While watching a local television news program the other evening, a public service announcement warned viewers about hypertension (high blood pressure) being the “silent killer” of millions of Americans each year.
That moniker “silent killer” struck me as never before, especially since I have been preparing a posting about the increasing incidence of what has been generally referred to as “burnout” among Pastors.
I heard of an incident just this week. A Pastor, a classmate from my days as a student in Rome, announced the Bishop’s acceptance of his resignation. No personal or moral failure on his part. No severe illness or medical condition. He’s simply “had it” , that's how he explained it. He said he just could not muster the energy and enthusiasm required of a Pastor anymore. His life had become increasingly unsatisfying and without any sense of personal fulfillment. Each day was another burden. He had become listless and was beginning to withdraw from parishioners and friends.
So he quit, or asked his Bishop to be allowed to quit.
While I haven’t seen any statistics regarding the number of Pastors who have resigned, I am inclined to think there are many who aren’t even aware that they are in the throws of such pastoral burnout.
I would even suggest that there are a number of reasons one could attribute to what I believe is an an ever-growing dropout rate among Pastors.
First, Pastors often see themselves as the sole caregiver in the parish. He has has to visit every sick person, prepare every wedding, Baptism, and funeral. He must make regular house calls, attend every parish society social. And, of course, he must attend to all the temporal affairs of financing and maintaining the parish plant. Such demands create false expectations and so many Pastors get hurt in the process.
Second, many Pastors are unclear about their essential ministry and mission. Are they supposed to be teachers, administrators, social workers, community activists? And so, they seek to be all these. And added to this uncertainty is the fact that most Pastors lack any sense of strategy to accomplish what they perceive to be their mission and vision. The result, hours of time and energy scattered in this or that direction accomplishing very little. An endless cycle of frustration.
Third, many Pastors do not have a sufficient budget to hire staff members. Rather than explaining this deficiency to their parishioners and asking for support and understanding, these Pastors take more and more tasks upon themselves.
Fourth, many Pastors succumb to being micro-managers. Rather than empower staff members and volunteers to do their assigned tasks, these Pastors feel the need to oversee the performance of every person.
Fifth, and I have written extensively on this matter, there are simply too many parish committees and meetings. Endless, meaningless, frustrating and useless meetings. It is not unusual for a Pastor to attend evening meetings two to three times a week. This allows precious little time as well as the physical and spiritual energy to attend to the individual spiritual care of the faithful who still expect attention and assistance from their Pastor.
And finally, many Pastors suffer from a desire to please everybody. Many times their Bishops put them in this position by not establishing clearly defined policies which govern how Pastors are to provide for the Sacramental and liturgical needs of the parish.
I know of one Pastor who has been assigned to two parishes. Parishioners at both parishes insist on a Saturday evening Mass as well as two Sunday Masses. And so, this poor Priest finds himself in the position of offering 6 Masses every weekend in two churches about seven miles distant from each other. This same Pastor has scheduled parish committee meetings six days a week, two on Saturday mornings!
The Bishops need to establish a policy that no Pastor or Priest will over more than 3 Masses per weekend. How those Masses are scheduled will be the sole discretion of the Pastor and not subject to any committee or council discussion or comment. This may seem a bit harsh, but as the number of Priests continues to decline and as the median age of our Priests continues to rise, our Pastors have a real problem coping. Real and radical problems demand radical solutions.
If hypertension is a leading cause of physical death among Americans, then overwork and its attendant stress are the leading cause of burnout among our Pastors. To date, I have seen no remedial response to this phenomenon by the Bishops who interpret the silence of their Pastors to be sign that “everything is fine” out there in the parishes.
Such an interpretation could not be further from the truth and reality of the situation.
Regular check-ups and examinations are the best way to treat the silent killer of hypertension.
I suggest Pastors and their Bishops need to do the same: an examination and treatment of how the demands which are either placed upon them or which they place upon themselves are killing them, physically, spiritually, psychologically and emotionally.
Friday, March 31, 2017
Thursday, March 30, 2017
YOU GOTTA LOVE THIS POPE!
As much as I truly admire Pope Francis and have been touched deeply by his consistent message of God’s mercy and forgiveness, I am often confused or disappointed by him.
For example, I am afraid that he really believes that the free market system and climate change are the mankind’s two greatest threats.
Not Islam. Not ISL taking territory and beheading people. Not terrorism. Not the Syrian refugees refusing to assimilate into the cultures of the countries which accept them. Not a nuclear Iran. Not the civil wars in Ukraine or Yemen or Libya or Iraq. Not the poverty or lack of electricity or clean water for half of Africa. Not a hundred other things.
Global warming and free market! Honestly?
I’m inclined to believe that his first hand experience of the poverty so widespread among his countrymen in Argentina would lead him to think that socialism is the only acceptable solution available to the poor.
But I agree with others who have criticized the Holy Father for not understanding that it is free market economies which have been the cause of the advancement and betterment of life for billions of people. These same economies have been the source of the enormous wealth the Church has acquired and used to assist the poor and marginalized societies across the globe.
Socialism has done nothing been enslave the poor to a greater dependence upon the State which oftentimes uses its resources to award those who support the government and to punish those who disagree with or wish to reform corrupt political systems.
In the perfect world of my imagining, Pope Francis would confine his remarks to reinforcing my fundamental belief and hope that God is more understanding and forgiving than I could imagine. He would, likewise, cease worrying and speaking about things which he doesn’t really understand and offering solutions I completely disagree with.
Still, you gotta love this Pope for his warmth and concern for God’s People everywhere!
For example, I am afraid that he really believes that the free market system and climate change are the mankind’s two greatest threats.
Not Islam. Not ISL taking territory and beheading people. Not terrorism. Not the Syrian refugees refusing to assimilate into the cultures of the countries which accept them. Not a nuclear Iran. Not the civil wars in Ukraine or Yemen or Libya or Iraq. Not the poverty or lack of electricity or clean water for half of Africa. Not a hundred other things.
Global warming and free market! Honestly?
I’m inclined to believe that his first hand experience of the poverty so widespread among his countrymen in Argentina would lead him to think that socialism is the only acceptable solution available to the poor.
But I agree with others who have criticized the Holy Father for not understanding that it is free market economies which have been the cause of the advancement and betterment of life for billions of people. These same economies have been the source of the enormous wealth the Church has acquired and used to assist the poor and marginalized societies across the globe.
Socialism has done nothing been enslave the poor to a greater dependence upon the State which oftentimes uses its resources to award those who support the government and to punish those who disagree with or wish to reform corrupt political systems.
In the perfect world of my imagining, Pope Francis would confine his remarks to reinforcing my fundamental belief and hope that God is more understanding and forgiving than I could imagine. He would, likewise, cease worrying and speaking about things which he doesn’t really understand and offering solutions I completely disagree with.
Still, you gotta love this Pope for his warmth and concern for God’s People everywhere!
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
CANADIAN BISHOPS LACK CLARITY REGARDING PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE LAW
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada, in their decision Carter v.Canada, found the criminal prohibition of physician assisted suicide to be unconstitional.
In 2106, the Liberal Party government passed legislation decriminalizing the practice and establishing a regimen to regulate who could obtain medical assistance in dying. The legislation received Royal assent that same year.
The new law has exposed the deep divisions that exist within the Catholic Church in Canada.
Catholic bishops of Alberta and the Northwest Territories issued a document entitled “Guidelines for the Celebration of the Sacraments with Persons & Families Considering or Opting for Death by Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia” in which they instructed priests under their jurisdiction to deny the Sacraments of Confession (Penance) and Extreme Unction (Anointing of the Sick) and a Catholic funeral, in certain circumstances, to an individual who helped someone die or who died themselves by assisted suicide.
But, Cardinal Gerald Lacroix of Quebec City and Archbishop Christian Lepine of Montreal both reacted differently to the new law. They jointly stated that they would not give specific guidelines to their priests about refusing the funeral services to the people who requested assisted-suicide.
Bishop Douglas Crosby OMI, the Bishop of Hamilton and President of the Conference of the Catholic Bishops of Canada (“CCBC”) strongly criticized the new law, stating on behalf of the CCCB: “Physician-assisted suicide is an affront to what is most noble, most precious in the human endeavour and a grave injustice and violation of the dignity of every human person whose natural and inherent inclination is indeed the preservation of life.”
Yet, despite those strong words, Bishop Crosby indicated that he did not “foresee that the CCCB will be putting out guidelines” setting out a uniform response from the Catholic Church in Canada.
Here we find another example of what I have lately termed as “morality by geography”. One must ask how it is possible that the Bishops of Canada would risk seeming to be in disagreement on fundamental issues such as this.
We commend those Bishops who desire that the Church be a source of comfort and solace to families who mourn the deaths of their loved ones in any circumstance. Denying Sacraments and funeral rituals to grieving families will only alienate Catholics from a Church which makes itself appear heartless and spiteful.
And yet, one would expect that the Bishops would speak with one voice in condemning the secularism which is entrenching itself ever more deeply into society and which is the cause of such blatant attacks against the sanctity of human life.
I’m afraid that as the Bishops’ disagreements about how families will accompanied in their grief will be interpreted as the Bishops disagreeing regarding the grave immorality of the practice of euthanasia.
The Bishops need to be very clear that physician assisted suicide is a serious contradiction of the Gospel as well as the dignity of the individual human person.
While every care should be taken to assist those who mourn, the Church must decry the inhumanity of physician assisted suicide and its betrayal of the Gospel to which every Christian believer is called upon to witness.
On this point, the Bishops of Canada must clearly reaffirm the Law of God without compromise.
In 2106, the Liberal Party government passed legislation decriminalizing the practice and establishing a regimen to regulate who could obtain medical assistance in dying. The legislation received Royal assent that same year.
The new law has exposed the deep divisions that exist within the Catholic Church in Canada.
Catholic bishops of Alberta and the Northwest Territories issued a document entitled “Guidelines for the Celebration of the Sacraments with Persons & Families Considering or Opting for Death by Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia” in which they instructed priests under their jurisdiction to deny the Sacraments of Confession (Penance) and Extreme Unction (Anointing of the Sick) and a Catholic funeral, in certain circumstances, to an individual who helped someone die or who died themselves by assisted suicide.
But, Cardinal Gerald Lacroix of Quebec City and Archbishop Christian Lepine of Montreal both reacted differently to the new law. They jointly stated that they would not give specific guidelines to their priests about refusing the funeral services to the people who requested assisted-suicide.
Bishop Douglas Crosby OMI, the Bishop of Hamilton and President of the Conference of the Catholic Bishops of Canada (“CCBC”) strongly criticized the new law, stating on behalf of the CCCB: “Physician-assisted suicide is an affront to what is most noble, most precious in the human endeavour and a grave injustice and violation of the dignity of every human person whose natural and inherent inclination is indeed the preservation of life.”
Yet, despite those strong words, Bishop Crosby indicated that he did not “foresee that the CCCB will be putting out guidelines” setting out a uniform response from the Catholic Church in Canada.
Here we find another example of what I have lately termed as “morality by geography”. One must ask how it is possible that the Bishops of Canada would risk seeming to be in disagreement on fundamental issues such as this.
We commend those Bishops who desire that the Church be a source of comfort and solace to families who mourn the deaths of their loved ones in any circumstance. Denying Sacraments and funeral rituals to grieving families will only alienate Catholics from a Church which makes itself appear heartless and spiteful.
And yet, one would expect that the Bishops would speak with one voice in condemning the secularism which is entrenching itself ever more deeply into society and which is the cause of such blatant attacks against the sanctity of human life.
I’m afraid that as the Bishops’ disagreements about how families will accompanied in their grief will be interpreted as the Bishops disagreeing regarding the grave immorality of the practice of euthanasia.
The Bishops need to be very clear that physician assisted suicide is a serious contradiction of the Gospel as well as the dignity of the individual human person.
While every care should be taken to assist those who mourn, the Church must decry the inhumanity of physician assisted suicide and its betrayal of the Gospel to which every Christian believer is called upon to witness.
On this point, the Bishops of Canada must clearly reaffirm the Law of God without compromise.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
DEATH BY COMMITTEE
I received a number of comments about my post concerning a Pastor’s first encounter with the liturgical committee of the parish to which he was recently assigned.
The reactions to the article were mixed. One Pastor commented that I was being too harsh in my assessment of the value of liturgical committees. Another wrote that I didn’t go far enough in pointing out how much angst most Pastors experience when they meet with liturgical committee members. And a woman who serves as her parish’s liturgical committee chairperson suggested that it was very good that my Archbishop granted me early retirement and “got me out of parish work altogether”!
I do not publish the comments which I receive for this reason: there a many who apparently take great delight in trolling the Internet with no other purpose but to leave nasty and often obscene comments on various blogsites. I simply choose not to give these disturbed souls a public forum for their mischief. Instead, when a particular comment strikes me as relevant to a subject, I will either refer to it directly or use it as the basis of a future post.
Since it appears that my liturgical committee post hit a nerve among a number of those who regularly visit here, I thought I’d expand upon the topic and talk about the uselessness of committees in general and specifically how they are misused in many parishes.
I’ve entitled this post “Death By Committee” so that, from the outset, you have an idea of where this is heading.
