I was pleased the other evening to engage in a telephone conversation with one of my Professors who served on the Faculty of Canon Law at the University of Saint Paul in Ottawa, Canada. I was a student there during the 1985-86 academic year and completed my studies earning the Licentiate in Canon Laws (JCL).
Many years have passed since those privileged days in classes learning the Law from such eminent scholars and teachers.
And yet, the rather lengthy passage of time seems to dissolve almost immediately whenever I have the pleasure of conversing, even by phone, with these good and learned men who helped guide and form me in the knowledge and application of the Universal Law of the Church.
I am humbled by the fact that my former teacher is an avid follower of this blog. Lord knows how many times I have been both affirmed and challenged by his comments and responses to my posts!
It had been a while since we last visited, and he wanted me to know how much he had been impressed by a two-part article I had posted a while back entitled “New Wine Into Old Wineskins”, an article which inspired a plethora of reader responses and reactions.
I thanked him for the compliment, coming especially from one whose expertise in the knowledge of Church Law and history is universally recognized.
All of which got me to thinking about the place of “expertise” in any Divine or human enterprise these days.
It seems that nobody's listening to "experts" in any field anymore.
Rather, nowadays, everyone is an expert on everything. You can hardly touch upon a subject on which anyone and everyone doesn't believe that they have an expert opinion to offer. But if every one's an expert, then nobody is an expert. And no one listens to experts anymore, so nobody listens to anyone else. We don't have dialogue anymore. We have competing lectures.
Self-proclaimed expertise in all things permeates every facet of our culture, sadly, including morality and faith.
I’m amazed when I hear people tell me that they are "devout Catholics" but they think the Church is wrong about homosexuality or abortion or some other issue. All they offer are personal opinions, and uninformed opinions at that.
But such thinking is typical these days. Ask folks what research they've done to counter 2,000 years of thoughts and research by an institution created by Jesus Christ himself. Inevitably they talk about something they saw on the news or about knowing a guy who is gay or a woman who experienced this or that.
So, 2,000 years of wisdom is ignored because you know someone? No research? No studies? No theological consideration of why the Church might teach this or that? No, they saw a 60 Minutes broadcast, or an National Public Radio show, or read an article in the Times, the Wall Street Journal, even the National Enquirer!
In this age,when literally libraries of information are at our fingertips, it appears that humanity has never been so wllfully ignorant; as if the omnipresence of information has inoculated us against wisdom itself.
We live in an age which rejoices in the shunning of such wisdom.
Many posit that anything which came before is tainted by the mere fact that it came before their generation and should therefore be ignored. The thing is, nothing can be built in such an age because there is nothing to be built upon; there is no foundation.
A generation such as this can only do the only thing left to do - destroy. And that is what is happening.
So, Marriage being between a man and a woman is something that thousands of previous generations held to be the central fact of their lives but it's irrelevant today. Sure, the Church has taught for two millennia that killing the unborn is a sin but what about rape and incest or the health of the mother.
And we've seen all warnings against casual sex dismissed as prudery from an un-enlightened era as if God never called us to love one another, only to receive consent to gratify ourselves.
This is the real world in which we live today. The Church needs to understand that appeals to traditional doctrinal teaching, creedal formulae and authority no longer bind upon the intellectual and moral judgments of the day.
How the Church will overcome this anti-intellectualism and slow humanity’s descent in a new experience of the Dark Ages will be a challenge indeed.
May the Holy Spirit guide and inspire the Church to find the voice and the words to call mankind back to its senses!
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Monday, May 29, 2017
WONDERMENT BORDERING ON SCANDAL
Life and family experts are calling it “scandalous,” “shocking,” “confusing,” and “perplexing” that the Vatican invited Dr. Paul Ehrlich, the undisputed father of the modern, pro-abortion population control movement, to present a paper at an upcoming Vatican-run conference.
“The fact that Paul Ehrlich was advertised as a speaker at the Vatican’s ‘Biological Extinction’ conference is scandalous,” Maria Madise, manager of Voice of the Family, said.
“Through its choice of speakers, the Pontifical Academies running the event are giving an unmistakable message of sympathy for the radical environmental agenda, despite it going hand in hand with abortion, birth control, and a total lack of compassion for the real poor in today’s world, the unborn children,” she said.
Ehrlich, author of the 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, is scheduled spoke in Vatican City during the February 27-March 1 conference that discussed “how to save the natural world.”
The Stanford biologist champions sex-selective abortion as well as mass forced sterilization as legitimate methods to curb population growth. It is impossible to calculate the possible millions of deaths globally the man and his population control ideas might indirectly be responsible for over the past five decades — ideas that are forcefully employed in countries such as China, India, Kenya, and many others.
Ehrlich called for “compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion” in his 1977 book Ecoscience, as a way to fight population growth.
The conference, jointly sponsored by the Pontifical Academies of Sciences (PAS) and Social Sciences (PASS), addressed what Vatican organizers called an unsustainable “imbalance” between the world’s population and what the earth is capable of producing.
Erlich is no friend of the Catholic Church, largely due to its teaching against contraception. Ehrlich has even gone as far as calling the Pope and the Church’s Bishops “one of the truly evil, regressive forces on the planet, in my opinion, interested primarily in maintaining their power.”
One must wonder why the Vatican would invite as a speaker someone who has denounced the Catholic Church and denigrated the Papacy as well as Catholic Bishops, the fear being that the invitation amounts to Ehrlich and his views receiving a “moral imprimatur of the Vatican.”
I add my voice to those who find this story disturbing, even bordering on scandalous.
To date, the Holy See has provided no explanation for its invitation to Dr. Erlich. Until it does so, the Catholic faithful remain in wonderment and confusion.
How this serves the proclamation of the Gospel of Life is anyone’s guess, to be sure.
“The fact that Paul Ehrlich was advertised as a speaker at the Vatican’s ‘Biological Extinction’ conference is scandalous,” Maria Madise, manager of Voice of the Family, said.
“Through its choice of speakers, the Pontifical Academies running the event are giving an unmistakable message of sympathy for the radical environmental agenda, despite it going hand in hand with abortion, birth control, and a total lack of compassion for the real poor in today’s world, the unborn children,” she said.
Ehrlich, author of the 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, is scheduled spoke in Vatican City during the February 27-March 1 conference that discussed “how to save the natural world.”
The Stanford biologist champions sex-selective abortion as well as mass forced sterilization as legitimate methods to curb population growth. It is impossible to calculate the possible millions of deaths globally the man and his population control ideas might indirectly be responsible for over the past five decades — ideas that are forcefully employed in countries such as China, India, Kenya, and many others.
Ehrlich called for “compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion” in his 1977 book Ecoscience, as a way to fight population growth.
The conference, jointly sponsored by the Pontifical Academies of Sciences (PAS) and Social Sciences (PASS), addressed what Vatican organizers called an unsustainable “imbalance” between the world’s population and what the earth is capable of producing.
Erlich is no friend of the Catholic Church, largely due to its teaching against contraception. Ehrlich has even gone as far as calling the Pope and the Church’s Bishops “one of the truly evil, regressive forces on the planet, in my opinion, interested primarily in maintaining their power.”
One must wonder why the Vatican would invite as a speaker someone who has denounced the Catholic Church and denigrated the Papacy as well as Catholic Bishops, the fear being that the invitation amounts to Ehrlich and his views receiving a “moral imprimatur of the Vatican.”
