exists in the Catholic Church today it is because of the type of bishops whom John Paul II appointed and promoted within the hierarchy over the course of his 26 and a half years in office.
Any other explanation of the polarization that now afflicts the Church is simply naive.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/john-paul-ii-real-reason-church-polarization
In mid-August a group of young theologians, all under the age of 40, teaching at Catholic colleges, universities, and seminaries met at Fordham University in New York City to discover ways to overcome the polarization they find in today’s Catholic Church.
Although the group did not draft a mission statement as such, it formulated a paragraph as a kind of self-description of their work on behalf of the Church:
“We are young Catholic theologians at colleges, universities or seminaries, who desire to shape our careers in ways that reduce polarization in the American Catholic church. Each of us came of age at some distance from the ideological debates of Vatican II and the immediate postconciliar era, and we believe that our Catholic generation has new opportunities to heal divisions in the body of Christ. We proceed with profound humility toward the previous generation’s tilling of common ground, even as we hope to plant new seeds of faith and charity in our church. As Christians committed to the unity of the Holy Spirit, we approach our task with intellectual solidarity toward one another.”
What does the Fordham group mean by the “ideological” character of the debates at Vatican II? Did those debates represent differences in theological and pastoral emphases, or were they reflective of radically different understandings of the nature, mission, and structural operations of the Church?
Were the debates, however characterized, carried on by two more or less evenly divided groups, or were we dealing instead with an overwhelming majority of bishops and theologians on the one hand and a relatively tiny minority of bishops and their theological allies on the other?
One of the organizers of the Fordham group is a former student of mine at the University of Notre Dame, Charles Camosy. He is now an assistant professor of moral theology at Fordham. Camosy wrote that the controversy at last year’s graduation ceremony at Notre Dame “helped spur the group’s commitment to moving past the polarization that often afflicts internal Catholic discussions.”
But how exactly were the disagreements about President Obama’s invitation to address the graduates of Notre Dame examples of polarization in the Church? And how did these disagree-ments “spur the [Fordham] group’s commitment to [move] past the polarization?” Camosy doesn’t say.
Camosy did suggest, however, that the divisions within the Church were “widened and deep-ened” as a result of the controversy. Again, he doesn’t say how.
He expressed admiration for graduating seniors who cheered President Obama, as well as for those who staged a separate ceremony in protest.
The impression may have been left, however, that both sides were about equal in size. Such was not the case.
The overwhelming majority of graduates were in the Joyce Athletic and Convocation Center. As soon as a few adults who had received entry tickets from anti-Obama students began to shout epithets at the President, the assembled student body -- spontaneously and without any prompt-ing -- began chanting “We are ND!” and continued doing so until the disrupters were removed from the building.
To be sure, the alternative ceremony held elsewhere on campus was conducted peacefully and with dignity, but it never consisted of more than a tiny minority of graduates and their supporters from outside the university.
If the Fordham group of young Catholic theologians were guilty of anything -- beyond their evident good will -- it may have been naivete.
They implied that an older generation of Catholic theologians may have been somehow responsible for the polarization in the Catholic Church by fomenting the so-called culture wars of the 1960s and 1970s “through which much of the council and its aftermath were read.”
But the Fordham group’s sense of history seems truncated. Have they forgotten that after Pope Paul VI, the man elected to the papacy was John Paul I -- the Patriarch of Venice -- and that he died after only 33 days in office?
Had John Paul I not died prematurely, we would never have had John Paul II, who came into office with a clearly conceived plan to re-make the face of the hierarchy -- a plan that involved the dismantling of much of what Paul VI tried to create, particularly a cadre of pastoral bishops committed to carrying out the reforms and renewal launched, under Paul VI’s direction, by Vatican II.
Thus, if there is any single reason why polarization exists in the Catholic Church today it is because of the type of bishops whom John Paul II appointed and promoted within the hierarchy over the course of his 26 and a half years in office.
Any other explanation of the polarization that now afflicts the Church is simply naive.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Open Letter to the Bishop of Fresno
October 14, 2010
Dear Bishop Steinbock
Because I count myself among the people of God, I thank you for writing to me about the fact that a judge has ruled that denying civil marriage to LGBT people is unjust. Your 10 point letter shows that his decision worries you greatly. While I am not sure what you fear will happen once this injustice has been rectified, I have some guesses that puzzle me. I think you deserve a response that may give you some peace of mind. I'd like to address your 10 points with the hope that you will stop your campaign against marriage equality and rejoice in the unencumbered love of God for all the people to whom you wrote. My responses are in italics.
Bishop John T. Steinbock
Homosexual Marriage in California
My dear people of God,
How is one to react to a single judge declaring that homosexuals have a right to be married, overturning the clear will of the majority of the people as expressed in proposition 8? Here are ten brief thoughts:
1. The judge, who is homosexual himself, ethically should have recused himself as he is in the position to benefit financially from a possible homosexual marriage for himself, with tax benefits, etc. His impartiality can certainly be questioned.
I was startled to read your words questioning the impartiality of the judge. Judges come in a variety of colors and predispositions. The best ones deliver sound decisions and rise through the ranks gaining respect for their knowledge of law and their ability to wield it. If the shoe had been on the other foot, the heterosexual one, would you have denigrated that judge's ability to be impartial? Also, I think it is inaccurate and dismissive to label a person as "homosexual" because we no longer know what that word denotes. Does he live with a man? Does he just have sex with strangers? Does he have a set of fetishes not shared by the majority of the LGBT community? Are you acquainted with the private sexual practice of that judge? Have you discussed with him his sexual desires and practices? Have you observed him having sex? Unless you have, you should be hesitant about labeling him as anything but a well respected judge. Gay sex, like straight sex, has a broad bandwidth of possibility. The people of God to whom you have written know well that the sex one married couple practices in the privacy of the domestic bedroom may be nothing like the sex their neighbors have.
So, my response to your first point is twofold: judges can retain their individuality while making wise decisions, and broadly labeling a person's sexuality unless you have had sex with him/her is a dangerous venture. For all we know, that judge may have had sex with more women than have you or I....
2. The judge redefined "marriage," actually making it the same as "a committed relationship or friendship" between any two persons, with no relationship essentially to children or family.
As a consecrated bishop, you yourself regularly redefine civil marriage. You do not see it as valid in the eyes of God. That is why you perform sacramental marriages. You yourself really do not hold civil marriage in high regard. You certainly do not consider it the equivalent of Catholic sacramental marriage. If you did, your sacrament of marriage would be little more than gilding the lily. Civil marriage - gay or straight - retains an essential relationship to the possibility of children and family. When an LGBT couple with children comes forward to be married they are doing so to make solid a foundation of health, safety and happiness for themselves and their children in a world of temporary and uncommitted relationships that are little more than emotional driftwood. How can we but rejoice in this for the sake of our own spiritual well being and for the good of the children involved? I hope that someday you will spend an afternoon with some children raised by LGBT couples - just you and them. I strongly believe that experience might change your perspective.
Also, I suspect this second point of your letter will sting the many Catholic couples who are childless by dint of plumbing or old age. Are their marriages inferior because they don't have children? Do those couples not constitute a family? I think you are skating on some thin ice when you make this distinction.
3. The ruling by its very arguments is imposing the homosexual agenda on the rest of society, and is a form of social engineering according to the judge's ideology.
I do not think there is a "gay agenda". I am gay, but I have no agenda, and my marriage to my partner of 26 years came with absolutely no desire to impose anything on the rest of society. I simply wanted the benefits and rights owed me as a taxpaying citizen of the USA. An agenda is a list of things the accomplishment for which one intends to work. LGBT activists with agendae are an extremely small group. Like the minutemen of Lexington and Concord, they fight so that we can simply stay home and live our little lives in peace and without menace. The overwhelming majority of LGBT people do not wish to change society. They simply wish to be free of oppression and persecution. I suspect you will empathize with that sentiment and I am guessing that ordinarily you do not see this issue from that perspective.
4. It is incredible that the judge literally accuses the millions who voted for proposition 8 of having ill will and discriminatory intent in their vote. How prejudiced and condemnatory can a judge be who is accusing others of prejudice? This is insulting to every one who believes that marriage is a divine institution.
Again, the judge was really not talking about the divine institution of sacramental marriage. That is your province. He and we are talking about civil marriage which is largely a contract governing the disposition of assets. The judge protected the rights of individuals, just as previous judges protected the rights of blacks and all the minorities who comprise this many splendored country. That is why we have laws and judges. To rectify ourselves when we need it. To accomplish good when we can't get there as a crowd.
5. The judge is finding a right in our Constitution that is not present in any way.
I don't quite know how to address this rather astounding statement other than to say that most grade schoolers learning the Constitution for the first time could probably cite the sections that invoke this judge's decision.
6. Human law at many times can be at variance with divine law. This is just one example. Another example in our country would be the so called "right" to have an abortion; another example would be the so called "right" now in some states to euthanasia. Let us never mistake human law as the law of God.
Yes, Your Excellency, let us never mistake human law for the law of God. Just as we have managed to survive and prosper in a country in which abortion and artificial birth control and euthanasia and booze and gambling and prostitution and medical marijuana, corn oil and a slew of other shocking temptations are ours for the having in any number of states, equality in marriage will not cause the walls of Catholicism in America to tumble. Once marriage equality is the law of the land, the sun will shine as it always does, you and I may argue about the merits of various other laws, children will be born and will make lives for themselves by the sweat of their brow, and folks will still die questioning the meaning of it all and hoping that they have done the right thing in this world. What's to fear? I've always wondered why men like you expend so much energy trying to control stuff like this. Why not simply trust the grace of God and that powerful wind that is the Holy Spirit? A wind that blows where it will and can never be contained by the likes of you or me.
7. We must emphasize all the more the true nature of marriage as designed by God, both to ourselves and to our children. Lord only knows what will now be taught in our public schools regarding marriage because of this ruling. It will certainly not be the traditional definition and understanding of "marriage."
I agree with you 100% about this point. I would like to remind you that those very same children already have friends and relatives who are in committed same-sex relationships. The fact of LGBT coupling and marriage will not be news to them. Things that shock and astound you and me barely induce a yawn in the mouths of kids. Gay marriage has already been assimilated in our culture, and surveys show that kids are OK with the concept. (Check out the recent surveys on "Catholics for Equality" to understand the fact that your youngest Catholics have already resolved this issue.) This is the next generation of Catholic kids who will comprise your future flock, not something that will happen long after we are gone. They already see "gay" as a non-issue. Their message to us is "Get over it." Also, don't you have any Catholic schools in the diocese of Fresno? Why not worry about how you will teach marriage to the students in your own schools rather than in public schools?
8. A "true" marriage is a unique relationship between one man and one woman and it is designed to procreate life and form a family, for the good of the children and of society. This is of divine origin and not of human origin.
Whenever someone restates a conclusion as a premise for reaching that conclusion, chances are that that someone has reached a point of exasperation that has short-circuited his ability to argue a position. I am guessing that is what happened to you here. Your 8th statement simply and flatly restates your conclusion without adding any rationale for it. Also, Americans are very hesitant to accept a teaching when the teacher says "This is true because it is of divine origin". In other words "This is what God wants, and I know, because he told me." I'm guessing you may have finished your list and found that you had nine things to say. You then added this one to make it an even ten. We've all done that from time to time, so I'm giving you a pass on this one.
9. We are seeing the result of society separating the gift of sex from bringing forth life, which can infect all of us. More and more people in our society now justify not simply homosexual relationships, but living together without marriage, fornication, sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage, prostitution, contraception, quick and easy divorce. All of these lead us to seeing children as secondary, and self-love becoming more important than self-giving love, which leads to a narcissistic society, with people never really growing up.
You are absolutely right about this, Your Excellency. And the American Roman Catholic clergy (whose patron saint is Peter Pan) are the perfect illustration of your point. If only they had children of their own, they would be less inclined to, as you say, separate the gift of sex from the bringing forth of life. May I assume that you are implying that we ought to have a married clergy?
10. The good old Baltimore Catechism tells us: "The effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony are: 1st, to sanctify the love of husband and wife; 2nd, to give them grace to bear with each other's weaknesses; 3rd, to enable them to bring up their children in the fear and love of God." (BC#1 285)
I still have the Baltimore catechism that I used as a child. Your citations from it are beautiful and any LGBT couple seeking marriage will want those effects. Again, the catechism is talking about the Sacrament of Matrimony, not civil marriage. I hope that once marriage equality becomes the law of the land, you will retain the right to deny my husband and me your Sacrament of Matrimony since that is what you seem energetically to desire and because, as I have stated, I have no agenda. I won't be protesting outside the doors of your church. In fact, I doubt many will disturb the dust on the steps up to those doors as you valiantly protect the exclusivity of your Sacrament of Matrimony.
Let us pray for this judge, for our children, for our society. Lord knows we all need it.
In conclusion, Your Excellency, my thanks for your letter which gave me the opportunity to clarify my thoughts about marriage equality. Your letter also reminded me of the huge gulf between you and me. You are a good servant of the Catholic Church. I have never felt called by God to be a servant. I don't think God desires servitude. Servants have daily agendae which they discharge for compensation. Their employment is conditional upon performance. I am more strongly banking on a story Jesus himself told about the prodigal son. When the father sees his son in the distance as he returns to his father's house after leading a picaresque life, he runs forth to greet him. He doesn't ask the wayward son what he's been up to. He doesn't care about that. He doesn't demand groveling or payback. He calls for a celebration and he overwhelms his son with love, like the rush of a tsunami.
In this world, I've known many priests, bishops and cardinals. The best ones were those who simply did not stand in the way of the grace of God. The fact that some of them were promiscuous or alcoholic or mavericks didn't matter. They gave consolation to the broken and direction to the lost. They had no agendae. They had no rules. They had no fears. They didn't need them because they knew God and they trusted God. You and I should do the same so that when we approach our father's house and find out that he wasn't keeping a list of our tasks and accomplishments after all, we won't be disappointed and we'll be seated not like servants, but at his right hand, life family, like children, like lovers.
Yours among the people of God,
Tony Adams
Dear Bishop Steinbock
Because I count myself among the people of God, I thank you for writing to me about the fact that a judge has ruled that denying civil marriage to LGBT people is unjust. Your 10 point letter shows that his decision worries you greatly. While I am not sure what you fear will happen once this injustice has been rectified, I have some guesses that puzzle me. I think you deserve a response that may give you some peace of mind. I'd like to address your 10 points with the hope that you will stop your campaign against marriage equality and rejoice in the unencumbered love of God for all the people to whom you wrote. My responses are in italics.
Bishop John T. Steinbock
Homosexual Marriage in California
My dear people of God,
How is one to react to a single judge declaring that homosexuals have a right to be married, overturning the clear will of the majority of the people as expressed in proposition 8? Here are ten brief thoughts:
1. The judge, who is homosexual himself, ethically should have recused himself as he is in the position to benefit financially from a possible homosexual marriage for himself, with tax benefits, etc. His impartiality can certainly be questioned.
I was startled to read your words questioning the impartiality of the judge. Judges come in a variety of colors and predispositions. The best ones deliver sound decisions and rise through the ranks gaining respect for their knowledge of law and their ability to wield it. If the shoe had been on the other foot, the heterosexual one, would you have denigrated that judge's ability to be impartial? Also, I think it is inaccurate and dismissive to label a person as "homosexual" because we no longer know what that word denotes. Does he live with a man? Does he just have sex with strangers? Does he have a set of fetishes not shared by the majority of the LGBT community? Are you acquainted with the private sexual practice of that judge? Have you discussed with him his sexual desires and practices? Have you observed him having sex? Unless you have, you should be hesitant about labeling him as anything but a well respected judge. Gay sex, like straight sex, has a broad bandwidth of possibility. The people of God to whom you have written know well that the sex one married couple practices in the privacy of the domestic bedroom may be nothing like the sex their neighbors have.