The proliferation of parish committees is staggering. It seems that there is no area of parish life that isn’t subject to the scrutiny or supervision of a standing or ad hoc committee. Pastors’ schedules are overwhelmed by committee meetings. And, as is generally true of committees in any bureaucracy, parish committees are largely a waste of time and energy.
Parish committees are killing our Pastors and destroying effective leadership and innovation within our parishes. Here’s how they do it.
1) Committees meet regularly, even and, sometimes especially, when there is nothing to accomplish. Committees will generate useless tasks and activities to simply justify their existence.
2) If left unsupervised by the Pastors, committees will assume authority to enact or enforce their policies. Then, they will become hostile or disenchanted when they discover that they had no such authority in the first place. Bickering and division become the major byproduct of their activities.
3) Committees are never evaluated for their effectiveness or their need to be continued. Some, if not most, parish committees have outlived their original purpose and mandate, yet they remain part of the parochial structure.
4) Committees often do nothing more than stifle creativity by becoming just another layer of “bureaucratic red tape" the Pastor needs to consider before getting anything done. This added layer of decision-making impedes what could easily be undertaken and accomplished immediately and effectively.
In response, some Pastors allow the status-quo to continue concluding that wasting an enormous amount of time and energy is preferable to dealing with the fallout of doing something positive by disbanding many of the directionless and time-consuming committees within their parishes. These Pastors simply abdicate their leadership role and entrust what could be done efficiently by one person to a committee of individuals who will expend as much time and resource allowed to them.
Other Pastors allow the committees to continue to exist but pay little attention to anything they have to say, hoping the members will resign in frustration.
Still other Pastors move to disband committees which have outlived their usefulness, only to incur the wrath of the former committee members and suffer the divisions they sow within the ranks of parishioners.
I, for one, favor the suppression of committees and suggest the fewer the better. Sure, I have suffered the hostility and outrage of the members of committees I have suppressed. But, the rancor lasted only for a brief moment and I continued to enjoy the favor and support of the vast majority of parishioners who understood that I had the interests of the parish in mind in every decision I made, spiritual and temporal.
These are my thoughts. Why do you think? I’d love to hear from you
The reactions to the article were mixed. One Pastor commented that I was being too harsh in my assessment of the value of liturgical committees. Another wrote that I didn’t go far enough in pointing out how much angst most Pastors experience when they meet with liturgical committee members. And a woman who serves as her parish’s liturgical committee chairperson suggested that it was very good that my Archbishop granted me early retirement and “got me out of parish work altogether”!
I do not publish the comments which I receive for this reason: there a many who apparently take great delight in trolling the Internet with no other purpose but to leave nasty and often obscene comments on various blogsites. I simply choose not to give these disturbed souls a public forum for their mischief. Instead, when a particular comment strikes me as relevant to a subject, I will either refer to it directly or use it as the basis of a future post.
Since it appears that my liturgical committee post hit a nerve among a number of those who regularly visit here, I thought I’d expand upon the topic and talk about the uselessness of committees in general and specifically how they are misused in many parishes.
I’ve entitled this post “Death By Committee” so that, from the outset, you have an idea of where this is heading.
The proliferation of parish committees is staggering. It seems that there is no area of parish life that isn’t subject to the scrutiny or supervision of a standing or ad hoc committee. Pastors’ schedules are overwhelmed by committee meetings. And, as is generally true of committees in any bureaucracy, parish committees are largely a waste of time and energy.
Parish committees are killing our Pastors and destroying effective leadership and innovation within our parishes. Here’s how they do it.
1) Committees meet regularly, even and, sometimes especially, when there is nothing to accomplish. Committees will generate useless tasks and activities to simply justify their existence.
2) If left unsupervised by the Pastors, committees will assume authority to enact or enforce their policies. Then, they will become hostile or disenchanted when they discover that they had no such authority in the first place. Bickering and division become the major byproduct of their activities.
3) Committees are never evaluated for their effectiveness or their need to be continued. Some, if not most, parish committees have outlived their original purpose and mandate, yet they remain part of the parochial structure.
4) Committees often do nothing more than stifle creativity by becoming just another layer of “bureaucratic red tape" the Pastor needs to consider before getting anything done. This added layer of decision-making impedes what could easily be undertaken and accomplished immediately and effectively.
In response, some Pastors allow the status-quo to continue concluding that wasting an enormous amount of time and energy is preferable to dealing with the fallout of doing something positive by disbanding many of the directionless and time-consuming committees within their parishes. These Pastors simply abdicate their leadership role and entrust what could be done efficiently by one person to a committee of individuals who will expend as much time and resource allowed to them.
Other Pastors allow the committees to continue to exist but pay little attention to anything they have to say, hoping the members will resign in frustration.
Still other Pastors move to disband committees which have outlived their usefulness, only to incur the wrath of the former committee members and suffer the divisions they sow within the ranks of parishioners.
I, for one, favor the suppression of committees and suggest the fewer the better. Sure, I have suffered the hostility and outrage of the members of committees I have suppressed. But, the rancor lasted only for a brief moment and I continued to enjoy the favor and support of the vast majority of parishioners who understood that I had the interests of the parish in mind in every decision I made, spiritual and temporal.
These are my thoughts. Why do you think? I’d love to hear from you
Monday, March 27, 2017
THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
I was watching the History Channel the other night. And as I watched several programs dealing with the history of the 20th Century, a few thoughts about the state of humanity as we find ourselves still in the dawn of the 21st Century came to me.
Here’s what I see as I look out across the landscape of modern intellectual and moral notions about humanity.
It is clear that modern man has discarded any notion of the natural law and the moral absolutes that flow from it. Therefore, sin itself is unthinkable. Technology has replaced religion as civilization’s ultimate good and sole pursuit. Naturalism has replaced supernaturalism. And subjectivism is the new morality.
There are no essential or unchanging truths in the modern scheme of things. Everything and everyone is subject to change.
Darwin’s theory that the nature of man is responsive to and determined by his environment has become the fundamental principle of modern philosophy and psychology. Human nature is constantly evolving. So must be the truths which he perceives at any given moment in that evolution.
Western civilization was born and advanced largely as a consequence of the Biblical notion that man’s duty was to conform his soul to the vision of His Creator. Through the pursuit of the knowledge of absolute truths and the practice of moral virtue, man would not only advance his individual place in the world but provide the opportunity for others to better their lot in life.
In the new order of Universal Progressivism, mankind’s primary task is to subdue reality to his will through ever more efficient technology. The traditional order of things, of all things, has been turned entirely upside down.
That’s why those of us who were formed in the tradition of classical education, of rational philosophy and Christian morality are incapable of making sense of the ways of people and things today.
And civilization, as we once knew it, is in danger of disappearing.
For as long as modern man continues to put himself and the predominance of his will over the will of His Creator, his meaning and place in the world will be in constant peril.
If the human person has no meaning or purpose other than that which is assigned to him by the moment in which he accidentally finds himself, than life itself is meaningless, insignificant and without any particular value. In the end, a man is defined by his usefulness and productivity in the advancement of technology. A person becomes dispensable when he or she becomes an inconvenience or a burden.
After all, isn’t this the very basis of the culture of death so prevalent in modern society? When the unborn child becomes burdensome, he or she can be dispensed with. When the elderly and infirm become an overriding inconvenience upon society, they can be dispensed with. Abortion and euthanasia become the cardinal solutions to personal and societal burdens or inconveniences.
And where is the voice of the Church as modern man hurls himself headlong into the abyss of insignificance?
Over the course of the past two centuries, the Church has succumbed to collectivism: the submergence of the individual in his relationship to God and the glorification of community of which he is part.
In place of the dignity of the individual human creature before His Creator, the Church has surrendered modern man to his place within the social order. Virtue is found not in the longing of the human spirit to be untied to God, but in a person’s concern and care for the members of the global collective. The environment, clean air and water are the critical moral issues of the day. Personal enrichment and sanctity has given way to the virtues of re-cycling and the lessening one’s carbon imprint. Just listen to some of the rhetoric of Pope Francis about these issues.
Because the Church has lost its way, the spiritual and physical destruction of Western Civilization cannot be far off.
Will God once again send prophets to His people to veer them away from self-destruction? Will the people accept them or put them to death as our ancestors did? Will the brave new world deliver on its promise of pleasure and ease, or be the harbinger of death and destruction?
Stay tuned....this will be the topic of a future History Channel show.
But now, let’s listen to a word from our sponsor!
Here’s what I see as I look out across the landscape of modern intellectual and moral notions about humanity.
It is clear that modern man has discarded any notion of the natural law and the moral absolutes that flow from it. Therefore, sin itself is unthinkable. Technology has replaced religion as civilization’s ultimate good and sole pursuit. Naturalism has replaced supernaturalism. And subjectivism is the new morality.
There are no essential or unchanging truths in the modern scheme of things. Everything and everyone is subject to change.
Darwin’s theory that the nature of man is responsive to and determined by his environment has become the fundamental principle of modern philosophy and psychology. Human nature is constantly evolving. So must be the truths which he perceives at any given moment in that evolution.
Western civilization was born and advanced largely as a consequence of the Biblical notion that man’s duty was to conform his soul to the vision of His Creator. Through the pursuit of the knowledge of absolute truths and the practice of moral virtue, man would not only advance his individual place in the world but provide the opportunity for others to better their lot in life.
In the new order of Universal Progressivism, mankind’s primary task is to subdue reality to his will through ever more efficient technology. The traditional order of things, of all things, has been turned entirely upside down.
That’s why those of us who were formed in the tradition of classical education, of rational philosophy and Christian morality are incapable of making sense of the ways of people and things today.
And civilization, as we once knew it, is in danger of disappearing.
For as long as modern man continues to put himself and the predominance of his will over the will of His Creator, his meaning and place in the world will be in constant peril.
If the human person has no meaning or purpose other than that which is assigned to him by the moment in which he accidentally finds himself, than life itself is meaningless, insignificant and without any particular value. In the end, a man is defined by his usefulness and productivity in the advancement of technology. A person becomes dispensable when he or she becomes an inconvenience or a burden.
After all, isn’t this the very basis of the culture of death so prevalent in modern society? When the unborn child becomes burdensome, he or she can be dispensed with. When the elderly and infirm become an overriding inconvenience upon society, they can be dispensed with. Abortion and euthanasia become the cardinal solutions to personal and societal burdens or inconveniences.
And where is the voice of the Church as modern man hurls himself headlong into the abyss of insignificance?
Over the course of the past two centuries, the Church has succumbed to collectivism: the submergence of the individual in his relationship to God and the glorification of community of which he is part.
In place of the dignity of the individual human creature before His Creator, the Church has surrendered modern man to his place within the social order. Virtue is found not in the longing of the human spirit to be untied to God, but in a person’s concern and care for the members of the global collective. The environment, clean air and water are the critical moral issues of the day. Personal enrichment and sanctity has given way to the virtues of re-cycling and the lessening one’s carbon imprint. Just listen to some of the rhetoric of Pope Francis about these issues.
Because the Church has lost its way, the spiritual and physical destruction of Western Civilization cannot be far off.
Will God once again send prophets to His people to veer them away from self-destruction? Will the people accept them or put them to death as our ancestors did? Will the brave new world deliver on its promise of pleasure and ease, or be the harbinger of death and destruction?
Stay tuned....this will be the topic of a future History Channel show.
But now, let’s listen to a word from our sponsor!
Saturday, March 25, 2017
CATHOLIC PAROCHIAL EDUCATION CONTINUES TO FAIL -- VOUCHERS NO SOLUTION
In 2011, the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) reported that, between 2000 and 2010, the number of Catholic schools dropped from 8,146 to 6,980 – a loss of 117 schools per year. Additionally, Catholic elementary and secondary school enrollment fell 22 percent during that same period, from 2,647,301 to 2,065,872.
Since that time, more than 1100 more Catholic schools closed across the nation.
Why?
Well, let's face the facts once and for all.
Parishes have never been able to afford the schools they operated. The clear and simple truth is this: Catholic schools were able to operate because they depended upon the “free” labor of the Women Religious who staffed them. When the Sisters left the classroom, the fate of Catholic schools was sealed.
The financial model for Catholic schools which depended upon the free-will offerings of parishioners and the minimal cost of Women Religious administrators and teachers can no longer be sustained.
This is especially true since parishes have turned more and more toward populating their schools with low-income, inner city families who need not be members of the Catholic Church.
Recent studies have revealed that many Catholic schools are comprised of a significant number of non-Catholic students whose parents have shown no inclination of converting to the Catholic Faith.
And so, the idea of the government funding Catholic education through vouchers has become very popular in recent years.
However, a study conducted by researchers from Notre Dame has uncovered a number of remarkable facts.
As one would expect, government vouchers have been found to provide increased revenues for parishes with schools. The resulting windfall, in many cases, has prevented these parishes from being closed or merged.
But very surprisingly, the study shows that there is evidence that government vouchers actually cause a “significant decrease” in free-will offerings and donations necessary for non-school purposes such as parish staff salaries, maintenance and mission support.
“Vouchers thus may help ensure the survival of churches, but may do so while diminishing the churches’ non-school religious activities,” the study concludes.
Of course, the NCEA, in the person of Senior Consultant Heather Gossart, has “grave issues” with the study.
“The study drew conclusions that I don’t think are valid,” she said, disturbed by the finding that taxpayer vouchers for Catholic schools is associated with parish dependence on them. “Vouchers don’t fund parishes and churches,” she said. “That would be a violation of church-state separation.”