I add my voice to those who find this story disturbing, even bordering on scandalous.
To date, the Holy See has provided no explanation for its invitation to Dr. Erlich. Until it does so, the Catholic faithful remain in wonderment and confusion.
How this serves the proclamation of the Gospel of Life is anyone’s guess, to be sure.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
THE RELEVANCE OF THE CHURCH IN THE SECULARIZED WORLD OF THE 21ST CENTURY
As one surveys the landscape of modern day Catholicism, it is evident that the Church is speaking to a generation of Christian faithful unlike any other in is history.
As the 21st Century dawns upon us still, the Church (and religious faith in general) has been impacted severely be a progressive secularization which manifests itself in the steady decline in Church attendance and reception of the Sacraments as well as in the dearth of vocations to the Priesthood and Religious Life.
What began as a gradual drifting of the faithful from the Mass and the Sacraments has become a current which threatens to carry many away from the practice of the Faith and from a dutiful recognition of the Sovereignty of God Himself over humanity and creation.
This is especially true in Europe, once the Christian seat of Western Civilization, where more and more people are living out their lives without reference to God or His Church.
Why the steady and rapid decline?
The bedrock of Church practice has always been founded upon the three interdependent pillars of the parish, the home and the Catholic school, all of which reinforced and consolidated the practice of the Faith, all of which have suffered the assault of the secularization that has swept across the face of the Church in the closing decades of the 20th Century.
Patrick Hannon, an Irish theologian, has identified three phases in the process of secularization.
First, the retreat of religion from the public square, especially the separation of Christian natural law ethics and morality from the political forum. Second, the indifference of parents and their children toward religious belief and Sacramental practice. Third, the shift from a society where belief in God is largely presumed and unchallenged, to one in which religious faith is deemed either impractical or irrelevant.
It should be obvious how quickly the Church has been the victim of all three stages of this secularization process.
But, even worse, the confidence of the faithful in the Church’s credibility has been profoundly damaged on account of the child abuse scandals and other shameful episodes of the past. Many people feel they can no longer trust the Church’s message because they have been hurt and betrayed by their experiences.
Perhaps, what the Church is experiencing today may be partly a reaction to what generally is perceived as paternalism or even authoritarianism on the part of Church in the past.
Sadly, many Bishops have taken a defensive reaction to criticisms – sometimes by denial, claiming unfairness, even conspiracy – rather than being thankful that the lid has been lifted on a terrible and shameful chapter in Church history and at last giving a voice to those who for years have been carrying the scars of their trauma.
Is there a remedy in sight?
I believe that the Church, rather than disengaging from the world or offering endless apologies for its failings, needs to admit (1) its limitations; (2) an absolute and unquestionable commitment of faith; and (3) a compassionate and hopeful heart.
If the Church is to re-establish a relevant relationship with this and future generations of faithful, it must admit that its members, all its members, from the Supreme Pontiff himself to the ordinary lay person, are wounded by sin. We are vessels of clay which carry within us the very essence of Divinity itself. And, while each of us hopes that we may be transformed by what we contain, we admit that we can only do so feebly at best.
The Church, while she proclaims the Goodness and Love of God, will always fail to adequately reflect that goodness and love within itself. We are and will always be imperfect heralds of the Perfect Christ, We will always be in need first of the forgiveness of Christ which is our mission to offer to others. This is and will always be the Church’s greatest limitation.
And so, the Church must always be honest and humble before the message of Grace she proclaims.
Next, in its engagement with the secularized generations of this moment and the future, the Church must evidence its unshakeable faith in the Sacred Scriptures and the lessons and wisdom they contain for all humanity, for all time.
No matter what the challenge, what the problem, what the crisis, the Church’s response must always be inspired by the virtues of Biblical faith. In that faith, the Church and the world will rediscover confidence in Divine Providence and the ever-abiding Mercy of Our Heavenly Father.
And perhaps most importantly, the voice of the Church must always be compassionate and forgiving. The New Covenant is that of charity, not justice or judgment. In that gift of Divine Love, Christ has revealed that God never has and never will abandon humanity to its failings. Neither can the Church.
This is the challenge for the Church in the secularized world of the 21st Century.
Whether or not the Church will meet that challenge will be the judgment of a history yet to be realized.
As the 21st Century dawns upon us still, the Church (and religious faith in general) has been impacted severely be a progressive secularization which manifests itself in the steady decline in Church attendance and reception of the Sacraments as well as in the dearth of vocations to the Priesthood and Religious Life.
What began as a gradual drifting of the faithful from the Mass and the Sacraments has become a current which threatens to carry many away from the practice of the Faith and from a dutiful recognition of the Sovereignty of God Himself over humanity and creation.
This is especially true in Europe, once the Christian seat of Western Civilization, where more and more people are living out their lives without reference to God or His Church.
Why the steady and rapid decline?
The bedrock of Church practice has always been founded upon the three interdependent pillars of the parish, the home and the Catholic school, all of which reinforced and consolidated the practice of the Faith, all of which have suffered the assault of the secularization that has swept across the face of the Church in the closing decades of the 20th Century.
Patrick Hannon, an Irish theologian, has identified three phases in the process of secularization.
First, the retreat of religion from the public square, especially the separation of Christian natural law ethics and morality from the political forum. Second, the indifference of parents and their children toward religious belief and Sacramental practice. Third, the shift from a society where belief in God is largely presumed and unchallenged, to one in which religious faith is deemed either impractical or irrelevant.
It should be obvious how quickly the Church has been the victim of all three stages of this secularization process.
But, even worse, the confidence of the faithful in the Church’s credibility has been profoundly damaged on account of the child abuse scandals and other shameful episodes of the past. Many people feel they can no longer trust the Church’s message because they have been hurt and betrayed by their experiences.
Perhaps, what the Church is experiencing today may be partly a reaction to what generally is perceived as paternalism or even authoritarianism on the part of Church in the past.
Sadly, many Bishops have taken a defensive reaction to criticisms – sometimes by denial, claiming unfairness, even conspiracy – rather than being thankful that the lid has been lifted on a terrible and shameful chapter in Church history and at last giving a voice to those who for years have been carrying the scars of their trauma.
Is there a remedy in sight?
I believe that the Church, rather than disengaging from the world or offering endless apologies for its failings, needs to admit (1) its limitations; (2) an absolute and unquestionable commitment of faith; and (3) a compassionate and hopeful heart.
If the Church is to re-establish a relevant relationship with this and future generations of faithful, it must admit that its members, all its members, from the Supreme Pontiff himself to the ordinary lay person, are wounded by sin. We are vessels of clay which carry within us the very essence of Divinity itself. And, while each of us hopes that we may be transformed by what we contain, we admit that we can only do so feebly at best.
The Church, while she proclaims the Goodness and Love of God, will always fail to adequately reflect that goodness and love within itself. We are and will always be imperfect heralds of the Perfect Christ, We will always be in need first of the forgiveness of Christ which is our mission to offer to others. This is and will always be the Church’s greatest limitation.
And so, the Church must always be honest and humble before the message of Grace she proclaims.
Next, in its engagement with the secularized generations of this moment and the future, the Church must evidence its unshakeable faith in the Sacred Scriptures and the lessons and wisdom they contain for all humanity, for all time.
