Schism is a process not a moment!
I think we need to keep that basic truth in mind as we survey the scene of growing divisions among the hierarchy of the Church in their responses to the wave of reform both in Catholic teaching and pastoral practice introduced under the Pontificate of Pope Francis.
I believe that there will not be one event or a single issue which will provoke a fractioning of the Church into diverse and often competing communities.
Rather, the schism will occur after a slow but steady deterioration of unity among Bishops, Pastors and the faithful in matters pertaining to Catholic Faith and Morals.
I come to this conclusion after much reading and study of what the Protestant Reformation looked like at the time it was occurring.
For example, when did those communities which broke away from Rome start to establish their own churches and liturgies? What did the preaching of the time address and to what authority did that preaching refer for its authenticity? What sectors of the Catholic population were more likely to separate from Rome?
I have concentrated especially on a particular period and sect: the 16th Century Calvinists. And looking at their experience, I suggest that it is uncannily similar to what we are seeing unfold within the Church today.
It appears that there was quite a bit of diversity among the "protesting" (nascent Protestant) communities of the 16th Century.
Several conventions among the Calvinists started to diverge early on. Scottish Calvinists parted very quickly from the liturgical practices of the Genevan Calvinists. Each sect began to establish their own separate and distinct rules governing dress, both when in church as well as in daily life.
Sometimes, Calvinists simply took over churches previously administered by the Catholic Church. Sometimes, they built new church buildings.
Worship practices diverged from former Catholic liturgy in language, gesture and action on the part of the minister and the people. Public prayers were often spontaneous rather than ordered according to universal liturgical norms.
Services often consisted of someone being asked to read a particular passage from the Bible and then minister (elected by the individual congregation) would preach anywhere from 20 to 60 minutes. The service would conclude with a hymn and a closing benediction.
But, while Calvinist sects may have differed greatly in articles of faith and liturgy among themselves, what held them together and identifiable was their resistance and hostility to anything that even remotely resembled any of the teachings and practices of the Roman Church.
For almost two centuries, these differences would ebb and flow among the various sects of Protestantism, at least until the ministry of John and Charles Wesley, when Protestantism took on its present day structure and appearance.
In many parts of Europe such as the German states or England, Protestantism was primarily supported by ruling elites who then imposed it on the general population.
For example in the German states, Lutheranism was spread by its adoption by powerful princes. In England, the Reformation started with Henry VIII's conflict with the Church and was continued by his son Edward VI, or rather his powerful advisers.
These elites were early adopters of the Reformation largely in an attempt to limit the power of the Catholic Church over their secular affairs.
This pattern was not universal however.
In the Low Countries, the Reformation spread from the bottom up. The ruling elites were closely allied to the Catholic Church. However, the Low Countries had a well educated, wealthy, and urban population who adopted Protestantism readily. Therefore Protestantism in the Low Countries was supported primarily by the middle class and opposed by the ruling elites.
The point I am making is this: there was not one moment when differences within the Church reached a state of critical mass resulting in a catastrophic explosion of dissent and division.
The process was slow and methodical with bits and pieces of Catholic teaching and the hierarchical authority behind it being chipped away slowly but progressively by opposing views and relentless challenges to that authority.
Clergy and Religious began to preach and teach matters of faith and morals based upon their own interpretation of the Scriptures rather than reference to the magisterial authority of Rome and the Vatican.
In time, the people themselves adopted the idea that they themselves could interpret the Scriptures authoritatively and apply them to their own moral situations and circumstances.
Eventually and inevitably, these differences became so ingrained within these dissenting communities that formal fracture between the Church of Rome and these “protester” Christian communities had come to be firmly and irreparably established.
As I look out on the state of the Church today, I wonder: are we not witnessing these divergences among Bishops, Pastors and laity today?
Daily, it seems, there are published stories about this Bishop or that Bishop criticizing one another. One Conference of Bishops adopts a pastoral practice with regard to a matter of faith or morals which is completely contradictory to the practice of another Conference.
A number of Cardinals publicly challenges the Supreme Apostolic authority of Pope Francis regarding the heterodoxy regarding the Sacraments of Reconciliation, Eucharist and Marriage he has introduced into the Church by way of Amoris Laetitia.
Some Bishops (Atlantic Canadians) allow the Sacraments to be administered to those who choose physician-assisted suicide. Other Bishops (Alberta and Northwest Territory Canadians) prohibit such pastoral practices.
A Bishop in Springfield, Illinois bans the Sacraments and Funerals for same-sex couples, while another Bishop (a Cardinal in Newark) welcomes all expressions of the LGBT lifestyle into his diocese and parishes.
Are not these expressions of dissent and divergence eerily similar to those which resulted in the establishment of Protestant denominations?
Schism is a process not a moment!
Are we not living out our lives during a similar process which, in decades, will witness the birth of yet another irremedial fracturing of the Catholic Faith?
I wonder.
What thinkest you?
Friday, June 30, 2017
PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE: BISHOPS SILENT OR DIVIDED ON THE PRACTICE
In America, it is the law that individual States have the power to regulate, allow or prohibit assisted suicide.
It should be noted that, in 1997, in the cases of Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there is no Constitutional right to assisted suicide, and that states therefore have the right to prohibit it.
Advocates of assisted suicide saw this as opening the door for debate on the issue at the State level.
Nine years later, the case of Gonzales v. Oregon was brought to the United States Supreme Court in 2006. The Justices ruled that the United States Attorney General could not enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill.
Now, a little more than a decade later, a large majority of Americans say euthanasia should be legal throughout the country, a reversal from the 1940s and 1950s when most thought the practice should be prohibited. Sixty-nine percent say that a doctor should be allowed to end a patient's life by painless means if the patient requests it, up from 36% in 1950.
In 2016, California became the most populous State to pass a law allowing terminally ill patients who meet certain criteria to ask their doctor for life-ending medication. The legislation came as a result of the case of Brittany Maynard, who was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where physicians previously were barred from prescribing medication to allow terminally ill people to end their lives. Maynard ended her life in Oregon, where the practice was legal.
Since the passage of that law, over 134 terminally ill citizens of California have ended their lives by way of physician assisted suicide.
But, while 69% of Americans say physicians should be allowed to end patients' lives by painless means, only 51% say they would consider ending their own lives if they personally had a disease that could not be cured and they were living in severe pain.
California, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana and New Mexico are the only states presently allowing physician-assisted suicide. California, often a bellwether for change throughout the U.S., may persuade other states to consider passing legislation permitting physicians to allow terminally ill people to end their lives.
While Americans appear to be solidly comfortable with the practice, the nation appears to be divided on the moral acceptability of the practice according to social researchers. But, as one surveys the frequency with which the Catholic Bishops address and condemn the practice, one is shocked by their apparent silence and indifference with regard to the practice. That silence will be the eventual justification for more and more Catholic to consider physician assisted suicide to be a morally acceptable means of ending life in terminally ill situations and circumstances.
But when Catholic Bishops are indeed bold enough to even address the practice, it appears that there is little common agreement among them regarding its moral ramifications.
In Canada, for example,two groups of Canadian Catholic Bishops have issued instructions for pastors regarding the pastoral care of people planning assisted suicide.
One group of bishops tells priests that Catholics planning suicide cannot receive the Sacraments. The other group of Bishops leaves that question open.
Citing the teachings of Pope Francis, the Catholic bishops of the Atlantic territories write that people considering suicide “deserve our compassionate response and respect.” While the decision to commit suicide is contrary to Christian morality, they note that the individual may be suffering from depression or other emotional difficulties that prevent a full consent of the will. The bishops conclude that ‘the pastoral care of souls cannot be reduced to norms for the reception of sacraments or the celebration of funeral rites.”
However, in a sharply contrasting document, the Catholic bishops of Alberta and the Northwest Territories argue strongly against accepting an individual’s choice of suicide. They, too, urge pastors to show compassion and understanding for those contemplating suicide, but they emphasize that such people should be made aware that “euthanasia is a grave sin.” If a Catholic asks to be anointed before suicide, the Alberta and Northwest Territories Bishops write, the Priest has “the duty to implore the sick person with gentle firmness to turn away from this determination in repentance and trust. If the person, however, remains obstinate, the Anointing cannot be celebrated.”
Once again, if the Bishops themselves cannot find common ground regarding the morality of such once very clear Catholic teaching regarding euthanasia and the sanctity of human life, what is the average member of the Catholic faithful to conclude other than decisions regarding these matters are subject to personal discretion and choice.
We are experiencing a new age of moral relativism creeping into the Church to a degree once considered unthinkable. The consequences of such a development will be severe and regrettable for generations yet to be born.
It should be noted that, in 1997, in the cases of Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there is no Constitutional right to assisted suicide, and that states therefore have the right to prohibit it.
Advocates of assisted suicide saw this as opening the door for debate on the issue at the State level.
Nine years later, the case of Gonzales v. Oregon was brought to the United States Supreme Court in 2006. The Justices ruled that the United States Attorney General could not enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill.
Now, a little more than a decade later, a large majority of Americans say euthanasia should be legal throughout the country, a reversal from the 1940s and 1950s when most thought the practice should be prohibited. Sixty-nine percent say that a doctor should be allowed to end a patient's life by painless means if the patient requests it, up from 36% in 1950.
In 2016, California became the most populous State to pass a law allowing terminally ill patients who meet certain criteria to ask their doctor for life-ending medication. The legislation came as a result of the case of Brittany Maynard, who was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where physicians previously were barred from prescribing medication to allow terminally ill people to end their lives. Maynard ended her life in Oregon, where the practice was legal.
Since the passage of that law, over 134 terminally ill citizens of California have ended their lives by way of physician assisted suicide.
But, while 69% of Americans say physicians should be allowed to end patients' lives by painless means, only 51% say they would consider ending their own lives if they personally had a disease that could not be cured and they were living in severe pain.
California, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana and New Mexico are the only states presently allowing physician-assisted suicide. California, often a bellwether for change throughout the U.S., may persuade other states to consider passing legislation permitting physicians to allow terminally ill people to end their lives.
While Americans appear to be solidly comfortable with the practice, the nation appears to be divided on the moral acceptability of the practice according to social researchers. But, as one surveys the frequency with which the Catholic Bishops address and condemn the practice, one is shocked by their apparent silence and indifference with regard to the practice. That silence will be the eventual justification for more and more Catholic to consider physician assisted suicide to be a morally acceptable means of ending life in terminally ill situations and circumstances.
But when Catholic Bishops are indeed bold enough to even address the practice, it appears that there is little common agreement among them regarding its moral ramifications.
In Canada, for example,two groups of Canadian Catholic Bishops have issued instructions for pastors regarding the pastoral care of people planning assisted suicide.
One group of bishops tells priests that Catholics planning suicide cannot receive the Sacraments. The other group of Bishops leaves that question open.
Citing the teachings of Pope Francis, the Catholic bishops of the Atlantic territories write that people considering suicide “deserve our compassionate response and respect.” While the decision to commit suicide is contrary to Christian morality, they note that the individual may be suffering from depression or other emotional difficulties that prevent a full consent of the will. The bishops conclude that ‘the pastoral care of souls cannot be reduced to norms for the reception of sacraments or the celebration of funeral rites.”
However, in a sharply contrasting document, the Catholic bishops of Alberta and the Northwest Territories argue strongly against accepting an individual’s choice of suicide. They, too, urge pastors to show compassion and understanding for those contemplating suicide, but they emphasize that such people should be made aware that “euthanasia is a grave sin.” If a Catholic asks to be anointed before suicide, the Alberta and Northwest Territories Bishops write, the Priest has “the duty to implore the sick person with gentle firmness to turn away from this determination in repentance and trust. If the person, however, remains obstinate, the Anointing cannot be celebrated.”
Once again, if the Bishops themselves cannot find common ground regarding the morality of such once very clear Catholic teaching regarding euthanasia and the sanctity of human life, what is the average member of the Catholic faithful to conclude other than decisions regarding these matters are subject to personal discretion and choice.
We are experiencing a new age of moral relativism creeping into the Church to a degree once considered unthinkable. The consequences of such a development will be severe and regrettable for generations yet to be born.
Thursday, June 29, 2017
SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND LGBT LIFESTYLE MORE DEEPLY INGRAINED IN AMERICAN CULTURE
Last Monday (June 26), same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide in the United States after a Supreme Court historic ruling.