So, my response to your first point is twofold: judges can retain their individuality while making wise decisions, and broadly labeling a person's sexuality unless you have had sex with him/her is a dangerous venture. For all we know, that judge may have had sex with more women than have you or I....
2. The judge redefined "marriage," actually making it the same as "a committed relationship or friendship" between any two persons, with no relationship essentially to children or family.
As a consecrated bishop, you yourself regularly redefine civil marriage. You do not see it as valid in the eyes of God. That is why you perform sacramental marriages. You yourself really do not hold civil marriage in high regard. You certainly do not consider it the equivalent of Catholic sacramental marriage. If you did, your sacrament of marriage would be little more than gilding the lily. Civil marriage - gay or straight - retains an essential relationship to the possibility of children and family. When an LGBT couple with children comes forward to be married they are doing so to make solid a foundation of health, safety and happiness for themselves and their children in a world of temporary and uncommitted relationships that are little more than emotional driftwood. How can we but rejoice in this for the sake of our own spiritual well being and for the good of the children involved? I hope that someday you will spend an afternoon with some children raised by LGBT couples - just you and them. I strongly believe that experience might change your perspective.
Also, I suspect this second point of your letter will sting the many Catholic couples who are childless by dint of plumbing or old age. Are their marriages inferior because they don't have children? Do those couples not constitute a family? I think you are skating on some thin ice when you make this distinction.
3. The ruling by its very arguments is imposing the homosexual agenda on the rest of society, and is a form of social engineering according to the judge's ideology.
I do not think there is a "gay agenda". I am gay, but I have no agenda, and my marriage to my partner of 26 years came with absolutely no desire to impose anything on the rest of society. I simply wanted the benefits and rights owed me as a taxpaying citizen of the USA. An agenda is a list of things the accomplishment for which one intends to work. LGBT activists with agendae are an extremely small group. Like the minutemen of Lexington and Concord, they fight so that we can simply stay home and live our little lives in peace and without menace. The overwhelming majority of LGBT people do not wish to change society. They simply wish to be free of oppression and persecution. I suspect you will empathize with that sentiment and I am guessing that ordinarily you do not see this issue from that perspective.
4. It is incredible that the judge literally accuses the millions who voted for proposition 8 of having ill will and discriminatory intent in their vote. How prejudiced and condemnatory can a judge be who is accusing others of prejudice? This is insulting to every one who believes that marriage is a divine institution.
Again, the judge was really not talking about the divine institution of sacramental marriage. That is your province. He and we are talking about civil marriage which is largely a contract governing the disposition of assets. The judge protected the rights of individuals, just as previous judges protected the rights of blacks and all the minorities who comprise this many splendored country. That is why we have laws and judges. To rectify ourselves when we need it. To accomplish good when we can't get there as a crowd.
5. The judge is finding a right in our Constitution that is not present in any way.
I don't quite know how to address this rather astounding statement other than to say that most grade schoolers learning the Constitution for the first time could probably cite the sections that invoke this judge's decision.
6. Human law at many times can be at variance with divine law. This is just one example. Another example in our country would be the so called "right" to have an abortion; another example would be the so called "right" now in some states to euthanasia. Let us never mistake human law as the law of God.
Yes, Your Excellency, let us never mistake human law for the law of God. Just as we have managed to survive and prosper in a country in which abortion and artificial birth control and euthanasia and booze and gambling and prostitution and medical marijuana, corn oil and a slew of other shocking temptations are ours for the having in any number of states, equality in marriage will not cause the walls of Catholicism in America to tumble. Once marriage equality is the law of the land, the sun will shine as it always does, you and I may argue about the merits of various other laws, children will be born and will make lives for themselves by the sweat of their brow, and folks will still die questioning the meaning of it all and hoping that they have done the right thing in this world. What's to fear? I've always wondered why men like you expend so much energy trying to control stuff like this. Why not simply trust the grace of God and that powerful wind that is the Holy Spirit? A wind that blows where it will and can never be contained by the likes of you or me.
7. We must emphasize all the more the true nature of marriage as designed by God, both to ourselves and to our children. Lord only knows what will now be taught in our public schools regarding marriage because of this ruling. It will certainly not be the traditional definition and understanding of "marriage."
I agree with you 100% about this point. I would like to remind you that those very same children already have friends and relatives who are in committed same-sex relationships. The fact of LGBT coupling and marriage will not be news to them. Things that shock and astound you and me barely induce a yawn in the mouths of kids. Gay marriage has already been assimilated in our culture, and surveys show that kids are OK with the concept. (Check out the recent surveys on "Catholics for Equality" to understand the fact that your youngest Catholics have already resolved this issue.) This is the next generation of Catholic kids who will comprise your future flock, not something that will happen long after we are gone. They already see "gay" as a non-issue. Their message to us is "Get over it." Also, don't you have any Catholic schools in the diocese of Fresno? Why not worry about how you will teach marriage to the students in your own schools rather than in public schools?
8. A "true" marriage is a unique relationship between one man and one woman and it is designed to procreate life and form a family, for the good of the children and of society. This is of divine origin and not of human origin.
Whenever someone restates a conclusion as a premise for reaching that conclusion, chances are that that someone has reached a point of exasperation that has short-circuited his ability to argue a position. I am guessing that is what happened to you here. Your 8th statement simply and flatly restates your conclusion without adding any rationale for it. Also, Americans are very hesitant to accept a teaching when the teacher says "This is true because it is of divine origin". In other words "This is what God wants, and I know, because he told me." I'm guessing you may have finished your list and found that you had nine things to say. You then added this one to make it an even ten. We've all done that from time to time, so I'm giving you a pass on this one.
9. We are seeing the result of society separating the gift of sex from bringing forth life, which can infect all of us. More and more people in our society now justify not simply homosexual relationships, but living together without marriage, fornication, sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage, prostitution, contraception, quick and easy divorce. All of these lead us to seeing children as secondary, and self-love becoming more important than self-giving love, which leads to a narcissistic society, with people never really growing up.
You are absolutely right about this, Your Excellency. And the American Roman Catholic clergy (whose patron saint is Peter Pan) are the perfect illustration of your point. If only they had children of their own, they would be less inclined to, as you say, separate the gift of sex from the bringing forth of life. May I assume that you are implying that we ought to have a married clergy?
10. The good old Baltimore Catechism tells us: "The effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony are: 1st, to sanctify the love of husband and wife; 2nd, to give them grace to bear with each other's weaknesses; 3rd, to enable them to bring up their children in the fear and love of God." (BC#1 285)
I still have the Baltimore catechism that I used as a child. Your citations from it are beautiful and any LGBT couple seeking marriage will want those effects. Again, the catechism is talking about the Sacrament of Matrimony, not civil marriage. I hope that once marriage equality becomes the law of the land, you will retain the right to deny my husband and me your Sacrament of Matrimony since that is what you seem energetically to desire and because, as I have stated, I have no agenda. I won't be protesting outside the doors of your church. In fact, I doubt many will disturb the dust on the steps up to those doors as you valiantly protect the exclusivity of your Sacrament of Matrimony.
Let us pray for this judge, for our children, for our society. Lord knows we all need it.
In conclusion, Your Excellency, my thanks for your letter which gave me the opportunity to clarify my thoughts about marriage equality. Your letter also reminded me of the huge gulf between you and me. You are a good servant of the Catholic Church. I have never felt called by God to be a servant. I don't think God desires servitude. Servants have daily agendae which they discharge for compensation. Their employment is conditional upon performance. I am more strongly banking on a story Jesus himself told about the prodigal son. When the father sees his son in the distance as he returns to his father's house after leading a picaresque life, he runs forth to greet him. He doesn't ask the wayward son what he's been up to. He doesn't care about that. He doesn't demand groveling or payback. He calls for a celebration and he overwhelms his son with love, like the rush of a tsunami.
In this world, I've known many priests, bishops and cardinals. The best ones were those who simply did not stand in the way of the grace of God. The fact that some of them were promiscuous or alcoholic or mavericks didn't matter. They gave consolation to the broken and direction to the lost. They had no agendae. They had no rules. They had no fears. They didn't need them because they knew God and they trusted God. You and I should do the same so that when we approach our father's house and find out that he wasn't keeping a list of our tasks and accomplishments after all, we won't be disappointed and we'll be seated not like servants, but at his right hand, life family, like children, like lovers.
Yours among the people of God,
Tony Adams
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Artist gathers raw materials, raw emotions with Catholic DVD
Sasha Aslanian, Minnesota Public Radio
October 4, 2010
Minneapolis - The Catholic Church in Minnesota is getting some pushback for a message against same-sex marriage it mailed to 400,000 parishioners last week. The "Preserving Marriage in Minnesota" DVD reiterates the Church's position that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Over the weekend, hundreds of Catholics donated their DVDs to an artist who plans to make an art project out of them.
It's dawn on Sunday, and Lucinda Naylor stands on the sidewalk outside of the Basilica of St. Mary in Minneapolis, the church where until recently, she was artist-in-residence for 15 years. She was suspended from her job after she announced on Facebook her intention to create a personal art project out of the DVDs.
She's holding a sign drawing attention to her "DVD to Art" project. At her feet are three cardboard collection boxes. Parishioners arriving for early morning mass start filling them up, tossing in the DVDs they received in the mail.
Two weeks ago, Minnesota's Roman Catholic bishops launched a campaign against same-sex marriage, mailing a DVD to every Catholic home in the state. Parishioners in the Twin Cities heard a message from Archbishop John Nienstedt.
"The Archdiocese believes that the time has come for voters to be presented directly with an amendment to our state Constitution, to preserve our historic understanding of marriage. In fact, this is the only way to put the one man-one woman definition of marriage beyond the reach of the courts and politicians," Nienstedt said on the video.
The church's position on same-sex marriage certainly wasn't a surprise to Naylor, but she says she felt the step of spending $1 million from an anonymous donor to produce and mail the DVDs, six weeks before the Nov. 2 election, was divisive.
"I know a lot of people who were feeling like the church is sort of pushing them out. And this DVD was really just another way of shoving them out the door, and I didn't want to see good, loving Catholics being shoved out the door," said Naylor. "Every DVD that I collect and turn into a piece of art stands for a Catholic who's saying, 'No, I don't want to go there, I want to be an inclusive and loving Catholic.'"
Some friends and volunteers have shown up to help Naylor. Cars slow down on Hennepin Avenue, and people hand DVDs out their car windows.
People of all ages -- men, women, retirees and hipsters -- carry their white envelopes up to Naylor's sidewalk troop.
"Glad to be rid of it," said one man has he drops his DVD in the box.
Some hug Naylor, others want to talk.
Participants in the Twin Cities Marathon shoot down Hennepin, and a few runners plunk disks in the donation boxes. The runners shed clothing as they stream past and Naylor scavenges a pair of gloves to warm her hands."I'm Dan. I'm in the cathedral choir. I'm going on my ninth year, and I don't like that anyone on earth tells us what to do with our lives," he said. "I opened [the DVD], and it made me cry. ... I just can't play it. I want you to make some art out of it."
There are no counter-protestors or hecklers this morning. A Basilica spokeswoman says the church has nothing to add to the story. Twice, she carries coffee out to Naylor and her friends. The liturgist brings out doughnuts to his old co-worker.
As mass lets out, parishioners express a variety of opinions, though no one criticizes Naylor's DVD to Art project.
"I support the Catholic Church position on communicating the principles of Catholicism, something they believe in and I support it," said Ed Herzog.
"I think the church's teaching is wrong and behind the times," said parishioner Anne Bukoskey. "It'll eventually change. I think that it's so painful and so hurtful."
Another parishioner, Jim Secord, said the DVD arrived in his mailbox the day before.
"Before I make too great a judgment one way or the other, I want to see it."
Naylor collected almost 600 DVDs on Sunday in her boxes, as well as from volunteers outside five other Twin Cities churches. She says that's enough to get her started on her sculpture.
The disks have a photo of a husband and wife's hands gently touching. Underneath, it says, "an urgent message from Archbishop Nienstedt." Naylor's thinking of transforming them into a fire or water motif, to symbolize the Holy Spirit moving through the church in a new way.
"Intermedia Arts has a slogan written on the side of their building that says, 'Art changes everything.' And here's a really wonderful example of art changing everything," said Naylor.
Naylor is still collecting DVDs, and plans to complete her project before the election, which is on Nov. 2.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Time will tell whether new Vatican head is a 'Yes' man
By Richard McBrien
Sep 20, 2010
Cardinal Marc Ouellet, previously archbishop of Quebec and primate of Canada, was recently appointed the new head of the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops. On July 30 he became the Vatican official who makes the final recommendation to the pope regarding appointments to or within the Catholic hierarchy.
Ouellet has been described as a close friend of Pope Benedict XVI -- a friendship which at least one Canadian commentator regards as an asset for the job.
According to a recent article in Canada’s National Post [3], Jesuit Fr. Jacques Monet, a church historian based in Toronto, believes that the longstanding relationship between the cardinal and the pope will not compromise Ouellet’s independence and influence. Monet says Ouellet will not just be a “yes man.”
But that has not been the case with regard to another high-ranking Vatican official, Cardinal William Levada -- the pope’s successor as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). The pope selected him for the post because they had established a close relationship while Levada worked at the CDF several years earlier.
No Vatican observer would claim that Levada is someone of independent influence in the Roman Curia or that he occasionally finds himself saying “no” to the pope.
What sort of perspective will Ouellet bring to the Congregation of Bishops? Will he mark out a new course for episcopal appointments or are we likely to see a continuation of the pattern already laid down by Pope John Paul II and now Benedict XVI?
In my judgment it will be “No” to the second question, and “Yes” to the third.
When commenting on the greatest crisis to confront the Catholic Church since the Reformation of the 16th century, Ouellet seemed to blame the scandal of sexual abuse in the priesthood on the weakening of moral standards in society -- a common explanation given by those who are reluctant to address the internal problems of the church, including obligatory clerical celibacy, the role of women, and the declining quality of pastoral leadership.
Oullet’s rightist views manifested themselves most dramatically, however, in his comments on the Second Vatican Council. In his interview with Charles Lewis of the National Post in mid-August, he expressed the belief that many Catholics interpreted the teachings of Vatican II in far too liberal a fashion and in the process disconnected those teachings from the core of Catholic faith.
That liberal misinterpretation of the council, Ouellet said, led to priests abandoning celibacy, a drop in proper religious education, and a general infusion of leftist politics -- all against the true intentions of Vatican II.
“After the council,” he pointed out, “the sense of mission was replaced by the idea of dialogue. That we should dialogue with other faiths and not attempt to bring them the Gospels, to convert. Since then, relativism has been developing more broadly.”
Ouellet is a long-time editor of and contributor to the theological journal Communio, which was established by conservative theologians to serve as a counter-weight to the interna-tional theological journal Concilium, founded and edited by some of the leading theologians at Vatican II
That list included Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, and even Joseph Ratzinger -- now Pope Benedict XVI -- who contributed an important article on the doctrinal authority of national episcopal conferences for the first issue of the journal.