It is clear that Ms. Gossart and many of the illuminati of the NCEA have no practical knowledge of parish finances.
At present, in many cases as much as 70-85% of all parish revenues are used to offset parish school expenses, leaving little else for much needed faith-based services. While government vouchers would not provide a direct subsidy of the religious mission of the parish, they would allow revenues previously used to subsidize the school to be available for such religious purposes and programs.
As a supporter of the Common Core standards, the NCEA has welcomed the partnership with government in Catholic education. In 2013, the organization was awarded a grant by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – the primary source of private funding for the promotion of the nationalized Common Core standards – to help implement the standards in Catholic schools.
In 2015, many Catholic school parents and educators were outraged when NCEA welcomed Common Core architect David Coleman to serve as the “keynote speaker” for its annual convention the following spring.
The NCEA and the USCCB which supports its role in Catholic education should be ashamed.
In my opinion, here is the fundamental problem with present parish-based model of Catholic education: for many Pastors and Catholic school families, the operation of the parish school is understood to be the parish’s most essential religious mission.
I've often heard the remark: "Without the school, there would be no reason for the parish!"
Nothing could be further from the truth. And until Bishops and Pastors rediscover the fundamental mission of parish churches is to make the Sacraments available to the People of God, to form them in the Scriptures and teachings of the Church, parishes will continue close or be merged at an alarming rate.
Here's the truth, clear and non-refutable: Catholic schools have not produced practicing Catholics.
Parochial school graduates today abandon the Church and cease to practice their Catholic Faith at the same rate as non-parochial school graduates.
The divorce rate among parochial school alumni is statistically the same as Catholics who attended public school, and even non-Catholics for that matter. And, the children of parochial school graduates are less likely to attend Catholic schools.
The record of today's Catholic schools is a dismal failure.
The traditional parochial school model needs to be abandoned entirely and a new program of the Catholic formation of youth needs to be created, one which focuses upon the assimilation of the Scriptures and Catholic doctrines rather than the failed model which continues to focus on academics.
Government vouchers are not the panacea for the failures of Catholic education!
Since that time, more than 1100 more Catholic schools closed across the nation.
Why?
Well, let's face the facts once and for all.
Parishes have never been able to afford the schools they operated. The clear and simple truth is this: Catholic schools were able to operate because they depended upon the “free” labor of the Women Religious who staffed them. When the Sisters left the classroom, the fate of Catholic schools was sealed.
The financial model for Catholic schools which depended upon the free-will offerings of parishioners and the minimal cost of Women Religious administrators and teachers can no longer be sustained.
This is especially true since parishes have turned more and more toward populating their schools with low-income, inner city families who need not be members of the Catholic Church.
Recent studies have revealed that many Catholic schools are comprised of a significant number of non-Catholic students whose parents have shown no inclination of converting to the Catholic Faith.
And so, the idea of the government funding Catholic education through vouchers has become very popular in recent years.
However, a study conducted by researchers from Notre Dame has uncovered a number of remarkable facts.
As one would expect, government vouchers have been found to provide increased revenues for parishes with schools. The resulting windfall, in many cases, has prevented these parishes from being closed or merged.
But very surprisingly, the study shows that there is evidence that government vouchers actually cause a “significant decrease” in free-will offerings and donations necessary for non-school purposes such as parish staff salaries, maintenance and mission support.
“Vouchers thus may help ensure the survival of churches, but may do so while diminishing the churches’ non-school religious activities,” the study concludes.
Of course, the NCEA, in the person of Senior Consultant Heather Gossart, has “grave issues” with the study.
“The study drew conclusions that I don’t think are valid,” she said, disturbed by the finding that taxpayer vouchers for Catholic schools is associated with parish dependence on them. “Vouchers don’t fund parishes and churches,” she said. “That would be a violation of church-state separation.”
It is clear that Ms. Gossart and many of the illuminati of the NCEA have no practical knowledge of parish finances.
At present, in many cases as much as 70-85% of all parish revenues are used to offset parish school expenses, leaving little else for much needed faith-based services. While government vouchers would not provide a direct subsidy of the religious mission of the parish, they would allow revenues previously used to subsidize the school to be available for such religious purposes and programs.
As a supporter of the Common Core standards, the NCEA has welcomed the partnership with government in Catholic education. In 2013, the organization was awarded a grant by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – the primary source of private funding for the promotion of the nationalized Common Core standards – to help implement the standards in Catholic schools.
In 2015, many Catholic school parents and educators were outraged when NCEA welcomed Common Core architect David Coleman to serve as the “keynote speaker” for its annual convention the following spring.
The NCEA and the USCCB which supports its role in Catholic education should be ashamed.
In my opinion, here is the fundamental problem with present parish-based model of Catholic education: for many Pastors and Catholic school families, the operation of the parish school is understood to be the parish’s most essential religious mission.
I've often heard the remark: "Without the school, there would be no reason for the parish!"
Nothing could be further from the truth. And until Bishops and Pastors rediscover the fundamental mission of parish churches is to make the Sacraments available to the People of God, to form them in the Scriptures and teachings of the Church, parishes will continue close or be merged at an alarming rate.
Here's the truth, clear and non-refutable: Catholic schools have not produced practicing Catholics.
Parochial school graduates today abandon the Church and cease to practice their Catholic Faith at the same rate as non-parochial school graduates.
The divorce rate among parochial school alumni is statistically the same as Catholics who attended public school, and even non-Catholics for that matter. And, the children of parochial school graduates are less likely to attend Catholic schools.
The record of today's Catholic schools is a dismal failure.
The traditional parochial school model needs to be abandoned entirely and a new program of the Catholic formation of youth needs to be created, one which focuses upon the assimilation of the Scriptures and Catholic doctrines rather than the failed model which continues to focus on academics.
Government vouchers are not the panacea for the failures of Catholic education!
BISHOPS CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND CONDUCT
Bishop Jaime Soto of the Diocese of Sacramento, California has directed the Diocese to provide services to immigrants and refugees through its Diocesan Immigrant Support Network, which includes Catholic Charities, parishes, legal experts and community organizations.
About 60,000 illegal immigrants live in the 20 counties of the diocese, according to a diocesan official.
Bishop Soto has said Catholic churches in the diocese should offer sanctuary to immigrants facing deportation.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC has stated that, while the Catholic Church’s values mandate opposition to deportation of people already living in the United States, there is no certainty that immigrants staying on church grounds would avoid being arrested and eventually sent to their home country. Cardinal Wuerl said that providing food and legal representation for immigrants was among the Washington Archdiocese’s top priorities.
Elsewhere, Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago told priests and school officials in the archdiocese not to allow federal immigration agents onto church property without a warrant in a Feb. 28 letter. He asked parish and school officials to immediately call diocesan attorneys if agents appear at their door. At the same time, Cardinal Cupich wrote that he will not declare Catholic churches as sanctuary for immigrants. He likewise forbids anyone other than assigned priests to live in a rectory or other church facility without written permission of the appropriate regional vicar.
The situation of immigrants seems to have divided the country’s Catholics, its leaders and the faithful.
The majority of Catholics voted for President Trump, according to polling data. However, Bishops and leaders of Catholic nonprofit organizations have decried the President’s policies regarding the suspension of refugee admissions to the U.S. and stricter enforcement of immigration laws even on people in the country for years.
I, for one, support the policies of President Trump and take issue with Cardinal Wuerl’s assertion that “Catholic values mandate opposition to deportation of people already living in the United States.” Nothing of the sort is true!
I find nothing incompatible with Catholic values and the American electorate, including myself, voting into office a President who has promised to enforce the law of the land and provide for the security of the American people.
Cardinal Wuerl needs to refresh himself regarding the moral teachings of the Church regarding the right of the State to establish laws protecting the sovereignty of its borders and providing for the general welfare and security of its citizenry (a subject I have addressed in numerous previous posts).
If His Eminence chooses to derogate from these moral principles, he should be honest about it and say that his point of view on this issue is a significant departure from official teachings of the Church.
I continue to be amazed that the Catholic hierarchy in this country so boldly encourages criminal conduct as they promote the aiding and abetting of illegal immigrants. It is a wonderment to be sure!
Let these advocates of such criminality, be they Cardinals, Bishops or Directors of whatever nonprofits established by the same, be aware of the laws presently in force regarding the illegality of providing shelter to illegal aliens.
The housing of illegal aliens by churches appears to be a clear and certain violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3), which forbids the harboring of illegal aliens.
Most recent case law rejects the notion that harboring must involve actually hiding the alien or otherwise “clandestine” activity.
United States v. Acosta De Evans, 531 F.2d 428,430 (9th Cir. 1981) holds that anyone who willfully or knowingly conceals, harbors, shields from detection or anyone who attempts to do such in any place, including any building or any means of transportation shall be guilty of a felony.
From my study of the law, I believe that any Bishop’s claim of the historical tradition of offering sanctuary would not provide immunity to indictment under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3).
I and many of my fellow American Catholics (I’m sure) who voted for the New Administration of President Trump take exception to our free-will offerings, in many cases sacrificial offerings, being used to support illegal immigration and the criminal enterprise in which the Bishops are actively engaging.
I am discouraged by how the conduct of the Bishops is undermining the respect for the law which is the underpinning of any peaceful and ordered society. How do parents teach and encourage their children to respect civil laws while the Bishops themselves show such public disdain for civil authority? Parents should be rightfully outraged.
The Bishops need to be held accountable for their words and their actions. While the faithful have no power of governance over the Bishops, we sure do have the power of the purse.
I, for one, suggest that we use that power and send a strong signal that we respect the laws of our country and have every right to expect that our Bishops will do the same.
About 60,000 illegal immigrants live in the 20 counties of the diocese, according to a diocesan official.
Bishop Soto has said Catholic churches in the diocese should offer sanctuary to immigrants facing deportation.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC has stated that, while the Catholic Church’s values mandate opposition to deportation of people already living in the United States, there is no certainty that immigrants staying on church grounds would avoid being arrested and eventually sent to their home country. Cardinal Wuerl said that providing food and legal representation for immigrants was among the Washington Archdiocese’s top priorities.
Elsewhere, Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago told priests and school officials in the archdiocese not to allow federal immigration agents onto church property without a warrant in a Feb. 28 letter. He asked parish and school officials to immediately call diocesan attorneys if agents appear at their door. At the same time, Cardinal Cupich wrote that he will not declare Catholic churches as sanctuary for immigrants. He likewise forbids anyone other than assigned priests to live in a rectory or other church facility without written permission of the appropriate regional vicar.
The situation of immigrants seems to have divided the country’s Catholics, its leaders and the faithful.
The majority of Catholics voted for President Trump, according to polling data. However, Bishops and leaders of Catholic nonprofit organizations have decried the President’s policies regarding the suspension of refugee admissions to the U.S. and stricter enforcement of immigration laws even on people in the country for years.
I, for one, support the policies of President Trump and take issue with Cardinal Wuerl’s assertion that “Catholic values mandate opposition to deportation of people already living in the United States.” Nothing of the sort is true!
I find nothing incompatible with Catholic values and the American electorate, including myself, voting into office a President who has promised to enforce the law of the land and provide for the security of the American people.
Cardinal Wuerl needs to refresh himself regarding the moral teachings of the Church regarding the right of the State to establish laws protecting the sovereignty of its borders and providing for the general welfare and security of its citizenry (a subject I have addressed in numerous previous posts).
If His Eminence chooses to derogate from these moral principles, he should be honest about it and say that his point of view on this issue is a significant departure from official teachings of the Church.
I continue to be amazed that the Catholic hierarchy in this country so boldly encourages criminal conduct as they promote the aiding and abetting of illegal immigrants. It is a wonderment to be sure!
Let these advocates of such criminality, be they Cardinals, Bishops or Directors of whatever nonprofits established by the same, be aware of the laws presently in force regarding the illegality of providing shelter to illegal aliens.
The housing of illegal aliens by churches appears to be a clear and certain violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3), which forbids the harboring of illegal aliens.
Most recent case law rejects the notion that harboring must involve actually hiding the alien or otherwise “clandestine” activity.
United States v. Acosta De Evans, 531 F.2d 428,430 (9th Cir. 1981) holds that anyone who willfully or knowingly conceals, harbors, shields from detection or anyone who attempts to do such in any place, including any building or any means of transportation shall be guilty of a felony.
From my study of the law, I believe that any Bishop’s claim of the historical tradition of offering sanctuary would not provide immunity to indictment under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3).
I and many of my fellow American Catholics (I’m sure) who voted for the New Administration of President Trump take exception to our free-will offerings, in many cases sacrificial offerings, being used to support illegal immigration and the criminal enterprise in which the Bishops are actively engaging.
I am discouraged by how the conduct of the Bishops is undermining the respect for the law which is the underpinning of any peaceful and ordered society. How do parents teach and encourage their children to respect civil laws while the Bishops themselves show such public disdain for civil authority? Parents should be rightfully outraged.
The Bishops need to be held accountable for their words and their actions. While the faithful have no power of governance over the Bishops, we sure do have the power of the purse.
I, for one, suggest that we use that power and send a strong signal that we respect the laws of our country and have every right to expect that our Bishops will do the same.