In the two years since same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide, it appears that support for it has grown even among groups that until recently had been broadly opposed.
The Pew Research Center (a survey company which I often consult because of its integrity and accuracy) found that, for the first time, a majority of blacks and baby boomers support allowing gays and lesbians to wed.
Pew also found that Republicans now appear to be split almost evenly, a marked shift from 2013, when 61 percent opposed gay marriage.
In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s judgment, there were some flare-ups of defiance. A county clerk in Kentucky, Kim Davis, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Alabama's chief justice, Roy Moore, ordered probate judges to stop issuing such licenses.
But, now just two years later, such acts of resistance have largely faded way, and same-sex marriage is now treated as a routine occurrence across the U.S.
According to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law (so take this with a grain of salt), there are now more than 547,000 same-sex married couples in the U.S., including at least 157,000 couples who married in the past two years.
However, there are a few staunch opponents of gay marriage who are focusing their efforts on trying to provide legal protections to civil servants, merchants and other business people who do not want to provide services to same-sex couples.
Mississippi, for example, has passed a law — now the subject of litigation in federal court — that would let businesses and government workers deny some services to gay and lesbian couples.
And, at present, there is a case pending before the Supreme Court involving a Colorado baker who was found guilty of discrimination for refusing to sell a gay couple a wedding cake. Depending upon the outcome of that case, a florist in Washington State also may appeal her conviction and fine for violating that state's anti-discrimination law because she would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.
Among the findings of the recent Pew Research Center survey are these.
Overall, 62 percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage, the highest level in 20 years of Pew polling on the issue. As recently as 2010, support was at 42 percent.
Support is more than 70 percent among Millennials aged 18 to 36, and among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Support is only 35 percent among white evangelical Protestants, while it is 67 percent among Roman Catholics.
Earlier this week, I published a post about Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield in Illinois who issued a decree stipulating that gays and lesbians in same-sex marriages should not be provided with communion or Catholic funeral services.
Already, the voices in support of the LGBT lifestyle have condemned the Bishop for his policy.
Francis DeBernardo, head of an organization of LGBT Catholics called New Ways Ministry, addressed an open letter to Paprocki last Friday in which he stated: "Many gay and lesbian couples are leading lives of heroic devotion to each other, their children, and their communities. I hope and pray that you will reflect not only on the harm that this decree will cause but also the good that can occur if you withdraw it.
It is clear that Bishop Paprocki has and will continue to suffer the ire of those pushing the homosexual and transgender agenda.
I predicted that the Bishop will receive so much criticism and abuse that he will be forced to resign because he will no longer be able to effectively minister to the Catholics of Springfield. While I hoped that prediction was wrong when I made it, it unfortunately appears to show the signs of being correct.
And it appears that the Church’s moral authority regarding homosexuality as well as marriage (heterosexual or otherwise) has been compromised beyond redemption.
How sad for this and future generations of Catholic believers!
In the two years since same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide, it appears that support for it has grown even among groups that until recently had been broadly opposed.
The Pew Research Center (a survey company which I often consult because of its integrity and accuracy) found that, for the first time, a majority of blacks and baby boomers support allowing gays and lesbians to wed.
Pew also found that Republicans now appear to be split almost evenly, a marked shift from 2013, when 61 percent opposed gay marriage.
In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s judgment, there were some flare-ups of defiance. A county clerk in Kentucky, Kim Davis, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Alabama's chief justice, Roy Moore, ordered probate judges to stop issuing such licenses.
But, now just two years later, such acts of resistance have largely faded way, and same-sex marriage is now treated as a routine occurrence across the U.S.
According to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law (so take this with a grain of salt), there are now more than 547,000 same-sex married couples in the U.S., including at least 157,000 couples who married in the past two years.
However, there are a few staunch opponents of gay marriage who are focusing their efforts on trying to provide legal protections to civil servants, merchants and other business people who do not want to provide services to same-sex couples.
Mississippi, for example, has passed a law — now the subject of litigation in federal court — that would let businesses and government workers deny some services to gay and lesbian couples.
And, at present, there is a case pending before the Supreme Court involving a Colorado baker who was found guilty of discrimination for refusing to sell a gay couple a wedding cake. Depending upon the outcome of that case, a florist in Washington State also may appeal her conviction and fine for violating that state's anti-discrimination law because she would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.
Among the findings of the recent Pew Research Center survey are these.
Overall, 62 percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage, the highest level in 20 years of Pew polling on the issue. As recently as 2010, support was at 42 percent.
Support is more than 70 percent among Millennials aged 18 to 36, and among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Support is only 35 percent among white evangelical Protestants, while it is 67 percent among Roman Catholics.
Earlier this week, I published a post about Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield in Illinois who issued a decree stipulating that gays and lesbians in same-sex marriages should not be provided with communion or Catholic funeral services.
Already, the voices in support of the LGBT lifestyle have condemned the Bishop for his policy.
Francis DeBernardo, head of an organization of LGBT Catholics called New Ways Ministry, addressed an open letter to Paprocki last Friday in which he stated: "Many gay and lesbian couples are leading lives of heroic devotion to each other, their children, and their communities. I hope and pray that you will reflect not only on the harm that this decree will cause but also the good that can occur if you withdraw it.
It is clear that Bishop Paprocki has and will continue to suffer the ire of those pushing the homosexual and transgender agenda.
I predicted that the Bishop will receive so much criticism and abuse that he will be forced to resign because he will no longer be able to effectively minister to the Catholics of Springfield. While I hoped that prediction was wrong when I made it, it unfortunately appears to show the signs of being correct.
And it appears that the Church’s moral authority regarding homosexuality as well as marriage (heterosexual or otherwise) has been compromised beyond redemption.
How sad for this and future generations of Catholic believers!
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
UNSUNG HEROES
After his back to back Masses at 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM at his residential parish, Father gets behind the wheel and drives the twenty-five miles of highway to celebrate the noon Mass at the parish where he also serves as Pastor.
Father is in his late 60s and took on the role as Pastor of the neighboring rural parish when the people found themselves in need of a Priest. As canonical Pastor of both parishes, Father splits his time as best he can between the two locations.
Father isn't alone in his hectic weekend schedule — as fewer men enter the Priesthood and fewer parishioners attend mass, many parishes now share Pastors.
The decline in Catholics, parishes and parishes with resident Pastors that has been taking place throughout the dioceses in America over the past four decades is alarming.
In the new experience of parochial life, “community” is often the term used when parishes merge such as the Lamoille County Catholic Community, which includes Hyde Park, Eden, Johnson and Morrisville in Vermont.
Pastors who care for more than one parish typically celebrate three to six Masses a weekend between the parochial communities, a grueling schedule for a young man let alone a Priest in his latter 60s.
Oftentimes, the arrangement is not fair to either parish as it impacts the ability of the Pastor to get to know parishioners, who along with the Pastor have to make a lot of changes in their lives.
Based on information available from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), nearly 70 percent of present day Pastors in are in charge of more than one parish. In some cases, Pastors are celebrating Masses at as many as six locations.
For the present, working with multiple parishes is a necessary solution to the challenges facing the Catholic Church. The situation is destined to come to a moment of critical mass when the number of aging and infirm Priests are no longer able to provide spiritual care and leadership to multiple parishes.
It is time for the Church in the person of the Holy Father and the Bishops to confront this looming crisis maturely and seriously.
To date, Church hierarchy has chosen to bury its collective head in the sand and pretend that everything is alright and that people can expect to enjoy easy availability to their local Pastor and to the Sacraments.
Certainly, one option available to the Church is to extend Ordination to the Priesthood to the thousands of Permanent Deacons who, at present, are no more than glorified altar servers offering little service to the Pastors of the parishes to which they have been assigned. They would be ordained to the Priesthood solely for the purpose of providing sacramental care to the People of God. And the needless requirement that they must remain celibate should their spouses die should be suppressed immediately.
The Holy Father and the Bishops are fond of speaking about the need of the Priest to accompany those whose lives are spiritually broken or shattered. To fulfill this lofty enterprise, the Pope and the Bishops need first to insure that a generous supply of Priests will be available for that accompaniment.
To date, the Pope and the Bishops have done nothing substantial or enduring that would provide that assurance.
In the meantime, the older and aging Priests who are providing such sacrificial service to God’s People need to be commended for the unsung heroes that they truly are.
Let us pray that they will and will do so soon for the good of the Church and the welfare of souls.
Father is in his late 60s and took on the role as Pastor of the neighboring rural parish when the people found themselves in need of a Priest. As canonical Pastor of both parishes, Father splits his time as best he can between the two locations.
Father isn't alone in his hectic weekend schedule — as fewer men enter the Priesthood and fewer parishioners attend mass, many parishes now share Pastors.
The decline in Catholics, parishes and parishes with resident Pastors that has been taking place throughout the dioceses in America over the past four decades is alarming.
In the new experience of parochial life, “community” is often the term used when parishes merge such as the Lamoille County Catholic Community, which includes Hyde Park, Eden, Johnson and Morrisville in Vermont.
Pastors who care for more than one parish typically celebrate three to six Masses a weekend between the parochial communities, a grueling schedule for a young man let alone a Priest in his latter 60s.
Oftentimes, the arrangement is not fair to either parish as it impacts the ability of the Pastor to get to know parishioners, who along with the Pastor have to make a lot of changes in their lives.
Based on information available from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), nearly 70 percent of present day Pastors in are in charge of more than one parish. In some cases, Pastors are celebrating Masses at as many as six locations.
For the present, working with multiple parishes is a necessary solution to the challenges facing the Catholic Church. The situation is destined to come to a moment of critical mass when the number of aging and infirm Priests are no longer able to provide spiritual care and leadership to multiple parishes.
It is time for the Church in the person of the Holy Father and the Bishops to confront this looming crisis maturely and seriously.
To date, Church hierarchy has chosen to bury its collective head in the sand and pretend that everything is alright and that people can expect to enjoy easy availability to their local Pastor and to the Sacraments.
Certainly, one option available to the Church is to extend Ordination to the Priesthood to the thousands of Permanent Deacons who, at present, are no more than glorified altar servers offering little service to the Pastors of the parishes to which they have been assigned. They would be ordained to the Priesthood solely for the purpose of providing sacramental care to the People of God. And the needless requirement that they must remain celibate should their spouses die should be suppressed immediately.
The Holy Father and the Bishops are fond of speaking about the need of the Priest to accompany those whose lives are spiritually broken or shattered. To fulfill this lofty enterprise, the Pope and the Bishops need first to insure that a generous supply of Priests will be available for that accompaniment.
To date, the Pope and the Bishops have done nothing substantial or enduring that would provide that assurance.
In the meantime, the older and aging Priests who are providing such sacrificial service to God’s People need to be commended for the unsung heroes that they truly are.
Let us pray that they will and will do so soon for the good of the Church and the welfare of souls.
THE EFFORT TO DECENTRALIZE DECISION-MAKING CONTINUES
The Council of Cardinals met with the Holy Father for three days, June 12 through June 14.
All members of the Council were present apart from Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston.
The working sessions were dedicated to further consideration of the ways in which the Roman Curia can better serve the local Churches.
Among the various proposals under consideration is a larger consultation board made up also of members from consecrated life and the laity, for candidates proposed for appointment as bishop.
The Council also discussed the possibility of transferring some functions from the Roman Congregations to the local Bishops or Episcopal Conferences, in a spirit of healthy decentralization.
For example, the transfer of the Congregation for the Clergy to national Episcopal Conference for examination and authorization for: the priestly ordination of an unmarried permanent deacon; the passage to new marriage for a widowed permanent deacon; the request for priestly ordination by a widowed permanent deacon.
The Cardinals gave further consideration to various Congegations of the Curia, in particular the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, the Congregation for Interreligious Dialogue; the Congregation for the Oriental Churches; the Commission for Legislative Texts; and three tribunals: the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Segnatura and the Tribunal of the Roman Rota.
Cardinal George Pell provided an update on the work of the Secretariat for the Economy, of which he is the President. Particular attention was paid to the steps ahead made in the process of planning of economic resources and in monitoring financial plans for the first trimester of 2017 which have substantially confirmed, with few exceptions, the budget data. Shortly the budget process will begin for 2018, and the monitoring for the second trimester of 2017.
The Prefect of the Secretariat for Communications presented a report on the state of the reform of the communication system of the Holy See; he illustrated the economic and management progress of the SPC, demonstrating positive results.