Ouellet, however, looks upon Hans Urs von Balthasar, not Karl Rahner, as the leading Catholic theologian of the 20th century.
In the area of liturgy he has expressed a devotional preference for eucharistic adoration and a return to the use of Gregorian chant.
Charles Lewis pointed out in his brief profile of Ouellet that the cardinal had been severely criticized by some in Canada for saying that abortion is morally wrong even in the case of rape.
In an attempt to heal the wounds opened by his remarks (but without retracting them), he held a joint press conference with Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of the Ottawa archdiocese calling upon those on both sides of the issue to work together toward reducing the number of abortions.
Ouellet’s effort at healing wounds in that case is to be applauded. Whether such a sense of moderation will also extend to his role in the appointment of bishops remains to be seen.
© 2010 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
* * *
Sep 20, 2010
Cardinal Marc Ouellet, previously archbishop of Quebec and primate of Canada, was recently appointed the new head of the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops. On July 30 he became the Vatican official who makes the final recommendation to the pope regarding appointments to or within the Catholic hierarchy.
Ouellet has been described as a close friend of Pope Benedict XVI -- a friendship which at least one Canadian commentator regards as an asset for the job.
According to a recent article in Canada’s National Post [3], Jesuit Fr. Jacques Monet, a church historian based in Toronto, believes that the longstanding relationship between the cardinal and the pope will not compromise Ouellet’s independence and influence. Monet says Ouellet will not just be a “yes man.”
But that has not been the case with regard to another high-ranking Vatican official, Cardinal William Levada -- the pope’s successor as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). The pope selected him for the post because they had established a close relationship while Levada worked at the CDF several years earlier.
No Vatican observer would claim that Levada is someone of independent influence in the Roman Curia or that he occasionally finds himself saying “no” to the pope.
What sort of perspective will Ouellet bring to the Congregation of Bishops? Will he mark out a new course for episcopal appointments or are we likely to see a continuation of the pattern already laid down by Pope John Paul II and now Benedict XVI?
In my judgment it will be “No” to the second question, and “Yes” to the third.
When commenting on the greatest crisis to confront the Catholic Church since the Reformation of the 16th century, Ouellet seemed to blame the scandal of sexual abuse in the priesthood on the weakening of moral standards in society -- a common explanation given by those who are reluctant to address the internal problems of the church, including obligatory clerical celibacy, the role of women, and the declining quality of pastoral leadership.
Oullet’s rightist views manifested themselves most dramatically, however, in his comments on the Second Vatican Council. In his interview with Charles Lewis of the National Post in mid-August, he expressed the belief that many Catholics interpreted the teachings of Vatican II in far too liberal a fashion and in the process disconnected those teachings from the core of Catholic faith.
That liberal misinterpretation of the council, Ouellet said, led to priests abandoning celibacy, a drop in proper religious education, and a general infusion of leftist politics -- all against the true intentions of Vatican II.
“After the council,” he pointed out, “the sense of mission was replaced by the idea of dialogue. That we should dialogue with other faiths and not attempt to bring them the Gospels, to convert. Since then, relativism has been developing more broadly.”
Ouellet is a long-time editor of and contributor to the theological journal Communio, which was established by conservative theologians to serve as a counter-weight to the interna-tional theological journal Concilium, founded and edited by some of the leading theologians at Vatican II
That list included Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, and even Joseph Ratzinger -- now Pope Benedict XVI -- who contributed an important article on the doctrinal authority of national episcopal conferences for the first issue of the journal.
Ouellet, however, looks upon Hans Urs von Balthasar, not Karl Rahner, as the leading Catholic theologian of the 20th century.
In the area of liturgy he has expressed a devotional preference for eucharistic adoration and a return to the use of Gregorian chant.
Charles Lewis pointed out in his brief profile of Ouellet that the cardinal had been severely criticized by some in Canada for saying that abortion is morally wrong even in the case of rape.
In an attempt to heal the wounds opened by his remarks (but without retracting them), he held a joint press conference with Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of the Ottawa archdiocese calling upon those on both sides of the issue to work together toward reducing the number of abortions.
Ouellet’s effort at healing wounds in that case is to be applauded. Whether such a sense of moderation will also extend to his role in the appointment of bishops remains to be seen.
© 2010 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
* * *
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Newman: the 'sense' and 'consent' of the faithful
By Robert McClory, September 16, 2010
There is stark irony in the words Pope Benedict XVI chose when he announced last February his plan to visit England this year and there pronounce John Henry Newman as among the “blessed,” just one step from canonization as a saint. He cited Newman as an example for all the world of opposition to dissent. “In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises,” said the pope, “it is important to recognize dissent for what it is and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate.”
If Newman’s remains had not decomposed -- as Vatican investigators discovered when they attempted to dig up his coffin in 2008 seeking evidence of his sanctity -- he would have been spinning in his grave. For Newman was as singular a voice for responsible dissent and the rights of the laity as the Roman Catholic church has ever seen. He paid dearly for his convictions and was very nearly silenced or worse when he became embroiled in 1859 in a controversy over the development of doctrine.
The idea of development was not popular at the time, especially among the hierarchy. So Newman, using history to make his point, wrote about the Arian heresy of the 4th century. Twenty-five years before, he had produced a massive, scholarly history of the Arians and how they failed, despite a 50-year, emperor-supported campaign to impose as church doctrine the belief that Christ was not divine; rather, he was a most elevated, godlike being, but creature nevertheless. Now in a lengthy, pointed article, titled “On Consulting the Faithful on Matters of Doctrine,” Newman argued that the Arian position, shared by the overwhelming majority of the bishops and endorsed by at least one pope, did not become Catholic doctrine because a great mass of the laity along with a handful of priests and bishops resisted. Despite beatings, seizures of property and in some cases martyrdom, they refused, they dissented. They clung to the doctrine of the Council of Nicea, which, they were assured, had been discredited. Only at the First Council of Constantinople was the Arian position repudiated.
Belief in Christ’s divinity was maintained during the greater part of the 4th century, wrote Newman, “not by the unswerving firmness of the Holy See, Councils or Bishops, but … by the consensus fidelium [consent of the faithful]. On the one hand, I say, there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens [the teaching church]. The body of the Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. … There were untrustworthy Councils, unfaithful Bishops; there was weakness, fear of consequences, misguidance, delusion, hallucination, endless, hopeless, extending itself into nearly every corner of the Catholic church.”
To explain how such a thing happened (and could happen again), Newman relied on his own, well developed ideas about the “sense” and the “consent” of the faithful. Church teaching, he argued cannot be a top-down enterprise, a one-way street. It must be the result of a conspiratio, literally a breathing together of the faithful and the bishops. It is the first responsibility of the episcopacy and papacy, he said, to listen carefully before teaching doctrine.
And to what must they listen? Said Newman, “I think I am right in saying that the tradition of the Apostles, committed to the whole Church … manifests itself variously at various times: sometimes by the mouth of the episcopacy, sometimes by the doctors, sometimes by the people, sometimes by liturgies … customs, disputes, movements, and all those other phenomena which are comprised under the name of history. It follows that none of these channels of tradition may be treated with disrespect.” This is not to undercut the teaching authority of the bishops, insisted Newman; they must wade through all these sources. And, he added, of all the sources, “I am accustomed to lay stress on the consensus fidelium.”
Newman strove for most of his life as a Roman Catholic to open the minds of English Catholics, lay and clerical. In this he had scant success, living for most of his remaining years under a cloud of suspicion. At one point, he was labeled “the most dangerous man in England.” Then in Newman’s final days Pope Pius IX died and his successor, Leo XIII, removed the cloud by naming Newman a cardinal. It was at the Second Vatican Council that Newman found a larger measure of vindication. Theologians by then had embraced and expanded on his ideas of doctrinal development and the importance of consulting the faithful. The fingerprints of Newman can be found on many council documents, most notably the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. Pope Paul VI went so far as to say Vatican II was “Newman’s council.”
The beatification of John Henry Newman now seems more a scandal than cause for celebration as those who are determined to rewrite Vatican II seek to enlist Newman in their misrepresentation. He will not join the movement.
[Robert McClory is the author of Faithful Dissenters: Men and Women Who Loved and Changed the Church.]
National Catholic Reporter
There is stark irony in the words Pope Benedict XVI chose when he announced last February his plan to visit England this year and there pronounce John Henry Newman as among the “blessed,” just one step from canonization as a saint. He cited Newman as an example for all the world of opposition to dissent. “In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises,” said the pope, “it is important to recognize dissent for what it is and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate.”
If Newman’s remains had not decomposed -- as Vatican investigators discovered when they attempted to dig up his coffin in 2008 seeking evidence of his sanctity -- he would have been spinning in his grave. For Newman was as singular a voice for responsible dissent and the rights of the laity as the Roman Catholic church has ever seen. He paid dearly for his convictions and was very nearly silenced or worse when he became embroiled in 1859 in a controversy over the development of doctrine.
The idea of development was not popular at the time, especially among the hierarchy. So Newman, using history to make his point, wrote about the Arian heresy of the 4th century. Twenty-five years before, he had produced a massive, scholarly history of the Arians and how they failed, despite a 50-year, emperor-supported campaign to impose as church doctrine the belief that Christ was not divine; rather, he was a most elevated, godlike being, but creature nevertheless. Now in a lengthy, pointed article, titled “On Consulting the Faithful on Matters of Doctrine,” Newman argued that the Arian position, shared by the overwhelming majority of the bishops and endorsed by at least one pope, did not become Catholic doctrine because a great mass of the laity along with a handful of priests and bishops resisted. Despite beatings, seizures of property and in some cases martyrdom, they refused, they dissented. They clung to the doctrine of the Council of Nicea, which, they were assured, had been discredited. Only at the First Council of Constantinople was the Arian position repudiated.
Belief in Christ’s divinity was maintained during the greater part of the 4th century, wrote Newman, “not by the unswerving firmness of the Holy See, Councils or Bishops, but … by the consensus fidelium [consent of the faithful]. On the one hand, I say, there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens [the teaching church]. The body of the Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. … There were untrustworthy Councils, unfaithful Bishops; there was weakness, fear of consequences, misguidance, delusion, hallucination, endless, hopeless, extending itself into nearly every corner of the Catholic church.”
To explain how such a thing happened (and could happen again), Newman relied on his own, well developed ideas about the “sense” and the “consent” of the faithful. Church teaching, he argued cannot be a top-down enterprise, a one-way street. It must be the result of a conspiratio, literally a breathing together of the faithful and the bishops. It is the first responsibility of the episcopacy and papacy, he said, to listen carefully before teaching doctrine.
And to what must they listen? Said Newman, “I think I am right in saying that the tradition of the Apostles, committed to the whole Church … manifests itself variously at various times: sometimes by the mouth of the episcopacy, sometimes by the doctors, sometimes by the people, sometimes by liturgies … customs, disputes, movements, and all those other phenomena which are comprised under the name of history. It follows that none of these channels of tradition may be treated with disrespect.” This is not to undercut the teaching authority of the bishops, insisted Newman; they must wade through all these sources. And, he added, of all the sources, “I am accustomed to lay stress on the consensus fidelium.”
Newman strove for most of his life as a Roman Catholic to open the minds of English Catholics, lay and clerical. In this he had scant success, living for most of his remaining years under a cloud of suspicion. At one point, he was labeled “the most dangerous man in England.” Then in Newman’s final days Pope Pius IX died and his successor, Leo XIII, removed the cloud by naming Newman a cardinal. It was at the Second Vatican Council that Newman found a larger measure of vindication. Theologians by then had embraced and expanded on his ideas of doctrinal development and the importance of consulting the faithful. The fingerprints of Newman can be found on many council documents, most notably the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. Pope Paul VI went so far as to say Vatican II was “Newman’s council.”
The beatification of John Henry Newman now seems more a scandal than cause for celebration as those who are determined to rewrite Vatican II seek to enlist Newman in their misrepresentation. He will not join the movement.
[Robert McClory is the author of Faithful Dissenters: Men and Women Who Loved and Changed the Church.]
National Catholic Reporter
thank you, Bishop Harpigny!!
By Diogenes | September 15, 2010
Is a bishop above the law?
In the United States, a Catholic priest who is credibly accused of sexual abuse is immediately suspended. He is not allowed to wear clerical garb. If the evidence is clear and damning, he may be permanently dismissed from priestly ministry. He may even be reduced to the lay state-"defrocked," as the newspapers put it-and the Church has nothing more to do with him.
When a bishop is credibly accused of sexual abuse, on the other hand, he is allowed to retire quietly. He retains his title and perquisites. He is treated with respect by his successors; he may even join them in public ceremonies.
Why do bishops escape canonical punishment?
Vatican officials explain that there is no effective provision in canon law for disciplinary action against a bishop. The Pope can request his resignation, but ecclesiastical courts are not set up to take further action against a bishop.
Well, if that is true (and I'll defer to canon lawyers on that question), canon law needs to be changed-as indeed the canon law applicable to the US was changed in response to the sex-abuse crisis.
Bishop Guy Harpigny of Tournai, Belgium, has made this argument regarding the case of his disgraced colleague, Bishop Roger Vangheluwe. Yes, Vangheluwe has resigned. But Bishop Harpigny wants more. Laicization? Why not? An ecclesiastical trial? Yes. "But any signal would be a good one."
Any signal, indeed. Even if a canonical trial is impossible, the faithful can still hope and pray that a few bold bishops will speak out to denounce the colleagues who have dragged our Church into scandal. For most of a decade, American Catholics have waited for a bishop-just one bishop!-to say something like this:
I am appalled by the example of Bishop X. He has betrayed us and harmed the Church. He is no longer welcome at meetings of our episcopal conference. He has stained the honor of the episcopate, and is no longer worthy to bear the title of bishop. I shall pray for his conversion, his welfare, and his salvation. But I can no longer consider him a colleague.
In the US, we're still waiting. But now we hear something very much like that statement, coming from Belgium, where the outrage is still fresh.
Thank you, Bishop Harpigny. Your signal came through, loud and clear.
Is a bishop above the law?
In the United States, a Catholic priest who is credibly accused of sexual abuse is immediately suspended. He is not allowed to wear clerical garb. If the evidence is clear and damning, he may be permanently dismissed from priestly ministry. He may even be reduced to the lay state-"defrocked," as the newspapers put it-and the Church has nothing more to do with him.
When a bishop is credibly accused of sexual abuse, on the other hand, he is allowed to retire quietly. He retains his title and perquisites. He is treated with respect by his successors; he may even join them in public ceremonies.
Why do bishops escape canonical punishment?
Vatican officials explain that there is no effective provision in canon law for disciplinary action against a bishop. The Pope can request his resignation, but ecclesiastical courts are not set up to take further action against a bishop.
Well, if that is true (and I'll defer to canon lawyers on that question), canon law needs to be changed-as indeed the canon law applicable to the US was changed in response to the sex-abuse crisis.
Bishop Guy Harpigny of Tournai, Belgium, has made this argument regarding the case of his disgraced colleague, Bishop Roger Vangheluwe. Yes, Vangheluwe has resigned. But Bishop Harpigny wants more. Laicization? Why not? An ecclesiastical trial? Yes. "But any signal would be a good one."
Any signal, indeed. Even if a canonical trial is impossible, the faithful can still hope and pray that a few bold bishops will speak out to denounce the colleagues who have dragged our Church into scandal. For most of a decade, American Catholics have waited for a bishop-just one bishop!-to say something like this:
I am appalled by the example of Bishop X. He has betrayed us and harmed the Church. He is no longer welcome at meetings of our episcopal conference. He has stained the honor of the episcopate, and is no longer worthy to bear the title of bishop. I shall pray for his conversion, his welfare, and his salvation. But I can no longer consider him a colleague.