No matter what the challenge, what the problem, what the crisis, the Church’s response must always be inspired by the virtues of Biblical faith. In that faith, the Church and the world will rediscover confidence in Divine Providence and the ever-abiding Mercy of Our Heavenly Father.
And perhaps most importantly, the voice of the Church must always be compassionate and forgiving. The New Covenant is that of charity, not justice or judgment. In that gift of Divine Love, Christ has revealed that God never has and never will abandon humanity to its failings. Neither can the Church.
This is the challenge for the Church in the secularized world of the 21st Century.
Whether or not the Church will meet that challenge will be the judgment of a history yet to be realized.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
PROCLAIMING A LIVELY AND RELEVANT CATHOLIC FAITH: THE CHURCH'S GREATEST CHALLENGE
Many Catholics today believe that the moral truths proposed by believing Christians have no place in secular society.
The modern world has little or no tolerance for the concept of an absolute moral order, something which is intrinsic to the Church's participation in the affairs of public order.
The problem is compounded when the Church is just one of a number of various communities which comprise a given political state or national culture.
How, for example, does the Church present its authentic moral teachings side by side with other faiths whose viewpoints differ, sometimes significantly, and alongside viewpoints which either deny the premise of Christianity or are hostile to it?
Many Bishops are wary of representing or fostering a “Church of pure ideaology”, a kind of counterculture removed from modern society and acting as its moral judge.
Rather, they argue that the Church should encourage a dialogue with other communities regarding issues and values which are relevant to the common good and mutual interests of the societies to which it ministers.
Pope Francis appears to be very clear on this point: the engagement of Catholics with all people of good will is a public conversation which is to be encouraged and welcomed by the Church. He has encouraged the Church to draw upon its rich history of social teaching which has much to offer in providing insight into the impact which economic policies can have upon the most vulnerable members of society. Yet, he has cautioned Church leaders not to become too critical of or to claim offense when confronted by differing perspectives.
The problem, of course, is walking this tightrope of sorts: attempting to balance the impact which Catholicism can have upon an increasingly secularized world while, at the same time, exposing and making the Faith vulnerable to the values of the prevailing culture.
However, when the Church is or appears to be reluctant to offer any substantial critique of culture, it fails. When the Church does not seriously question popular points of view which exercise an almost compulsory response on issues and policies which are controversial, it fails. For this reticence can be misconstrued to constitute an affirmation of prevailing attitudes and push the Church in the direction of secularization itself.
How precisely the Church is to fulfill its mission to be “in the world" and, at the same time, not becoming “part of the world" remains a point of consternation for many within Church hierarchy.
Some Bishops argue that the Church’s participation in the modern public sphere can easily lead to assimilation of the secular culture by being forced to compromise cherished values and teachings.
Some staunchly conservative Bishops believe that the openness to the world expressed and encouraged by the Council Fathers of Vatican II has led to a dissolution of the Catholic Faith, insisting with increasing rigidity that an emphasis on what is distinctly “Catholic”, especially traditional Catholicism, is necessary.
Other Bishops, more liberally inclined, believe that it is impossible to insulate the Church from the intellectual and experiential currents of the culture in which believers are living out their faith commitments’.
They insist that critical interaction and conversation need to take place between religious traditions and the broader culture, including constructive critiques of social, political, legal, and economic practices.
Frankly, as I consider the matter, I believe in the wisdom which I learned early on in my Latin classes at seminary, the sage advice of Ovid: in medio tutissimus ibis -- “you will go most safely in the middle”.
That is why I believe that the Church needs to engage the world in which it finds itself, without apology or arrogance, sharing what it knows to be the wisdom of the Gospel but always in a way that is open, welcoming and forgiving to those who disagree, either amicably or not.
This I believe is the greatest challenge facing the Church during the next century and for centuries thereafter.
What thinkest you?
The modern world has little or no tolerance for the concept of an absolute moral order, something which is intrinsic to the Church's participation in the affairs of public order.
The problem is compounded when the Church is just one of a number of various communities which comprise a given political state or national culture.
How, for example, does the Church present its authentic moral teachings side by side with other faiths whose viewpoints differ, sometimes significantly, and alongside viewpoints which either deny the premise of Christianity or are hostile to it?
Many Bishops are wary of representing or fostering a “Church of pure ideaology”, a kind of counterculture removed from modern society and acting as its moral judge.
Rather, they argue that the Church should encourage a dialogue with other communities regarding issues and values which are relevant to the common good and mutual interests of the societies to which it ministers.
Pope Francis appears to be very clear on this point: the engagement of Catholics with all people of good will is a public conversation which is to be encouraged and welcomed by the Church. He has encouraged the Church to draw upon its rich history of social teaching which has much to offer in providing insight into the impact which economic policies can have upon the most vulnerable members of society. Yet, he has cautioned Church leaders not to become too critical of or to claim offense when confronted by differing perspectives.
The problem, of course, is walking this tightrope of sorts: attempting to balance the impact which Catholicism can have upon an increasingly secularized world while, at the same time, exposing and making the Faith vulnerable to the values of the prevailing culture.
However, when the Church is or appears to be reluctant to offer any substantial critique of culture, it fails. When the Church does not seriously question popular points of view which exercise an almost compulsory response on issues and policies which are controversial, it fails. For this reticence can be misconstrued to constitute an affirmation of prevailing attitudes and push the Church in the direction of secularization itself.
How precisely the Church is to fulfill its mission to be “in the world" and, at the same time, not becoming “part of the world" remains a point of consternation for many within Church hierarchy.
Some Bishops argue that the Church’s participation in the modern public sphere can easily lead to assimilation of the secular culture by being forced to compromise cherished values and teachings.
Some staunchly conservative Bishops believe that the openness to the world expressed and encouraged by the Council Fathers of Vatican II has led to a dissolution of the Catholic Faith, insisting with increasing rigidity that an emphasis on what is distinctly “Catholic”, especially traditional Catholicism, is necessary.
Other Bishops, more liberally inclined, believe that it is impossible to insulate the Church from the intellectual and experiential currents of the culture in which believers are living out their faith commitments’.
They insist that critical interaction and conversation need to take place between religious traditions and the broader culture, including constructive critiques of social, political, legal, and economic practices.
Frankly, as I consider the matter, I believe in the wisdom which I learned early on in my Latin classes at seminary, the sage advice of Ovid: in medio tutissimus ibis -- “you will go most safely in the middle”.
That is why I believe that the Church needs to engage the world in which it finds itself, without apology or arrogance, sharing what it knows to be the wisdom of the Gospel but always in a way that is open, welcoming and forgiving to those who disagree, either amicably or not.
This I believe is the greatest challenge facing the Church during the next century and for centuries thereafter.
What thinkest you?
Friday, May 26, 2017
BACK FROM MY TRIP
Hello, again!
I just returned from a delightful trip up into the northern environs of Arizona: Winslow, Williams, and Sedona. Along the way, I had the opportunity to visit Meteor Crater, the Grand Canyon, a delightful drive-through wild life sanctuary (Bearizona), and the absolutely breathtaking scenery of Sedona.
I had the misfortune of injuring myself slightly in an accident which resulted in two broken toes. But, thanks be to God, outside of some discomfort here and there, I was able to keep on schedule and see all of the sights planned as part of my itinerary.