The next meeting of the Council of Cardinals will take place in September.
All members of the Council were present apart from Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston.
The working sessions were dedicated to further consideration of the ways in which the Roman Curia can better serve the local Churches.
Among the various proposals under consideration is a larger consultation board made up also of members from consecrated life and the laity, for candidates proposed for appointment as bishop.
The Council also discussed the possibility of transferring some functions from the Roman Congregations to the local Bishops or Episcopal Conferences, in a spirit of healthy decentralization.
For example, the transfer of the Congregation for the Clergy to national Episcopal Conference for examination and authorization for: the priestly ordination of an unmarried permanent deacon; the passage to new marriage for a widowed permanent deacon; the request for priestly ordination by a widowed permanent deacon.
The Cardinals gave further consideration to various Congegations of the Curia, in particular the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, the Congregation for Interreligious Dialogue; the Congregation for the Oriental Churches; the Commission for Legislative Texts; and three tribunals: the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Segnatura and the Tribunal of the Roman Rota.
Cardinal George Pell provided an update on the work of the Secretariat for the Economy, of which he is the President. Particular attention was paid to the steps ahead made in the process of planning of economic resources and in monitoring financial plans for the first trimester of 2017 which have substantially confirmed, with few exceptions, the budget data. Shortly the budget process will begin for 2018, and the monitoring for the second trimester of 2017.
The Prefect of the Secretariat for Communications presented a report on the state of the reform of the communication system of the Holy See; he illustrated the economic and management progress of the SPC, demonstrating positive results.
The next meeting of the Council of Cardinals will take place in September.
Monday, June 26, 2017
PROFOUND DIVISIONS AMONG THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY HIGHLIGHTED IN BISHOP PAPROCKI'S LATEST DECREE
Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois has decreed that Priests in the diocese may not distribute Holy Communion and are not to provide Catholic Funeral Rites to people in same sex unions, unless they show “some sings of repentance” for their relationships before death.
The Bishop has also mandated that people “living publicly” in same-sex marriages may not receive the Sacrament of Confirmation or be admitted to the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, a process by which many converts become Catholic, preparing them for baptism and confirmation.
At the same time, Paprocki has allowed that children living with a Catholic parent or parents in a same-sex marriage may be baptized. But when it comes to same-sex unions, Priests are not to bless couples, Church property cannot be used for ceremonies and diocesan employees are forbidden from participating.
The bishop’s decree has not yet been made public by the diocese, but was sent to clergy and diocesan staff in an email last week.
Although same-sex marriages have been legal across the United States since the Supreme Court 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the decree reiterates Catholic teaching that marriage is a “covenant between one man and one woman.” Moreover, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”
The 64-year-old bishop, trained as a lawyer as well as Priest, has served the Springfield diocese since 2010. He was previously a priest and auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of Chicago.
The Bishop has defended the issuance of the decree saying, “These norms are necessary in light of changes in the law and in our culture regarding these issues.”
Meanwhile, other members of the hierarchy have also embraced a more welcoming approach. Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin, the Archbishop of Newark, recently welcomed dozens of gay and lesbian Catholics to worship. “I am Joseph your brother,” Tobin told the group, according to a New York Times report. “I am your brother, as a disciple of Jesus. I am your brother, as a sinner who finds mercy with the Lord.”
The Rev. James Martin’s latest book — “Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the L.G.B.T. Community Can Enter Into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion and Sensitivity” — also calls for a gentler approach.
Of the Paprocki decree, the noted Jesuit author, said: “If Bishops ban members of same-sex marriages from receiving a Catholic funeral, they also have to be consistent. They must also ban divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received annulments, women who has or man who fathers a child out of wedlock, members of straight couples who are living together before marriage, and anyone using birth control. For those are all against church teaching as well. Moreover, they must ban anyone who does not care for the poor, or care for the environment, and anyone who supports torture, for those are church teachings too. More basically, they must ban people who are not loving, not forgiving and not merciful, for these represent the teachings of Jesus, the most fundamental of all church teachings. To focus only on LGBT people, without a similar focus on the moral and sexual behavior of straight people is, in the words of the Catechism, a “sign of unjust discrimination.”
Bishop Paprocki’s decree highlights again the deep division in the pastoral approaches the Catholic hierarchy have taken in addressing the morality of same sex unions, homosexuality, even the Sacraments of Reconciliation, Eucharist and Matrimony.
Unfortunately, for Bishop Paprocki, emotional sympathy for the homosexual community and those in irregular marital relationships has become so deeply ingrained in the American psyche and culture that the Bishop and those like him who choose to defend the traditional teachings of the Church have been labeled as uncaring and insensitive bigots and homophobes.
The Church cannot long endure the level of division among the Catholic hierarchy.
Soon, the negative impact of these gross divisions will appear in the growing absence of the Catholic faithful from the pews.
What a pity for Bishop Paprocki who is a good and decent Clergyman.
Where is this all heading? We must trust that the Holy Spirit will continue to provide the Church with the persons and the means to proclaim the Will of Our Heavenly Father for the salvation of the world.
The Bishop has also mandated that people “living publicly” in same-sex marriages may not receive the Sacrament of Confirmation or be admitted to the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, a process by which many converts become Catholic, preparing them for baptism and confirmation.
At the same time, Paprocki has allowed that children living with a Catholic parent or parents in a same-sex marriage may be baptized. But when it comes to same-sex unions, Priests are not to bless couples, Church property cannot be used for ceremonies and diocesan employees are forbidden from participating.
The bishop’s decree has not yet been made public by the diocese, but was sent to clergy and diocesan staff in an email last week.
Although same-sex marriages have been legal across the United States since the Supreme Court 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the decree reiterates Catholic teaching that marriage is a “covenant between one man and one woman.” Moreover, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”
The 64-year-old bishop, trained as a lawyer as well as Priest, has served the Springfield diocese since 2010. He was previously a priest and auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of Chicago.
The Bishop has defended the issuance of the decree saying, “These norms are necessary in light of changes in the law and in our culture regarding these issues.”
Meanwhile, other members of the hierarchy have also embraced a more welcoming approach. Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin, the Archbishop of Newark, recently welcomed dozens of gay and lesbian Catholics to worship. “I am Joseph your brother,” Tobin told the group, according to a New York Times report. “I am your brother, as a disciple of Jesus. I am your brother, as a sinner who finds mercy with the Lord.”
The Rev. James Martin’s latest book — “Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the L.G.B.T. Community Can Enter Into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion and Sensitivity” — also calls for a gentler approach.
Of the Paprocki decree, the noted Jesuit author, said: “If Bishops ban members of same-sex marriages from receiving a Catholic funeral, they also have to be consistent. They must also ban divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received annulments, women who has or man who fathers a child out of wedlock, members of straight couples who are living together before marriage, and anyone using birth control. For those are all against church teaching as well. Moreover, they must ban anyone who does not care for the poor, or care for the environment, and anyone who supports torture, for those are church teachings too. More basically, they must ban people who are not loving, not forgiving and not merciful, for these represent the teachings of Jesus, the most fundamental of all church teachings. To focus only on LGBT people, without a similar focus on the moral and sexual behavior of straight people is, in the words of the Catechism, a “sign of unjust discrimination.”
Bishop Paprocki’s decree highlights again the deep division in the pastoral approaches the Catholic hierarchy have taken in addressing the morality of same sex unions, homosexuality, even the Sacraments of Reconciliation, Eucharist and Matrimony.
Unfortunately, for Bishop Paprocki, emotional sympathy for the homosexual community and those in irregular marital relationships has become so deeply ingrained in the American psyche and culture that the Bishop and those like him who choose to defend the traditional teachings of the Church have been labeled as uncaring and insensitive bigots and homophobes.
The Church cannot long endure the level of division among the Catholic hierarchy.
Soon, the negative impact of these gross divisions will appear in the growing absence of the Catholic faithful from the pews.
What a pity for Bishop Paprocki who is a good and decent Clergyman.
Where is this all heading? We must trust that the Holy Spirit will continue to provide the Church with the persons and the means to proclaim the Will of Our Heavenly Father for the salvation of the world.
Sunday, June 25, 2017
ACCOMPANIMENT OR ACQUIESCENCE? -- Part Two
The desire to love and be of service to others, especially those who have caused us harm or suffering, is perhaps the noblest expression of the virtue of charity to which Christ calls all those who wish to follow Him.
We see this played out each day in the most fundamental of human relationships. Parents assisting children who have fallen into patterns of self-destructive behavior. Spouses who sacrifice their personal well-being to help their partners solve intensely personal problems. Friends who want to help each other in all aspects of their relationship.
This is the highest calling of the spiritual life: to love others as the Father has loved us. Never to turn away because of the repeated failures of those we love.
There comes a time, however, when this noble impulse can degenerate from being the helping hand assisting people to accomplish what they cannot do by themselves to become a perpetuation of the very difficulties they cannot seem to overcome.
This type of “enabling” or “empowerment” prohibits people from taking personal responsibilities for their lives. A parent who allows a child to be absent because he or she hasn’t prepared a lesson or studied for a test enables such irresponsibility. The spouse who makes constant excuses for the drunkeness or abuse of a partner empowers that behavior. The friend who provides assistance to the addict so “he won’t be out on the street” perpetuates the friend’s addiction.
It can be a fine line between helping and enabling.
Psychologists refers to those who habitually enable dysfunctional behavior as “co-dependent”. For oftentimes an enabler’s self-esteem is dependent on his or her ability and willingness to “help” in inappropriate ways. This “help” allows the enabler to feel in control of an unmanageable situation. The reality, though, is that enabling not only doesn’t help, but it actively causes harm and makes the situation worse.
By stepping in to “solve” the addict’s problems, the enabler takes away any motivation for the addict to take responsibility for his or her own actions. Without that motivation, there is little reason for the addict to change. Enablers help people in difficulty dig themselves deeper into trouble.
It can be a fine line between helping and enabling.
As I hear Pope Francis call us, in the spirit of charity, to “accompany” those whose moral lives are shattered or in ruins, I wonder whether or not the Holy Father’s “art of accompaniment” is not leading the Church to into the trap of becoming enablers of morally self-destructive behaviors.
What constitutes empowerment? How does enabling manifest itself?
Again, psychologists provide us with some rather clear indicators.
Enablers often ignore unacceptable behaviors or assign blame for a person’s problems to others peoples, to circumstances or situations rather than assign responsibility for the problem to the one who has chosen to act in a manner which causes personal harm.
Enablers often take upon themselves the responsibility for the failures of the other person, offering apology after apology for not being kind enough, or understanding enough. Enablers are most fearful that, should they confront the other with the reality of the harmfulness of his or her behavior, they will force the other to leave them.
I wonder whether or not Francis’ call to practice the “art of accompaniment” isn’t vulnerable to become the “art of empowerment”..
I wonder at what point does this accompaniment of a person in moral difficulty become acquiescence to that difficulty.
I wonder at what point in time Pope Francis believes it might be necessary to confront those in difficulty with the truth, with the reality of their irresponsible behavior and call them to accept accountability for their lives.
If no such point in time exists for Francis in his “art of accompaniment”, one must wonder if the Holy Father is not just helping the people he is calling us to love really dig their own graves.
What thinkest you?
We see this played out each day in the most fundamental of human relationships. Parents assisting children who have fallen into patterns of self-destructive behavior. Spouses who sacrifice their personal well-being to help their partners solve intensely personal problems. Friends who want to help each other in all aspects of their relationship.
This is the highest calling of the spiritual life: to love others as the Father has loved us. Never to turn away because of the repeated failures of those we love.
There comes a time, however, when this noble impulse can degenerate from being the helping hand assisting people to accomplish what they cannot do by themselves to become a perpetuation of the very difficulties they cannot seem to overcome.
This type of “enabling” or “empowerment” prohibits people from taking personal responsibilities for their lives. A parent who allows a child to be absent because he or she hasn’t prepared a lesson or studied for a test enables such irresponsibility. The spouse who makes constant excuses for the drunkeness or abuse of a partner empowers that behavior. The friend who provides assistance to the addict so “he won’t be out on the street” perpetuates the friend’s addiction.
It can be a fine line between helping and enabling.