Friday, March 24, 2017
THE CHURCH AND SAINTS
Pope Francis signed five canonization decrees this week naming two Portuguese shepherd children who said the Virgin Mary appeared to them in Fatima 100 years ago and three Mexican adolescents who were killed for their faith in the 16th century.
In the case of the Mexicans, the Holy Father declared the three Child Martyrs of Tlaxcala worthy of sainthood without having a miracle attributed to their intercession, once again sidestepping the typical saint-making process. The boys, Cristobal, Antonio and Juan, were converted to Catholicism by missionaries in the early 1500s.
Francis observed the norms of the canonization process in affirming a miracle for Francisco and Jacinta Marto, the Fatima siblings, just two months before he is to travel to the Fatima shrine to mark the centennial anniversary of their apparitions.
There is much confusion among non-Catholics about the saints the Church recognizes and promotes as worthy of honor and as a source of inspiration and hope to the faithful.
From the outset, it is important to explain that the Church does not “make” saints. Rather, the Church recognizes that there are those who exemplify heroic virtue during the course of their earthly lives. So much do these virtuous souls manifest a “likeness to God” in their holiness that the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is able to recognize and proclaim that they have attained the blessing of the Beatific Vision and live now and forever in the Eternal Presence of the Holy Trinity.
The history of the development of the Church’s cult of saints in an interesting one.
In the history of the Early Church, individual ecclesiastical communities spontaneously (with no formal process) recognized and venerated virtuous individuals within their locales.
Then, on January 3, 993, Pope John XV became the first Pope to proclaim a person a “saint”. He did so on behalf of a request of the King of Germany that Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg be recognized for his virtuous life and be held before the faithful of the Universal Church as an example and source of inspiration of personal sanctity.
Subsequent Popes contributed to the development of the veneration of saints throughout the Universal Church: Pope John XVIII formally recognized a cult of five Polish martyrs; Pope Benedict VIII declared the Armenian hermit, Symeon, a saint.
But it was not until the pontification of Pope Innocent III that the authority to proclaim or “canonize” a saint was reserved exclusively to the Office of the the Supreme Pontiff. The decree of Pope Alexander III in 1170 formally and definitively reserved the canonization process to the Pope.
In 1756, Alban Butler published Lives of the Saints which included a total of 1,486 saints. The latest edition, contains the lives of 2,565 saints.
But, as Monsignor Robert Sarno, an official of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints has stated, “it is impossible to provide an exact number of saints venerated in the Latin Church.”
Proper and appropriate veneration of the saints consists of paying honor to those whom the Holy Spirit has revealed to have lived lives of exemplary faith and virtue.
Some have erroneously accused the Church of “worshipping" the saints. And yet, according to the Church, Divine worship is in the strict sense reserved only to God and never to the Saints. The faithful may ask the saints to intercede or pray to God for persons still on Earth, just as one can ask someone on Earth to pray for him.
A saint may be designated as a Patron Saint of a particular cause, profession, or locale, or invoked as a protector against specific illnesses or disasters, sometimes by popular custom and sometimes by official declarations of the Church.
Saints are not believed to have power of their own, but only that granted by God. Relics of saints are respected, or "venerated", similar to the veneration of holy images and icons. The practice in past centuries of venerating relics of saints with the intention of obtaining healing from God through their intercession is taken from the early Church.
Once a person has been canonized, the deceased body of the saint is considered holy as a relic. The remains of saints are called holy relics and are usually preserved and venerated in churches. Saints' personal belongings may also be used as relics.
Formal canonization is a lengthy process, often of many years or even centuries.
The first stage in this process is an investigation of the candidate's life by an expert. After this, the official report on the candidate is submitted to the Bishop of the pertinent diocese and more study is undertaken.
The information is then sent to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints of the Holy See for evaluation at the universal level of the Church. If the application is approved the candidate may be granted the title "Venerable".
Further investigation may lead to the candidate's beatification with the title "Blessed".
Next, and at a minimum, proof of two important miracles obtained from God through the intercession of the candidate are required for formal canonization as a saint. These miracles must be posthumous. However, the Pope has the final authority to dispense with this requirement.
Finally, after all of these procedures are complete, it belongs exclusively to the discernment and decision of the Holy Father whether or not to formally proclaim and decree that the candidate is indeed a saint worthy of veneration by the universal Church.
There are some who object to or denigrate the Church’s veneration of the saints. Yet, these same people have no problem with other institutions honoring those who achieved outstanding success in their lives and careers. Just think of the various Halls of Fame where men and women who were legends in their time are remembered by fans of their careers. Even musicians, actors, radio and television personalities are recognized and honored in this way.
And while Pope Francis has certainly shown a proclivity and enthusiasm in canonizing saints, I personally believe the veneration of the saints does not mean all that much among the Catholic faithful nowadays. Rather, I believe more people are acquainted with and interested in the lives of sports heroes and media personalities than they are in the lives of the saints.
Sadly, it seems the only time I hear the names of saints today is when someone tells me how Saint Anthony helped find lost keys, or how burying the statue of Saint Joseph helped sell a house.
I still believe it is noble and fitting to remember those who lived their lives with such commitment and dedication to the Lord. I pray that, among those whom the Holy Spirit has revealed live in Christ forever, those whom I was privileged to have known in life, especially my dear relatives and friends, are in Heaven as well.
I also pray that, if God will be overly merciful, I will one day be with them to enjoy their company in the Divine Presence forever.
In the case of the Mexicans, the Holy Father declared the three Child Martyrs of Tlaxcala worthy of sainthood without having a miracle attributed to their intercession, once again sidestepping the typical saint-making process. The boys, Cristobal, Antonio and Juan, were converted to Catholicism by missionaries in the early 1500s.
Francis observed the norms of the canonization process in affirming a miracle for Francisco and Jacinta Marto, the Fatima siblings, just two months before he is to travel to the Fatima shrine to mark the centennial anniversary of their apparitions.
There is much confusion among non-Catholics about the saints the Church recognizes and promotes as worthy of honor and as a source of inspiration and hope to the faithful.
From the outset, it is important to explain that the Church does not “make” saints. Rather, the Church recognizes that there are those who exemplify heroic virtue during the course of their earthly lives. So much do these virtuous souls manifest a “likeness to God” in their holiness that the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is able to recognize and proclaim that they have attained the blessing of the Beatific Vision and live now and forever in the Eternal Presence of the Holy Trinity.
The history of the development of the Church’s cult of saints in an interesting one.
In the history of the Early Church, individual ecclesiastical communities spontaneously (with no formal process) recognized and venerated virtuous individuals within their locales.
Then, on January 3, 993, Pope John XV became the first Pope to proclaim a person a “saint”. He did so on behalf of a request of the King of Germany that Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg be recognized for his virtuous life and be held before the faithful of the Universal Church as an example and source of inspiration of personal sanctity.
Subsequent Popes contributed to the development of the veneration of saints throughout the Universal Church: Pope John XVIII formally recognized a cult of five Polish martyrs; Pope Benedict VIII declared the Armenian hermit, Symeon, a saint.
But it was not until the pontification of Pope Innocent III that the authority to proclaim or “canonize” a saint was reserved exclusively to the Office of the the Supreme Pontiff. The decree of Pope Alexander III in 1170 formally and definitively reserved the canonization process to the Pope.
In 1756, Alban Butler published Lives of the Saints which included a total of 1,486 saints. The latest edition, contains the lives of 2,565 saints.
But, as Monsignor Robert Sarno, an official of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints has stated, “it is impossible to provide an exact number of saints venerated in the Latin Church.”
Proper and appropriate veneration of the saints consists of paying honor to those whom the Holy Spirit has revealed to have lived lives of exemplary faith and virtue.
Some have erroneously accused the Church of “worshipping" the saints. And yet, according to the Church, Divine worship is in the strict sense reserved only to God and never to the Saints. The faithful may ask the saints to intercede or pray to God for persons still on Earth, just as one can ask someone on Earth to pray for him.
A saint may be designated as a Patron Saint of a particular cause, profession, or locale, or invoked as a protector against specific illnesses or disasters, sometimes by popular custom and sometimes by official declarations of the Church.
Saints are not believed to have power of their own, but only that granted by God. Relics of saints are respected, or "venerated", similar to the veneration of holy images and icons. The practice in past centuries of venerating relics of saints with the intention of obtaining healing from God through their intercession is taken from the early Church.
Once a person has been canonized, the deceased body of the saint is considered holy as a relic. The remains of saints are called holy relics and are usually preserved and venerated in churches. Saints' personal belongings may also be used as relics.
Formal canonization is a lengthy process, often of many years or even centuries.
The first stage in this process is an investigation of the candidate's life by an expert. After this, the official report on the candidate is submitted to the Bishop of the pertinent diocese and more study is undertaken.
The information is then sent to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints of the Holy See for evaluation at the universal level of the Church. If the application is approved the candidate may be granted the title "Venerable".
Further investigation may lead to the candidate's beatification with the title "Blessed".
Next, and at a minimum, proof of two important miracles obtained from God through the intercession of the candidate are required for formal canonization as a saint. These miracles must be posthumous. However, the Pope has the final authority to dispense with this requirement.
Finally, after all of these procedures are complete, it belongs exclusively to the discernment and decision of the Holy Father whether or not to formally proclaim and decree that the candidate is indeed a saint worthy of veneration by the universal Church.
There are some who object to or denigrate the Church’s veneration of the saints. Yet, these same people have no problem with other institutions honoring those who achieved outstanding success in their lives and careers. Just think of the various Halls of Fame where men and women who were legends in their time are remembered by fans of their careers. Even musicians, actors, radio and television personalities are recognized and honored in this way.
And while Pope Francis has certainly shown a proclivity and enthusiasm in canonizing saints, I personally believe the veneration of the saints does not mean all that much among the Catholic faithful nowadays. Rather, I believe more people are acquainted with and interested in the lives of sports heroes and media personalities than they are in the lives of the saints.
Sadly, it seems the only time I hear the names of saints today is when someone tells me how Saint Anthony helped find lost keys, or how burying the statue of Saint Joseph helped sell a house.
I still believe it is noble and fitting to remember those who lived their lives with such commitment and dedication to the Lord. I pray that, among those whom the Holy Spirit has revealed live in Christ forever, those whom I was privileged to have known in life, especially my dear relatives and friends, are in Heaven as well.
I also pray that, if God will be overly merciful, I will one day be with them to enjoy their company in the Divine Presence forever.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
FACING THE TIGER: A PASTOR ENCOUNTERS THE PARISH LITURGICAL COMMITTEE
As the Season of Lent progresses and the celebrations of Holy Week and Easter fast approach, Pastors find themselves swamped in the flurry of preparations that are so much a part of this time of year. They need our prayers and words of encouragement especially as they find themselves swamped by the demands this time of year will make upon them.
The other evening, I listened to a Priest-friend who is Pastor of a large suburban parish. It was late, but he decided to phone me after spending much of the evening with members of the liturgical committee he inherited upon his appointment to the parish just a couple of weeks ago.
It was his first encounter with this group. He told me that he had had misgivings and concerns about the meeting, all of which were confirmed.
His predecessor had taken little interest in the committee’s work, preferring to simply allow the members to make whatever plans they wished for the liturgical celebrations, the decorations, the arrangement of the sanctuary, and the training of altar servers and ministers.
As a result, this group was given almost free reign over the ceremonies which took place, including and especially the music which accompanied the various Mass and liturgical services.
The Pastor told me that he was told what he would or wouldn’t be doing in celebrating the Holy Week and Easter rituals. The committee had selected and approved the times of the services, all the music and even the number of readings which would be read at the Easter Vigil. They further indicated that they had selected the themes which the homilies should address.
While tempted to “blow his stack” (his words), he was able to keep his composure, But he decided that, after this night, he would disband this committee and exercise exclusive control over the liturgical life of the parish for the foreseeable future. For the present, he just wants to get through his first Holy Week and Easter celebration with as little dispute with this group as possible.
After listening quietly and offering as much sympathy as I could, I suggested that his plan of action certainly sounded prudent and I assured him of my prayers for his patience during this trying moment,
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was one of the foundational documents that came out of Vatican Council II ushering in a time of great liturgical reform that shaped the liturgy as we know it today.
To assist the Bishop, the chief liturgist of any diocese, the Constitution recommended --but did not mandate-- the establishment of a Liturgical Commission in every diocese to advise the Bishop on implementing the reforms as well as on all matters liturgical.
At the parish level, liturgy committees were formed to provide similar advice and counsel to the pastor.
Curiously, while the reforms of Vatican II have long since been implemented, parish liturgy committees appear to have maintained a place within parish structure.
While the responsibility to prepare for the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy remains primarily the responsibility of the Priest-celebrant, some Pastors believe it necessary to have the assistance of the laity to fulfill this duty.
While not mandated by law, a knowledgeable and well-formed liturgy committee can provide such limited assistance.
From the outset, it is important to distinguish between planning and preparing. The Sacred Rites are not planned in the ways of a birthday party or anniversary celebration. In these cases, the options of menu choices, party activities, decorations and such are left to the creativity of the party planners.
Unlike these celebrations, the Church has already planned the Sacred Liturgy as it is found in the approved liturgical books and in its Order of the Liturgical Year.