Now that I have returned home to Scottsdale, I will be posting blogs as usual.
It was nice to get away, but it's always nice to come back home. I missed my pets, too, Snugs and Cowboy (two rescue kitties) who greeted me enthusiastically upon my return.
Now, refreshed and relaxed, I will be offering commentary on the Catholic Church today and sharing those comments with you in my daily postings.
God bless, everyone. It's good to be back!
I just returned from a delightful trip up into the northern environs of Arizona: Winslow, Williams, and Sedona. Along the way, I had the opportunity to visit Meteor Crater, the Grand Canyon, a delightful drive-through wild life sanctuary (Bearizona), and the absolutely breathtaking scenery of Sedona.
I had the misfortune of injuring myself slightly in an accident which resulted in two broken toes. But, thanks be to God, outside of some discomfort here and there, I was able to keep on schedule and see all of the sights planned as part of my itinerary.
Now that I have returned home to Scottsdale, I will be posting blogs as usual.
It was nice to get away, but it's always nice to come back home. I missed my pets, too, Snugs and Cowboy (two rescue kitties) who greeted me enthusiastically upon my return.
Now, refreshed and relaxed, I will be offering commentary on the Catholic Church today and sharing those comments with you in my daily postings.
God bless, everyone. It's good to be back!
Saturday, May 20, 2017
IN PRAISE OF THE APARTMENT MAINTENANCE CREW
About two years ago, I retired from active Priestly ministry and moved to Scottsdale, Arizona, a place I really enjoy living. I reside in an upper floor apartment in a complex in Kierland Commons, very near the Westin Resort.
Last Friday afternoon around 4 PM local time here in Scottsdale, Arizona, with no warning, I discovered that the water heater to my apartment stopped working.
Not only that, but when it died, it leaked all of its contents, as water heaters are want to do when they expire. Fortunately for me, the heater and the leak was located in a closet accessed by way of the outside porch. No water leaked into my apartment or the one below.
I had just returned from running some errands in the desert heat of the afternoon and was preparing to shower when I discovered that the hot water was not hot, simply tepid, almost cold.
So, quickly dressing, I dutifully presented myself at the Leasing Office of the complex and reported the problem.
The Manager told me she would notify the maintenance crew on duty immediately and that they would inspect the water heater and replace it, if necessary.
Truly, in a matter of a few minutes, the doorbell to my apartment rang and two of the workmen entered, took a look at the leaking heater and announced that they would be replacing the broken water heater within the hour.
Keeping in mind that I reported the problem to the Manager at around 4:05 PM, it was around
5:10 PM when the workmen left having installed a brand new water heater. By around 6PM or so, I was enjoying a hot, refreshing shower.
Now, why in the world would I possibly write of such things in a patently obvious Catholic blog?
I do so in praise the wonderful people who go about responsibly doing their work largely unnoticed and unappreciated until we need them, often urgently so. So many good and decent human beings who take pride in their work and carry out their jobs cheerfully and enthusiastically, as these men did.
I see them often around the complex and have always said hello, thanking them for being so diligent in caring for the property and in responding to our calls for service. I do so for no other reason than to express my sincere gratitude for that service.
The same applies to the postal workers who deliver my mail; the cable company employees that provide me with phone service, the internet and television; the utility companies, the grocers and retail clerks; public safety personnel and police officers.
The broken water heater reminded me that I am the beneficiary of so much service and attention by so many folks. True, I am responsible in paying for these services and am conscientious in expressing my gratitude for jobs well done, but the folks who provide this care do so most of the time efficiently and happily.
Just another reason I am grateful to them and to the Lord who has blessed my life with good people such as these.
Of course, it’s no fun when things break and inconveniences occur, but even then God has a way of invading our lives and touching them with goodness.
Thanks, guys, for taking care of my hot water issue. As always, a job well done.
And thanks, God, as usual for taking care of me.
He always has and always does. I will remember that the next time something breaks and good people come to my rescue!
Friday, May 19, 2017
POSTPONE ALL THE MAJOR FEASTDAYS AND HOLYDAYS TO SUNDAYS
This is perhaps the shortest of any blog I have posted. The reason is that it highlights a decision by Pope Francis that is so intelligent and reasonable that it requires little comment.
The director of the Holy See Press Office has made an announcement that Pope Francis decided to postpone Corpus Christi celebrations.
Greg Burke announced on Thursday 18th May 2017: “The Holy Father has decided to postpone the liturgical celebration of Corpus Christi, from Thursday 15th June to Sunday 18th June.”
Burke explained that the decision was “in favour of a better participation of the People of God, of priests and of the faithful of the Church in Rome.” He added, “There is a second reason: Thursday is a weekday and so there will be less inconvenience in Rome.”
On the Feast of Corpus Christi, the faithful celebrate the belief in the body and blood of Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist.
I am elated that the Holy Father has made this decision.
Now, if only he would direct (since most Bishops are seemingly incapable of such a decision) that all the Holydays of Obligation be transferred to the closes Sunday preceding the feasts!
How sad that the Holydays have fallen so far from the reverential observance they used to enjoy.
It is quite evident that fewer and fewer of the Catholic faithful observe the Holydays, especially when they occur on a Friday or a Monday.
Pope Francis has exercised remarkable judgment in postponing the observance of Corpus Christi. May the Bishops see that same wisdom and apply it universally to the observance of the beautiful and meaningful Holydays that occur throughout the course of the Liturgical Year.
The director of the Holy See Press Office has made an announcement that Pope Francis decided to postpone Corpus Christi celebrations.
Greg Burke announced on Thursday 18th May 2017: “The Holy Father has decided to postpone the liturgical celebration of Corpus Christi, from Thursday 15th June to Sunday 18th June.”
Burke explained that the decision was “in favour of a better participation of the People of God, of priests and of the faithful of the Church in Rome.” He added, “There is a second reason: Thursday is a weekday and so there will be less inconvenience in Rome.”
On the Feast of Corpus Christi, the faithful celebrate the belief in the body and blood of Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist.
I am elated that the Holy Father has made this decision.
Now, if only he would direct (since most Bishops are seemingly incapable of such a decision) that all the Holydays of Obligation be transferred to the closes Sunday preceding the feasts!
How sad that the Holydays have fallen so far from the reverential observance they used to enjoy.
It is quite evident that fewer and fewer of the Catholic faithful observe the Holydays, especially when they occur on a Friday or a Monday.
Pope Francis has exercised remarkable judgment in postponing the observance of Corpus Christi. May the Bishops see that same wisdom and apply it universally to the observance of the beautiful and meaningful Holydays that occur throughout the course of the Liturgical Year.
Thursday, May 18, 2017
THE BENEDICT OPTION: WITHDRAW, REGROUP AND ENGAGE THE SECULAR WORLD
I just finished a recently published book by Rod Dreher, an American writer and blogger on issues of politics and religion.
The work is tittled, The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian World.
Dreher’s view of the current state of Christianity is distinctly negative, a point of view I share with him somewhat.
He writes: “The light of Christianity is flickering out all over the West. There are people alive today who may live to see the effective death of Christianity within our civilization. By God’s mercy, the faith may continue to flourish in the Global South and China, but barring a dramatic reversal of current trends, it will all but disappear entirely from Europe and North America. This may not be the end of the world, but it is the end of a world, and only the willfully blind would deny it.”