Psychologists refers to those who habitually enable dysfunctional behavior as “co-dependent”. For oftentimes an enabler’s self-esteem is dependent on his or her ability and willingness to “help” in inappropriate ways. This “help” allows the enabler to feel in control of an unmanageable situation. The reality, though, is that enabling not only doesn’t help, but it actively causes harm and makes the situation worse.
By stepping in to “solve” the addict’s problems, the enabler takes away any motivation for the addict to take responsibility for his or her own actions. Without that motivation, there is little reason for the addict to change. Enablers help people in difficulty dig themselves deeper into trouble.
It can be a fine line between helping and enabling.
As I hear Pope Francis call us, in the spirit of charity, to “accompany” those whose moral lives are shattered or in ruins, I wonder whether or not the Holy Father’s “art of accompaniment” is not leading the Church to into the trap of becoming enablers of morally self-destructive behaviors.
What constitutes empowerment? How does enabling manifest itself?
Again, psychologists provide us with some rather clear indicators.
Enablers often ignore unacceptable behaviors or assign blame for a person’s problems to others peoples, to circumstances or situations rather than assign responsibility for the problem to the one who has chosen to act in a manner which causes personal harm.
Enablers often take upon themselves the responsibility for the failures of the other person, offering apology after apology for not being kind enough, or understanding enough. Enablers are most fearful that, should they confront the other with the reality of the harmfulness of his or her behavior, they will force the other to leave them.
I wonder whether or not Francis’ call to practice the “art of accompaniment” isn’t vulnerable to become the “art of empowerment”..
I wonder at what point does this accompaniment of a person in moral difficulty become acquiescence to that difficulty.
I wonder at what point in time Pope Francis believes it might be necessary to confront those in difficulty with the truth, with the reality of their irresponsible behavior and call them to accept accountability for their lives.
If no such point in time exists for Francis in his “art of accompaniment”, one must wonder if the Holy Father is not just helping the people he is calling us to love really dig their own graves.
What thinkest you?
Saturday, June 24, 2017
ACCOMPANIMENT OR ACQUIESCENCE? -- Part One
In his Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (EG), Pope Francis introduces a new vocabulary to the vision of the Church inspired by the Second Vatican Council to which he often refers in his teachings and admonitions.
Key to this new vocabulary is the phrase “the art of accompaniment" (EG, Paragraph 169) which teaches the Christian faithful to “remove our sandals before the sacred ground of the other”, a clear reference to Exodus 3:5.
The vocabulary is ambiguous to be sure.
Many in positions of authority and influence have questioned its usefulness as well as the problematic interpretations of it which have caused a great deal of anguish among the more conservative-minded members of the Church, both Clergy and laity. They ponder whether or not “the art of accompaniment” is really a carefully crafted value-neutral strategy which seeks to avoid any appearance of teaching or demanding adherence to the ageless doctrines and moral dictates of the Catholic Faith.
It might be beneficial for us to examine Pope Francis’ own understanding of the phrase before imposing other interpretations upon it.
Francis introduces “the art of accompaniment” in Chapter 3, “The Proclamation of the Gospel”, Section 4 “Evangelization and the Deeper Understanding of the Kerygma”.
Within this context, it is clear that accompaniment is a means to the end of evangelization, not “accompaniment for accompaniment’s sake.” Pope Francis explicitly states, “Genuine spiritual accompaniment always begins and flourishes in the context of service to the mission of evangelization” (EG, 173).
Spiritual accompaniment leads others ever closer to God… to accompany them would be counterproductive if it became a sort of therapy supporting their self-absorption and ceased to be a pilgrimage with Christ to the Father. (EG, 170)
Pope Francis describes the bedside manner needed in the art of accompaniment as “steady and reassuring, reflecting our closeness,” and as having a “compassionate gaze” (EG, 169). Some refer to this bedside manner, practiced within welcoming and loving communities, as pre-evangelization, which allows encounter, contact, and opportunities to share the medicine of the Gospel.
This work of evangelization must be guided by principles, but it is an art. Every art requires practice, and even mistakes along the way, to learn. It involves a “constellation of virtues,” including charity, humility, affability, courage, patience, and hope.
Communication and listening are also essential. “Listening, in communication, is an openness of heart which makes possible that closeness without which genuine spiritual encounter cannot occur” (EG, 171).
Communication is a two-way street, a dialogue, not listening without speaking, teaching, and preaching. Just as the Socratic method uses questions to make a very strong statement, so careful and caring listening allows one to speak personally to the deepest desires, fears, and questions in the heart of the other. Without such listening, one risks making the most important truth seem irrelevant or boring by trying to answer questions that no one is asking.
This accompaniment must continue throughout the difficult years of the treatment, providing support and encouragement in the face of temptations to despair. Such temptations grow strong at those times when the treatment can be painful and does not appear to heal as quickly as desired.
In treating the walking wounded who have begun to embrace the Gospel, Pope Francis explains, “this always demands the patience of one who knows full well what Saint Thomas Aquinas tells us: that anyone can have grace and charity, and yet falter in the exercise of the virtues because of persistent “contrary inclinations” (EG, 170).
The Church, acting as a “field hospital,” continues to accompany all of us who suffer from the illness of sin and to mercifully dispense the medicine of God’s healing grace in the sacraments throughout our lives. All of those who accompany must practice “prudence, understanding, patience and docility to the Spirit” (EG, 171).
Accompaniment also requires great faith and hope in God, and the willingness to bear wrongs patiently and to forgive, since hurting people often hurt other people. Pope Francis explains, “Someone good at such accompaniment does not give in to frustrations or fears. He or she invites others to let themselves be healed, to take up their mat, embrace the cross, leave all behind and go forth ever anew to proclaim the Gospel” (EG, 172).
Finally, accompaniment continues throughout our lives, helping us to ever more fully know and live the Joy of the Gospel.
Still and all, the Church has been given the mandate by the Lord Himself to "go forth and make disciples....teaching them all that I have commanded you". This is the fundamental mission of the Church to teach the eternal truths about God Himself and mankind's fundamental moral precept to "do good and avoid evil".
The question is this: at what point does "accompaniment" become "acquiescence", the issue which I will consider in Part II of this two-part post.
Key to this new vocabulary is the phrase “the art of accompaniment" (EG, Paragraph 169) which teaches the Christian faithful to “remove our sandals before the sacred ground of the other”, a clear reference to Exodus 3:5.
The vocabulary is ambiguous to be sure.
Many in positions of authority and influence have questioned its usefulness as well as the problematic interpretations of it which have caused a great deal of anguish among the more conservative-minded members of the Church, both Clergy and laity. They ponder whether or not “the art of accompaniment” is really a carefully crafted value-neutral strategy which seeks to avoid any appearance of teaching or demanding adherence to the ageless doctrines and moral dictates of the Catholic Faith.
It might be beneficial for us to examine Pope Francis’ own understanding of the phrase before imposing other interpretations upon it.
Francis introduces “the art of accompaniment” in Chapter 3, “The Proclamation of the Gospel”, Section 4 “Evangelization and the Deeper Understanding of the Kerygma”.
Within this context, it is clear that accompaniment is a means to the end of evangelization, not “accompaniment for accompaniment’s sake.” Pope Francis explicitly states, “Genuine spiritual accompaniment always begins and flourishes in the context of service to the mission of evangelization” (EG, 173).
Spiritual accompaniment leads others ever closer to God… to accompany them would be counterproductive if it became a sort of therapy supporting their self-absorption and ceased to be a pilgrimage with Christ to the Father. (EG, 170)
Pope Francis describes the bedside manner needed in the art of accompaniment as “steady and reassuring, reflecting our closeness,” and as having a “compassionate gaze” (EG, 169). Some refer to this bedside manner, practiced within welcoming and loving communities, as pre-evangelization, which allows encounter, contact, and opportunities to share the medicine of the Gospel.
This work of evangelization must be guided by principles, but it is an art. Every art requires practice, and even mistakes along the way, to learn. It involves a “constellation of virtues,” including charity, humility, affability, courage, patience, and hope.
Communication and listening are also essential. “Listening, in communication, is an openness of heart which makes possible that closeness without which genuine spiritual encounter cannot occur” (EG, 171).
Communication is a two-way street, a dialogue, not listening without speaking, teaching, and preaching. Just as the Socratic method uses questions to make a very strong statement, so careful and caring listening allows one to speak personally to the deepest desires, fears, and questions in the heart of the other. Without such listening, one risks making the most important truth seem irrelevant or boring by trying to answer questions that no one is asking.
This accompaniment must continue throughout the difficult years of the treatment, providing support and encouragement in the face of temptations to despair. Such temptations grow strong at those times when the treatment can be painful and does not appear to heal as quickly as desired.
In treating the walking wounded who have begun to embrace the Gospel, Pope Francis explains, “this always demands the patience of one who knows full well what Saint Thomas Aquinas tells us: that anyone can have grace and charity, and yet falter in the exercise of the virtues because of persistent “contrary inclinations” (EG, 170).
The Church, acting as a “field hospital,” continues to accompany all of us who suffer from the illness of sin and to mercifully dispense the medicine of God’s healing grace in the sacraments throughout our lives. All of those who accompany must practice “prudence, understanding, patience and docility to the Spirit” (EG, 171).
Accompaniment also requires great faith and hope in God, and the willingness to bear wrongs patiently and to forgive, since hurting people often hurt other people. Pope Francis explains, “Someone good at such accompaniment does not give in to frustrations or fears. He or she invites others to let themselves be healed, to take up their mat, embrace the cross, leave all behind and go forth ever anew to proclaim the Gospel” (EG, 172).
Finally, accompaniment continues throughout our lives, helping us to ever more fully know and live the Joy of the Gospel.
Still and all, the Church has been given the mandate by the Lord Himself to "go forth and make disciples....teaching them all that I have commanded you". This is the fundamental mission of the Church to teach the eternal truths about God Himself and mankind's fundamental moral precept to "do good and avoid evil".
The question is this: at what point does "accompaniment" become "acquiescence", the issue which I will consider in Part II of this two-part post.
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
FRANCIS' NOT SO INDIRECT RESPONSE TO THE CARDINALS CONFUSED AND DISORIENTED BY AMORIS LAETITIA
Four Cardinals have publicly released their letter to the Pope from April 25, 2017 unsuccessfully asking him for a private audience to discuss “confusion and disorientation” within the Church after the publication of the Pope’s April 2016 Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
In the letter Cardinals lament the great division in the Church on basic morality as a result of the pope's exhortation.
“And so it is happening — how painful it is to see this! — that what is sin in Poland is good in Germany, that what is prohibited in the archdiocese of Philadelphia is permitted in Malta," they wrote.
The Cardinals asked the Holy Father if during the audience he might answer their five original questions from last year regarding whether or not Amoris Laetitia conforms to perennial Catholic teaching. They also asked the Pope if they could discuss with him the “situation of confusion and disorientation” in the Church caused by “objectively ambiguous passages” in the Exhortation.
The letter was written by Cardinal Carlo Caffarra on behalf of Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, and Joachim Meisner.
“Not having received any response from Your Holiness, we have reached the decision to ask You, respectfully and humbly, for an Audience, together if Your Holiness would like,” the Cardinals wrote in their April 25 letter, which the Holy Father has yet to even acknowledge.
Still, an indirect response to these Cardinals might be seen in the recent visitations which the Pope made to honor two 20th-century parish priests whose commitment to the poor and powerless brought them censure from the Vatican.
Francis flew by helicopter to Bozzolo, near Cremona, to pray at the tomb of Don Primo Mazzolari. Mazzolari, who died in 1959, was an anti-fascist partisan during World War II who, like Francis, preached about a "church for the poor."
Afterward, Francis flew to Barbiana, near Florence, to pray at the tomb of Don Lorenzo Milani, a wealthy convert to Catholicism who founded a parish school to educate the poor and workers. He died in 1967.
Both priests were considered rebels in their lifetimes and were censured by Vatican authorities for their writings. By honoring them with his brief visit, Francis sent the church a message of the type of priest he wants today: simple, guided by Gospel values, devoted to the poor and uninterested in careerism.
At his first stop, Francis stood in silent prayer before the simple tomb of Mazzolari, and delivered a lengthy tribute to the priest, quoting Mazzolari's writings about the need for the church to accompany its flock that Francis himself could have penned.
Church authorities announced Tuesday that the process to beatify Mazzolari would begin in September.