The Liturgy is not an event or a performance. It is a sacred celebration of the Paschal Mystery through which the mystery of Christ among us becomes transparent and spiritually effective in the lives of the people.
No committee not knowledgeable or familiar with this fundamental understanding of the Sacred Liturgy can be assistance to any Pastor.
A liturgy committee can assist by helping the Pastor consider the various options the Church permits for the observance of the seasons of the Liturgical Year. Liturgical committees can be particularly helpful in seeing to it that liturgical ministers are properly formed and instructed for their respective roles.
Of course, the problems which my Priest-friend is experiencing and which countless other Pastors have experienced with their parish liturgical committees all stem from the fact that the folks comprising these committees have never been properly educated in what their true role and functions are. They exist to simply advise and assist. They do not direct or govern the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy within the parish.
In my active ministry, I was not immune to the same problem. My solution? I thanked the members of the liturgical committee for their past service, suppressed the committee completely, and gathered to myself those persons whom I grew to realize were truly interested in providing assistance and support in the celebration of the Liturgy.
Was my solution popular. No.
Did some of the former committee members complain. Of course, one even wrote to the Archbishop demanding my removal. I remained Pastor of the parish for the next 21 years.
Pastors need to understand their responsibilities and fulfill them. The same applies to members of liturgical committees everywhere.
The other evening, I listened to a Priest-friend who is Pastor of a large suburban parish. It was late, but he decided to phone me after spending much of the evening with members of the liturgical committee he inherited upon his appointment to the parish just a couple of weeks ago.
It was his first encounter with this group. He told me that he had had misgivings and concerns about the meeting, all of which were confirmed.
His predecessor had taken little interest in the committee’s work, preferring to simply allow the members to make whatever plans they wished for the liturgical celebrations, the decorations, the arrangement of the sanctuary, and the training of altar servers and ministers.
As a result, this group was given almost free reign over the ceremonies which took place, including and especially the music which accompanied the various Mass and liturgical services.
The Pastor told me that he was told what he would or wouldn’t be doing in celebrating the Holy Week and Easter rituals. The committee had selected and approved the times of the services, all the music and even the number of readings which would be read at the Easter Vigil. They further indicated that they had selected the themes which the homilies should address.
While tempted to “blow his stack” (his words), he was able to keep his composure, But he decided that, after this night, he would disband this committee and exercise exclusive control over the liturgical life of the parish for the foreseeable future. For the present, he just wants to get through his first Holy Week and Easter celebration with as little dispute with this group as possible.
After listening quietly and offering as much sympathy as I could, I suggested that his plan of action certainly sounded prudent and I assured him of my prayers for his patience during this trying moment,
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was one of the foundational documents that came out of Vatican Council II ushering in a time of great liturgical reform that shaped the liturgy as we know it today.
To assist the Bishop, the chief liturgist of any diocese, the Constitution recommended --but did not mandate-- the establishment of a Liturgical Commission in every diocese to advise the Bishop on implementing the reforms as well as on all matters liturgical.
At the parish level, liturgy committees were formed to provide similar advice and counsel to the pastor.
Curiously, while the reforms of Vatican II have long since been implemented, parish liturgy committees appear to have maintained a place within parish structure.
While the responsibility to prepare for the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy remains primarily the responsibility of the Priest-celebrant, some Pastors believe it necessary to have the assistance of the laity to fulfill this duty.
While not mandated by law, a knowledgeable and well-formed liturgy committee can provide such limited assistance.
From the outset, it is important to distinguish between planning and preparing. The Sacred Rites are not planned in the ways of a birthday party or anniversary celebration. In these cases, the options of menu choices, party activities, decorations and such are left to the creativity of the party planners.
Unlike these celebrations, the Church has already planned the Sacred Liturgy as it is found in the approved liturgical books and in its Order of the Liturgical Year.
The Liturgy is not an event or a performance. It is a sacred celebration of the Paschal Mystery through which the mystery of Christ among us becomes transparent and spiritually effective in the lives of the people.
No committee not knowledgeable or familiar with this fundamental understanding of the Sacred Liturgy can be assistance to any Pastor.
A liturgy committee can assist by helping the Pastor consider the various options the Church permits for the observance of the seasons of the Liturgical Year. Liturgical committees can be particularly helpful in seeing to it that liturgical ministers are properly formed and instructed for their respective roles.
Of course, the problems which my Priest-friend is experiencing and which countless other Pastors have experienced with their parish liturgical committees all stem from the fact that the folks comprising these committees have never been properly educated in what their true role and functions are. They exist to simply advise and assist. They do not direct or govern the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy within the parish.
In my active ministry, I was not immune to the same problem. My solution? I thanked the members of the liturgical committee for their past service, suppressed the committee completely, and gathered to myself those persons whom I grew to realize were truly interested in providing assistance and support in the celebration of the Liturgy.
Was my solution popular. No.
Did some of the former committee members complain. Of course, one even wrote to the Archbishop demanding my removal. I remained Pastor of the parish for the next 21 years.
Pastors need to understand their responsibilities and fulfill them. The same applies to members of liturgical committees everywhere.
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
THE JOY OF BEING GRATEFUL
I have just begun re-reading (for the third time in my life) one of my favorite novels, A Tale of Two Cities, by Charles Dickens.
For those who have never read the story, it’s a novel, set in London and Paris, before and during the French Revolution. Dickens describes the plight of the French peasantry demoralized by French aristocrats in the years leading up to the revolution and the subsequent brutality aimed against them by the revolutionaries in the early years of the revolution.
Masterfully, Dickens weaves his tale in such a way that he exposes the many unflattering social parallels with life in London during the same period.
The novel begins with the oft-quoted words, “It was the best of times and the worst of times.”
Oh, what a similar tale could be told about the times we live in today, a time of revolution as the very fabric of Western civilization seems to be crumbling beneath our feet.
Nothing is sacred anymore. Cherished customs, rituals, traditions have simply disappeared, leaving a vacuum in their wake. Society is increasingly repressive. Almost every human endeavor or experience has become politicized. People are more divided and hostile to opposing points of view or value systems.
Yet, in the very same moment, we live in times and circumstances which human history has never before witnessed. In much of the world, people are richer than ever before, yet seemingly struggle harder to make do with what they own. People have access to vast and previously unimaginable sources of knowledge and information, yet appear to be less capable of rational thought than ever before. People enjoy more leisure now than in the past, yet they are frantic to fill those leisure moments with all sorts of activities which place additional demands upon their time and attention.
This isn’t the stuff of speculation. It’s verifiable. Just go out and spend some time around people (at the store, in restaurants, working or playing, in whatever circumstance) and you will witness and experience for yourself the bounty of life and opportunity which engulfs us as well as the overriding sense of ennui and dissatisfaction of so many.
What Dickens wrote applies (perhaps even more so today): it is the best of time and the worst of times.
As I observe my fellow human beings, I notice more and more that people appear to be less thankful or appreciative. A great feeling of ingratitude appears to permeate life itself these days.
This lack of thankfulness is visible in so many ways. Particularly evident to me is the fact that people don’t say a word of thanks to the Lord at mealtime. It’s a simple thing to focus upon, I know, but it’s all the more significant because it is so easy to do.
To acknowledge that the food which sustains us comes to us as a gift, a blessing from the Lord. And whether we are dining out or at home, the custom of simply bowing our heads in reverence to God and expressing our gratitude for His Bounty has become a forgotten ritual. We may find it easier to offer a prayer of gratitude at Thanksgiving Day celebrations, but I have known even on those occasions the awkwardness among those seated around their family tables.
While it may be presumptuous of me to extrapolate from the forgotten prayer of Grace before meals to one’s prayer life in general, I do believe that folks just don’t pray very often, if at all in their day to day lives.
Why?
There are as many different reasons as there are individuals. Yet, there are some similarities as well.
First, I believe that people today are very resentful and envious of others. Their desire to have as much, do as much, enjoy the same advantages that others have and they lack stirs up feelings of resentment, anger and unhappiness. By focusing on what we lack, we diminish our ability to appreciate and enjoy what we do have.
Second, we have created the fantasy that the world is obligated to provide for all our wants and needs. This sense of entitlement is pervasive. Relationships in general and even in individual cases are now valued by what others can give us. The dissatisfaction which result when those expectations are not met strain these relationships to the breaking point. Witness the demise of marriage and family life, the building block of social order.
The sense of entitlement, that the world owes me everything not on the basis of merit but simply because I exist, is a dangerous attitude, so very often at the basis of so much self-destructive behavior.
Envy and entitlement have created false expectations with us. When these self-serving expectations fail to be fulfilled, we become angry and sullen, complaining and complacent, leading to all kinds of disorders both psychologically and physically. We become more introverted and self-conscious separating ourselves from others who we judge to be inconsiderate or uncaring of us. Humanity becomes increasing isolated. People tend to become more and more indifferent to and less sympathetic of others. Life seems more crusty and cruel than it should be.
I don’t know if there is a cure, but I think there’s a treatment for this spiritual anemia.
And that’s developing an attitude of gratefulness for who we are and the blessings we’ve been given, given by God and the people with whom we share the brief span of our lives.
For me, saying that simple Grace before meals and truly being thankful is critical to my spiritual outlook on life. Being generous in offering thanks to people in every shared experience of my life, from the store clerks, to the waitresses, to the doctors and nurses, the handymen and janitors, the politicians and the public service workers makes me feel more connected to others.
Just being conscious that all of what I experience comes as gift helps keep me joyful and humble, truly so, and appreciative for the goodness of other persons, be they Divine or just simple folks like myself.
Thanks for reading this post and enjoy and be grateful for the blessings of this and every day!
For those who have never read the story, it’s a novel, set in London and Paris, before and during the French Revolution. Dickens describes the plight of the French peasantry demoralized by French aristocrats in the years leading up to the revolution and the subsequent brutality aimed against them by the revolutionaries in the early years of the revolution.
Masterfully, Dickens weaves his tale in such a way that he exposes the many unflattering social parallels with life in London during the same period.
The novel begins with the oft-quoted words, “It was the best of times and the worst of times.”
Oh, what a similar tale could be told about the times we live in today, a time of revolution as the very fabric of Western civilization seems to be crumbling beneath our feet.
Nothing is sacred anymore. Cherished customs, rituals, traditions have simply disappeared, leaving a vacuum in their wake. Society is increasingly repressive. Almost every human endeavor or experience has become politicized. People are more divided and hostile to opposing points of view or value systems.
Yet, in the very same moment, we live in times and circumstances which human history has never before witnessed. In much of the world, people are richer than ever before, yet seemingly struggle harder to make do with what they own. People have access to vast and previously unimaginable sources of knowledge and information, yet appear to be less capable of rational thought than ever before. People enjoy more leisure now than in the past, yet they are frantic to fill those leisure moments with all sorts of activities which place additional demands upon their time and attention.
This isn’t the stuff of speculation. It’s verifiable. Just go out and spend some time around people (at the store, in restaurants, working or playing, in whatever circumstance) and you will witness and experience for yourself the bounty of life and opportunity which engulfs us as well as the overriding sense of ennui and dissatisfaction of so many.
What Dickens wrote applies (perhaps even more so today): it is the best of time and the worst of times.
As I observe my fellow human beings, I notice more and more that people appear to be less thankful or appreciative. A great feeling of ingratitude appears to permeate life itself these days.
This lack of thankfulness is visible in so many ways. Particularly evident to me is the fact that people don’t say a word of thanks to the Lord at mealtime. It’s a simple thing to focus upon, I know, but it’s all the more significant because it is so easy to do.
To acknowledge that the food which sustains us comes to us as a gift, a blessing from the Lord. And whether we are dining out or at home, the custom of simply bowing our heads in reverence to God and expressing our gratitude for His Bounty has become a forgotten ritual. We may find it easier to offer a prayer of gratitude at Thanksgiving Day celebrations, but I have known even on those occasions the awkwardness among those seated around their family tables.
While it may be presumptuous of me to extrapolate from the forgotten prayer of Grace before meals to one’s prayer life in general, I do believe that folks just don’t pray very often, if at all in their day to day lives.
Why?
There are as many different reasons as there are individuals. Yet, there are some similarities as well.
First, I believe that people today are very resentful and envious of others. Their desire to have as much, do as much, enjoy the same advantages that others have and they lack stirs up feelings of resentment, anger and unhappiness. By focusing on what we lack, we diminish our ability to appreciate and enjoy what we do have.
Second, we have created the fantasy that the world is obligated to provide for all our wants and needs. This sense of entitlement is pervasive. Relationships in general and even in individual cases are now valued by what others can give us. The dissatisfaction which result when those expectations are not met strain these relationships to the breaking point. Witness the demise of marriage and family life, the building block of social order.
The sense of entitlement, that the world owes me everything not on the basis of merit but simply because I exist, is a dangerous attitude, so very often at the basis of so much self-destructive behavior.
Envy and entitlement have created false expectations with us. When these self-serving expectations fail to be fulfilled, we become angry and sullen, complaining and complacent, leading to all kinds of disorders both psychologically and physically. We become more introverted and self-conscious separating ourselves from others who we judge to be inconsiderate or uncaring of us. Humanity becomes increasing isolated. People tend to become more and more indifferent to and less sympathetic of others. Life seems more crusty and cruel than it should be.
I don’t know if there is a cure, but I think there’s a treatment for this spiritual anemia.