In the US, we're still waiting. But now we hear something very much like that statement, coming from Belgium, where the outrage is still fresh.
Thank you, Bishop Harpigny. Your signal came through, loud and clear.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Kathy Kelly: Banning Slaughter
[Kathy Kelly is a recipient of the Pax Christi Maine Oscar Romero Award
September 13, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
In the early 1970’s, I spent two summers slinging pork loins in a Chicago meat-packing factory. Rose Packing Company paid a handful of college students $2.25 an hour to process pork. Donning combat boots, yellow rubber aprons, goggles, hairnets and floor length white smocks that didn’t stay white very long, we’d arrive on the factory floor. Surrounded by deafening machinery, we’d step over small pools of blood and waste, adjusting ourselves to the rancid odors, as we headed to our posts. I’d step onto a milk crate in front of a huge bin full of thawing pork loins. Then, swinging a big, steel T-hook, I’d stab a large pork loin, pull it out of the pile, and plop it on a conveyor belt carrying meat into the pickle juice machine. Sometimes a roar from a foreman would indicate a switch to processing Canadian pork butts, which involved swiftly shoving metal chips behind rectangular cuts of meat. On occasion, I’d be assigned to a machine that squirted meat waste meat into a plastic tubing, part of the process for making hot dogs. I soon became a vegetarian.
But, up until some months ago, if anyone had ever said to me, “Kathy Kelly, you slaughtered animals,” I’m sure I would have denied it, and maybe even felt a bit indignant. Recently, I realized that in fact I did participate in animal slaughter. It’s similar, isn’t it, to widely held perceptions here in the United States about our responsibility for killing people in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iraq and other areas where the U.S. routinely kills civilians.
The actual killing seems distant, almost unnoticeable, and we grow so accustomed to our remote roles that we hardly notice the rising antagonism caused by U.S. aerial attacks, using remotely piloted drones. The drones fire missiles and drop bombs that incinerate people in the targeted area, many of them civilians whose only “crime” is to be living with their family.
Villagers in Afghanistan and Pakistan have little voice in the court of U.S. public opinion and no voice whatsoever in U.S. courts of law. Aiming to raise concern over U.S. usage of drones for targeted killings, 14 of us have been preparing for a trial here in Las Vegas, where we are charged under Nevada state law with having trespassed at Creech Air Force Base, in nearby Indian Springs, Nevada.
The charges stem from an April, 2009 action when several dozen people held vigils at the main gate to Creech AFB for ten days. One of our banners said, “Ground the Drones, Lest Ye Reap the Whirlwind.” Franciscan priest Jerry Zawada’s sign said: “The drones don’t hear the groans of the people on the ground, --and neither do we.” Jerry carried that sign onto the base on April 9, 2009 when 14 of us attempted to deliver several letters to the base commander, Colonel Chambliss. Nevada state authorities charged us with trespass. We believed that international law, which clearly prohibits targeted assassinations, obliged us to prevent drone strikes. “It is incumbent on pilots, whether remote or not, to ensure that a commander’s assessment of the legality of a proposed strike is borne out by visual confirmation,” writes Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, “and that the target is in fact lawful, and that the requirements of necessity, proportionality, and discrimination are met.”
The United States isn’t at war with Pakistan. U.S. leaders repeatedly stress that Pakistan is our ally. Nevertheless, U.S. operated drones are used for targeted killing in North and South Waziristan. “Targeted killing is the most coercive tactic employed in the war on terrorism,” according to the Harvard Journal. “Unlike detention or interrogation, it is not designed to capture the terrorist, monitor his or her actions, or extract information; simply put, it is designed to eliminate the terrorist.”
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The Catholic church is in crisis, but it is still able to influence and inspire
The pope's visit to Britain will prompt some noisy protests, but despite that opposition he deserves to be heard
Madeleine Bunting
The Guardian, Monday 6 September 2010
A wise priest advised me a long time ago never to go near the engine room – the Vatican. Keep well away, he warned. I've always followed his advice. This priest was a man of immense humanity – warm-hearted, gentle, humble and radical in his interpretation of the Catholic faith.
But he has long since died so I have no one to advise me what you do when all the papal panoply of pomp and authority comes to visit, as it will do next week. As someone who took the decision six months ago to withdraw from the Catholicism I was brought up with, I'm bracing myself for an uncomfortable few days. I suspect it will be rather like those excruciating moments when a rather loud elderly relative turns up at the wedding.
Given the sluggish response on ticket sales for the papal events, perhaps there are plenty inside the Catholic church as well as outside who are similarly unconvinced that they want to spend too much time with this German theologian. He may be intellectually brilliant, but he has been remarkably clumsy – and that is putting it charitably – in handling a raft of issues, from the sex abuse scandals, women's ordination, through to relations with Anglicanism and Islam.
That has re-energised the anti-Catholicism that has long been an unpleasant undercurrent in British culture; Guy Fawkes and bonfire night are remnants of the deep distrust and hostility with which Catholics have been regarded. But in recent years, this old tradition has gathered new purpose – one can presume the visit will prompt some noisy protests, at least that is what we have been promised by a range of critics from Peter Tatchell to Richard Dawkins.
Many of the accusations levelled at the Catholic church have substance. This is a church in crisis in the developed world. Outside its huge growth areas in Africa and Asia, it has been badly damaged by the scandal of priests sexually abusing children. In a new poll commissioned by the Catholic weekly the Tablet, more than half (55%) of Catholics thought the sex abuse issue had been badly handled; only 11% were satisfied by the response.
The sex abuse scandals are deeply shocking to Catholics because they strike at the core of the institution's structure: the authority of the priesthood and the deference of the laity. It was not that the incidence of child abusers was higher among the priesthood, but that priests had far more opportunity to reach vulnerable children, and the church's preoccupation with avoiding scandal ensured they were not punished. The wider problem for Catholicism is that the sex abuse scandal over the last decade and a half has coincided with a broader social phenomenon – the end of deference. A model of institutional authority is imploding. The majority of Catholics under 50 no longer expect priests, or even a pope, to give them moral instruction. Teachings on contraception, remarriage and homosexuality are simply ignored.
Timothy Radcliffe, former head of the Dominican order, says the model of what the church is and how it operates is not working any more. He traces the difficulties back to the Counter-Reformation; from the maelstrom of Reformation Europe, a militant Catholicism emerged with a great emphasis on obedience and conformity. It is this model of church that is now struggling. "It's creaking and groaning at the moment," he says.
Congregations are simply voting with their feet; mass attendance in England and Wales in 1991 was 1.3 million, a drop of 40% since 1963, and by 2004 it had fallen to 960,000. Catholic weddings fell by 25% in the 10 years up to 2007, twice the national rate of decline. The number of priests fell by a quarter in 20 years (1985-2005), and the rate of decline is expected to accelerate, given their demographic profile. This last is hugely significant – no one really knows what happens to a church whose rituals and structure are premised on plenty of priests when the supply dries up.
My generation grew up in the rosy afterglow of Vatican Council II, when an extraordinary new energy and optimism had been unleashed in the Church. Latin had finally been abandoned, women gave up wearing the black lace mantilla to church, a new generation of enthusiastic priests arrived in parishes. As one wise old monk told me recently, Rome was abuzz with ideas and debate. In 1969, he remembered, a cardinal stood up in front of his peers and issued a rallying cry for the church to reform itself, identifying its three perennial problems as legalism, clericalism and triumphalism.
It was a brave and accurate analysis then, but what followed in the next decades was the closing down of debate in response to a terrible fear of fragmentation. Successive popes, including the current incumbent, put the unity of the institution above all other priorities. The hatches were battened down. All the debates that have torn the Anglican communion apart in recent years have gone underground in the Catholic church: it's a moot point which is the most effective way for a religious institution to deal with challenge. Both carry a punishingly high cost in terms of authority, credibility and, most important, the affection and loyalty that sustains an institution's life.
It's easy to criticise Catholicism – and plenty do so. But I have no inclination to join that chorus of contempt, even if I have lost faith in the institution. Deeply flawed it may be, but it is an extraordinary institution that has communicated a set of ideals over two millenniums. I have met dozens of remarkable people who ground their great compassion in its traditions and rituals. I have seen and heard people describe how it has made meaning of their frustrations and tragedies, helping shape the story of their lives. We live in a time when such things are little understood but sorely missed.
The Catholic church has always struggled to live up to its idealism, but its own failures don't compromise its conviction in their truth: the unique worth of each human being, divinely created. It has always balanced the subversive radicalism of this belief with its own quest for power and authority; at different times in different places, one wins out over the other. A global institution a billion strong will always be riddled with paradox and contradictions.
While it has failed on many fronts to engage with social change – the position of women or a reappraisal of its attitudes to sexuality – in other areas it has been strikingly successful. The papacy has been a powerful critic of the arms trade, war, global inequality. Above all, the church has mounted a powerful intellectual critique of capitalism for more than a century, challenging its inequality and instrumentalisation of human beings as a means to achieve profit. Curiously, this tradition is feeding into British politics more directly than ever before – both the Red Tory Philip Blond and Labour's favourite new speechwriter Maurice Glasman acknowledge its influence.
So the Catholic church may be down, but it's not out. It still has the capacity to influence and inspire. Its current predicament provokes huge questions about how religious faith is being transformed by modernity – its institutions stretched to breaking point. While the pope
Madeleine Bunting
The Guardian, Monday 6 September 2010
A wise priest advised me a long time ago never to go near the engine room – the Vatican. Keep well away, he warned. I've always followed his advice. This priest was a man of immense humanity – warm-hearted, gentle, humble and radical in his interpretation of the Catholic faith.
But he has long since died so I have no one to advise me what you do when all the papal panoply of pomp and authority comes to visit, as it will do next week. As someone who took the decision six months ago to withdraw from the Catholicism I was brought up with, I'm bracing myself for an uncomfortable few days. I suspect it will be rather like those excruciating moments when a rather loud elderly relative turns up at the wedding.
Given the sluggish response on ticket sales for the papal events, perhaps there are plenty inside the Catholic church as well as outside who are similarly unconvinced that they want to spend too much time with this German theologian. He may be intellectually brilliant, but he has been remarkably clumsy – and that is putting it charitably – in handling a raft of issues, from the sex abuse scandals, women's ordination, through to relations with Anglicanism and Islam.
That has re-energised the anti-Catholicism that has long been an unpleasant undercurrent in British culture; Guy Fawkes and bonfire night are remnants of the deep distrust and hostility with which Catholics have been regarded. But in recent years, this old tradition has gathered new purpose – one can presume the visit will prompt some noisy protests, at least that is what we have been promised by a range of critics from Peter Tatchell to Richard Dawkins.
Many of the accusations levelled at the Catholic church have substance. This is a church in crisis in the developed world. Outside its huge growth areas in Africa and Asia, it has been badly damaged by the scandal of priests sexually abusing children. In a new poll commissioned by the Catholic weekly the Tablet, more than half (55%) of Catholics thought the sex abuse issue had been badly handled; only 11% were satisfied by the response.
The sex abuse scandals are deeply shocking to Catholics because they strike at the core of the institution's structure: the authority of the priesthood and the deference of the laity. It was not that the incidence of child abusers was higher among the priesthood, but that priests had far more opportunity to reach vulnerable children, and the church's preoccupation with avoiding scandal ensured they were not punished. The wider problem for Catholicism is that the sex abuse scandal over the last decade and a half has coincided with a broader social phenomenon – the end of deference. A model of institutional authority is imploding. The majority of Catholics under 50 no longer expect priests, or even a pope, to give them moral instruction. Teachings on contraception, remarriage and homosexuality are simply ignored.
Timothy Radcliffe, former head of the Dominican order, says the model of what the church is and how it operates is not working any more. He traces the difficulties back to the Counter-Reformation; from the maelstrom of Reformation Europe, a militant Catholicism emerged with a great emphasis on obedience and conformity. It is this model of church that is now struggling. "It's creaking and groaning at the moment," he says.
Congregations are simply voting with their feet; mass attendance in England and Wales in 1991 was 1.3 million, a drop of 40% since 1963, and by 2004 it had fallen to 960,000. Catholic weddings fell by 25% in the 10 years up to 2007, twice the national rate of decline. The number of priests fell by a quarter in 20 years (1985-2005), and the rate of decline is expected to accelerate, given their demographic profile. This last is hugely significant – no one really knows what happens to a church whose rituals and structure are premised on plenty of priests when the supply dries up.
My generation grew up in the rosy afterglow of Vatican Council II, when an extraordinary new energy and optimism had been unleashed in the Church. Latin had finally been abandoned, women gave up wearing the black lace mantilla to church, a new generation of enthusiastic priests arrived in parishes. As one wise old monk told me recently, Rome was abuzz with ideas and debate. In 1969, he remembered, a cardinal stood up in front of his peers and issued a rallying cry for the church to reform itself, identifying its three perennial problems as legalism, clericalism and triumphalism.
It was a brave and accurate analysis then, but what followed in the next decades was the closing down of debate in response to a terrible fear of fragmentation. Successive popes, including the current incumbent, put the unity of the institution above all other priorities. The hatches were battened down. All the debates that have torn the Anglican communion apart in recent years have gone underground in the Catholic church: it's a moot point which is the most effective way for a religious institution to deal with challenge. Both carry a punishingly high cost in terms of authority, credibility and, most important, the affection and loyalty that sustains an institution's life.
It's easy to criticise Catholicism – and plenty do so. But I have no inclination to join that chorus of contempt, even if I have lost faith in the institution. Deeply flawed it may be, but it is an extraordinary institution that has communicated a set of ideals over two millenniums. I have met dozens of remarkable people who ground their great compassion in its traditions and rituals. I have seen and heard people describe how it has made meaning of their frustrations and tragedies, helping shape the story of their lives. We live in a time when such things are little understood but sorely missed.
The Catholic church has always struggled to live up to its idealism, but its own failures don't compromise its conviction in their truth: the unique worth of each human being, divinely created. It has always balanced the subversive radicalism of this belief with its own quest for power and authority; at different times in different places, one wins out over the other. A global institution a billion strong will always be riddled with paradox and contradictions.
While it has failed on many fronts to engage with social change – the position of women or a reappraisal of its attitudes to sexuality – in other areas it has been strikingly successful. The papacy has been a powerful critic of the arms trade, war, global inequality. Above all, the church has mounted a powerful intellectual critique of capitalism for more than a century, challenging its inequality and instrumentalisation of human beings as a means to achieve profit. Curiously, this tradition is feeding into British politics more directly than ever before – both the Red Tory Philip Blond and Labour's favourite new speechwriter Maurice Glasman acknowledge its influence.
So the Catholic church may be down, but it's not out. It still has the capacity to influence and inspire. Its current predicament provokes huge questions about how religious faith is being transformed by modernity – its institutions stretched to breaking point. While the pope
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Reform of the reform secularizes the sacred
By Eugene Cullen Kennedy
Aug 26, 2010
Originally published in Bulletins from the Human Side
Even their advocates make the new liturgical translations sound like medicine for -- instead of the symptoms of -- a disorder that demeans the sacramental nature of Catholicism. Swallow this they urge -- like mothers forcing a spoon aquiver with spring tonic on their young -- it will be good for you. Thus Our Sunday Visitor reassures readers that responding "and with your spirit" is superior to "and also with you" because it literally mimics the original Latin, which, of course, is exactly what is wrong with it.