Father Milani, for his part, also emphasized social justice issues, especially about the rights of workers to go on strike. The Vatican in 1958 ordered the retraction of a book of his on his pastoral experiences. Francis said Milani taught the importance of giving the poor the capacity to speak up for themselves, "because without the word, there's no dignity and therefore no justice or freedom."
By these simple and gracious acknowledgments of pastoral service by two simple parish Priests, Francis has delivered a powerful response to those Cardinals who find the Gospel mandate fulfilled by observance of strict moral doctrines and theological formulations. That response is that the most fundamental Gospel mandate is charity toward all through the sacramental administration of Christ’s redeeming grace.
Sadly, the only ones who do not seem to have understood that response are the Cardinals themselves.
In the letter Cardinals lament the great division in the Church on basic morality as a result of the pope's exhortation.
“And so it is happening — how painful it is to see this! — that what is sin in Poland is good in Germany, that what is prohibited in the archdiocese of Philadelphia is permitted in Malta," they wrote.
The Cardinals asked the Holy Father if during the audience he might answer their five original questions from last year regarding whether or not Amoris Laetitia conforms to perennial Catholic teaching. They also asked the Pope if they could discuss with him the “situation of confusion and disorientation” in the Church caused by “objectively ambiguous passages” in the Exhortation.
The letter was written by Cardinal Carlo Caffarra on behalf of Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, and Joachim Meisner.
“Not having received any response from Your Holiness, we have reached the decision to ask You, respectfully and humbly, for an Audience, together if Your Holiness would like,” the Cardinals wrote in their April 25 letter, which the Holy Father has yet to even acknowledge.
Still, an indirect response to these Cardinals might be seen in the recent visitations which the Pope made to honor two 20th-century parish priests whose commitment to the poor and powerless brought them censure from the Vatican.
Francis flew by helicopter to Bozzolo, near Cremona, to pray at the tomb of Don Primo Mazzolari. Mazzolari, who died in 1959, was an anti-fascist partisan during World War II who, like Francis, preached about a "church for the poor."
Afterward, Francis flew to Barbiana, near Florence, to pray at the tomb of Don Lorenzo Milani, a wealthy convert to Catholicism who founded a parish school to educate the poor and workers. He died in 1967.
Both priests were considered rebels in their lifetimes and were censured by Vatican authorities for their writings. By honoring them with his brief visit, Francis sent the church a message of the type of priest he wants today: simple, guided by Gospel values, devoted to the poor and uninterested in careerism.
At his first stop, Francis stood in silent prayer before the simple tomb of Mazzolari, and delivered a lengthy tribute to the priest, quoting Mazzolari's writings about the need for the church to accompany its flock that Francis himself could have penned.
Church authorities announced Tuesday that the process to beatify Mazzolari would begin in September.
Father Milani, for his part, also emphasized social justice issues, especially about the rights of workers to go on strike. The Vatican in 1958 ordered the retraction of a book of his on his pastoral experiences. Francis said Milani taught the importance of giving the poor the capacity to speak up for themselves, "because without the word, there's no dignity and therefore no justice or freedom."
By these simple and gracious acknowledgments of pastoral service by two simple parish Priests, Francis has delivered a powerful response to those Cardinals who find the Gospel mandate fulfilled by observance of strict moral doctrines and theological formulations. That response is that the most fundamental Gospel mandate is charity toward all through the sacramental administration of Christ’s redeeming grace.
Sadly, the only ones who do not seem to have understood that response are the Cardinals themselves.
POPE FRANCIS' INSIGHTFUL REMARKS ABOUT ADOLESCENCE
Pope Francis opened Rome’s annual diocesan meeting with a reflection on how to accompany parents in educating their adolescent children.
The Pope said the adolescent experience is one of tension and transition between childhood and adulthood.
He called this a precious and difficult time in which the whole family is called to grow. And he invited the Roman pastors not to treat adolescence as a “pathology to be medicated”; rather, he called it “a normal part of growth,” since “where there is life there is movement and change”.
The Holy Father said this offered parents a unique opportunity to stimulate young people by involving them in projects that challenge them to reach their full potential.
And in his concluding remarks, Pope Francis offered the following very insightful observation, noting that one of the greatest threats to the education of teenagers is the idea of “eternal youth”.
He said when adults want to stay young and young people want to be adults there is a hidden risk of leaving teenagers out of their own growth processes, because parents have taken their place.
This, the Pope said, deprives teenagers of an experience of confrontation necessary for growth into adulthood.
How often has this been affirmed as society sees children often neglected in their formative years by parents so caught up in the gratification of their own pursuits that their children are left without guidance or attention.
There is a moral imperative which holds that children are not to be held responsible for the sins of their fathers (mothers). But there is nothing to suggest that children are not affected by those sins.
Pity our children will bear the burden of contemporary society’s lack of personal, political and moral responsibility. Our generation and that which immediately succeeds us is passing on to our children a crippling debt, a divided and dangerous world, and a moral wasteland of self-indulgence.
How will our children judge us? If they do so fairly, we have much for which to answer!
The Pope said the adolescent experience is one of tension and transition between childhood and adulthood.
He called this a precious and difficult time in which the whole family is called to grow. And he invited the Roman pastors not to treat adolescence as a “pathology to be medicated”; rather, he called it “a normal part of growth,” since “where there is life there is movement and change”.
The Holy Father said this offered parents a unique opportunity to stimulate young people by involving them in projects that challenge them to reach their full potential.
And in his concluding remarks, Pope Francis offered the following very insightful observation, noting that one of the greatest threats to the education of teenagers is the idea of “eternal youth”.
He said when adults want to stay young and young people want to be adults there is a hidden risk of leaving teenagers out of their own growth processes, because parents have taken their place.
This, the Pope said, deprives teenagers of an experience of confrontation necessary for growth into adulthood.
How often has this been affirmed as society sees children often neglected in their formative years by parents so caught up in the gratification of their own pursuits that their children are left without guidance or attention.
There is a moral imperative which holds that children are not to be held responsible for the sins of their fathers (mothers). But there is nothing to suggest that children are not affected by those sins.
Pity our children will bear the burden of contemporary society’s lack of personal, political and moral responsibility. Our generation and that which immediately succeeds us is passing on to our children a crippling debt, a divided and dangerous world, and a moral wasteland of self-indulgence.
How will our children judge us? If they do so fairly, we have much for which to answer!
Monday, June 19, 2017
LIVING IN A CHURCH OF PARALLEL UNIVERSES
Ever hear of parallel universes and cognitive dissonance? It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and I am inclined to believe that’s what it is: fiction.
But every now and then, I feel that I have crossed over into a parallel universe where black is white, up is down and forward is backward.
This has been the case especially in two stories involving the Church which were published this past week.
First was the story about Pope Francis threatening to suspend all the Priests of a diocese in Nigeria unless they stopped challenging the appointment of their Bishop whom no one, neither laity or Clergy, will accept!
Imagine, the Pope of charity and accompaniment threatening such a definitive and uncharacteristically harsh punishment!
Then, within the matter of a few days, we read this story.
Cardinal Oswald Gracies, Archbishop of Bombay and one of the Pope's close advisers, told the National Catholic Reporter in an interview that the Council of Cardinals — also known as the C9, a group of advisors Francis setup a few months after his election in 2013 — are considering whether to give more weight to the laity when choosing Bishops.
The nomination of a Bishop normally is usually at the behest of neighboring Bishops, the predecessor Bishop, Apostolic Nuncios and the Pope. Though the laity are at times consulted, Cardinal Gracias said, “we have left it to the discretion of the Nuncio whether he will” speak to them.
"We were reflecting whether we should not make it obligatory," the Cardinal said.
By forcing the Nuncios to consult with laypeople, the process would become more “objective”. If the appointment procedures were formally widened to include members outside the normal clerical gamma, Cardinal Gracias said, a person may be chosen that is better able to to interact with his diocese.
“If, however, you choose the wrong person, things can be set back by years in the pastoral life of the church” the Cardinal emphasized.
Can we all say: "Nigeria"!
If the Pope were to take this recommendation on board, it would represent the latest effort to get a greater number of laypeople involved in the running of the Church.
According to Francis, and those close to him, a more marked lay presence within the Church’s governance — both centrally and locally — would allow for a more “pastoral” approach, one that is more aware of the needs of its faithful and better suited to meet them.
Is this before or after Francis' threats to the Nigerian Clergy?
So which universe am I living in? Frankly, I can’t tell!
Oh well, let's consider things which perhaps similar but more lighthearted: will Peter Quill and his fellow Guardians of the Galaxy, hired by a powerful alien race, the Sovereign, protect their precious batteries from invaders?
But every now and then, I feel that I have crossed over into a parallel universe where black is white, up is down and forward is backward.
This has been the case especially in two stories involving the Church which were published this past week.
First was the story about Pope Francis threatening to suspend all the Priests of a diocese in Nigeria unless they stopped challenging the appointment of their Bishop whom no one, neither laity or Clergy, will accept!
Imagine, the Pope of charity and accompaniment threatening such a definitive and uncharacteristically harsh punishment!
Then, within the matter of a few days, we read this story.
Cardinal Oswald Gracies, Archbishop of Bombay and one of the Pope's close advisers, told the National Catholic Reporter in an interview that the Council of Cardinals — also known as the C9, a group of advisors Francis setup a few months after his election in 2013 — are considering whether to give more weight to the laity when choosing Bishops.
The nomination of a Bishop normally is usually at the behest of neighboring Bishops, the predecessor Bishop, Apostolic Nuncios and the Pope. Though the laity are at times consulted, Cardinal Gracias said, “we have left it to the discretion of the Nuncio whether he will” speak to them.
"We were reflecting whether we should not make it obligatory," the Cardinal said.
By forcing the Nuncios to consult with laypeople, the process would become more “objective”. If the appointment procedures were formally widened to include members outside the normal clerical gamma, Cardinal Gracias said, a person may be chosen that is better able to to interact with his diocese.
“If, however, you choose the wrong person, things can be set back by years in the pastoral life of the church” the Cardinal emphasized.
Can we all say: "Nigeria"!
If the Pope were to take this recommendation on board, it would represent the latest effort to get a greater number of laypeople involved in the running of the Church.
According to Francis, and those close to him, a more marked lay presence within the Church’s governance — both centrally and locally — would allow for a more “pastoral” approach, one that is more aware of the needs of its faithful and better suited to meet them.
Is this before or after Francis' threats to the Nigerian Clergy?
So which universe am I living in? Frankly, I can’t tell!
Oh well, let's consider things which perhaps similar but more lighthearted: will Peter Quill and his fellow Guardians of the Galaxy, hired by a powerful alien race, the Sovereign, protect their precious batteries from invaders?
DO THE BISHOPS GET IT?
By now it’s obvious that none of the Cardinals who elected him to be the Supreme Pontiff could have expected the direction in which Pope Francis has taken the Church during the past four years.
Francis vision for the Church is clearly founded upon two fundamental concerns: (1) social activism in providing direct service toward the poor; and (2) a pastoral ministry which expresses first and foremost the mercy of God rather than the proclamation of theological principles and ecclesiastical doctrine.
Many, within and without the walls of the Vatican, are in a state of shock over the profound moral implications of Francis’ teachings as well as his appeal to all of good will, believers or not, who are the beneficiaries of God’s grace and charity!
The question is this: will these priorities remain after Francis has passed from this world to etenity?
The judgment of the Catholic hierarchy is still out as to whether the Pope has truly captured the imagination and spirit of contemporary Catholicism.
The overwhelming majority of Bishops worldwide have been silent, almost with a deafening silence.
It’s as though the Bishops are afraid to take a particular stance for fear of the consequences that may befall their ecclesiastical careers.
If they defend and support Francis and his Pontificate ends abruptly, where will they find themselves with a successor who wishes to roll back many of Francis’ initiatives? If they confront Francis, how will they be viewed by a Papal successor very much in the same spirit as the present Pontiff?
Much of what Pope Francis has accomplished in changing the image and narrative of the Church has no structural underpinnings.
The Pope has created an “atmosphere” of compassion which cannot be institutionalized, categorized or canonically regulated. Francis has spoken to the “heart” of the Christian world, not to its “head”.
The Catholic Faith of which Francis is such a powerful herald is an affective and passionate response to the merciful charity of Christ which must be shared if it is to be fully realized and appreciated by the individual first and then expressed within and beyond the community of the Church.
Can this affective spirit of Francis survive him and withstand the institutional forces within the Roman Curia?
Time will tell.