And that’s developing an attitude of gratefulness for who we are and the blessings we’ve been given, given by God and the people with whom we share the brief span of our lives.
For me, saying that simple Grace before meals and truly being thankful is critical to my spiritual outlook on life. Being generous in offering thanks to people in every shared experience of my life, from the store clerks, to the waitresses, to the doctors and nurses, the handymen and janitors, the politicians and the public service workers makes me feel more connected to others.
Just being conscious that all of what I experience comes as gift helps keep me joyful and humble, truly so, and appreciative for the goodness of other persons, be they Divine or just simple folks like myself.
Thanks for reading this post and enjoy and be grateful for the blessings of this and every day!
Monday, March 20, 2017
PLEASE STOP INCLUDING ME, MY CHURCH AND MY COUNTRY IN MEANINGLESS APOLOGIES
Frankly, as a Catholic and as an American, I am getting more than a little tired of Popes and Presidents apologizing in my name and for all my fellow Catholics and countrymen for the sins of some within our ranks.
Just last week, Pope Francis has asked Rwandan President Paul Kagame for forgiveness for the "sins and failings" of the Catholic Church during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
During a meeting with Kagame at the Vatican, the Pope expressed "solidarity with the victims and with those who continue to suffer the consequences of those tragic events.” Pope Francis acknowledged that Priests, Runs and lay members of the Church had succumbed to hatred and violence in Rwanda, "betraying their own evangelical mission," the Vatican said.
This is just the latest in a long list of attempts at public self-flagellation and the condemnation of all for the misdeeds of a few. It is another pitiable display of political correctness raised to the level of diplomacy.
Pope St. John Paul II was artful and prolific in his apologies for the entire Body of Christ, of which I and entire generations of my family have been loyal and faithful members.
Let’s see, John Paul II offered the following apologies:
(1) to Galileo for the legal process brought against him;
(2) to black people for the Church’s “involvement” in the slave trade;
(3) the persecution and execution of a number of heretics and reformers;
(4) the historical denigration of women;
(5) the silence of so many Catholics during the Holocaust;
(6) the execution of Jan Hus, a Czech reformer;
(7) the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating ethnic rights;
(8) the Crusades;
(9) the sexual abuse of minors (a nuanced apology to be sure).
Pope Benedict XVI was even more inclusive, but did not fail to apologize for me and my Catholic household for each and every sin or failing perpetrated by a member or members of the Church.
While still Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, JosephCardinal Ratzinger, presented the dicastery’s study on the topic of “Memories and Reconciliation". The document stated that the purpose of the study was “not to examine particular historical cases but rather to clarify the presuppositions that ground repentance for past faults." It went on to examine repentance for past faults of Catholics in the context of sociology, ecclesiology and theology.
Strange how I don’t remember myself doing any of these things. I can’t imagine the Catholics I know being involved in such injustices either.
But wait, not only have Popes felt it necessary to apologize in my name for the sins of the Church, but an American President believed that he needed to apologize to the nations of the world in my name for political misdeeds perpetrated by some within the government.
During his lackluster tenure, President Obama offered the following apologies to the world in the name of all Americans:
(1) an apology to France and Europe for America’s arrogance;
(2) an apology to the Muslim world;
(3) an apology to the Summits of the Americas;
(4) an apology to the G-20 Summit members;
(5) an apology for the War on Terror;
(6) an apology (the first of many) for Guantanamo Bay prison;
(7) an apology before the Turkish Parliament;
(8) an apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas;
(9) an apology for the mistakes of the CIA;
(10) yet another apology for Guantanamo.
Taken out of the historical context in which certain actions and decisions were made, apologies decades or centuries after the fact have no meaning. And assigning a corporate sense of guilt for the actions of specific miscreants is unjust and unfair. These modern day judgments of past events are nothing but a poorly orchestrated attempt to be “politically correct” and attribute to all the sins or crimes of a few.
If Pope Francis feels the need to apologize in the name of anyone for the genocide in Rwanda, let him name the evildoers -- the specific Bishops, Priests, Religious and Laity who actively participate in the atrocities. He knows who they are. Just don’t lump me in with these villains.
If John Paul II felt it appropriate to apologize to Galileo, then he should have apologized in the name of St. Robert Bellarmine (his prosecutor) and in the name of Pope Urban VII who called the Tribunal of the Inquisition which condemned him. Don’t lay the guilt of these men, if they were guilty of anything, upon me because I choose to believe in the Gospel handed down to me by my ancestors in the Catholic Faith.
Of course, Cardinal Ratzinger offered apologies for the entirety of Catholic history, I presume up to and including my association with the Church.
How foolish and inane!
And I will reserve any remarks about President Obama because I reject almost everything he said and did during his administration. I did not vote for him twice and never accepted him as the chief representative of anything qualified by the term “American”.
It’s about time that leaders come clean and stop with these deceitful antics.
Intelligent, reasonable and mature human beings realize that any institution (be it of Divine or human origin) consisting of human beings will manifest both the best and the worst of humanity. To suggest that the entire institution is responsible for the misdeeds of some is a lie. To apologize in the name of all for the sins of some is a canard, a ruse to win popularity and favor among others.
And, as I look at some of the things these Popes and this President apologized for, I can’t say I disagree with what was done at the time it was done.
Perhaps, a fair assessment of the past actions of the Church and America for which Popes and a President feel a need to offer apologies might include this question: where would the Church or our country be today if these actions weren’t taken when they were in the circumstances of the moment?
In any case, when the time comes for me to offer a personal apology to the world for my sins, I pray I have the courage to do it in my own name and without the need of someone else having to do it for me.
And perhaps then such an apology will be both sincere and meaningful.
Just last week, Pope Francis has asked Rwandan President Paul Kagame for forgiveness for the "sins and failings" of the Catholic Church during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
During a meeting with Kagame at the Vatican, the Pope expressed "solidarity with the victims and with those who continue to suffer the consequences of those tragic events.” Pope Francis acknowledged that Priests, Runs and lay members of the Church had succumbed to hatred and violence in Rwanda, "betraying their own evangelical mission," the Vatican said.
This is just the latest in a long list of attempts at public self-flagellation and the condemnation of all for the misdeeds of a few. It is another pitiable display of political correctness raised to the level of diplomacy.
Pope St. John Paul II was artful and prolific in his apologies for the entire Body of Christ, of which I and entire generations of my family have been loyal and faithful members.
Let’s see, John Paul II offered the following apologies:
(1) to Galileo for the legal process brought against him;
(2) to black people for the Church’s “involvement” in the slave trade;
(3) the persecution and execution of a number of heretics and reformers;
(4) the historical denigration of women;
(5) the silence of so many Catholics during the Holocaust;
(6) the execution of Jan Hus, a Czech reformer;
(7) the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating ethnic rights;
(8) the Crusades;
(9) the sexual abuse of minors (a nuanced apology to be sure).
Pope Benedict XVI was even more inclusive, but did not fail to apologize for me and my Catholic household for each and every sin or failing perpetrated by a member or members of the Church.
While still Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, JosephCardinal Ratzinger, presented the dicastery’s study on the topic of “Memories and Reconciliation". The document stated that the purpose of the study was “not to examine particular historical cases but rather to clarify the presuppositions that ground repentance for past faults." It went on to examine repentance for past faults of Catholics in the context of sociology, ecclesiology and theology.
Strange how I don’t remember myself doing any of these things. I can’t imagine the Catholics I know being involved in such injustices either.
But wait, not only have Popes felt it necessary to apologize in my name for the sins of the Church, but an American President believed that he needed to apologize to the nations of the world in my name for political misdeeds perpetrated by some within the government.
During his lackluster tenure, President Obama offered the following apologies to the world in the name of all Americans:
(1) an apology to France and Europe for America’s arrogance;
(2) an apology to the Muslim world;
(3) an apology to the Summits of the Americas;
(4) an apology to the G-20 Summit members;
(5) an apology for the War on Terror;
(6) an apology (the first of many) for Guantanamo Bay prison;
(7) an apology before the Turkish Parliament;
(8) an apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas;
(9) an apology for the mistakes of the CIA;
(10) yet another apology for Guantanamo.
Taken out of the historical context in which certain actions and decisions were made, apologies decades or centuries after the fact have no meaning. And assigning a corporate sense of guilt for the actions of specific miscreants is unjust and unfair. These modern day judgments of past events are nothing but a poorly orchestrated attempt to be “politically correct” and attribute to all the sins or crimes of a few.
If Pope Francis feels the need to apologize in the name of anyone for the genocide in Rwanda, let him name the evildoers -- the specific Bishops, Priests, Religious and Laity who actively participate in the atrocities. He knows who they are. Just don’t lump me in with these villains.
If John Paul II felt it appropriate to apologize to Galileo, then he should have apologized in the name of St. Robert Bellarmine (his prosecutor) and in the name of Pope Urban VII who called the Tribunal of the Inquisition which condemned him. Don’t lay the guilt of these men, if they were guilty of anything, upon me because I choose to believe in the Gospel handed down to me by my ancestors in the Catholic Faith.
Of course, Cardinal Ratzinger offered apologies for the entirety of Catholic history, I presume up to and including my association with the Church.
How foolish and inane!
And I will reserve any remarks about President Obama because I reject almost everything he said and did during his administration. I did not vote for him twice and never accepted him as the chief representative of anything qualified by the term “American”.
It’s about time that leaders come clean and stop with these deceitful antics.
Intelligent, reasonable and mature human beings realize that any institution (be it of Divine or human origin) consisting of human beings will manifest both the best and the worst of humanity. To suggest that the entire institution is responsible for the misdeeds of some is a lie. To apologize in the name of all for the sins of some is a canard, a ruse to win popularity and favor among others.
And, as I look at some of the things these Popes and this President apologized for, I can’t say I disagree with what was done at the time it was done.
Perhaps, a fair assessment of the past actions of the Church and America for which Popes and a President feel a need to offer apologies might include this question: where would the Church or our country be today if these actions weren’t taken when they were in the circumstances of the moment?
In any case, when the time comes for me to offer a personal apology to the world for my sins, I pray I have the courage to do it in my own name and without the need of someone else having to do it for me.
And perhaps then such an apology will be both sincere and meaningful.
A CLASSIC PAPAL FAIL
On March 17, Pope Francis met with participants at an annual course on the internal forum, organised by the Apostolic Penitentiary. In his words to the group, the Pope spoke about the formation of good confessors, focusing on three characteristics which should guide their work.
First, the “good confessor” is, first of all, a true friend of Jesus the Good Shepherd. Without this friendship, it will be difficult to develop that fatherliness so necessary in the ministry of Reconciliation.
Second, the good confessor is a man of the Spirit, a man of discernment.
Third, the confessional is also a true place of evangelisation. Indeed, there is no evangelisation more authentic than the encounter with the God of mercy, with the God Who is Mercy. Encountering mercy means encountering the true face of God, just as the Lord Jesus revealed Him to us.
Certainly, no sensible confessor could take exception to the wise counsel and guidance provided by the Holy Father.
Sadly (a word I find I am using more and more often in describing certain trends within the Church), here are the disturbing facts regarding the Sacrament of Reconciliation not admitted or affirmed by the Holy Father.
According to the Center for Applied Research on the Apostolate, a survey in 2005 showed that 42 percent of Catholic adults, when asked how often they went to confession, answered “Never”. In that same survey, 32% said they confess their sins to a priest less than once a year.
Even practicing Catholics, not just lapsed or lukewarm Catholics, avoid the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Younger Catholics find little or no meaning in the Sacrament.
What happened?
Just in the span of my lifetime, the lines of penitents one could expect to find outside confessionals on a typical Saturday afternoon have all but disappeared. When I was in active ministry, I would often lament that when I stepped into the confessional I became the “loneliest man in town”.
Why?
Here’s what I think and I know there will be many who will disagree with and perhaps even scorn my reasons. There are many factors which have contributed to the downfall of Confession, but I will focus upon the three which I believe have been the most influential.
The first blow to the Sacrament of Penance came when the Church rescinded its ancient prescription against eating meat on Friday!
I realize that this may be a shocking revelation to some, but I do believe that no one could have anticipated the effect such a change in discipline would have upon the faithful’s confidence in the moral authority of the Church. What had been for centuries one of the cardinal precepts which gave identity to Catholicism was all but completely abrogated.
Previously, any Catholic who dared eat meat on Friday was considered to be automatically and ultimately condemned to eternal damnation. Wasn’t eating meat on Friday the stuff of mortal sin? Grave matter? Full consent of will? Weren't we taught this from the time we magically matured and attained "the age of reason".
Were not moral manuals written and treatises authored which agonized over whether or not a morsel of meal in soup or whether or not an fragment of animal flesh under an ounce constituted a mortal sin if consumed on a Friday? Whether or not a person who forgot it was Friday could eat a hamburger which he or she purchased while dining away from home?
I can remember discussing such topics not in elementary school, but in my third year of college seminary formation!
If what once so clearly prescribed by the Church could change so instantly and drastically, then what else could change? What really constituted grave matter and sinfulness, judgment and condemnation?
The fact is that many of the Catholic faithful came to the conclusion quite quickly that much of what had been taught as essential to living the moral life was really just the idealized piety of those who had abused their authority by inflicting their particular brand of piety (and in many cases, their moral neuroses) on others.