This minor footnote to the impending transition is also a fever reading of this affliction that, as with many illnesses, makes people feel sick before anybody has a name for it. The problem is illustrated by, but extends well beyond the new liturgical translations that are currently being packaged with as little concern for their contents or effects as the patent medicines that were hawked off the backs of 19th century wagons.
These new translations are signals of a widespread spiritual malaise that is a function of shorting out the connection between people’s experience of life and its spiritual, or sacramental, symbolization in their religion. They are thereby denied the energy of a sacramental system to ground them in and guide them through the mysterium tremendum et fascinans (the overwhelming and enthralling mystery) of existence. While religious leaders like to blame this on secularization -- as Pope Benedict does of a Europe that leaves religion out of its official declarations -- the responsibility may lie with the same religious leaders who, out of touch or unacquainted with the mythic depth of sacramental life, cannot keep their people in touch with this vital source of their spiritual lives.
Joseph Campbell termed this massive tear in the fabric of life as "Mythic Dissociation." When this occurs we find ourselves in what poet T.S. Eliot describes as The Waste Land. This basic estrangement from any feeling for the mystical energy of the church as the Sacramentum Mundi, the mystical mirror in which the beleaguered world can see a reflection of its profound longings and strivings, can be observed in the way the sacraments are almost exclusively discussed. They are spoken of as static objects to be regulated rather than living symbols to be celebrated. Those in charge are uncomfortable speaking of sacramental depths but are endlessly preoccupied with their surfaces. How much have you heard about the Eucharist as a Mystery that symbolizes the life-death-resurrection rhythm of human existence compared to the Eucharist that must be controlled -- celebrated only by unmarried males, denied, even though it is food, to hungry Christians who are not Catholics, and, in steamy geysers of words more regular than Old Faithful, never, even if all male priests have been carried away in a heavenly chariot, to be entrusted to the ministry of women?
That the sacraments are being made static entities is also evident in the widespread rush to make, as I heard a pastor put it, "Eucharistic adoration the source of all parish life." The Kingdom of God and Jesus are not so much among you as He is there, all alone waiting for the "adorers" to keep Him company in the long drear vigils of the night. The same pastor recently rejoiced that his church had received the title, as if he were a franchisee, of "Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration Chapel." Private devotions have a revered place in church history but this theological distortion of Jesus’ being in a chapel in need of visitors is a classic example of the "Mythic Dissociation" that, like the dire effects of medicines rattled off on television ads so that you can barely hear them, is a principal side-effect of the misguided movement to find the real Jesus hiding back in the 19th century when He is everywhere in the 21st.
The Reform of the Reform is, in fact, the Waste Land in which, as Campbell observes, "the myth," -- for us, the sacramental system -- "is patterned by authority, not emergent from life, where there is no poet’s eye to see, no adventure to be lived, where all is set for all and forever." The new texts, in effect, split our everyday experience of struggling to work and to love from their sacramental symbolization in the renewed liturgy of Vatican II. This "new" translation turns us back to another world in which the sacraments were dry remedies for shut-ins rather than dynamic sources of spiritual strength to participate in the world’s bittersweet love affair with life in all its hazards and joys. These new texts, drafted by men more interested in controlling their circumstances than giving them away as the loaves and fishes to the hungry crowds, are the real sources of the secularism that remain largely unrecognized by the pope who is so appalled by it.
[Eugene Cullen Kennedy is emeritus professor of psychology at Loyola University, Chicago.]
Aug 26, 2010
Originally published in Bulletins from the Human Side
Even their advocates make the new liturgical translations sound like medicine for -- instead of the symptoms of -- a disorder that demeans the sacramental nature of Catholicism. Swallow this they urge -- like mothers forcing a spoon aquiver with spring tonic on their young -- it will be good for you. Thus Our Sunday Visitor reassures readers that responding "and with your spirit" is superior to "and also with you" because it literally mimics the original Latin, which, of course, is exactly what is wrong with it.
This minor footnote to the impending transition is also a fever reading of this affliction that, as with many illnesses, makes people feel sick before anybody has a name for it. The problem is illustrated by, but extends well beyond the new liturgical translations that are currently being packaged with as little concern for their contents or effects as the patent medicines that were hawked off the backs of 19th century wagons.
These new translations are signals of a widespread spiritual malaise that is a function of shorting out the connection between people’s experience of life and its spiritual, or sacramental, symbolization in their religion. They are thereby denied the energy of a sacramental system to ground them in and guide them through the mysterium tremendum et fascinans (the overwhelming and enthralling mystery) of existence. While religious leaders like to blame this on secularization -- as Pope Benedict does of a Europe that leaves religion out of its official declarations -- the responsibility may lie with the same religious leaders who, out of touch or unacquainted with the mythic depth of sacramental life, cannot keep their people in touch with this vital source of their spiritual lives.
Joseph Campbell termed this massive tear in the fabric of life as "Mythic Dissociation." When this occurs we find ourselves in what poet T.S. Eliot describes as The Waste Land. This basic estrangement from any feeling for the mystical energy of the church as the Sacramentum Mundi, the mystical mirror in which the beleaguered world can see a reflection of its profound longings and strivings, can be observed in the way the sacraments are almost exclusively discussed. They are spoken of as static objects to be regulated rather than living symbols to be celebrated. Those in charge are uncomfortable speaking of sacramental depths but are endlessly preoccupied with their surfaces. How much have you heard about the Eucharist as a Mystery that symbolizes the life-death-resurrection rhythm of human existence compared to the Eucharist that must be controlled -- celebrated only by unmarried males, denied, even though it is food, to hungry Christians who are not Catholics, and, in steamy geysers of words more regular than Old Faithful, never, even if all male priests have been carried away in a heavenly chariot, to be entrusted to the ministry of women?
That the sacraments are being made static entities is also evident in the widespread rush to make, as I heard a pastor put it, "Eucharistic adoration the source of all parish life." The Kingdom of God and Jesus are not so much among you as He is there, all alone waiting for the "adorers" to keep Him company in the long drear vigils of the night. The same pastor recently rejoiced that his church had received the title, as if he were a franchisee, of "Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration Chapel." Private devotions have a revered place in church history but this theological distortion of Jesus’ being in a chapel in need of visitors is a classic example of the "Mythic Dissociation" that, like the dire effects of medicines rattled off on television ads so that you can barely hear them, is a principal side-effect of the misguided movement to find the real Jesus hiding back in the 19th century when He is everywhere in the 21st.
The Reform of the Reform is, in fact, the Waste Land in which, as Campbell observes, "the myth," -- for us, the sacramental system -- "is patterned by authority, not emergent from life, where there is no poet’s eye to see, no adventure to be lived, where all is set for all and forever." The new texts, in effect, split our everyday experience of struggling to work and to love from their sacramental symbolization in the renewed liturgy of Vatican II. This "new" translation turns us back to another world in which the sacraments were dry remedies for shut-ins rather than dynamic sources of spiritual strength to participate in the world’s bittersweet love affair with life in all its hazards and joys. These new texts, drafted by men more interested in controlling their circumstances than giving them away as the loaves and fishes to the hungry crowds, are the real sources of the secularism that remain largely unrecognized by the pope who is so appalled by it.
[Eugene Cullen Kennedy is emeritus professor of psychology at Loyola University, Chicago.]
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Cleveland: St. Peter’s reappears: "You just can't do this to people."
Some will remember the “Hand of God” film about priest sex abuse in Salem, Mass., particularly the raw moment when the filmmaker is shooting outside the Boston diocesan administrative building where his brother first had first reported his abuse. Bishop Richard Lennon, who had succeeded Cardinal Law until Law’s replacement was named, comes out, pushes the camera, asserting private property rights. When the filmmaker identifies himself, Lennon dismisses him scornfully as “as sad little man.”
In his other episcopal life, Lennon closed a number of Boston churches, disregardful of pleas from parish communities, a half dozen of which occupied their churches and have maintained 24-hour vigils since in the hope of continuing their parish communities in their churches. (Rome recently rejected all of their appeals.) As Cleveland bishop, Lennon is at church closings again—50 so far. Among those closed was 700-member St. Peter in downtown Cleveland.
Unlike other closing parishes whose members were resigned to joining other parishes or, as in Boston, occupying their closed churches, St. Peter parish leaders met every Sunday to pray, consider their future and raise money. They formed a non-profit corporation and raised money to lease a commercial space. When Lennon questioned them, they told him that the corporation was set up to continue social services and education programs and the space was for congregations social gatherings. At that time, they were still exploring the prospect of continuing as a parish.
Anxious, last March Lennon sent letters to each St. Peter’s parishioner suggesting that their salvation was in jeopardy if they conducted worship services outside of a sanctioned church. He told them that he was concerned “for you and your salvation.”
Two questions were prominent as the group moved toward continuing as a church: how many would accept being excommunicated and would their pastor, Rev. Robert Marrone ,come along? On leave, Marrone kept his counsel, talking to few. At 63, he had lived in a culture of obedience since entering the seminary at 13.
Subsequently, after a year of deliberations, the group decided to continue as a parish community and on August 15th about 350, including a few from other closed Cleveland churches, joined by Father Marrone, celebrated its initial Sunday Eucharist in their new space. Marrone had decided to be faithful to the community he had nurtured and served for over 20 years rather than obedient to Bishop Lennon.
"The most important thing to me," Marrone said in an interview "is that the ministry of St. Peter's continues. The closing of St. Peter's was not legitimate. Our rights were violated. We made it clear to the bishop we don't think this is right. You just can't do this to people."
In his homily, Marrone declared, “Today is a day for action, not reaction, imagination, not fear.” He added, “I know it has not been an easy journey or you as it has not been an easy journey for me. But standing here today, I am filled with gratitude, peace, and confidence.”
The liturgy began with the standing-room only crowd singing “Christ be our light. Shine in your church gathered today. Following the closing hymn, the community into extended applause, hugged, and cried tears of joy,
For once, a community joined in its faith journey had escaped the episcopal game of moving deck chairs on the sinking Titanic because they will not yield the power of the celibate male patriarchy to married men and to women, putting first things first. Community, central to the people of ‘God, apparently means nothing to Bishop Lennon and his like.
Parishioner Bob Zack declared, "The bishop says the church is his real estate. Fine, take it. We have no control over that. But we have decided we want to keep our community together."
A University of New Hampshire scholar reports that at least 30 breakaway groups across the country, most, like St. Peter’s, determined to remain Catholics in worship and doctrine.
"The irony is most who splinter off are actually more Catholic in their beliefs than main-stream Catholics. But they really challenge the authority of the hierarchy," she has observed.
Professor William D'Antonio of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., has found that breakaway groups are born out of Vatican II democratization of the church, calling for collegial decision-making and subsidiary function—making decisions at the lowest level where they may be made effectively. "This movement has continued to expand, mostly in America, but it's spreading world-wide," he said.
Two primary reasons, said D'Antonio, are the church's sex-scandal, which has hurt the credibility of the institution's hierarchy, and a laity that is more educated today than any other time in church history. "They have moved away from automatically doing what the bishop says."
[This report is much indebted to Michael Malley’s Cleveland Plain Dealer article. whs
In his other episcopal life, Lennon closed a number of Boston churches, disregardful of pleas from parish communities, a half dozen of which occupied their churches and have maintained 24-hour vigils since in the hope of continuing their parish communities in their churches. (Rome recently rejected all of their appeals.) As Cleveland bishop, Lennon is at church closings again—50 so far. Among those closed was 700-member St. Peter in downtown Cleveland.
Unlike other closing parishes whose members were resigned to joining other parishes or, as in Boston, occupying their closed churches, St. Peter parish leaders met every Sunday to pray, consider their future and raise money. They formed a non-profit corporation and raised money to lease a commercial space. When Lennon questioned them, they told him that the corporation was set up to continue social services and education programs and the space was for congregations social gatherings. At that time, they were still exploring the prospect of continuing as a parish.
Anxious, last March Lennon sent letters to each St. Peter’s parishioner suggesting that their salvation was in jeopardy if they conducted worship services outside of a sanctioned church. He told them that he was concerned “for you and your salvation.”
Two questions were prominent as the group moved toward continuing as a church: how many would accept being excommunicated and would their pastor, Rev. Robert Marrone ,come along? On leave, Marrone kept his counsel, talking to few. At 63, he had lived in a culture of obedience since entering the seminary at 13.
Subsequently, after a year of deliberations, the group decided to continue as a parish community and on August 15th about 350, including a few from other closed Cleveland churches, joined by Father Marrone, celebrated its initial Sunday Eucharist in their new space. Marrone had decided to be faithful to the community he had nurtured and served for over 20 years rather than obedient to Bishop Lennon.
"The most important thing to me," Marrone said in an interview "is that the ministry of St. Peter's continues. The closing of St. Peter's was not legitimate. Our rights were violated. We made it clear to the bishop we don't think this is right. You just can't do this to people."
In his homily, Marrone declared, “Today is a day for action, not reaction, imagination, not fear.” He added, “I know it has not been an easy journey or you as it has not been an easy journey for me. But standing here today, I am filled with gratitude, peace, and confidence.”
The liturgy began with the standing-room only crowd singing “Christ be our light. Shine in your church gathered today. Following the closing hymn, the community into extended applause, hugged, and cried tears of joy,
For once, a community joined in its faith journey had escaped the episcopal game of moving deck chairs on the sinking Titanic because they will not yield the power of the celibate male patriarchy to married men and to women, putting first things first. Community, central to the people of ‘God, apparently means nothing to Bishop Lennon and his like.
Parishioner Bob Zack declared, "The bishop says the church is his real estate. Fine, take it. We have no control over that. But we have decided we want to keep our community together."
A University of New Hampshire scholar reports that at least 30 breakaway groups across the country, most, like St. Peter’s, determined to remain Catholics in worship and doctrine.
"The irony is most who splinter off are actually more Catholic in their beliefs than main-stream Catholics. But they really challenge the authority of the hierarchy," she has observed.
Professor William D'Antonio of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., has found that breakaway groups are born out of Vatican II democratization of the church, calling for collegial decision-making and subsidiary function—making decisions at the lowest level where they may be made effectively. "This movement has continued to expand, mostly in America, but it's spreading world-wide," he said.
Two primary reasons, said D'Antonio, are the church's sex-scandal, which has hurt the credibility of the institution's hierarchy, and a laity that is more educated today than any other time in church history. "They have moved away from automatically doing what the bishop says."
[This report is much indebted to Michael Malley’s Cleveland Plain Dealer article. whs
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Latest Vatican document is final straw for women
The Irish Times - Monday, July 26, 2010
The Vatican document has shocked many Irish Catholics, prompting them to ask about theological reasons why the church objects to women's ordination.
ANALYSIS: The Vatican must no longer be granted immunity from equality legislation, in the name of liberty, equality, and even the Gospel, writes MARY CONDREN
THE VATICAN'S recent Normae de Gravioribus Delictis document prescribes automatic excommunication for anyone involved in the ordination of a woman. In according greater penalties to those who "attempted" women's ordination than to clerics who abused children, it has further shocked many loyal Irish Catholics, prompting them to inquire about the theological reasons why the Roman Catholic Church objects to women's ordination.
A Vatican document issued in 1976 set out some of these arguments clearly.