But, let those who are slow to advance Francis’ vision or those who lie in wait for the opportunity to overturn that vision understand this simple reality.
The People of God (outside the marginal groups who consider themselves to be self-appointed defenders of the faith) will not accept a return to a Church which demands an orthodoxy which is unsympathetic to their circumstances and demanding of their allegiance.
In an age of instant communication and instant but lasting impressions, the next Pope will have a very small window of opportunity to garner the attention and respect of the faithful.
As I have said, if the next Pope doesn’t continue to live in the small apartment at Santa Marta, doesn’t ride around in a environmentally “green” economy car, doesn’t carry his own luggage and pay his own hotel bill after the Conclave, his Papal ministry is over before it even gets a chance to begin.
Pope Francis may not be able to institutionalize his reforms, but make no mistake: the spirit of those reforms has already captivated the minds and imaginations of millions of people, Catholics and non-Catholics, believers and non-believers.
Whether or not the Bishops, who have been more interested in protecting their careers than in promoting the Gospel, have taken serious note of this reality is anyone’s guess. But if they get this wrong, the gradual diminishment of the Church’s place in the world which has taken place in modern times will be hastened as more and more of the faithful quietly turn away, not in a spirit of rancor or even public rebellion, but in a silent abandonment which may be much more profound and permanent.
Do the Bishops get it? Do they not? We shall see, all in God’s good time.
Francis vision for the Church is clearly founded upon two fundamental concerns: (1) social activism in providing direct service toward the poor; and (2) a pastoral ministry which expresses first and foremost the mercy of God rather than the proclamation of theological principles and ecclesiastical doctrine.
Many, within and without the walls of the Vatican, are in a state of shock over the profound moral implications of Francis’ teachings as well as his appeal to all of good will, believers or not, who are the beneficiaries of God’s grace and charity!
The question is this: will these priorities remain after Francis has passed from this world to etenity?
The judgment of the Catholic hierarchy is still out as to whether the Pope has truly captured the imagination and spirit of contemporary Catholicism.
The overwhelming majority of Bishops worldwide have been silent, almost with a deafening silence.
It’s as though the Bishops are afraid to take a particular stance for fear of the consequences that may befall their ecclesiastical careers.
If they defend and support Francis and his Pontificate ends abruptly, where will they find themselves with a successor who wishes to roll back many of Francis’ initiatives? If they confront Francis, how will they be viewed by a Papal successor very much in the same spirit as the present Pontiff?
Much of what Pope Francis has accomplished in changing the image and narrative of the Church has no structural underpinnings.
The Pope has created an “atmosphere” of compassion which cannot be institutionalized, categorized or canonically regulated. Francis has spoken to the “heart” of the Christian world, not to its “head”.
The Catholic Faith of which Francis is such a powerful herald is an affective and passionate response to the merciful charity of Christ which must be shared if it is to be fully realized and appreciated by the individual first and then expressed within and beyond the community of the Church.
Can this affective spirit of Francis survive him and withstand the institutional forces within the Roman Curia?
Time will tell.
But, let those who are slow to advance Francis’ vision or those who lie in wait for the opportunity to overturn that vision understand this simple reality.
The People of God (outside the marginal groups who consider themselves to be self-appointed defenders of the faith) will not accept a return to a Church which demands an orthodoxy which is unsympathetic to their circumstances and demanding of their allegiance.
In an age of instant communication and instant but lasting impressions, the next Pope will have a very small window of opportunity to garner the attention and respect of the faithful.
As I have said, if the next Pope doesn’t continue to live in the small apartment at Santa Marta, doesn’t ride around in a environmentally “green” economy car, doesn’t carry his own luggage and pay his own hotel bill after the Conclave, his Papal ministry is over before it even gets a chance to begin.
Pope Francis may not be able to institutionalize his reforms, but make no mistake: the spirit of those reforms has already captivated the minds and imaginations of millions of people, Catholics and non-Catholics, believers and non-believers.
Whether or not the Bishops, who have been more interested in protecting their careers than in promoting the Gospel, have taken serious note of this reality is anyone’s guess. But if they get this wrong, the gradual diminishment of the Church’s place in the world which has taken place in modern times will be hastened as more and more of the faithful quietly turn away, not in a spirit of rancor or even public rebellion, but in a silent abandonment which may be much more profound and permanent.
Do the Bishops get it? Do they not? We shall see, all in God’s good time.
Sunday, June 18, 2017
HAPPY FATHER'S DAY, DADS
HAPPY FATHER’S DAY!
I thought I would take a moment or two to do some research about the day on which we celebrate fatherhood.
As far back as the Middle ages, the celebration in honor of fathers was observed on March 19, the feastday of Saint Joseph, Foster Father of the Lord Jesus. This celebration was brought to the New World by the Spanish and the Portugese. In Latin America as in South America, Father’s Day is still celebrated on March 19.
The history of Father’s Day in the United States is quite interesting indeed. One might be surprised to discover that, as much as the celebration of fatherhood has been ingrained into the national (and commercial) culture, the day itself was not accorded the status of a national holiday until quite recently in the history of the country.
After Anna Jarvis' successful promotion of Mother's Day in Grafton, West Virginia, the first observance of a “primordial” celebration of fatherhood was held on July 5, 1908, in Fairmont, West Virginia, in the Williams Memorial Methodist Episcopal Church South, now known as Central United Methodist Church. Grace Golden Clayton was mourning the loss of her father, when in December 1907, the Monongah Mining Disaster in nearby Monongah killed 361 men, 250 of them fathers, leaving around a thousand fatherless children. Clayton suggested that her pastor Robert Thomas Webb honor all those fathers who lost their lives in the tragedy.
Clayton's event did not have repercussions outside Fairmont for several reasons. Two events overshadowed this event: the celebration of Independence Day July 4, 1908, with 12,000 attendants and several shows including a hot air balloon event, which took over the headlines in the following days, and the death of a 16-year-old girl on July 4. The local church and council were overwhelmed and they did not even think of promoting the event, and it was not celebrated again for many years.
In 1911, Jane Addams proposed that a citywide Father's Day celebration be held in Chicago, but she was turned down. In 1912, there was a Father's Day celebration in Vancouver, Washington, suggested by Methodist pastor J. J. Berringer of the Irvington Methodist Church.
Three years later, Harry C. Meek, a member of Lions Clubs International, claimed that he had first come up with the idea for Father's Day in 1915. Meek said that the third Sunday in June was chosen because it was his birthday. The Lions Club has named him the "Originator of Father's Day". Meek made many efforts to promote Father's Day and make it an official holiday.
A bill to accord national recognition of Father’s Day was introduced in Congress in 1913. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson went to Spokane to speak at a Father's Day celebration and he wanted to make it an officially recognized federal holiday, but Congress resisted, fearing that it would become commercialized (perish the thought!).
In 1924, President Calvin Coolidge recommended that the day be observed throughout the entire nation, but he stopped short at issuing a national proclamation. Two earlier attempts to formally recognize the holiday had been defeated by Congress.
More than a quarter of a century later, in 1957, Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith wrote a Father's Day proposal accusing Congress of ignoring fathers for 40 years while honoring mothers, thus "singling out just one of our two parents". Still nothing officially happened.
In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued the first presidential proclamation honoring fathers, designating the third Sunday in June as Father's Day. Six years later, the day was made a permanent national holiday when President Richard Nixon signed it into law in 1972.
So, here we are this day honoring Dads throughout our country. Prayers will be offered and families will gather (in a more moderate expression of affection that that according to Mom’s on their special day). Gifts will be given (how many ties and bottles of aftershave) and toasts offered to the “old man”.
And it is right and fitting that we should pause annually to recognize what I have always referred to as the “sacrament of fatherhood” proceeding as it does properly from the expression of conjugal love essential to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony itself. Fatherhood is sacred because Marriage is sacred and both should rightfully be accorded the respect and reverence they deserve.
I pray then that today will be something more than just another “Hallmark card” celebration. May fathers be affirmed and recognized for the vocation of love and service which they so generously offer to the wives and children.
God bless you today and always, Dad!
In researching this post, I discovered that, in addition to Father's Day, International Men's Day is celebrated in many countries on November 19 in honor of men and boys who are not fathers.
Just wait until Hallmark finds out about that day!
I thought I would take a moment or two to do some research about the day on which we celebrate fatherhood.
As far back as the Middle ages, the celebration in honor of fathers was observed on March 19, the feastday of Saint Joseph, Foster Father of the Lord Jesus. This celebration was brought to the New World by the Spanish and the Portugese. In Latin America as in South America, Father’s Day is still celebrated on March 19.
The history of Father’s Day in the United States is quite interesting indeed. One might be surprised to discover that, as much as the celebration of fatherhood has been ingrained into the national (and commercial) culture, the day itself was not accorded the status of a national holiday until quite recently in the history of the country.
After Anna Jarvis' successful promotion of Mother's Day in Grafton, West Virginia, the first observance of a “primordial” celebration of fatherhood was held on July 5, 1908, in Fairmont, West Virginia, in the Williams Memorial Methodist Episcopal Church South, now known as Central United Methodist Church. Grace Golden Clayton was mourning the loss of her father, when in December 1907, the Monongah Mining Disaster in nearby Monongah killed 361 men, 250 of them fathers, leaving around a thousand fatherless children. Clayton suggested that her pastor Robert Thomas Webb honor all those fathers who lost their lives in the tragedy.
Clayton's event did not have repercussions outside Fairmont for several reasons. Two events overshadowed this event: the celebration of Independence Day July 4, 1908, with 12,000 attendants and several shows including a hot air balloon event, which took over the headlines in the following days, and the death of a 16-year-old girl on July 4. The local church and council were overwhelmed and they did not even think of promoting the event, and it was not celebrated again for many years.
In 1911, Jane Addams proposed that a citywide Father's Day celebration be held in Chicago, but she was turned down. In 1912, there was a Father's Day celebration in Vancouver, Washington, suggested by Methodist pastor J. J. Berringer of the Irvington Methodist Church.
Three years later, Harry C. Meek, a member of Lions Clubs International, claimed that he had first come up with the idea for Father's Day in 1915. Meek said that the third Sunday in June was chosen because it was his birthday. The Lions Club has named him the "Originator of Father's Day". Meek made many efforts to promote Father's Day and make it an official holiday.
A bill to accord national recognition of Father’s Day was introduced in Congress in 1913. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson went to Spokane to speak at a Father's Day celebration and he wanted to make it an officially recognized federal holiday, but Congress resisted, fearing that it would become commercialized (perish the thought!).
In 1924, President Calvin Coolidge recommended that the day be observed throughout the entire nation, but he stopped short at issuing a national proclamation. Two earlier attempts to formally recognize the holiday had been defeated by Congress.
More than a quarter of a century later, in 1957, Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith wrote a Father's Day proposal accusing Congress of ignoring fathers for 40 years while honoring mothers, thus "singling out just one of our two parents". Still nothing officially happened.
In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued the first presidential proclamation honoring fathers, designating the third Sunday in June as Father's Day. Six years later, the day was made a permanent national holiday when President Richard Nixon signed it into law in 1972.
So, here we are this day honoring Dads throughout our country. Prayers will be offered and families will gather (in a more moderate expression of affection that that according to Mom’s on their special day). Gifts will be given (how many ties and bottles of aftershave) and toasts offered to the “old man”.
And it is right and fitting that we should pause annually to recognize what I have always referred to as the “sacrament of fatherhood” proceeding as it does properly from the expression of conjugal love essential to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony itself. Fatherhood is sacred because Marriage is sacred and both should rightfully be accorded the respect and reverence they deserve.
I pray then that today will be something more than just another “Hallmark card” celebration. May fathers be affirmed and recognized for the vocation of love and service which they so generously offer to the wives and children.
God bless you today and always, Dad!
In researching this post, I discovered that, in addition to Father's Day, International Men's Day is celebrated in many countries on November 19 in honor of men and boys who are not fathers.
Just wait until Hallmark finds out about that day!
Friday, June 16, 2017
HAVING COURAGE TO FACE THE TRUTH
Certain truths, whether convenient or not, are undeniable.
One such truth is the fact that past choices lead to present circumstances. Likewise, present choices will lead to future situations.
Time and happenstance occur in everyone's lives.