He continues: “Today, we can see that we’ve lost on every front and that the swift and relentless currents of secularism have overwhelmed our flimsy barriers. Hostile secular nihilism has won the day in our nation’s government, and the culture has turned powerfully against traditional Christians. We tell ourselves that these developments have been imposed by a liberal elite, because we find the truth intolerable: The American people, either actively or passively, approve. … American Christians are going to have to come to terms with the brute fact that we live in a culture … in which our beliefs make increasingly little sense. We speak a language that the world more and more either cannot hear or finds offensive to its ears.”
Dreher derives the title of his book not from the recent Pope Benedict XVI, but from the sixth-century St. Benedict of Nursia, who founded about a dozen monastic communities and authored the famous Benedictine “Rule” for monks. Because of his pivotal role in Europe’s emergence from the so-called “Dark Ages” that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire, Benedict is considered the continent’s “patron saint.” The choice of Benedict’s name already suggests something of Dreher’s overall advice for Christians, which involves a combination of withdrawal, sinking deeper roots, and re-engagement.
Modern Christianity has sought to establish a rapport with the world in the hope that, being less critical and judgmental of secular values, it might at least live in a state of peaceful co-existence with those who either ignore the Gospel or are hostile to its message.
But historical Christianity has shown that, when Christian communities gathered in a simultaneous commitment to preaching the Gospel and actively resisted the darker forces of the world with a message of charity and forgiveness, the Church itself flourished and the advancement of Western civilization along with it.
Dreher reminds us that, as followers of Christ, we are “to be in the world but not of the world”, a wisdom the Christian Church seems to have abandoned in recent times.
Without question, Western civilization is in peril of extinction as the influence of Christianity continues to diminish.
If the faithful do not separate themselves from the values of the world, the Christianity itself cannot and will not survive for another generation or two.
I agree with all those who will react and say that Dreher’s view and mine are pessimistic without a doubt.
The question remains: are we simply wrong or truly insightful?
What thinkest you?
The work is tittled, The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian World.
Dreher’s view of the current state of Christianity is distinctly negative, a point of view I share with him somewhat.
He writes: “The light of Christianity is flickering out all over the West. There are people alive today who may live to see the effective death of Christianity within our civilization. By God’s mercy, the faith may continue to flourish in the Global South and China, but barring a dramatic reversal of current trends, it will all but disappear entirely from Europe and North America. This may not be the end of the world, but it is the end of a world, and only the willfully blind would deny it.”
He continues: “Today, we can see that we’ve lost on every front and that the swift and relentless currents of secularism have overwhelmed our flimsy barriers. Hostile secular nihilism has won the day in our nation’s government, and the culture has turned powerfully against traditional Christians. We tell ourselves that these developments have been imposed by a liberal elite, because we find the truth intolerable: The American people, either actively or passively, approve. … American Christians are going to have to come to terms with the brute fact that we live in a culture … in which our beliefs make increasingly little sense. We speak a language that the world more and more either cannot hear or finds offensive to its ears.”
Dreher derives the title of his book not from the recent Pope Benedict XVI, but from the sixth-century St. Benedict of Nursia, who founded about a dozen monastic communities and authored the famous Benedictine “Rule” for monks. Because of his pivotal role in Europe’s emergence from the so-called “Dark Ages” that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire, Benedict is considered the continent’s “patron saint.” The choice of Benedict’s name already suggests something of Dreher’s overall advice for Christians, which involves a combination of withdrawal, sinking deeper roots, and re-engagement.
Modern Christianity has sought to establish a rapport with the world in the hope that, being less critical and judgmental of secular values, it might at least live in a state of peaceful co-existence with those who either ignore the Gospel or are hostile to its message.
But historical Christianity has shown that, when Christian communities gathered in a simultaneous commitment to preaching the Gospel and actively resisted the darker forces of the world with a message of charity and forgiveness, the Church itself flourished and the advancement of Western civilization along with it.
Dreher reminds us that, as followers of Christ, we are “to be in the world but not of the world”, a wisdom the Christian Church seems to have abandoned in recent times.
Without question, Western civilization is in peril of extinction as the influence of Christianity continues to diminish.
If the faithful do not separate themselves from the values of the world, the Christianity itself cannot and will not survive for another generation or two.
I agree with all those who will react and say that Dreher’s view and mine are pessimistic without a doubt.
The question remains: are we simply wrong or truly insightful?
What thinkest you?
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
JUSTICE DENIED
Pope Francis acknowledged that the Vatican is way behind on processing clerical sex abuse cases, to the tune of a 2,000-case backlog. He also said criticism of the slow pace was justified.
Speaking aboard the Papal plane, the Pope further praised the handling of sex abuse cases by survivor Marie Collins, who resigned from the Vatican's sex abuse advisory commission in March.
Collins resigned over what she deemed an "unacceptable" amount of resistance on the Vatican's part to implementing the commission's proposals to improve care for victims and protect children from molestation by priests. The Pope said Collins was "a bit right" about the slow pace of case processing.
Most interesting is the fact that the Holy Father did not respond to why the Vatican had not created a tribunal to judge bishops who covered up for pedophile priests, as recommended by Collins before her departure.
That to me is the heart of the real crisis involving the sexual exploitation and abuse of minors which has been the source of so much scandal and grief.
I have yet to observe the Church addressing the issue seriously and genuinely.
So much has been said about the psychological dysfunction of the Priest-abusers to the effect that they are so disordered they need to be dismissed from the clerical state, a sanction which the Church has stated is necessary to protect children from future abuses and to send a signal that such conduct is the gravest violation of the moral order.
What has always bothered me about the punishment assigned to the Priest-abusers is not how severe it is. Rather, I find the punitive response confusing because it inflicts punishment upon those who are incapable by the disorders from which they suffer from controlling their behaviors, so much so that the Church considers them irredeemable to the point of dismissal from the clerical state and from exercising any Priestly function.
Even civil and secular jurisprudence recognizes that those who are disordered cannot be held responsible for their crimes. Sentences requiring mandatory psychological treatment can and are often imposed, but psychologically disordered individuals are not treated as criminals.
Yet, the Church sees fit to punish those who are disordered and allow those who had authority over them and who exercised discretion over their assignments to be free of any responsibility whatsoever.
True, disordered Priest-abusers have victimized thousands of minors. But what about their respective Bishops who failed to act responsibly and protect those minors who would be victims of repeated abuse by the dysfunctional Priests under their authority?
To date, the Church has responded by punishing the sick and allowing those who covered their crimes to go scott free.
This is not justice.
Allowing Bishops to escape the consequences of their irresponsible and shameful conduct is not justice.
Punishing sick Priest-abusers is not justice.
And delaying the fair and equitable treatment of victims is not justice.
The Church has suffered greatly for these sins and crimes against the most innocent and vulnerable members of Christ’s faithful.
The Church will continue to suffer until it finally and boldly begins to be honest in addressing this shameful episode in its history and in a way that is just and equitable to all involved.
Speaking aboard the Papal plane, the Pope further praised the handling of sex abuse cases by survivor Marie Collins, who resigned from the Vatican's sex abuse advisory commission in March.