1. That incarnation took place in the male sex and therefore women were excluded from the priesthood
Logically, this means that women should be excluded from baptism as well, since it is an ancient teaching of the church that "whatever has not become incarnate cannot be redeemed". If the church insists here that "God became man" means God became male, then it cannot simultaneously argue that in liturgical language "man" means both male and female.
2. That no women were ordained in the New Testament
Jesus did not ordain anyone. Ordination as we know it today did not take place at all in the New Testament, and took another 300 years when Christianity and empire merged.
3. The practice of the church has a normative character in the fact of conferring priestly ordination only on men, it is a question of an unbroken tradition throughout the history of the church
This is the argument from tradition whose logic is as follows: If something wrong goes on for five years it might be mortal sin; if it goes on for 10 years it becomes venial sin; if it goes on for 2,000 years it is no longer considered wrong, but tradition.
The argument from tradition was also used against freedom from slavery, and many other issues in the history of the church.
4. When Christ's role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this "natural resemblance" which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man; in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ
The church appears to be saying what feminists have suspected all along: that the image of Christ cannot be seen in a woman. Does this not make nonsense of the whole of Christian moral theology, which is based on the fact that we must "see Christ in the image of our neighbour, man or woman"?
What are the theological criteria for deciding between what is authentic Christian theology and mere phallic worship?
Over the years, many other arguments have been put forward to exclude women from ordination. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, could find no theological reason for such exclusion, but eventually concluded that women, like slaves, could not "signify eminence", and, therefore, could not become priests. (Mary Robinson, Mary McAleese?)
Others sought to argue for women's subordination in the realm of nature, but by 1976, even the Vatican knew better than to go down that road. In reality, they invented new arguments, and the one regarding Jesus's "maleness" was considered by many distinguished Catholic theologians to be "approaching heresy".
Before the Vatican issued the document, it had asked the pontifical biblical commission to explore the biblical reasons for excluding women. Seventeen out of 17 members concluded that they could fine none. To their great credit, several members resigned in protest at the use the Vatican had made of their work.
The 1976 document was a watershed for many women who had sought to serve the church and had begun theological and ministerial studies to that end. Some persisted and, at least in Ireland, remained mostly impoverished and marginalised.
Others despaired of remaining in perpetual opposition, and began to explore the deep seated psychological, anthropological and political reasons for the Vatican's stance.
They looked, for instance, to Scandinavia where, since the late 1960s, women had been ordained. However, a "let-out" clause allowed those male clerics who disapproved to maintain "clean dioceses", "clean parishes", and even "clean vestments", ie those that an ordained female body had yet to defile.
But the clerics continued their deliberations. What would happen if a pregnant woman came to be ordained? If her foetus turned out to be a male child, would apostolic succession automatically pass on to him? Would funeral or Eucharistic rites "take" if a woman priest happened to be menstruating?
The arguments raged until a cartoon appeared in the national newspapers. A male cleric was depicted asking the Lord whether he should resign. The Lord replied: "Think of your salary my son."
Where equality legislation has been passed throughout the world, the Vatican has been granted immunity. But this latest document is the last straw.
In many impoverished countries, in the name of religious freedom, such misogynist attitudes legitimise violent practices toward women and children. All such immunity must now be withdrawn, in the name of liberty, equality, and even the Gospel.
Dr Mary Condren lectures at the Centre for Gender and Women's Studies in Trinity College Dublin and is director of the Institute for Feminism and Religion. www.instituteforfeminismandreligion.org
The Vatican document has shocked many Irish Catholics, prompting them to ask about theological reasons why the church objects to women's ordination.
ANALYSIS: The Vatican must no longer be granted immunity from equality legislation, in the name of liberty, equality, and even the Gospel, writes MARY CONDREN
THE VATICAN'S recent Normae de Gravioribus Delictis document prescribes automatic excommunication for anyone involved in the ordination of a woman. In according greater penalties to those who "attempted" women's ordination than to clerics who abused children, it has further shocked many loyal Irish Catholics, prompting them to inquire about the theological reasons why the Roman Catholic Church objects to women's ordination.
A Vatican document issued in 1976 set out some of these arguments clearly.
1. That incarnation took place in the male sex and therefore women were excluded from the priesthood
Logically, this means that women should be excluded from baptism as well, since it is an ancient teaching of the church that "whatever has not become incarnate cannot be redeemed". If the church insists here that "God became man" means God became male, then it cannot simultaneously argue that in liturgical language "man" means both male and female.
2. That no women were ordained in the New Testament
Jesus did not ordain anyone. Ordination as we know it today did not take place at all in the New Testament, and took another 300 years when Christianity and empire merged.
3. The practice of the church has a normative character in the fact of conferring priestly ordination only on men, it is a question of an unbroken tradition throughout the history of the church
This is the argument from tradition whose logic is as follows: If something wrong goes on for five years it might be mortal sin; if it goes on for 10 years it becomes venial sin; if it goes on for 2,000 years it is no longer considered wrong, but tradition.
The argument from tradition was also used against freedom from slavery, and many other issues in the history of the church.
4. When Christ's role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this "natural resemblance" which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man; in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ
The church appears to be saying what feminists have suspected all along: that the image of Christ cannot be seen in a woman. Does this not make nonsense of the whole of Christian moral theology, which is based on the fact that we must "see Christ in the image of our neighbour, man or woman"?
What are the theological criteria for deciding between what is authentic Christian theology and mere phallic worship?
Over the years, many other arguments have been put forward to exclude women from ordination. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, could find no theological reason for such exclusion, but eventually concluded that women, like slaves, could not "signify eminence", and, therefore, could not become priests. (Mary Robinson, Mary McAleese?)
Others sought to argue for women's subordination in the realm of nature, but by 1976, even the Vatican knew better than to go down that road. In reality, they invented new arguments, and the one regarding Jesus's "maleness" was considered by many distinguished Catholic theologians to be "approaching heresy".
Before the Vatican issued the document, it had asked the pontifical biblical commission to explore the biblical reasons for excluding women. Seventeen out of 17 members concluded that they could fine none. To their great credit, several members resigned in protest at the use the Vatican had made of their work.
The 1976 document was a watershed for many women who had sought to serve the church and had begun theological and ministerial studies to that end. Some persisted and, at least in Ireland, remained mostly impoverished and marginalised.
Others despaired of remaining in perpetual opposition, and began to explore the deep seated psychological, anthropological and political reasons for the Vatican's stance.
They looked, for instance, to Scandinavia where, since the late 1960s, women had been ordained. However, a "let-out" clause allowed those male clerics who disapproved to maintain "clean dioceses", "clean parishes", and even "clean vestments", ie those that an ordained female body had yet to defile.
But the clerics continued their deliberations. What would happen if a pregnant woman came to be ordained? If her foetus turned out to be a male child, would apostolic succession automatically pass on to him? Would funeral or Eucharistic rites "take" if a woman priest happened to be menstruating?
The arguments raged until a cartoon appeared in the national newspapers. A male cleric was depicted asking the Lord whether he should resign. The Lord replied: "Think of your salary my son."
Where equality legislation has been passed throughout the world, the Vatican has been granted immunity. But this latest document is the last straw.
In many impoverished countries, in the name of religious freedom, such misogynist attitudes legitimise violent practices toward women and children. All such immunity must now be withdrawn, in the name of liberty, equality, and even the Gospel.
Dr Mary Condren lectures at the Centre for Gender and Women's Studies in Trinity College Dublin and is director of the Institute for Feminism and Religion. www.instituteforfeminismandreligion.org
Monday, July 26, 2010
It is time for them to go.
William H. Slavick
The clueless Roman Catholic hierarchs and their apologists--in Rome and out--can moan endlessly about "the petty gossip of dominant opinion” and anti-Catholic bias. That did not work for Boston Cardinal Bernard Law nor will it now. The Vatican’s Teflon shield is shattered.
In truth, John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, fearing loss of patriarchal control, conspired to slam shut the windows the Second Vatican Council opened to the modern world and, before all else, shore up the battlements of the Church Triumphant and celibate male power. That campaign has been, for the Church, on all fronts, a disaster. Now revelations of the Vatican deliberately subordinating care of children to the “Church’s” reputation demands a reckoning.
Both hierarchs rejected the Council's first fruit--Latin America's liberation theology and implementation of the preferential option for the poor, initiating a precipitous decline there. Only Archbishop Oscar Romero's assassination forestalled Rome’s removal of the Salvadoran poor’s champion--for not making peace with a government that had killed thousands of his flock.
They dumped on theologians attuned to the Council's thrust--Hans Kûng, Leonardo Boff, Charles Curran, and Tisa Balasuriya.
They have carved away at the Council’s well-studied, almost unanimously approved and welcomed liturgical reforms, again distancing the celebrant from the assembly; scuttling the Council’s translation protocol for sexist, Latinate language that won’t pray, and encouraging use of the Tridentine form that subordinates the Eucharist as meal and challenge to live the Gospel.
And despite warnings as early as the 60's that priest sex abusers should not continue in ministry, the hierarchy continued to coddle abusers and threaten, silence, shame, dupe, or buy off victims to put the appearance of a pure institution before the dignity, innocence, and healing of victims—and before justice. John Paul II and bribed curial cardinals sheltered the Legionnaires of Christ founder-abuser and chief Vatican fund-raiser. Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep abuse information secret and slowed defrocking processes, assuring further abuses.
The Church is imploding, suffering the largest defection ever in the Vatican’s turn on Council reforms, its re-emphasis on doctrine rather than living the Gospel, its abandonment of John XXIII’s pursuit of peace and justice for the poor, its sexist rejection of women's equality, its denial of the Eucharist and pastoral care to half the faithful for lack of male celibate priests, its obsession with sex, and its continued failure to act responsibly in the abuse scandal.
To reassert authority, the patriarchy has engaged in a heartless war on "objectively disordered" gays and lesbians that runs roughshod over their dignity and civil rights and flouts Vatican II recognition of separation of church and state, religious liberty, and primacy of conscience.
By their fruit we have come to know them. As Munich archbishop, Ratzinger turned a wolf loose on his sheep—still loose 20-odd years later. In Rome, his office opposed Wisconsin bishops defrocking a serial abuser of hundreds of deaf children, honoring his wish to die a priest before affirming the human worth of his victims. He refused to laicize a younger California abuser for “the good of the Church.” These are unfathomable and unconscionable, betrayals of pastoral trust.
Benedict XVI’s defenders claim that, as pope, he has done everything possible about the abuse mess--everything, that is, except the essential—putting the healing of the abuse victims foremost by affirming their dignity. That requires holding abusers accountable, stopping legal stonewalling, removing hundreds of complicit bishops, and recognizing Vatican culpability. He and they still do not understand that their first pastoral obligation is to give succor to the wounded. His defenders continues to substitute for accountability ridiculous excuse-making that further diminishes victims. The words of Chaucer’s Parson echo endlessly: the "shitten shepherd and the clene sheep."
It is time for Benedict XVI to discover humility and search his conscience, to acknowledge that fear of change, patriarchal authoritarianism, and righteousness have led him—and the Church-- into a moral morass. It is time for him to recognize that his—and the Vatican’s--temporizing while thousands more were victimized; his refusal to acknowledge his and the Vatican’s wrongs, and his lack of care, of compassion, for still wounded abuse victims makes him unfit to lead the People of God--time to resign.
Before he goes, he should remove bishops and cardinals who has been party to that misdirection and abuse cover up. Then he should ask the next, necessarily smaller papal consistory to pray to John XXIII and Oscar Romero for intercessions in picking a new Bishop of Rome committed to being a faithful and humble servant and shepherd of the People of God.
Otherwise, Boston’s Fr. Bob Bullock, who circulated the petition that removed Law, should make a real Year of the Priest by summoning overextended and exhausted priests faithful to the Council and faithful women and men religious—and laity everywhere to say to the patriarchs, plainly and forcefully, that the jig is up. They must go and allow the Gospel to bloom out of the hearts of the faithful.
William H. Slavick has written extensively on peace and social justice issues in the Catholic press and Maine newspapers. He is long-time coordinator of Pax Christi Maine.
The clueless Roman Catholic hierarchs and their apologists--in Rome and out--can moan endlessly about "the petty gossip of dominant opinion” and anti-Catholic bias. That did not work for Boston Cardinal Bernard Law nor will it now. The Vatican’s Teflon shield is shattered.
In truth, John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, fearing loss of patriarchal control, conspired to slam shut the windows the Second Vatican Council opened to the modern world and, before all else, shore up the battlements of the Church Triumphant and celibate male power. That campaign has been, for the Church, on all fronts, a disaster. Now revelations of the Vatican deliberately subordinating care of children to the “Church’s” reputation demands a reckoning.
Both hierarchs rejected the Council's first fruit--Latin America's liberation theology and implementation of the preferential option for the poor, initiating a precipitous decline there. Only Archbishop Oscar Romero's assassination forestalled Rome’s removal of the Salvadoran poor’s champion--for not making peace with a government that had killed thousands of his flock.
They dumped on theologians attuned to the Council's thrust--Hans Kûng, Leonardo Boff, Charles Curran, and Tisa Balasuriya.
They have carved away at the Council’s well-studied, almost unanimously approved and welcomed liturgical reforms, again distancing the celebrant from the assembly; scuttling the Council’s translation protocol for sexist, Latinate language that won’t pray, and encouraging use of the Tridentine form that subordinates the Eucharist as meal and challenge to live the Gospel.
And despite warnings as early as the 60's that priest sex abusers should not continue in ministry, the hierarchy continued to coddle abusers and threaten, silence, shame, dupe, or buy off victims to put the appearance of a pure institution before the dignity, innocence, and healing of victims—and before justice. John Paul II and bribed curial cardinals sheltered the Legionnaires of Christ founder-abuser and chief Vatican fund-raiser. Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep abuse information secret and slowed defrocking processes, assuring further abuses.
The Church is imploding, suffering the largest defection ever in the Vatican’s turn on Council reforms, its re-emphasis on doctrine rather than living the Gospel, its abandonment of John XXIII’s pursuit of peace and justice for the poor, its sexist rejection of women's equality, its denial of the Eucharist and pastoral care to half the faithful for lack of male celibate priests, its obsession with sex, and its continued failure to act responsibly in the abuse scandal.
To reassert authority, the patriarchy has engaged in a heartless war on "objectively disordered" gays and lesbians that runs roughshod over their dignity and civil rights and flouts Vatican II recognition of separation of church and state, religious liberty, and primacy of conscience.
By their fruit we have come to know them. As Munich archbishop, Ratzinger turned a wolf loose on his sheep—still loose 20-odd years later. In Rome, his office opposed Wisconsin bishops defrocking a serial abuser of hundreds of deaf children, honoring his wish to die a priest before affirming the human worth of his victims. He refused to laicize a younger California abuser for “the good of the Church.” These are unfathomable and unconscionable, betrayals of pastoral trust.
Benedict XVI’s defenders claim that, as pope, he has done everything possible about the abuse mess--everything, that is, except the essential—putting the healing of the abuse victims foremost by affirming their dignity. That requires holding abusers accountable, stopping legal stonewalling, removing hundreds of complicit bishops, and recognizing Vatican culpability. He and they still do not understand that their first pastoral obligation is to give succor to the wounded. His defenders continues to substitute for accountability ridiculous excuse-making that further diminishes victims. The words of Chaucer’s Parson echo endlessly: the "shitten shepherd and the clene sheep."