But imagine using them as an excuse for a willful incapacity to accept personal responsibility for the present condition in which we find ourselves. At some point in the journey of life, we have to take ownership of our lives and cease blaming or faulting prior experiences or the actions of others for our present state. The alternative is to consign ourselves to being victims, powerless and ineffectual to change or improve our present situation or future aspirations.
The first step in the process of directing our future is to be honest and realistic in assessing where we are in this moment and what we have done, what personal choices we made which have brought us to this place. This is true for individuals. This is true for societies, whether secular or religious.
And so, as Catholics, we need to analyze and reflect upon the contemporary state of the Church. Both Clergy and laity need to engage in a candid consideration of our present condition if we are ever to hope to experience a revitalized relationship with the Body of Christ in the future.
So, lets take a look at where things stand in the Church at the moment.
Clearly, the Church has lost its once-established and influential dominance over the cultures of Europe and America. And, in its attempt to regain that influence, the Church has become increasingly polarized.
Bishops no longer enjoy the allegiance of the faithful on any number of moral or social issues ranging from abortion to capital punishment. The Bishops appear to be apathetic and powerless to effectively engage with the issues facing contemporary society and have been eager to retreat from public witness to the mandates and counsels of the Gospel.
For their part, the laity have a diminished understanding and appreciation for what is essentially and uniquely “Catholic”.
Studies have verified that within the denominations which comprise the Christian church, over the course of their lives 1 in 5 persons will switch denominations at least twice and 1 in 10 will switch three or more.
Catholics commitment to the Church tends to be thin. As a result, it take little impetus for them to abandon their Catholic practice in favor of other Christian churches less likely to challenge their viewpoints and lifestyles.
This “new ecumenism” appears to enjoy the enthusiastic support of Pope Francis who has eagerly embraced and commended religious sects and cults, be they Christian, Jewish, Islamic or even pagan. So much so that many conclude that the once-treasured “uniqueness” of the Catholic Church as the one, true Church largely has been diluted in the minds of many of the Catholic faithful.
Commendable as it is to actively work to remove old hatreds and antipathies, the consequence of relativising religious faith can only negatively impact the commitment and fidelity of the faithful to the eternal truths the Church claims to proclaim with singular authority.
And within the Church today, the relationship of the Bishop and the diocese to the local parish has been severely eroded. Catholics bear their name as members of a particular diocese and as the flock of a particular Bishop, but marginally. As one critic has noted: Catholics fly the flag of the diocese, but not too high; they give allegiance to the Bishop, but not unequivocally; they respect his ordinances, but observe some with benign neglect.”
This becomes particularly evident when Bishops develop policies or strategies which negatively impact or even result in the suppression of parishes. The faithful are loyal to the Church, but that loyalty is first and foremost directed to their neighborhood parish and Pastor.
Further directing our attention to the ecclesiastical structure of the Church, diocesan bureaucracy has become so bloated that the local Church is increasingly becoming the “object” of mission rather than the “agent” of mission.
More and more, parishes are being asked to sacrifice (and in some case jeopardize) their limited resources to provide income for diocesan administrative offices and agencies. Parishes coffers are being drained to provide funds for the extended ministries provided by the diocese, oftentimes in programs and policies which end in failure or result in a limited return for the investment required.
A new paradigm has emerged in contemporary diocesan administration: that the parishes exist to support the diocese rather than the other way around. This is a recipe for failure and bankruptcy, pure and simple.
And the Bishops are loathe to confront the reality that a cataclysmic change has swept over the earth. New technologies of communication have developed. The Internet has become a new nation in itself, with a citizenship and allegiance of popular and cultural attention the world has never seen before.
A century ago, over one-third of the world’s population identified itself as “Christian” with Catholicism being its largest denomination.
Today, Christendom still comprises a third of the religious faith of world, but the center of gravity has shifted from an adherence to hierarchical authority in the enunciation of the Faith to a more personal and subjective commitment to the Gospel and its tenets.
The present state of affairs in the Church is the result of the historical choices the Church has made and the various directions in which it has advanced agendas no longer strictly limited to the mission of proclaiming the Gospel.
Those choices have led to a diminished Church, a weaker Church, a more impoverished Church both morally and temporally.
It is clear that the Bishops, far from redirecting the Church’s from these historic choices, are reluctant to even admit the precarious condition in which the Church finds itself.
What will the Church look like a century from now? It’s a question which looms over the very fate of humanity and the continuation of Western civilization as well.
It is beneficial and well for us, then, to invoke the words of the prayer to the Holy Spirit Who alone can provide the wisdom and the courage necessary to revitalize the Church: “Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and renew the face of the earth (and Your Church)!”
One such truth is the fact that past choices lead to present circumstances. Likewise, present choices will lead to future situations.
Time and happenstance occur in everyone's lives.
But imagine using them as an excuse for a willful incapacity to accept personal responsibility for the present condition in which we find ourselves. At some point in the journey of life, we have to take ownership of our lives and cease blaming or faulting prior experiences or the actions of others for our present state. The alternative is to consign ourselves to being victims, powerless and ineffectual to change or improve our present situation or future aspirations.
The first step in the process of directing our future is to be honest and realistic in assessing where we are in this moment and what we have done, what personal choices we made which have brought us to this place. This is true for individuals. This is true for societies, whether secular or religious.
And so, as Catholics, we need to analyze and reflect upon the contemporary state of the Church. Both Clergy and laity need to engage in a candid consideration of our present condition if we are ever to hope to experience a revitalized relationship with the Body of Christ in the future.
So, lets take a look at where things stand in the Church at the moment.
Clearly, the Church has lost its once-established and influential dominance over the cultures of Europe and America. And, in its attempt to regain that influence, the Church has become increasingly polarized.
Bishops no longer enjoy the allegiance of the faithful on any number of moral or social issues ranging from abortion to capital punishment. The Bishops appear to be apathetic and powerless to effectively engage with the issues facing contemporary society and have been eager to retreat from public witness to the mandates and counsels of the Gospel.
For their part, the laity have a diminished understanding and appreciation for what is essentially and uniquely “Catholic”.
Studies have verified that within the denominations which comprise the Christian church, over the course of their lives 1 in 5 persons will switch denominations at least twice and 1 in 10 will switch three or more.
Catholics commitment to the Church tends to be thin. As a result, it take little impetus for them to abandon their Catholic practice in favor of other Christian churches less likely to challenge their viewpoints and lifestyles.
This “new ecumenism” appears to enjoy the enthusiastic support of Pope Francis who has eagerly embraced and commended religious sects and cults, be they Christian, Jewish, Islamic or even pagan. So much so that many conclude that the once-treasured “uniqueness” of the Catholic Church as the one, true Church largely has been diluted in the minds of many of the Catholic faithful.
Commendable as it is to actively work to remove old hatreds and antipathies, the consequence of relativising religious faith can only negatively impact the commitment and fidelity of the faithful to the eternal truths the Church claims to proclaim with singular authority.
And within the Church today, the relationship of the Bishop and the diocese to the local parish has been severely eroded. Catholics bear their name as members of a particular diocese and as the flock of a particular Bishop, but marginally. As one critic has noted: Catholics fly the flag of the diocese, but not too high; they give allegiance to the Bishop, but not unequivocally; they respect his ordinances, but observe some with benign neglect.”
This becomes particularly evident when Bishops develop policies or strategies which negatively impact or even result in the suppression of parishes. The faithful are loyal to the Church, but that loyalty is first and foremost directed to their neighborhood parish and Pastor.
Further directing our attention to the ecclesiastical structure of the Church, diocesan bureaucracy has become so bloated that the local Church is increasingly becoming the “object” of mission rather than the “agent” of mission.
More and more, parishes are being asked to sacrifice (and in some case jeopardize) their limited resources to provide income for diocesan administrative offices and agencies. Parishes coffers are being drained to provide funds for the extended ministries provided by the diocese, oftentimes in programs and policies which end in failure or result in a limited return for the investment required.
A new paradigm has emerged in contemporary diocesan administration: that the parishes exist to support the diocese rather than the other way around. This is a recipe for failure and bankruptcy, pure and simple.
And the Bishops are loathe to confront the reality that a cataclysmic change has swept over the earth. New technologies of communication have developed. The Internet has become a new nation in itself, with a citizenship and allegiance of popular and cultural attention the world has never seen before.
A century ago, over one-third of the world’s population identified itself as “Christian” with Catholicism being its largest denomination.
Today, Christendom still comprises a third of the religious faith of world, but the center of gravity has shifted from an adherence to hierarchical authority in the enunciation of the Faith to a more personal and subjective commitment to the Gospel and its tenets.
The present state of affairs in the Church is the result of the historical choices the Church has made and the various directions in which it has advanced agendas no longer strictly limited to the mission of proclaiming the Gospel.
Those choices have led to a diminished Church, a weaker Church, a more impoverished Church both morally and temporally.
It is clear that the Bishops, far from redirecting the Church’s from these historic choices, are reluctant to even admit the precarious condition in which the Church finds itself.
What will the Church look like a century from now? It’s a question which looms over the very fate of humanity and the continuation of Western civilization as well.
It is beneficial and well for us, then, to invoke the words of the prayer to the Holy Spirit Who alone can provide the wisdom and the courage necessary to revitalize the Church: “Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and renew the face of the earth (and Your Church)!”
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
GOD BLESS POPE FRANCIS ALWAYS
The following is a synopsis of Pope Francis' remarks during his weekly General Audience as the Vatican.
I eagerly encourage everyone to read and prayerfully consider the Holy Father's remarks.
I eagerly encourage everyone to read and prayerfully consider the Holy Father's remarks.
Pope Francis said that God’s love isn’t something we earn or deserve by our good works, but that it is free and unconditional - no matter what.
“God’s first step towards us is that of an anticipated and unconditional love. God loves first,” Pope Francis said June 14.
“God does not love us because there is some reason that causes love. God loves us because He Himself is love, and love tends to spread and give by its nature. God does not even tie his benevolence to our conversion: if anything this is a consequence of God’s love.
“Saint Paul says it perfectly,” he continued: “‘God demonstrates his love for us in the fact that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us’ (Rm 5:8).”
“None of us can live without love,” the Pope said, but to believe that love is earned is to fall into a type of slavery. “Perhaps much of the anguish of contemporary man comes from this: to believe that unless we are strong, attractive and beautiful, then no one will take care of us.
“Behind such seemingly inexplicable behavior arises a question,” he continued: “is it possible that I do not deserve to be called by name? That is, to be loved?”
Pope Francis reflected on this question during the general audience Wednesday, considering what it is like when we do not recognize that we are loved and cherished by God or the people around us, especially as children.
“Many people today,” he said, “look for visibility only to fill an inner void: as if we were people eternally in need of confirmation. But, imagine it, a world where everyone begs for reasons to attract the attention of others, and no one is willing to love one another for free?
“Imagine a world like this: a world without the freedom to love! It looks like a humane world, but in reality it is a living hell.”
How much selfish and narcissistic behavior comes about because of this loneliness? he asked. When a child is not loved or does not feel loved, he said, this is when in adolescence they can start to act out, or even become violent. Behind this behavior “is often a heart that has not been recognized.”
What can we do to help people know they are loved by God? Francis said that when love is given and received freely between people, even in just a simple look or smile, this is what transforms sadness and loneliness into happiness and joy.
An exchange of glance, of smiles, has the power to open those closed in sadness, he said. By looking someone in the eyes, we can open the doors of someone’s heart.
“What can make us happy if not the experience of love given and received?” he said.
Just like in the story of the Prodigal Son, fathers and mothers are often one of the greatest examples of a Christ-like love on earth, the pope pointed out, explaining how he has known many mothers with children in prison, who continue day after day to visit them, never ceasing “to suffer for her child.”
Parents love their children even when they are sinners and “God does the same thing with us: we are his beloved children! But is it possible God has some children he does not love? No. We are all God’s beloved children.
“In Him, in Christ Jesus, we have been loved, beloved, desired. There is Someone who has engraved in us a primordial beauty, that no sin, no wrong choice will ever erase completely.”
Because of the heat, Pope Francis began the audience by stopping to greet the sick and their families in the Pope Paul VI hall, where they could watch and hear the audience on screens, but inside the air-conditioned building.
“But we all remain together connected by the Holy Spirit, who is the one who always creates unity,” he said.
Concluding, Francis asked the crowd: “What is the medicine to change the heart of a person who is not happy?” “Love!” the crowd responded. “Stronger!” he said. “Love!” they shouted louder. “Very good, very good, everyone,” the Pope said smiling.