Sin, like beauty, was to be determined in the eye of the beholder. And the laity eagerly decided to become masters of their own morality, not beholding to the teachings of Popes and Bishops whose “opinions” of right or wrong differed from their own.
The second reason for the rapid demise of the Sacrament of Reconciliation was the profound shift in the prevailing social and secular attitudes about human sexuality, the wide-spread use of recreational drugs, and the breakdown of the very fabric of the family due to the availability of easy no-fault divorces -- all in the name of a so-called “liberating tolerance”.
What was and remains characteristic of this pervasive point of view is that it calls for “tolerance” (in reality a code word for “acceptance”) of any thought, word, or deed imaginable. This would become the embryonic conceptual cell of what would later be the fundamental social trait of society today: “political correctness”, the first and only commandment of moral life.
Morality today does not consist of objective truths either Divinely revealed or gleaned from the immutable truths imbedded in the natural order. Now, morality is defined by any effect which one person’s thought, speech or action has upon another’s viewpoint or behavior. In the context of this new morality, the Confessional is meaningless.
We don’t ask forgiveness of God, only of each other. And the forgiveness we ask carries with it the burden of a promise never again to question or impugn another’s way of thinking or acting.
And, the final reason for the practical death of the Sacrament of Reconciliation?
In a way that had never happened before and on a scale never before witnessed, the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI caused many Catholics to re-evaluate their notion and acceptance of episcopal authority.
Humanae Vitae certainly remains controversial in the teaching it proclaimed about the immorality of artificial contraception. Yet, it was the reaction of Priests and theologians which perhaps had the greatest influence on the minds of the faithful.
The very public rejection of the encyclical by Catholic clergy, theologians, professors created a seed of doubt in the minds of average Catholics who began to question (and seriously so) the binding force of Papal authority in matters of morals (and eventually in matters pertaining to the Faith itself). In the open rebellion against the encyclical which was touted in both the secular and religious media, people began to simply decide for themselves whether or not the regulation of birth by natural or artificial means was right or wrong. Overnight, this moral subjectivity would replace both the moral precepts Divinely revealed or proclaimed by Church hierarchy.
These three interwoven and dynamic moments in recent history would be the death kneel of Confession and the need to seek sacramental absolution for sin.
So, while I laud Pope Francis who calls upon confessors to be fatherly, empathetic and evangelistic, I believe he has failed to recognize and appreciate the reality that a new morality has replaced the traditional morality which made Confession understandable and necessary.
And, as I look out toward the horizon of this new moral landscape, little appears that gives me any sense of security or certainty that the Sacrament of Reconciliation will ever again be valued and practiced for the great treasure it once was in the lives of weak and frail human beings
First, the “good confessor” is, first of all, a true friend of Jesus the Good Shepherd. Without this friendship, it will be difficult to develop that fatherliness so necessary in the ministry of Reconciliation.
Second, the good confessor is a man of the Spirit, a man of discernment.
Third, the confessional is also a true place of evangelisation. Indeed, there is no evangelisation more authentic than the encounter with the God of mercy, with the God Who is Mercy. Encountering mercy means encountering the true face of God, just as the Lord Jesus revealed Him to us.
Certainly, no sensible confessor could take exception to the wise counsel and guidance provided by the Holy Father.
Sadly (a word I find I am using more and more often in describing certain trends within the Church), here are the disturbing facts regarding the Sacrament of Reconciliation not admitted or affirmed by the Holy Father.
According to the Center for Applied Research on the Apostolate, a survey in 2005 showed that 42 percent of Catholic adults, when asked how often they went to confession, answered “Never”. In that same survey, 32% said they confess their sins to a priest less than once a year.
Even practicing Catholics, not just lapsed or lukewarm Catholics, avoid the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Younger Catholics find little or no meaning in the Sacrament.
What happened?
Just in the span of my lifetime, the lines of penitents one could expect to find outside confessionals on a typical Saturday afternoon have all but disappeared. When I was in active ministry, I would often lament that when I stepped into the confessional I became the “loneliest man in town”.
Why?
Here’s what I think and I know there will be many who will disagree with and perhaps even scorn my reasons. There are many factors which have contributed to the downfall of Confession, but I will focus upon the three which I believe have been the most influential.
The first blow to the Sacrament of Penance came when the Church rescinded its ancient prescription against eating meat on Friday!
I realize that this may be a shocking revelation to some, but I do believe that no one could have anticipated the effect such a change in discipline would have upon the faithful’s confidence in the moral authority of the Church. What had been for centuries one of the cardinal precepts which gave identity to Catholicism was all but completely abrogated.
Previously, any Catholic who dared eat meat on Friday was considered to be automatically and ultimately condemned to eternal damnation. Wasn’t eating meat on Friday the stuff of mortal sin? Grave matter? Full consent of will? Weren't we taught this from the time we magically matured and attained "the age of reason".
Were not moral manuals written and treatises authored which agonized over whether or not a morsel of meal in soup or whether or not an fragment of animal flesh under an ounce constituted a mortal sin if consumed on a Friday? Whether or not a person who forgot it was Friday could eat a hamburger which he or she purchased while dining away from home?
I can remember discussing such topics not in elementary school, but in my third year of college seminary formation!
If what once so clearly prescribed by the Church could change so instantly and drastically, then what else could change? What really constituted grave matter and sinfulness, judgment and condemnation?
The fact is that many of the Catholic faithful came to the conclusion quite quickly that much of what had been taught as essential to living the moral life was really just the idealized piety of those who had abused their authority by inflicting their particular brand of piety (and in many cases, their moral neuroses) on others.
Sin, like beauty, was to be determined in the eye of the beholder. And the laity eagerly decided to become masters of their own morality, not beholding to the teachings of Popes and Bishops whose “opinions” of right or wrong differed from their own.
The second reason for the rapid demise of the Sacrament of Reconciliation was the profound shift in the prevailing social and secular attitudes about human sexuality, the wide-spread use of recreational drugs, and the breakdown of the very fabric of the family due to the availability of easy no-fault divorces -- all in the name of a so-called “liberating tolerance”.
What was and remains characteristic of this pervasive point of view is that it calls for “tolerance” (in reality a code word for “acceptance”) of any thought, word, or deed imaginable. This would become the embryonic conceptual cell of what would later be the fundamental social trait of society today: “political correctness”, the first and only commandment of moral life.
Morality today does not consist of objective truths either Divinely revealed or gleaned from the immutable truths imbedded in the natural order. Now, morality is defined by any effect which one person’s thought, speech or action has upon another’s viewpoint or behavior. In the context of this new morality, the Confessional is meaningless.
We don’t ask forgiveness of God, only of each other. And the forgiveness we ask carries with it the burden of a promise never again to question or impugn another’s way of thinking or acting.
And, the final reason for the practical death of the Sacrament of Reconciliation?
In a way that had never happened before and on a scale never before witnessed, the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI caused many Catholics to re-evaluate their notion and acceptance of episcopal authority.
Humanae Vitae certainly remains controversial in the teaching it proclaimed about the immorality of artificial contraception. Yet, it was the reaction of Priests and theologians which perhaps had the greatest influence on the minds of the faithful.
The very public rejection of the encyclical by Catholic clergy, theologians, professors created a seed of doubt in the minds of average Catholics who began to question (and seriously so) the binding force of Papal authority in matters of morals (and eventually in matters pertaining to the Faith itself). In the open rebellion against the encyclical which was touted in both the secular and religious media, people began to simply decide for themselves whether or not the regulation of birth by natural or artificial means was right or wrong. Overnight, this moral subjectivity would replace both the moral precepts Divinely revealed or proclaimed by Church hierarchy.
These three interwoven and dynamic moments in recent history would be the death kneel of Confession and the need to seek sacramental absolution for sin.
So, while I laud Pope Francis who calls upon confessors to be fatherly, empathetic and evangelistic, I believe he has failed to recognize and appreciate the reality that a new morality has replaced the traditional morality which made Confession understandable and necessary.
And, as I look out toward the horizon of this new moral landscape, little appears that gives me any sense of security or certainty that the Sacrament of Reconciliation will ever again be valued and practiced for the great treasure it once was in the lives of weak and frail human beings
Friday, March 17, 2017
THE CONSERVATIVE SOUL OF NON-EUROPEAN CATHOLICISM
It seems whenever the Pope (any Pope in recent years) announces a Consistory for the naming of new Cardinals to the College, progressive voices always tout the appointment of non-European Bishops.
I think there is a feeling that somehow, if the College of Cardinals is more representative of the various cultures and peoples of the world, the Church itself will be less conservative and more open to adapting to the modern world and its prevailing values, whatever those might be at any given moment. In the minds of some, welcoming Prelates from Third-world countries will somehow introduce an openness to the Faith and provide the opportunity for greater heterodoxy in doctrine and practice.
But, I for one am not so certain. As I look at the global Church, it appears that the torch of orthodoxy is perhaps the brightest in the Third-world than it is in Europe and much of the industrialized countries of the West.
Just as an example, Africa has firmly established the reputation of being host to some of the most conservative members of the Church hierarchy. I number among these Cardinal Robert Sara, a native of Guinea and Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Cardinal Wilfred Napier of Wouth Aftrica as well as Tanzanian Bishop Renatus Nkwande.
Certainly, it was the Bishops from Africa who constituted the most conservative voting bloc at the last Synod. And their influence would have been greater but for the fact that the African Church was largely under-represented (with 54 African Bishops in a Synod of 270 participants).
For instance, both Belgium and Nigeria were permitted the same number of Bishops, even though Nigeria has more than twice the number of Catholics as does Belgium, a difference of
18.9 million Nigerian Cathlolics to 8.5 million Belgians. But even those figures understate the gulf which exists between the two countries in terms of the percentage of actively practicing Catholics.
By almost every measure, the Catholic Church in Africa is experiencing tremendous growth, the very opposite of what is happening both on the European continent as well as in North America.
At the present time, Africa represents 16% of all Catholics worldwide.
And African Catholics are on the rise. From 1910 to 2010, they went from constituting just 1% of the local population to 21%, making Africa the fastest growing region for the century. By comparison, Catholics in North America increased by about 16%, according to the Pew Research Center.
From 2004 to 2050, African Catholics will continue their climb, increasing by 145.8 % to 342 million, making Africa the most Catholic continent after Latin America.
The number of parishes in Africa has more than doubled since 1980. So has the number of priests. Enrollment at Catholic schools, from kindergarten to college, has more than tripled, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University. The largest seminary in the world is in Nigeria, boasting 1,225 candidates for the priesthood, about a fourth as many as the total number in the entire United States.
And so, it would appear that, as time goes on and the numbers of non-European and Western Catholics grow, the Church may indeed become more conservative in its teachings and practices.
But this is nothing new to the history of the Church. Let us remember that at one time some of the greatest defenders of Church dogma were to be found in the deserts of Egypt and Alexandria.
So let those who hail the inclusion of non-European Prelates into positions of influence and leadership take care that they very well may be welcoming conservative elements and forces which may indeed derail their progressive agendas.
Such is the way of the Holy Spirit Who constantly surprises any who arrogantly believe that the Church is subject to their wills and ways.
I think there is a feeling that somehow, if the College of Cardinals is more representative of the various cultures and peoples of the world, the Church itself will be less conservative and more open to adapting to the modern world and its prevailing values, whatever those might be at any given moment. In the minds of some, welcoming Prelates from Third-world countries will somehow introduce an openness to the Faith and provide the opportunity for greater heterodoxy in doctrine and practice.
But, I for one am not so certain. As I look at the global Church, it appears that the torch of orthodoxy is perhaps the brightest in the Third-world than it is in Europe and much of the industrialized countries of the West.
Just as an example, Africa has firmly established the reputation of being host to some of the most conservative members of the Church hierarchy. I number among these Cardinal Robert Sara, a native of Guinea and Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Cardinal Wilfred Napier of Wouth Aftrica as well as Tanzanian Bishop Renatus Nkwande.
Certainly, it was the Bishops from Africa who constituted the most conservative voting bloc at the last Synod. And their influence would have been greater but for the fact that the African Church was largely under-represented (with 54 African Bishops in a Synod of 270 participants).
For instance, both Belgium and Nigeria were permitted the same number of Bishops, even though Nigeria has more than twice the number of Catholics as does Belgium, a difference of
18.9 million Nigerian Cathlolics to 8.5 million Belgians. But even those figures understate the gulf which exists between the two countries in terms of the percentage of actively practicing Catholics.
By almost every measure, the Catholic Church in Africa is experiencing tremendous growth, the very opposite of what is happening both on the European continent as well as in North America.
At the present time, Africa represents 16% of all Catholics worldwide.
And African Catholics are on the rise. From 1910 to 2010, they went from constituting just 1% of the local population to 21%, making Africa the fastest growing region for the century. By comparison, Catholics in North America increased by about 16%, according to the Pew Research Center.
From 2004 to 2050, African Catholics will continue their climb, increasing by 145.8 % to 342 million, making Africa the most Catholic continent after Latin America.
The number of parishes in Africa has more than doubled since 1980. So has the number of priests. Enrollment at Catholic schools, from kindergarten to college, has more than tripled, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University. The largest seminary in the world is in Nigeria, boasting 1,225 candidates for the priesthood, about a fourth as many as the total number in the entire United States.