It is time for Benedict XVI to discover humility and search his conscience, to acknowledge that fear of change, patriarchal authoritarianism, and righteousness have led him—and the Church-- into a moral morass. It is time for him to recognize that his—and the Vatican’s--temporizing while thousands more were victimized; his refusal to acknowledge his and the Vatican’s wrongs, and his lack of care, of compassion, for still wounded abuse victims makes him unfit to lead the People of God--time to resign.
Before he goes, he should remove bishops and cardinals who has been party to that misdirection and abuse cover up. Then he should ask the next, necessarily smaller papal consistory to pray to John XXIII and Oscar Romero for intercessions in picking a new Bishop of Rome committed to being a faithful and humble servant and shepherd of the People of God.
Otherwise, Boston’s Fr. Bob Bullock, who circulated the petition that removed Law, should make a real Year of the Priest by summoning overextended and exhausted priests faithful to the Council and faithful women and men religious—and laity everywhere to say to the patriarchs, plainly and forcefully, that the jig is up. They must go and allow the Gospel to bloom out of the hearts of the faithful.
William H. Slavick has written extensively on peace and social justice issues in the Catholic press and Maine newspapers. He is long-time coordinator of Pax Christi Maine.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Bishop Dowling Reflects on Trends in the Church
Bishop Kevin Dowling CSsR
The following lunchtime address was given by Bishop Kevin Dowling CSsR to a group of leading laity in Cape Town, South Africa on 1 June.
''Jerry Fiteaux wrote in the National Catholic Reporter: 'On April 24, 2010, Edward James Slattery, bishop of Tulsa, Oklahoma, celebrated the Mass in Latin in the extraordinary form – that is, in the Tridentine Rite – in the Basi-lica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. He delivered his homily in English. More than 3,000 people attended the liturgy.
More relevant to me in the April 24 event in Washington were several
elements: First, there were no demonstrations outside or inside the shrine by clergy sex abuse victims after re-tired Colombian Cardinal Castrillon, former prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy and former president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” which oversees and promotes use of the Latin Triden-tine rite in the Roman Church, made major news just a week before the shrine Mass when a French newspaper revealed that in 2001 he had praised a French bishop for breaking the law and refusing to turn over to civil authorities a priest engaged in sexual abuse of minors. Castrillon not only did not apologize for his letter; he reaffirmed it and said John Paul II had urged him to send it to bishops around the world. Dario Castrillon Hoyos withdrew as principal celebrant of the Mass.
'Second, for the first time in my life – although as an altar boy in the 1950s into the late ’60s and as a semina-rian for nearly 12 years I participated in numerous pontifical liturgies in the Upper Midwest and in Washington – on April 24 this year I finally saw the grandiose display of the “cappa magna,” the 20-yard-long brilliant red train behind a bishop or cardinal that has come to be one of the symbols of the revival of the Tridentine Mass.
'Fifteen minutes before the Mass, Slattery processed up the shrine’s main aisle wearing the extravagant cloak, held up in the back by a young altar server; before the main altar, there was a magnificent turn to exit stage left, at which point the cappa magna stretched almost the entire width of the sanctuary in front of the main altar.
'Throughout more than half an hour of pre-Mass entertainment with beautiful Latin music by an a capella choir (including Giovanni Pierluigi Palestrina’s Tu Es Petrus and Thomas Tallis’s O Sacrum Convivium) and into the full first half-hour of the Mass, the entire basilica congregation of more than 3,000 sat passively as an audience to a musical concert, with nary a word to say in the liturgy.
'The shrine’s magnificent pipe organ played instrumental accompaniment to the nearly 20-minute processional as altar servers of all ages (but only males), knights of various Catholic organizations, deacons, priests and a variety of other ministers processed to the altar. Many of the priests and deacons bore pomped birettas, the stiff square black caps once worn by all priests and seminarians in choir.
'It wasn’t until the Collect that any of the 3,000-plus Catholics filling the shrine’s pews and aisles actually heard a voice from somewhere near the altar.
By that point I had come to realize that this Tridentine liturgy was an elaborate ritual manifestation of eccle-siastical rank, not a Mass in conformity with the fundamental Vatican II mandate for full, active participation by the faithful.
'The Mass marked the fifth anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI’s formal inauguration into his ministry as Pope..'
"The Southern Cross about three or four weeks ago published a picture of Bishop Slattery with his “cappa magna” – in colour, nogal! For me, such a display of what amounts to triumphalism in a Church torn apart by the sexual abuse scandal, is most unfortunate. What happened there bore the marks of a medieval royal court, not the humble, servant leadership modelled by Jesus. But it seems to me that this is also a symbol of what has been happening in the Church especially since Pope John Paul II became the Bishop of Rome and up till today - and that is “restorationism”, the carefully planned dismantling of the theology, ecclesiology, pastoral vision, indeed the “opening of the windows” of Vatican II – in order to “restore” a previous, or more controllable mo-del of Church through an increasingly centralised power structure; a structure which now controls everything in the life of the Church through a network of Vatican Congregations led by Cardinals who ensure strict compli-ance with what is deemed by them to be “orthodox”. Those who do not comply face censure and punishment, e.g. theologians who are forbidden to teach in Catholic faculties.
Lest we do not highlight sufficiently this important fact. Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council, i.e. a solemn exercise of the magisterium of the Church, i.e. the college of bishops gathered together with the Bishop of Rome and exercising a teaching function for the whole Church. In other words, its vision, its principles and the direction it gave are to be followed and implemented by all, from the Pope to the peasant farmer in the fields of Honduras.
Since Vatican II there has been no such similar exercise of teaching authority by the magisterium. Instead, a series of decrees, pronouncements and decisions which have been given various “labels” stating, for example, that they must be firmly held to with “internal assent” by the Catholic faithful, but in reality are simply the theo-logical or pastoral interpretations or opinions of those who have power at the centre of the Church. They have not been solemnly defined as belonging to the “deposit of the faith” to be believed and followed, therefore, by all Catholics, as with other solemnly proclaimed dogmas. For example, the issues of celibacy for the priesthood and the ordination of women, [were]withdrawn even from the realm of discussion. Therefore, such pronounce-ments are open to scrutiny – to discern whether they are in accord, for example, with the fundamental theolo-gical vision of Vatican II, or whether there is indeed a case to be made for a different interpretation or opinion.
When I worked internationally from my Religious Congregation’s base in Rome from 1985 – 1990 before I came back here as bishop of Rustenburg, one of my responsibilities was the building up of young adult ministry with our communities in the countries of Europe where so many of the young people were alienated from the Church. I developed relationships with many hundreds of sincere, searching Catholic young adults, very open to issues of injustice, poverty and misery in the world, aware of structural injustice in the political and economic systems which dominated the world . . . but who increasingly felt that the “official” Church was not only out of touch with reality, but a counter-witness to the aspirations of thinking and aware Catholics who sought a diffe-rent experience of Church. In other words, an experience which enabled them to believe that the Church they belonged to had something relevant to say and to witness to in the very challenging world in which they lived. Many, many of these young adults have since left the Church entirely.
On the other hand, it has to be recognised that for a significant number of young Catholics, adult Catholics, priests and religious around the world, the “restorationist” model of Church which has been implemented over the past 30 - 40 years is sought after and valued; it meets a need in them; it gives them a feeling of belonging to something with very clear parameters and guidelines for living, thus giving them a sense of security and clarity about what is truth and what is morally right or wrong, because there is a clear and strong authority structure which decides definitively on all such questions, and which they trust absolutely as being of divine origin.
The rise of conservative groups and organisations in the Church over the past 40 years and more, which attract significant numbers of adherents, has led to a phenomenon which I find difficult to deal with, viz. an inward looking Church, fearful of if not antagonistic towards a secularist world with its concomitant danger of relati-vism especially in terms of truth and morality – frequently referred to by Pope Benedict XVI; a Church which gives an impression of “retreating behind the wagons”, and relying on a strong central authority to ensure unity through uniformity in belief and praxis in the face of such dangers. The fear is that without such supervision and control, and that if any freedom in decision-making is allowed, even in less important matters, this will open the door to division and a breakdown in the unity of the Church.
This is all about a fundamentally different “vision” in the Church and “vision” of the Church. Where today can we find the great theological leaders and thinkers of the past, like Cardinal Frings and Alfrink in Europe, and the great prophetic bishops whose voice and witness was a clarion call to justice, human rights and a global community of equitable sharing – the witness of Archbishop Romero of El Salvador, the voices of Cardinals Arns and Lorscheider, and Bishops Helder Camara and Casadaliga of Brazil? Again, who in today’s world “out there” even listens to, much less appreciates and allows themselves to be challenged by the leadership of the Church at the present time? I think the moral authority of the Church’s leadership today has never been weaker. It is, therefore, important in my view that Church leadership, instead of giving an impression of its power, privi-lege and prestige, should rather be experienced as a humble, searching ministry together with its people in order to discern the most appropriate or viable responses which can be made to complex ethical and moral questions – a leadership, therefore, which does not presume to have all the answers all the time….
But to change focus a bit. One of the truly significant contributions of the Church to the building up of a world in which people and communities can live in peace and dignity, with a quality of life which befits those made in God’s image, has been the body of what has been called “Catholic Social Teaching”, a compendium of which has been released during the past few years. These social teaching principles are: The Common Good, Solida-rity, The Option for the Poor, Subsidiarity, The Common Destiny of Goods, The Integrity of Creation, and People-Centredness – all based on and flowing out of the values of the Gospel. Here we have very relevant prin-ciples and guidelines to engage with complex social, economic, cultural and political realities, especially as these affect the poorest and most vulnerable members of societies everywhere. These principles should enable us, as Church, to critique constructively all socio-political-economic systems and policies - and especially from that viewpoint, viz. their effect on the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
However, if Church leadership anywhere presumes to criticise or critique socio-political-economic policies and policy makers, or Governments, it must also allow itself to be critiqued in the same way in terms of its policies, its internal life, and especially its modus operandi. A democratic culture and praxis, with its focus on the partici-pation of citizens and holding accountable those who are elected to govern, is increasingly appreciated in spite of inevitable human shortcomings. When thinking people of all persuasions look at Church leadership, they raise questions about, for example, real participation of the membership in its governance and how, in fact, Church leadership is to be held accountable, and to whom. If the Church, and its leadership, professes to follow the values of the Gospel and the principles of Catholic Social Teaching, then its internal life, its methods of governing and its use of authority will be scrutinised on the basis of what we profess. Let us take one social teaching principle, vitally important for ensuring participative democracy in the socio-political domain, viz. subsidiarity.
I worked with the Bishops’ Conference Justice and Peace Department for 17 years. After our political libera-tion in 1994, we discerned that political liberation in itself would have little relevance to the reality of the poor and marginalised unless it resulted in their economic emancipation. We therefore decided that a fundamental issue for post-1994 South Africa was economic justice. After a great deal of discussion at all levels we issued a Pastoral Statement in 1999, which we entitled “Economic Justice in South Africa”. Its primary focus was neces-sarily on the economy. Among other things, it dealt with each of the Catholic Social Teaching principles, and I give a quotation now from part of its treatment of subsidiarity:
“The principle of subsidiarity protects the rights of individuals and groups in the face of the powerful, especi-ally the state. It holds that those things which can be done or decided at a lower level of society should not be taken over by a higher level. As such, it reaffirms our right and our capacity to decide for ourselves how to organise our relationships and how to enter into agreements with others . . . . We can and should take steps to encourage decision-making at lower levels of the economy, and to empower the greatest number of people to participate as fully as possible in economic life.” (Economic Justice in South Africa, page 14).
Applied to the Church, the principle of subsidiarity requires of its leadership to actively promote and encourage participation, personal responsibility and effective engagement by everyone in terms of their particular calling and ministry in the Church and world according to their opportunities and gifts.
However, I think that today we have a leadership in the Church which actually undermines the very notion of subsidiarity; where the minutiae of Church life and praxis “at the lower level” are subject to examination and authentication being given by the “higher level”, in fact the highest level, e.g. the approval of liturgical lang-uage and texts; where one of the key Vatican II principles, collegiality in decision-making, is virtually non-existent. The eminent emeritus Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Franz König, wrote the following in 1999 – al-most 35 years after Vatican II: “In fact, however, de facto and not de jure, intentionally or unintentionally, the curial authorities working in conjunction with the Pope have appropriated the tasks of the episcopal college. It is they who now carry out almost all of them” (“My Vision of the Church of the Future”, The Tablet, March 27, 1999, p. 434).
What compounds this, for me, is the mystique which has in increasing measure surrounded the person of the Pope in the last 30 years, such that any hint of critique or questioning of his policies, his way of thinking, his exercise of authority etc. is equated with disloyalty. There is more than a perception, because of this mystique, that unquestioning obedience by the faithful to the Pope is required and is a sign of the ethos and fidelity of a true Catholic. When the Pope’s authority is then intentionally extended to the Vatican Curia, there exists a real possibility that unquestioning obedience to very human decisions about a whole range of issues by the Curial Departments and Cardinals also becomes a mark of one’s fidelity as a Catholic, and anything less is interpreted as being disloyal to the Pope who is charged with steering the barque of Peter.
It has become more and more difficult over the past years, therefore, for the College of Bishops as a whole, or in a particular territory, to exercise their theologically-based servant leadership to discern appropriate responses to their particular socio-economic, cultural, liturgical, spiritual and other pastoral realities and needs; much less to disagree with or seek alternatives to policies and decisions taken in Rome. And what appears to be more and more the policy of appointing “safe”, unquestionably orthodox and even very conservative bishops to fill vacant dioceses over the past 30 years, only makes it less and less likely that the College of Bishops – even in powerful Conferences like the United States – will question what comes out of Rome, and certainly not publicly. Instead, there will be every effort to try and find an accommodation with those in power, which means that the Roman position will prevail in the end. And, taking this further, when an individual bishop takes issue with something, especially in public, the impression or judgement will be that he is “breaking ranks” with the other bishops and will only cause confusion to the lay faithful – so it is said - because it will appear that the Bishops are not united in their teaching and leadership role. The pressure, therefore, to conform.
What we should have, in my view, is a Church where the leadership recognises and empowers decision-making at the appropriate levels in the local Church; where local leadership listens to and discerns with the people of God of that area what “the Spirit is saying to the Church” and then articulates that as a consensus of the be-lieving, praying, serving community. It needs faith in God and trust in the people of God to take what may seem to some or many as a risk. The Church could be enriched as a result through a diversity which truly integrates socio-cultural values and insights into a living and developing faith, together with a discernment of how such diversity can promote unity in the Church – and not, therefore, require uniformity to be truly authentic.
Diversity in living and praxis, as an expression of the principle of subsidiarity, has been taken away from the local Churches everywhere by the centralisation of decision-making at the level of the Vatican. In addition, orthodoxy is more and more identified with conservative opinions and outlook, with the corresponding judge-ment that what is perceived to be “liberal” is both suspect and not orthodox, and therefore to be rejected as a danger to the faith of the people.
Is there a way forward? I have grappled with this question especially in the light of the apparent division of as-piration and vision in the Church. How do you reconcile such very different visions of Church, or models of Church? I do not have the answer, except that somewhere we must find an attitude of respect and reverence for difference and diversity as we search for a living unity in the Church; that people be allowed, indeed enabled, to find or create the type of community which is expressive of their faith and aspirations concerning their Christian and Catholic lives and engagement in Church and world….and which strives to hold in legitimate and construc-tive tension the uncertainties and ambiguities that all this will bring, trusting in the presence of the Holy Spirit.