No matter what else this Pope does or says will he never be as eloquent and truly fatherly than he is at this moment. God bless you, Pope Francis, for the assurance of God's love in our lives and the depth of Faith and confidence that love inspires in each of us.
Monday, June 12, 2017
SO MUCH FOR PAPAL "ACCOMPANIMENT"
While there is much which Pope Francis has said and done which I believe has been truly inspired by the working of the Holy Spirit, I have found some of his decisions to be profoundly disheartening and disturbing to me as well.
Such is the case recently as the Pope has given Priests belonging to the Diocese of Ahiara, Nigeria, 30 days to write a letter promising obedience to him and accepting the Bishop appointed for their diocese.
Priests who do not write will be suspended, according to the news agency of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.
On June 8, Nigerian Church leaders met Pope Francis to discuss the situation of Bishop Peter Ebere Okpaleke, who was appointed Bishop of Ahiara by then-Pope Benedict XVI in 2012, but who has been unable to take control of the diocese because of protests, apparently by the majority of priests.
Immediately following that meeting, the Vatican issued a short communique, describing the situation in the diocese as “unacceptable.”
According to the Bishops in attendance at the meeting, the Pope had considered taking an even more drastic step by suppressing the diocese entirely. However, he relented suggesting that the Church could not abandon those entrusted to her maternal and spiritual care.
Quoting the Holy Father, the Bishops in attendance quoted the Holy Father as having said: “the people of God are scandalized. Jesus reminds us that whoever causes scandal must suffer the consequences.”
Apparently, the protests have been motivated by the fact that Bishop Okpaleke is not a local priest.
When the Bishop was appointed to the diocese, the announcement was met by protests and petitions calling for the appointment of a Bishop from among the laity and local Clergy.
A petition to Pope Benedict launched by the “Coalition of Igbo Catholics” said, “That no Priest of Mbaise origin is a bishop today … is mind boggling. Mbaise has embraced, enhanced the growth of and sacrificed for the Catholic Church, has more priests per capita than any other diocese in Nigeria and certainly more than enough pool of Priests qualified to become the next Bishop of the Episcopal See of Ahiara Diocese, Mbaise.”
And in fact, according to the Vatican, the diocese has close to 423,000 Catholics and 110 diocesan Priests.
Trying to calm the situation, in July 2013, Pope Francis appointed an Apostolic Administrator of the diocese, and the following December he sent Ghanaian Cardinal Peter Turkson, then-president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, to Ahiara to listen to the concerns of the diocesan Priests and local laity.
It appears that now, however, the days of patience have come to an end and Francis is demanding that the Priests of the diocese either accept the Bishop assigned to them or suffer the ultimate punishment of suspension a divinis, that is, a total loss of Priestly ministry.
What is most disturbing to me about this story and others like it is the fact that Pope Francis, God love him, is disposed to be tolerant and accepting of human frailty and failure to all except those in the Sacred Priesthood.
If there is one consistent aspect to this Papacy it’s this: Pope Francis is the harshest critic and judge of Priests.
The Holy Father has shown little appetite or desire to offer to Priests the "accompaniment” he so often and fondly speaks of when ministering to others who have either opposed or failed in their adherence to Church doctrine and moral teaching.
In this case in particular, it seems that both the Clergy and Laity have said that they are disheartened that no Priest of Mbaise origin has been ordained a Bishop, especially since their diocese has more Priests per capita than any other in Nigeria.
Is such a sentiment unreasonable?
Can there be no room for dialogue and resolution?
Is the final response to what the local Church feels is an injustice really going to be punitive, and repressively so?
I pray that the Holy Father will relent, that cooler heads will prevail and that the Church in Nigeria and the Vatican can find a solution which is mutually respectful of each other’s concerns.
I pray that Francis will be disposed in the future to provide as much comfort and support to Priests as he is so ready to do in the case of errant sinners.
Such is the case recently as the Pope has given Priests belonging to the Diocese of Ahiara, Nigeria, 30 days to write a letter promising obedience to him and accepting the Bishop appointed for their diocese.
Priests who do not write will be suspended, according to the news agency of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.
On June 8, Nigerian Church leaders met Pope Francis to discuss the situation of Bishop Peter Ebere Okpaleke, who was appointed Bishop of Ahiara by then-Pope Benedict XVI in 2012, but who has been unable to take control of the diocese because of protests, apparently by the majority of priests.
Immediately following that meeting, the Vatican issued a short communique, describing the situation in the diocese as “unacceptable.”
According to the Bishops in attendance at the meeting, the Pope had considered taking an even more drastic step by suppressing the diocese entirely. However, he relented suggesting that the Church could not abandon those entrusted to her maternal and spiritual care.
Quoting the Holy Father, the Bishops in attendance quoted the Holy Father as having said: “the people of God are scandalized. Jesus reminds us that whoever causes scandal must suffer the consequences.”
Apparently, the protests have been motivated by the fact that Bishop Okpaleke is not a local priest.
When the Bishop was appointed to the diocese, the announcement was met by protests and petitions calling for the appointment of a Bishop from among the laity and local Clergy.
A petition to Pope Benedict launched by the “Coalition of Igbo Catholics” said, “That no Priest of Mbaise origin is a bishop today … is mind boggling. Mbaise has embraced, enhanced the growth of and sacrificed for the Catholic Church, has more priests per capita than any other diocese in Nigeria and certainly more than enough pool of Priests qualified to become the next Bishop of the Episcopal See of Ahiara Diocese, Mbaise.”
And in fact, according to the Vatican, the diocese has close to 423,000 Catholics and 110 diocesan Priests.
Trying to calm the situation, in July 2013, Pope Francis appointed an Apostolic Administrator of the diocese, and the following December he sent Ghanaian Cardinal Peter Turkson, then-president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, to Ahiara to listen to the concerns of the diocesan Priests and local laity.
It appears that now, however, the days of patience have come to an end and Francis is demanding that the Priests of the diocese either accept the Bishop assigned to them or suffer the ultimate punishment of suspension a divinis, that is, a total loss of Priestly ministry.
What is most disturbing to me about this story and others like it is the fact that Pope Francis, God love him, is disposed to be tolerant and accepting of human frailty and failure to all except those in the Sacred Priesthood.
If there is one consistent aspect to this Papacy it’s this: Pope Francis is the harshest critic and judge of Priests.
The Holy Father has shown little appetite or desire to offer to Priests the "accompaniment” he so often and fondly speaks of when ministering to others who have either opposed or failed in their adherence to Church doctrine and moral teaching.
In this case in particular, it seems that both the Clergy and Laity have said that they are disheartened that no Priest of Mbaise origin has been ordained a Bishop, especially since their diocese has more Priests per capita than any other in Nigeria.
Is such a sentiment unreasonable?
Can there be no room for dialogue and resolution?
Is the final response to what the local Church feels is an injustice really going to be punitive, and repressively so?
I pray that the Holy Father will relent, that cooler heads will prevail and that the Church in Nigeria and the Vatican can find a solution which is mutually respectful of each other’s concerns.
I pray that Francis will be disposed in the future to provide as much comfort and support to Priests as he is so ready to do in the case of errant sinners.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
AM I ALONE IN MY BEWILDERMENT?
Chaos and confusion are reigning supreme within the ranks of the hierarchy.
For 41 years, I served the Church as a Priest, though now I am retired from active ministry for reasons of health. I received an STB from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome in 1973. A year later, I received a Master Degree in Pastoral Theology from the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas (the Angelicum).
In 1986, after having served in the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Saint Louis, I completed my studies and was awarded the Licentiate in Canon Law from the University of St. Paul in Ottawa. In the years that followed, I continued to serve as Adjutant Judicial Vicar of the Tribunal until I completed my term of office and returned to full-time ministry serving as Pastor of two parishes for some 23 years until my retirement.
Certainly, much has changed within the Church in the intervening years, and particularly since the Papacy of Pope Francis.
The doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church have undergone so great a revision that, at times, it is difficult for me to reconcile them with those taught to me under the auspices of universities that have and continue to be considered as bastions of Catholic orthodoxy.
And so, it is with a certain wonderment that I read stories like the following.
The Catholic Church in the Mediterranean island country of Malta has allowed a homosexual group to use sacred church space for meetings. The group labels itself “Catholic” but does not adhere to traditional Catholic or biblical teaching that mandates marriage between a man and a woman.
The group in question, the "Drachma LGBTI," preaches homosexual acceptance and currently has permission to use Catholic parishes and retreat centers in Malta.
"Drachma is open to all persons of good will who seek sexual and spiritual integration," the group states on its website. "It includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and intersex persons, as well as friends of LGBTI persons who wish to meet to pray together and explore the intersections between sexuality, gender, gender identity, faith, spirituality, and religion."
It should be noted that Malta recently elected its first transgender politician, a sign of just how far on LGBT rights a country where Roman Catholicism remains the state religion has come.
Roman Archbishop Charles Scicluna heads the Archdiocese of Malta. While Drachma has no official status within the Archdiocese, this has not stopped Archbishop Scicluna from going out of his way to lend support to the group and its activities.
In May, Drachma hosted a celebration at the University Chaplaincy; it donned the altar with a LGBT rainbow flag.
How far does one have to imagine a Roman Catholic Archbishop must go before his tolerance of such a group is seen to be an official endorsement of its teachings?
And so, I confess that I am confused.
There is little in my academic and pastoral history which allows me to accept such behavior as indicative of the Gospel mandate to proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ.
And as I pray for the salvation of my own soul, for the forgiveness of my personal sins and the sins of my sisters and brothers, I wonder how confused many of God’s People, so many of our Catholic faithful, must be by the actions of such Bishops.
May the Lord grant me continued confidence in the Church to which I have dedicated my life in service to His flock. There are days when being faithful to the Church can be an ordeal!
For 41 years, I served the Church as a Priest, though now I am retired from active ministry for reasons of health. I received an STB from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome in 1973. A year later, I received a Master Degree in Pastoral Theology from the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas (the Angelicum).
In 1986, after having served in the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Saint Louis, I completed my studies and was awarded the Licentiate in Canon Law from the University of St. Paul in Ottawa. In the years that followed, I continued to serve as Adjutant Judicial Vicar of the Tribunal until I completed my term of office and returned to full-time ministry serving as Pastor of two parishes for some 23 years until my retirement.
Certainly, much has changed within the Church in the intervening years, and particularly since the Papacy of Pope Francis.
The doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church have undergone so great a revision that, at times, it is difficult for me to reconcile them with those taught to me under the auspices of universities that have and continue to be considered as bastions of Catholic orthodoxy.
And so, it is with a certain wonderment that I read stories like the following.
The Catholic Church in the Mediterranean island country of Malta has allowed a homosexual group to use sacred church space for meetings. The group labels itself “Catholic” but does not adhere to traditional Catholic or biblical teaching that mandates marriage between a man and a woman.
The group in question, the "Drachma LGBTI," preaches homosexual acceptance and currently has permission to use Catholic parishes and retreat centers in Malta.
"Drachma is open to all persons of good will who seek sexual and spiritual integration," the group states on its website. "It includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and intersex persons, as well as friends of LGBTI persons who wish to meet to pray together and explore the intersections between sexuality, gender, gender identity, faith, spirituality, and religion."
It should be noted that Malta recently elected its first transgender politician, a sign of just how far on LGBT rights a country where Roman Catholicism remains the state religion has come.
Roman Archbishop Charles Scicluna heads the Archdiocese of Malta. While Drachma has no official status within the Archdiocese, this has not stopped Archbishop Scicluna from going out of his way to lend support to the group and its activities.
In May, Drachma hosted a celebration at the University Chaplaincy; it donned the altar with a LGBT rainbow flag.
How far does one have to imagine a Roman Catholic Archbishop must go before his tolerance of such a group is seen to be an official endorsement of its teachings?
And so, I confess that I am confused.
There is little in my academic and pastoral history which allows me to accept such behavior as indicative of the Gospel mandate to proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ.
And as I pray for the salvation of my own soul, for the forgiveness of my personal sins and the sins of my sisters and brothers, I wonder how confused many of God’s People, so many of our Catholic faithful, must be by the actions of such Bishops.
May the Lord grant me continued confidence in the Church to which I have dedicated my life in service to His flock. There are days when being faithful to the Church can be an ordeal!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)