And so, it would appear that, as time goes on and the numbers of non-European and Western Catholics grow, the Church may indeed become more conservative in its teachings and practices.
But this is nothing new to the history of the Church. Let us remember that at one time some of the greatest defenders of Church dogma were to be found in the deserts of Egypt and Alexandria.
So let those who hail the inclusion of non-European Prelates into positions of influence and leadership take care that they very well may be welcoming conservative elements and forces which may indeed derail their progressive agendas.
Such is the way of the Holy Spirit Who constantly surprises any who arrogantly believe that the Church is subject to their wills and ways.
HAS LENT LOST ITS MEANING?
This coming Sunday will mark the beginning of the Third Week of Lent. Already about a third of the Lenten Season has come and gone. And as I observe people both inside and outside of church settings, I wonder if Lent really means anything any more. And if not, why not?
The Season of Lent has become a practice of piety. It consists of forty days of fasting, prayer and penance beginning on Ash Wednesday and end at sundown on Holy Thursday.
And yet, from the outset, Lent was inseparably bound to the celebration of Easter.
During its first three centuries, the Church prepared for Easter by an intense three-day period of prayer and fasting in homage and gratitude for the salvation from sin through the Death and Resurrection of Christ the Savior.
In some of the Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, this period was extended to a full-week (the origin of “Holy Week”). It was a time of intense spiritual and liturgical preparation for catechumens (converts to the Faith) before they were baptized at Easter, celebrating their personal salvation through the Grace of the Sacrament. Many members of the community would celebrate this time of preparation along with the catechumens. Eventually, the practice became part of the liturgical calendar itself. Over time, especially in the city of Rome, this period was extended to three weeks.
A century after the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, making Christianity the religion of the state, Lent was lengthened to a period of 40 days, in imitation of the time Jesus spend fasting and being tempted in the desert (Luke 4: 1-13). Modern research suggests that this expanded period of penance may have been influenced by a similar practice among monastic communities of the time.
By the Fifth Century, most people of the Empire were Christians giving birth to sons and daughters whom the Church began to baptize in infancy.
As a result, Lent lost its intimate association with the preparation of catechumens for baptism at Easter. Soon afterwards, Lent was reduced to a time piety, the principal season of the Liturgical Year for fasting, prayer and penance.
The Easter themes of Redemption, re-birth, hope and promise gave way to the intense attention focused upon man’s sinfulness and his need to repent for the damage and evil caused by sin. The anticipation of Easter joy was replaced by the darkness of human failing. Divine Love which inspired and motivated the Sacrifice on Calvary was all but replaced by the insistent and urgent need for sinners to make reparation to an all-Just and Demanding God.
Catholics today live in a totally secularized society. Moral absolutes are by and large meaningless to most Catholics. Subjective morality and moral relativism pretty much rules the day. Few can argue that the very concept of sin has become irrelevant. Almost no one not in their later years of life regularly seeks sacramental absolution by way of the Confessional.
In this context, Lent has no other meaning than it is just another traditional practice which is part of the Church’s heritage but which has little if any practical significance in the life of the average Catholic.
A goodly number of older Catholics still fast and abstain, still confess their sins and fulfill the Easter precepts, still attend the Stations of the Cross and offer sacrifices during Lent. But they are dying off and younger generations are not being formed or catechized about this noble season of Grace.
Perhaps, Lent needs to undergo yet another transformation. Perhaps, Lent needs to rediscover its intimate association with Easter and the celebration of Divine Mercy and Forgiveness rather than focusing in upon the infidelity and imperfection of human existence.
But Lent as it is celebrated now has little meaning outside the liturgical trappings associated with it: ashes, incense, violet vestments and the brow-beating sermons heard from pulpits at this time of year.
My thoughts at least. What thinkest you?
The Season of Lent has become a practice of piety. It consists of forty days of fasting, prayer and penance beginning on Ash Wednesday and end at sundown on Holy Thursday.
And yet, from the outset, Lent was inseparably bound to the celebration of Easter.
During its first three centuries, the Church prepared for Easter by an intense three-day period of prayer and fasting in homage and gratitude for the salvation from sin through the Death and Resurrection of Christ the Savior.
In some of the Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, this period was extended to a full-week (the origin of “Holy Week”). It was a time of intense spiritual and liturgical preparation for catechumens (converts to the Faith) before they were baptized at Easter, celebrating their personal salvation through the Grace of the Sacrament. Many members of the community would celebrate this time of preparation along with the catechumens. Eventually, the practice became part of the liturgical calendar itself. Over time, especially in the city of Rome, this period was extended to three weeks.
A century after the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, making Christianity the religion of the state, Lent was lengthened to a period of 40 days, in imitation of the time Jesus spend fasting and being tempted in the desert (Luke 4: 1-13). Modern research suggests that this expanded period of penance may have been influenced by a similar practice among monastic communities of the time.
By the Fifth Century, most people of the Empire were Christians giving birth to sons and daughters whom the Church began to baptize in infancy.
As a result, Lent lost its intimate association with the preparation of catechumens for baptism at Easter. Soon afterwards, Lent was reduced to a time piety, the principal season of the Liturgical Year for fasting, prayer and penance.
The Easter themes of Redemption, re-birth, hope and promise gave way to the intense attention focused upon man’s sinfulness and his need to repent for the damage and evil caused by sin. The anticipation of Easter joy was replaced by the darkness of human failing. Divine Love which inspired and motivated the Sacrifice on Calvary was all but replaced by the insistent and urgent need for sinners to make reparation to an all-Just and Demanding God.
Catholics today live in a totally secularized society. Moral absolutes are by and large meaningless to most Catholics. Subjective morality and moral relativism pretty much rules the day. Few can argue that the very concept of sin has become irrelevant. Almost no one not in their later years of life regularly seeks sacramental absolution by way of the Confessional.
In this context, Lent has no other meaning than it is just another traditional practice which is part of the Church’s heritage but which has little if any practical significance in the life of the average Catholic.
A goodly number of older Catholics still fast and abstain, still confess their sins and fulfill the Easter precepts, still attend the Stations of the Cross and offer sacrifices during Lent. But they are dying off and younger generations are not being formed or catechized about this noble season of Grace.
Perhaps, Lent needs to undergo yet another transformation. Perhaps, Lent needs to rediscover its intimate association with Easter and the celebration of Divine Mercy and Forgiveness rather than focusing in upon the infidelity and imperfection of human existence.
But Lent as it is celebrated now has little meaning outside the liturgical trappings associated with it: ashes, incense, violet vestments and the brow-beating sermons heard from pulpits at this time of year.
My thoughts at least. What thinkest you?
Thursday, March 16, 2017
THE APOSTOLIC PENITENTIARY: ENSURING THE CARE OF SOULS
Among the various offices and agencies within the Vatican, the Apostolic Penitentiary is perhaps the least familiar to the Catholic faithful.
The Apostolic Penitentiary is one of three tribunals of the Roman Curia, a tribunal of mercy related to the forgiveness of sins. These include absolution from automatic excommunications (penalties incurred immediately upon commission of certain canonically specified sins or crimes) which are reserved to the Holy See, dispensation from sacramental impediments reserved to the Holy See, and the issuance and governance of indulgences.
Established in 1200 as the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary, this tribunal particularly adjudicated cases involving confessor-penitent disputes involving the commission of sins or violation of Church law in the external forum.
In the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, a distinction is made between the internal forum, where an action is made without public knowledge, and the external forum, where the act is public and verifiable. This practice was particularly true in the medieval Church, for sins referred to a bishop for absolution.
If a penitent felt that the penance imposed was disproportionate to the sins committed, he could submit the dispute to the Apostolic Penitentiary. If the tribunal decided in favor of the penitent, they would issue a formal statement confirming that appropriate recompense had already been made, that the penitent's sins were forgiven, and that the matter was closed.
These disputes were transcribed by legal clerks, who were paid by fees assessed by the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary for the transcription of their decisions. It was this practice that led to claims (especially by Protestant Reformists) that the Church accepted money for the forgiveness of sins.
In 1917, the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences and Relics was officially suppressed and its duties transferred to the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary.
In 1984, the tribunal was renamed the Apostolic Penitentiary.
The Penitentiary Major is a is normally a member of the College of Cardinals. Since September of 2013, the Penitentiary Major is Cardinal Mauro Piacenza. Since June of 2012, Monsignor Krzysztof Nykiel has served as the the Regent, the second-highest-ranking official in the Apostolic Penitentiary. They are assisted by four canon lawyers appointed with the approval of the Pope himself.
Today, the work of the Apolostic Penitentiary involves sins or crimes which Canon Law explicitly states are reserved to the Holy See for absolution. These violations incur automatic excommunication by virtue of the law itself.
Only after the automatic excommunication is lifted, can absolution be granted.
The ordinary procedure in such cases would be for persons seeking absolution or a dispensation reserved to the Holy See to write a petition to the Apostolic Penitentiary. The impediment or act in question must not be public, as it would then be a matter of the external forum and cannot be absolved or dispensed by the Penitentiary.
Usually, the petition is written through the penitent’s confessor. The petition must be anonymous when explaining the situation to avoid revealing the identity of the persons involved. Otherwise, the Seal of Confession would be violated. The Penitentiary Major considers the matter personally, unless he judges that it would be appropriate for the matter to be considered by the whole trbunal.
The other members of the Apostolic Penitentiary only give advice regarding the petition—the Penitentiary Major alone has the ultimate decision on whether the dispensation or absolution should be granted.
If the Penitentiary Major remains uncertain as to whether he has authority in a given case, he submits the matter directly to the Pope.
The Penitentiary Major, is one of three Vatican officials (the others being the Cardinal Vicar of Rome and the Vicar General of Vatican City State) who retain their positions when the Holy See is vacant due to the death or abdication of the Supreme Pontiff.
If the Penitentiary Major is a Cardinal Elector, he is one of only three persons in the Conclave allowed to communicate with the outside world, so that he can continue to fulfill his duties.
The Apostolic Penitentiary in its institution structure and service reminds us that the care and salvation of souls remains the singular and supreme mission of the Church.
The Apostolic Penitentiary is one of three tribunals of the Roman Curia, a tribunal of mercy related to the forgiveness of sins. These include absolution from automatic excommunications (penalties incurred immediately upon commission of certain canonically specified sins or crimes) which are reserved to the Holy See, dispensation from sacramental impediments reserved to the Holy See, and the issuance and governance of indulgences.
Established in 1200 as the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary, this tribunal particularly adjudicated cases involving confessor-penitent disputes involving the commission of sins or violation of Church law in the external forum.
In the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, a distinction is made between the internal forum, where an action is made without public knowledge, and the external forum, where the act is public and verifiable. This practice was particularly true in the medieval Church, for sins referred to a bishop for absolution.
If a penitent felt that the penance imposed was disproportionate to the sins committed, he could submit the dispute to the Apostolic Penitentiary. If the tribunal decided in favor of the penitent, they would issue a formal statement confirming that appropriate recompense had already been made, that the penitent's sins were forgiven, and that the matter was closed.
These disputes were transcribed by legal clerks, who were paid by fees assessed by the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary for the transcription of their decisions. It was this practice that led to claims (especially by Protestant Reformists) that the Church accepted money for the forgiveness of sins.
In 1917, the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences and Relics was officially suppressed and its duties transferred to the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary.
In 1984, the tribunal was renamed the Apostolic Penitentiary.
The Penitentiary Major is a is normally a member of the College of Cardinals. Since September of 2013, the Penitentiary Major is Cardinal Mauro Piacenza. Since June of 2012, Monsignor Krzysztof Nykiel has served as the the Regent, the second-highest-ranking official in the Apostolic Penitentiary. They are assisted by four canon lawyers appointed with the approval of the Pope himself.
Today, the work of the Apolostic Penitentiary involves sins or crimes which Canon Law explicitly states are reserved to the Holy See for absolution. These violations incur automatic excommunication by virtue of the law itself.
Only after the automatic excommunication is lifted, can absolution be granted.
The ordinary procedure in such cases would be for persons seeking absolution or a dispensation reserved to the Holy See to write a petition to the Apostolic Penitentiary. The impediment or act in question must not be public, as it would then be a matter of the external forum and cannot be absolved or dispensed by the Penitentiary.
Usually, the petition is written through the penitent’s confessor. The petition must be anonymous when explaining the situation to avoid revealing the identity of the persons involved. Otherwise, the Seal of Confession would be violated. The Penitentiary Major considers the matter personally, unless he judges that it would be appropriate for the matter to be considered by the whole trbunal.
The other members of the Apostolic Penitentiary only give advice regarding the petition—the Penitentiary Major alone has the ultimate decision on whether the dispensation or absolution should be granted.
If the Penitentiary Major remains uncertain as to whether he has authority in a given case, he submits the matter directly to the Pope.
The Penitentiary Major, is one of three Vatican officials (the others being the Cardinal Vicar of Rome and the Vicar General of Vatican City State) who retain their positions when the Holy See is vacant due to the death or abdication of the Supreme Pontiff.
If the Penitentiary Major is a Cardinal Elector, he is one of only three persons in the Conclave allowed to communicate with the outside world, so that he can continue to fulfill his duties.
The Apostolic Penitentiary in its institution structure and service reminds us that the care and salvation of souls remains the singular and supreme mission of the Church.