At the heart of this is the question of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be trusted enough to make informed decisions about our life, our witness, our expressions of faith, spirituality, prayer, and involvement in the world……on the basis of a developed conscience. And, as an invitation to an appreciation of conscience and conscientious decisions about life and participation in what is a very human Church, I close with the formula-tion or understanding given by none other than the theologian, Father Josef Ratzinger, now Pope, when he was a peritus, or expert, at Vatican II:
“Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own con-science which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical autho-rity. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism”.
(Joseph Ratzinger in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II,Vol. V., pg. 134 (Ed) H. Vorgrimler, New York, Herder and Herder, 1967).
Cape Town, 1 June, 2010
The following lunchtime address was given by Bishop Kevin Dowling CSsR to a group of leading laity in Cape Town, South Africa on 1 June.
''Jerry Fiteaux wrote in the National Catholic Reporter: 'On April 24, 2010, Edward James Slattery, bishop of Tulsa, Oklahoma, celebrated the Mass in Latin in the extraordinary form – that is, in the Tridentine Rite – in the Basi-lica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. He delivered his homily in English. More than 3,000 people attended the liturgy.
More relevant to me in the April 24 event in Washington were several
elements: First, there were no demonstrations outside or inside the shrine by clergy sex abuse victims after re-tired Colombian Cardinal Castrillon, former prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy and former president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” which oversees and promotes use of the Latin Triden-tine rite in the Roman Church, made major news just a week before the shrine Mass when a French newspaper revealed that in 2001 he had praised a French bishop for breaking the law and refusing to turn over to civil authorities a priest engaged in sexual abuse of minors. Castrillon not only did not apologize for his letter; he reaffirmed it and said John Paul II had urged him to send it to bishops around the world. Dario Castrillon Hoyos withdrew as principal celebrant of the Mass.
'Second, for the first time in my life – although as an altar boy in the 1950s into the late ’60s and as a semina-rian for nearly 12 years I participated in numerous pontifical liturgies in the Upper Midwest and in Washington – on April 24 this year I finally saw the grandiose display of the “cappa magna,” the 20-yard-long brilliant red train behind a bishop or cardinal that has come to be one of the symbols of the revival of the Tridentine Mass.
'Fifteen minutes before the Mass, Slattery processed up the shrine’s main aisle wearing the extravagant cloak, held up in the back by a young altar server; before the main altar, there was a magnificent turn to exit stage left, at which point the cappa magna stretched almost the entire width of the sanctuary in front of the main altar.
'Throughout more than half an hour of pre-Mass entertainment with beautiful Latin music by an a capella choir (including Giovanni Pierluigi Palestrina’s Tu Es Petrus and Thomas Tallis’s O Sacrum Convivium) and into the full first half-hour of the Mass, the entire basilica congregation of more than 3,000 sat passively as an audience to a musical concert, with nary a word to say in the liturgy.
'The shrine’s magnificent pipe organ played instrumental accompaniment to the nearly 20-minute processional as altar servers of all ages (but only males), knights of various Catholic organizations, deacons, priests and a variety of other ministers processed to the altar. Many of the priests and deacons bore pomped birettas, the stiff square black caps once worn by all priests and seminarians in choir.
'It wasn’t until the Collect that any of the 3,000-plus Catholics filling the shrine’s pews and aisles actually heard a voice from somewhere near the altar.
By that point I had come to realize that this Tridentine liturgy was an elaborate ritual manifestation of eccle-siastical rank, not a Mass in conformity with the fundamental Vatican II mandate for full, active participation by the faithful.
'The Mass marked the fifth anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI’s formal inauguration into his ministry as Pope..'
"The Southern Cross about three or four weeks ago published a picture of Bishop Slattery with his “cappa magna” – in colour, nogal! For me, such a display of what amounts to triumphalism in a Church torn apart by the sexual abuse scandal, is most unfortunate. What happened there bore the marks of a medieval royal court, not the humble, servant leadership modelled by Jesus. But it seems to me that this is also a symbol of what has been happening in the Church especially since Pope John Paul II became the Bishop of Rome and up till today - and that is “restorationism”, the carefully planned dismantling of the theology, ecclesiology, pastoral vision, indeed the “opening of the windows” of Vatican II – in order to “restore” a previous, or more controllable mo-del of Church through an increasingly centralised power structure; a structure which now controls everything in the life of the Church through a network of Vatican Congregations led by Cardinals who ensure strict compli-ance with what is deemed by them to be “orthodox”. Those who do not comply face censure and punishment, e.g. theologians who are forbidden to teach in Catholic faculties.
Lest we do not highlight sufficiently this important fact. Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council, i.e. a solemn exercise of the magisterium of the Church, i.e. the college of bishops gathered together with the Bishop of Rome and exercising a teaching function for the whole Church. In other words, its vision, its principles and the direction it gave are to be followed and implemented by all, from the Pope to the peasant farmer in the fields of Honduras.
Since Vatican II there has been no such similar exercise of teaching authority by the magisterium. Instead, a series of decrees, pronouncements and decisions which have been given various “labels” stating, for example, that they must be firmly held to with “internal assent” by the Catholic faithful, but in reality are simply the theo-logical or pastoral interpretations or opinions of those who have power at the centre of the Church. They have not been solemnly defined as belonging to the “deposit of the faith” to be believed and followed, therefore, by all Catholics, as with other solemnly proclaimed dogmas. For example, the issues of celibacy for the priesthood and the ordination of women, [were]withdrawn even from the realm of discussion. Therefore, such pronounce-ments are open to scrutiny – to discern whether they are in accord, for example, with the fundamental theolo-gical vision of Vatican II, or whether there is indeed a case to be made for a different interpretation or opinion.
When I worked internationally from my Religious Congregation’s base in Rome from 1985 – 1990 before I came back here as bishop of Rustenburg, one of my responsibilities was the building up of young adult ministry with our communities in the countries of Europe where so many of the young people were alienated from the Church. I developed relationships with many hundreds of sincere, searching Catholic young adults, very open to issues of injustice, poverty and misery in the world, aware of structural injustice in the political and economic systems which dominated the world . . . but who increasingly felt that the “official” Church was not only out of touch with reality, but a counter-witness to the aspirations of thinking and aware Catholics who sought a diffe-rent experience of Church. In other words, an experience which enabled them to believe that the Church they belonged to had something relevant to say and to witness to in the very challenging world in which they lived. Many, many of these young adults have since left the Church entirely.
On the other hand, it has to be recognised that for a significant number of young Catholics, adult Catholics, priests and religious around the world, the “restorationist” model of Church which has been implemented over the past 30 - 40 years is sought after and valued; it meets a need in them; it gives them a feeling of belonging to something with very clear parameters and guidelines for living, thus giving them a sense of security and clarity about what is truth and what is morally right or wrong, because there is a clear and strong authority structure which decides definitively on all such questions, and which they trust absolutely as being of divine origin.
The rise of conservative groups and organisations in the Church over the past 40 years and more, which attract significant numbers of adherents, has led to a phenomenon which I find difficult to deal with, viz. an inward looking Church, fearful of if not antagonistic towards a secularist world with its concomitant danger of relati-vism especially in terms of truth and morality – frequently referred to by Pope Benedict XVI; a Church which gives an impression of “retreating behind the wagons”, and relying on a strong central authority to ensure unity through uniformity in belief and praxis in the face of such dangers. The fear is that without such supervision and control, and that if any freedom in decision-making is allowed, even in less important matters, this will open the door to division and a breakdown in the unity of the Church.
This is all about a fundamentally different “vision” in the Church and “vision” of the Church. Where today can we find the great theological leaders and thinkers of the past, like Cardinal Frings and Alfrink in Europe, and the great prophetic bishops whose voice and witness was a clarion call to justice, human rights and a global community of equitable sharing – the witness of Archbishop Romero of El Salvador, the voices of Cardinals Arns and Lorscheider, and Bishops Helder Camara and Casadaliga of Brazil? Again, who in today’s world “out there” even listens to, much less appreciates and allows themselves to be challenged by the leadership of the Church at the present time? I think the moral authority of the Church’s leadership today has never been weaker. It is, therefore, important in my view that Church leadership, instead of giving an impression of its power, privi-lege and prestige, should rather be experienced as a humble, searching ministry together with its people in order to discern the most appropriate or viable responses which can be made to complex ethical and moral questions – a leadership, therefore, which does not presume to have all the answers all the time….
But to change focus a bit. One of the truly significant contributions of the Church to the building up of a world in which people and communities can live in peace and dignity, with a quality of life which befits those made in God’s image, has been the body of what has been called “Catholic Social Teaching”, a compendium of which has been released during the past few years. These social teaching principles are: The Common Good, Solida-rity, The Option for the Poor, Subsidiarity, The Common Destiny of Goods, The Integrity of Creation, and People-Centredness – all based on and flowing out of the values of the Gospel. Here we have very relevant prin-ciples and guidelines to engage with complex social, economic, cultural and political realities, especially as these affect the poorest and most vulnerable members of societies everywhere. These principles should enable us, as Church, to critique constructively all socio-political-economic systems and policies - and especially from that viewpoint, viz. their effect on the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
However, if Church leadership anywhere presumes to criticise or critique socio-political-economic policies and policy makers, or Governments, it must also allow itself to be critiqued in the same way in terms of its policies, its internal life, and especially its modus operandi. A democratic culture and praxis, with its focus on the partici-pation of citizens and holding accountable those who are elected to govern, is increasingly appreciated in spite of inevitable human shortcomings. When thinking people of all persuasions look at Church leadership, they raise questions about, for example, real participation of the membership in its governance and how, in fact, Church leadership is to be held accountable, and to whom. If the Church, and its leadership, professes to follow the values of the Gospel and the principles of Catholic Social Teaching, then its internal life, its methods of governing and its use of authority will be scrutinised on the basis of what we profess. Let us take one social teaching principle, vitally important for ensuring participative democracy in the socio-political domain, viz. subsidiarity.
I worked with the Bishops’ Conference Justice and Peace Department for 17 years. After our political libera-tion in 1994, we discerned that political liberation in itself would have little relevance to the reality of the poor and marginalised unless it resulted in their economic emancipation. We therefore decided that a fundamental issue for post-1994 South Africa was economic justice. After a great deal of discussion at all levels we issued a Pastoral Statement in 1999, which we entitled “Economic Justice in South Africa”. Its primary focus was neces-sarily on the economy. Among other things, it dealt with each of the Catholic Social Teaching principles, and I give a quotation now from part of its treatment of subsidiarity:
“The principle of subsidiarity protects the rights of individuals and groups in the face of the powerful, especi-ally the state. It holds that those things which can be done or decided at a lower level of society should not be taken over by a higher level. As such, it reaffirms our right and our capacity to decide for ourselves how to organise our relationships and how to enter into agreements with others . . . . We can and should take steps to encourage decision-making at lower levels of the economy, and to empower the greatest number of people to participate as fully as possible in economic life.” (Economic Justice in South Africa, page 14).
Applied to the Church, the principle of subsidiarity requires of its leadership to actively promote and encourage participation, personal responsibility and effective engagement by everyone in terms of their particular calling and ministry in the Church and world according to their opportunities and gifts.
However, I think that today we have a leadership in the Church which actually undermines the very notion of subsidiarity; where the minutiae of Church life and praxis “at the lower level” are subject to examination and authentication being given by the “higher level”, in fact the highest level, e.g. the approval of liturgical lang-uage and texts; where one of the key Vatican II principles, collegiality in decision-making, is virtually non-existent. The eminent emeritus Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Franz König, wrote the following in 1999 – al-most 35 years after Vatican II: “In fact, however, de facto and not de jure, intentionally or unintentionally, the curial authorities working in conjunction with the Pope have appropriated the tasks of the episcopal college. It is they who now carry out almost all of them” (“My Vision of the Church of the Future”, The Tablet, March 27, 1999, p. 434).
What compounds this, for me, is the mystique which has in increasing measure surrounded the person of the Pope in the last 30 years, such that any hint of critique or questioning of his policies, his way of thinking, his exercise of authority etc. is equated with disloyalty. There is more than a perception, because of this mystique, that unquestioning obedience by the faithful to the Pope is required and is a sign of the ethos and fidelity of a true Catholic. When the Pope’s authority is then intentionally extended to the Vatican Curia, there exists a real possibility that unquestioning obedience to very human decisions about a whole range of issues by the Curial Departments and Cardinals also becomes a mark of one’s fidelity as a Catholic, and anything less is interpreted as being disloyal to the Pope who is charged with steering the barque of Peter.
It has become more and more difficult over the past years, therefore, for the College of Bishops as a whole, or in a particular territory, to exercise their theologically-based servant leadership to discern appropriate responses to their particular socio-economic, cultural, liturgical, spiritual and other pastoral realities and needs; much less to disagree with or seek alternatives to policies and decisions taken in Rome. And what appears to be more and more the policy of appointing “safe”, unquestionably orthodox and even very conservative bishops to fill vacant dioceses over the past 30 years, only makes it less and less likely that the College of Bishops – even in powerful Conferences like the United States – will question what comes out of Rome, and certainly not publicly. Instead, there will be every effort to try and find an accommodation with those in power, which means that the Roman position will prevail in the end. And, taking this further, when an individual bishop takes issue with something, especially in public, the impression or judgement will be that he is “breaking ranks” with the other bishops and will only cause confusion to the lay faithful – so it is said - because it will appear that the Bishops are not united in their teaching and leadership role. The pressure, therefore, to conform.
What we should have, in my view, is a Church where the leadership recognises and empowers decision-making at the appropriate levels in the local Church; where local leadership listens to and discerns with the people of God of that area what “the Spirit is saying to the Church” and then articulates that as a consensus of the be-lieving, praying, serving community. It needs faith in God and trust in the people of God to take what may seem to some or many as a risk. The Church could be enriched as a result through a diversity which truly integrates socio-cultural values and insights into a living and developing faith, together with a discernment of how such diversity can promote unity in the Church – and not, therefore, require uniformity to be truly authentic.
Diversity in living and praxis, as an expression of the principle of subsidiarity, has been taken away from the local Churches everywhere by the centralisation of decision-making at the level of the Vatican. In addition, orthodoxy is more and more identified with conservative opinions and outlook, with the corresponding judge-ment that what is perceived to be “liberal” is both suspect and not orthodox, and therefore to be rejected as a danger to the faith of the people.
Is there a way forward? I have grappled with this question especially in the light of the apparent division of as-piration and vision in the Church. How do you reconcile such very different visions of Church, or models of Church? I do not have the answer, except that somewhere we must find an attitude of respect and reverence for difference and diversity as we search for a living unity in the Church; that people be allowed, indeed enabled, to find or create the type of community which is expressive of their faith and aspirations concerning their Christian and Catholic lives and engagement in Church and world….and which strives to hold in legitimate and construc-tive tension the uncertainties and ambiguities that all this will bring, trusting in the presence of the Holy Spirit.
At the heart of this is the question of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be trusted enough to make informed decisions about our life, our witness, our expressions of faith, spirituality, prayer, and involvement in the world……on the basis of a developed conscience. And, as an invitation to an appreciation of conscience and conscientious decisions about life and participation in what is a very human Church, I close with the formula-tion or understanding given by none other than the theologian, Father Josef Ratzinger, now Pope, when he was a peritus, or expert, at Vatican II:
“Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own con-science which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical autho-rity. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism”.
(Joseph Ratzinger in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II,Vol. V., pg. 134 (Ed) H. Vorgrimler, New York, Herder and Herder, 1967).
Cape Town, 1 June, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)