Collins resigned over what she deemed an "unacceptable" amount of resistance on the Vatican's part to implementing the commission's proposals to improve care for victims and protect children from molestation by priests. The Pope said Collins was "a bit right" about the slow pace of case processing.
Most interesting is the fact that the Holy Father did not respond to why the Vatican had not created a tribunal to judge bishops who covered up for pedophile priests, as recommended by Collins before her departure.
That to me is the heart of the real crisis involving the sexual exploitation and abuse of minors which has been the source of so much scandal and grief.
I have yet to observe the Church addressing the issue seriously and genuinely.
So much has been said about the psychological dysfunction of the Priest-abusers to the effect that they are so disordered they need to be dismissed from the clerical state, a sanction which the Church has stated is necessary to protect children from future abuses and to send a signal that such conduct is the gravest violation of the moral order.
What has always bothered me about the punishment assigned to the Priest-abusers is not how severe it is. Rather, I find the punitive response confusing because it inflicts punishment upon those who are incapable by the disorders from which they suffer from controlling their behaviors, so much so that the Church considers them irredeemable to the point of dismissal from the clerical state and from exercising any Priestly function.
Even civil and secular jurisprudence recognizes that those who are disordered cannot be held responsible for their crimes. Sentences requiring mandatory psychological treatment can and are often imposed, but psychologically disordered individuals are not treated as criminals.
Yet, the Church sees fit to punish those who are disordered and allow those who had authority over them and who exercised discretion over their assignments to be free of any responsibility whatsoever.
True, disordered Priest-abusers have victimized thousands of minors. But what about their respective Bishops who failed to act responsibly and protect those minors who would be victims of repeated abuse by the dysfunctional Priests under their authority?
To date, the Church has responded by punishing the sick and allowing those who covered their crimes to go scott free.
This is not justice.
Allowing Bishops to escape the consequences of their irresponsible and shameful conduct is not justice.
Punishing sick Priest-abusers is not justice.
And delaying the fair and equitable treatment of victims is not justice.
The Church has suffered greatly for these sins and crimes against the most innocent and vulnerable members of Christ’s faithful.
The Church will continue to suffer until it finally and boldly begins to be honest in addressing this shameful episode in its history and in a way that is just and equitable to all involved.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
EVEN A LITTLE SILENCE IS STILL VERY GOLDEN
While people once even used religious reasons to justify practices such as slavery, the death penalty and "wars of religion," over time the Holy Spirit has deepened the church's understanding of the Gospel, the Pope said on May 11 in his homily during morning Mass at Domus Sanctae Marthae.
Slavery "is a mortal sin; today we say this. Back then, some would say that this could be done because these people did not have a soul!" he said. The number of people enslaved today is "even more, but at least we know that it is a mortal sin. The same goes for the death penalty; for a time, it was normal. Today, we say that the death penalty is inadmissible."
In several previous posts (which I find I must refer to repeatedly since the subject seems to re-emerge every few months or so), I pointed out that the legitimacy and morality of the death penalty has been defended by the Church consistently from the days of the Early Fathers.
Popes, in modern times up to and including the Pontificate of Benedict XVI have been clear and constant in the declaration that, when used with due prudence and diligence and with the assurance that the due process of law has been observed, a Catholic can support the imposition of the death penalty with a clear conscience, with no fear of incurring any moral or ecclesiastical sanction.
Pope Francis, however, chooses to speak of the death penalty in sound bites, with no nuance to his statements whatsoever.
Of course, the problem is that, whether intentional or not, declaring that support of the death penalty a “mortal sin" is designed to not hear the opposing point of view which is more consistent with the Church’s traditional teaching than the utterances of Francis.
Moreover, any person with semblance of intelligence and discernment will admit that the death penalty can be and has been used indiscriminately by oppressive regimes against dissenting voices and political opponents. But, no one of good faith and sound reason would begin to suggest that such a use of the death penalty is anything but a grave moral evil.
Yet Pope Francis’ non-nuanced denunciation of the death penalty as an objective moral evil organically creates reflexive responses on both sides, designed more to drown out any opposing perspective than to ascertain authentic Catholic teaching.
But, sweeping statements seem to be the norm these days everywhere you turn.
How quickly the Pope’s historical memory of Church teaching fails as he seeks to emphasize (perhaps to the point of oversimplification) his favorite theme of God’s abiding Mercy.
The fact is some issues are more complex and require a systematic explanation and not just a 10 second sound bite which will appear on the evening cable news networks or internet blogs.
It becomes so much easier to label someone anti-life or to suggest that support for the death penalty is immoral than to have the prevailing assumptions of the moment challenged.
Catholics have every right to demand answers from those entrusted with the teaching authority and governance of the Church.
Instead, it seems we are made to feel that we must digest increasing amounts of insipid intellectual pabulum, which we are led to believe somehow will provide the nutrients necessary to maintain our good standing in the modern Church.
In 1986, I was honored to be part of a delegation of Canon Lawyers invited by the Vatican to attend a series meetings with various Curial Congregation officials in an effort to inspire and encourage dialogue between the Holy See and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The most memorable part of that experience was the privilege of having the opportunity of con-celebrating Holy Mass with Pope St. John Paul II at his regular morning Mass.
At the time, I found it most curious that the Holy Father did not preach after the proclamation of the Gospel. Rather, he invited us all to take a moment to quietly reflect upon the Scripture and make application of its lesson to our daily lives and ministries.
Again, the Pope’s silence surprised me at the time. Now, I understand that he was more clever and shrewd than I could have imagined.
In a age of instant communication, oftentimes unfiltered and unchecked for accuracy, perhaps a little silence on the part of Pope Francis might go a long way in dispelling some of the disquieting things he says which are oftentimes off the cuff remarks rather than systematically developed and constructed doctrinal proclamations.
Still, I am so encouraged by the spirit of warmth and affection which is the essence of this Pontificate.
I continue to pray for His Holiness everyday and encourage all those I can to do the same.
Slavery "is a mortal sin; today we say this. Back then, some would say that this could be done because these people did not have a soul!" he said. The number of people enslaved today is "even more, but at least we know that it is a mortal sin. The same goes for the death penalty; for a time, it was normal. Today, we say that the death penalty is inadmissible."
In several previous posts (which I find I must refer to repeatedly since the subject seems to re-emerge every few months or so), I pointed out that the legitimacy and morality of the death penalty has been defended by the Church consistently from the days of the Early Fathers.
Popes, in modern times up to and including the Pontificate of Benedict XVI have been clear and constant in the declaration that, when used with due prudence and diligence and with the assurance that the due process of law has been observed, a Catholic can support the imposition of the death penalty with a clear conscience, with no fear of incurring any moral or ecclesiastical sanction.
Pope Francis, however, chooses to speak of the death penalty in sound bites, with no nuance to his statements whatsoever.
Of course, the problem is that, whether intentional or not, declaring that support of the death penalty a “mortal sin" is designed to not hear the opposing point of view which is more consistent with the Church’s traditional teaching than the utterances of Francis.
Moreover, any person with semblance of intelligence and discernment will admit that the death penalty can be and has been used indiscriminately by oppressive regimes against dissenting voices and political opponents. But, no one of good faith and sound reason would begin to suggest that such a use of the death penalty is anything but a grave moral evil.
Yet Pope Francis’ non-nuanced denunciation of the death penalty as an objective moral evil organically creates reflexive responses on both sides, designed more to drown out any opposing perspective than to ascertain authentic Catholic teaching.
But, sweeping statements seem to be the norm these days everywhere you turn.
How quickly the Pope’s historical memory of Church teaching fails as he seeks to emphasize (perhaps to the point of oversimplification) his favorite theme of God’s abiding Mercy.
The fact is some issues are more complex and require a systematic explanation and not just a 10 second sound bite which will appear on the evening cable news networks or internet blogs.
It becomes so much easier to label someone anti-life or to suggest that support for the death penalty is immoral than to have the prevailing assumptions of the moment challenged.
Catholics have every right to demand answers from those entrusted with the teaching authority and governance of the Church.
Instead, it seems we are made to feel that we must digest increasing amounts of insipid intellectual pabulum, which we are led to believe somehow will provide the nutrients necessary to maintain our good standing in the modern Church.
In 1986, I was honored to be part of a delegation of Canon Lawyers invited by the Vatican to attend a series meetings with various Curial Congregation officials in an effort to inspire and encourage dialogue between the Holy See and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The most memorable part of that experience was the privilege of having the opportunity of con-celebrating Holy Mass with Pope St. John Paul II at his regular morning Mass.
At the time, I found it most curious that the Holy Father did not preach after the proclamation of the Gospel. Rather, he invited us all to take a moment to quietly reflect upon the Scripture and make application of its lesson to our daily lives and ministries.
Again, the Pope’s silence surprised me at the time. Now, I understand that he was more clever and shrewd than I could have imagined.
In a age of instant communication, oftentimes unfiltered and unchecked for accuracy, perhaps a little silence on the part of Pope Francis might go a long way in dispelling some of the disquieting things he says which are oftentimes off the cuff remarks rather than systematically developed and constructed doctrinal proclamations.
Still, I am so encouraged by the spirit of warmth and affection which is the essence of this Pontificate.
I continue to pray for His Holiness everyday and encourage all those I can to do the same.
Monday, May 15, 2017
CONFUSED IN SCOTTSDALE
Help me. Anyone. What am I missing here?
A key Vatican official has confirmed that the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) can be reconciled with the Holy See, if its leaders accept a doctrinal statement.
Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which is handling talks with the SSPX, said that the next step is up to the traditionalist group. “The reconciliation will occur when Monsignor Fellay [the SSPX superior] formally adheres to the doctrinal declaration that the Holy See presented to him,” he said.
Reports have circulated in Rome for several months that the Vatican is prepared to offer the SSPX the status of a personal prelature, with the only remaining condition being the acceptance of the doctrinal statement.
In March, Archbishop Pozzo would allow traditionalists to continue questioning the interpretation of some disputed Vatican II documents.
The Archbishop said that although the climate in talks between the Vatican and the SSPX is very positive, he could not predict when an agreement will be reached.
So, let me understand this.
Pope Francis is encouraging local Bishops (mostly in union with their National Conferences) to interpret and apply doctrinal teachings and disciplines in a way that is most suited to the needs and circumstances of those entrusted to their pastoral care, even if they differ substantially from other episcopal conferences.
The Holy Father admits that there will be a significant diversity in the interpretations as well as in the way certain disciplinary customs are observed. The Pope, however, accepts this diversity since the Bishops are the vicars of Jesus in their respective dioceses and, consequently, are empowered to teach, govern and sanctify the faithful under their authority and jurisdiction.
Now, the Holy Father has signaled very clearly that he is open to endowing the Society of St. Pius X with the juridic stature of a personal prelature. Yet, he is reluctant to fully accept its members into full union with the Church until their leadership fully accepts, with no divergence, the interpretation of Vatican II documents promulgated by the Holy See.
Excuse me, but what am I missing here.
Bishops can maintain divergent interpretations of Papal teachings and doctrinal pronouncements and remain in full union with the Holy See, but SSPX can, in no way, hold to a different understanding and application of Vatican II teachings?
With each passing day, it seems, consistency and constancy are no longer virtues either admired or reflected in the statements and prescriptions ushering forth from Rome.
At what point in time, I wonder, does divergence devolve into disunity? And, if Bishops can hold to different interpretations and applications of Papal governance, whose to say SSPX can’t, or Opus Dei can’t, or the Jesuit’s, or Dominicans, or ordinary lay folks can’t?
I am left in a state of wonderment and confusion in a way I have never been before in my life before or after my Ordination to the Priesthood.
This is what I think. What thinkest thou? I'd like some help understanding this!
A key Vatican official has confirmed that the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) can be reconciled with the Holy See, if its leaders accept a doctrinal statement.
Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which is handling talks with the SSPX, said that the next step is up to the traditionalist group. “The reconciliation will occur when Monsignor Fellay [the SSPX superior] formally adheres to the doctrinal declaration that the Holy See presented to him,” he said.
Reports have circulated in Rome for several months that the Vatican is prepared to offer the SSPX the status of a personal prelature, with the only remaining condition being the acceptance of the doctrinal statement.
In March, Archbishop Pozzo would allow traditionalists to continue questioning the interpretation of some disputed Vatican II documents.
The Archbishop said that although the climate in talks between the Vatican and the SSPX is very positive, he could not predict when an agreement will be reached.
So, let me understand this.
Pope Francis is encouraging local Bishops (mostly in union with their National Conferences) to interpret and apply doctrinal teachings and disciplines in a way that is most suited to the needs and circumstances of those entrusted to their pastoral care, even if they differ substantially from other episcopal conferences.
The Holy Father admits that there will be a significant diversity in the interpretations as well as in the way certain disciplinary customs are observed. The Pope, however, accepts this diversity since the Bishops are the vicars of Jesus in their respective dioceses and, consequently, are empowered to teach, govern and sanctify the faithful under their authority and jurisdiction.
Now, the Holy Father has signaled very clearly that he is open to endowing the Society of St. Pius X with the juridic stature of a personal prelature. Yet, he is reluctant to fully accept its members into full union with the Church until their leadership fully accepts, with no divergence, the interpretation of Vatican II documents promulgated by the Holy See.
Excuse me, but what am I missing here.
Bishops can maintain divergent interpretations of Papal teachings and doctrinal pronouncements and remain in full union with the Holy See, but SSPX can, in no way, hold to a different understanding and application of Vatican II teachings?
With each passing day, it seems, consistency and constancy are no longer virtues either admired or reflected in the statements and prescriptions ushering forth from Rome.
At what point in time, I wonder, does divergence devolve into disunity? And, if Bishops can hold to different interpretations and applications of Papal governance, whose to say SSPX can’t, or Opus Dei can’t, or the Jesuit’s, or Dominicans, or ordinary lay folks can’t?
I am left in a state of wonderment and confusion in a way I have never been before in my life before or after my Ordination to the Priesthood.
This is what I think. What thinkest thou? I'd like some help understanding this!
Saturday, May 13, 2017
A MOTHER'S DAY REFLECTION 2017
This weekend, Sunday specifically, is Mother’s Day. In fact, it is the 102nd Anniversary of Mother’s Day in the United States.
Sadly, the anxious concerns of the woman who helped institute Mother’s Day as a national memorial came to fruition not only in her lifetime, but continue to this day.
Years after she founded Mother’s Day, Anna Jarvis was dining at the Tea Room at Wanamaker’s department store in Philadelphia. She saw they were offering a “Mother’s Day Salad.” She ordered the salad and when it was served, she stood up, dumped it on the floor, left the money to pay for it, and walked out in a huff.
Jarvis had lost control of the holiday she helped create, and she was crushed by her belief that commercialism was destroying Mother’s Day.
Since the beginning of the month of May, newspaper ads, radio spots, even pop up ads on the Internet have been advertising gifts and trinkets of all kinds to consider giving to Mom on her special day. Hotels and restaurants have been touting brunches and dinners to “show Mom how much we appreciate her”.
Anna Jarvis was right: commercialism would destroy the real meaning of Mother’s Day.
But that same commercialism has destroyed or co-opted almost every national holiday and memorial.
Presidents’ Day isn’t about Washington or Lincoln anymore. It’s about huge savings at every furniture store in the country. Memorial Day isn’t about honoring our fallen heros, it’s about sales on patio furniture, barbecue grills and backyard pools, above and below ground. The Fourth of July, Veteran’s Day, Halloween and, of course, Christmas. In fact, commercialism has become so flagrant that we’ve become numb to the fact that, as the sales banners for one holiday are being removed, new advertisements announcing sales for the next holiday are being posted.
So, Mother’s Day isn’t about the sacredness and sanctity of motherhood. It’s about the 50% you can save on carpet and installation costs.
We no longer take time to remember that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. No, we fret about getting reservations in early for brunch at the nearest eatery or hotel. We no longer honor Mom with a humble prayer to the Lord to bless her and sustain her in the sacrifices she makes each day for her family. We frantically search for that unique article of jewelry, a bracelet or necklace, with the diamond that assures Mom we will love her forever.
It’s the way of things, I guess. Sad but real, nonetheless.
And lest we forget, just as Mother’s Day comes to an end and all the ads and posters are put away for another year, Father’s Day is just around the corner. Golly, can’t you just wait to see the stuff you can buy to show dear old Dad just how much you care!
Saints preserve us, ere we perish!
But lest I be a complete curmudgeon and lose the opportunity to do so, may I simply say "Thank You" to Moms everywhere, those still with us and those who have gone to God before us.
May the Lord bless you for your constant love and your fearless dedication to your families, to all of us. May you know our love, affection and esteem for you on this Mother's Day and always.
God bless you, Moms! Always!
Sadly, the anxious concerns of the woman who helped institute Mother’s Day as a national memorial came to fruition not only in her lifetime, but continue to this day.
Years after she founded Mother’s Day, Anna Jarvis was dining at the Tea Room at Wanamaker’s department store in Philadelphia. She saw they were offering a “Mother’s Day Salad.” She ordered the salad and when it was served, she stood up, dumped it on the floor, left the money to pay for it, and walked out in a huff.
Jarvis had lost control of the holiday she helped create, and she was crushed by her belief that commercialism was destroying Mother’s Day.
Since the beginning of the month of May, newspaper ads, radio spots, even pop up ads on the Internet have been advertising gifts and trinkets of all kinds to consider giving to Mom on her special day. Hotels and restaurants have been touting brunches and dinners to “show Mom how much we appreciate her”.
Anna Jarvis was right: commercialism would destroy the real meaning of Mother’s Day.
But that same commercialism has destroyed or co-opted almost every national holiday and memorial.
Presidents’ Day isn’t about Washington or Lincoln anymore. It’s about huge savings at every furniture store in the country. Memorial Day isn’t about honoring our fallen heros, it’s about sales on patio furniture, barbecue grills and backyard pools, above and below ground. The Fourth of July, Veteran’s Day, Halloween and, of course, Christmas. In fact, commercialism has become so flagrant that we’ve become numb to the fact that, as the sales banners for one holiday are being removed, new advertisements announcing sales for the next holiday are being posted.
So, Mother’s Day isn’t about the sacredness and sanctity of motherhood. It’s about the 50% you can save on carpet and installation costs.
We no longer take time to remember that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. No, we fret about getting reservations in early for brunch at the nearest eatery or hotel. We no longer honor Mom with a humble prayer to the Lord to bless her and sustain her in the sacrifices she makes each day for her family. We frantically search for that unique article of jewelry, a bracelet or necklace, with the diamond that assures Mom we will love her forever.
It’s the way of things, I guess. Sad but real, nonetheless.
And lest we forget, just as Mother’s Day comes to an end and all the ads and posters are put away for another year, Father’s Day is just around the corner. Golly, can’t you just wait to see the stuff you can buy to show dear old Dad just how much you care!
Saints preserve us, ere we perish!
But lest I be a complete curmudgeon and lose the opportunity to do so, may I simply say "Thank You" to Moms everywhere, those still with us and those who have gone to God before us.
May the Lord bless you for your constant love and your fearless dedication to your families, to all of us. May you know our love, affection and esteem for you on this Mother's Day and always.
God bless you, Moms! Always!
Thursday, May 11, 2017
LET US NOT FORGET: RELIGION AND SCIENCE BOTH REQUIRE FAITH
The Vatican has invited the world's leading scientists and cosmologists to try and understand the theory of the Big Bang.
Astrophysicists and other experts will attend the Vatican Observatory to discuss black holes, gravitational waves and space-time singularities.
The conference is part of an increasing openness on the part of the Church to accept scientific theories as not necessarily in contradiction with Biblical or theological doctrine.
Such overtures by the Church are welcome for they provide the Church with a remarkable opportunity to highlight the fact that much, if not all, of human science is based on faith just as much as religion is.
The fact is, no matter how the secular world tries to spin it, every pursuit of truth (religious or scientific) begins with the acceptance of an unprovable axiom -- an a priori belief upon which all subsequent deducted truths are based. This starting point , whatever it may be, can only be accepted by faith. If not, then both religion and science are impossible, for there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning. Otherwise, we are reduced to an infinite regression of unanswerable questions.
Religion presupposes acceptance of belief in god, in an uncaused cause, a prime mover, an omnipotent creator who is the source of all life and the order which can be perceived in creation.
But science begins with its own presupposition, equally unprovable, which requires an assent of faith, namely, that the physical universe obeys a set of rules, rules which can be deduced by observation and reduced to a series of mathematical formulae. The assumption here is that everything in the universe is observable and subject to quantification.
Within the realm of religion, we call those realities which cannot be understood or reasonably deduced mysteries, realities beyond the scope and limit of human comprehension. Within science, mysteries exist as well, realities which reach far beyond the narrow limits of man’s ability to observe and explain. Science, however, doesn't admit to mysteries, explaining that questions remain because certain data remains to be collected and collated.
Religion doesn’t have all the answers, but neither does science. Both never will.
The head of the Vatican Observatory, Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, says that you can believe in God and the big-bang theory.
That is correct. Both Genesis and the Big-bang theory require faith, both require belief. To suggest otherwise is pure arrogance and deception no matter who is espousing the lie.
Astrophysicists and other experts will attend the Vatican Observatory to discuss black holes, gravitational waves and space-time singularities.
The conference is part of an increasing openness on the part of the Church to accept scientific theories as not necessarily in contradiction with Biblical or theological doctrine.
Such overtures by the Church are welcome for they provide the Church with a remarkable opportunity to highlight the fact that much, if not all, of human science is based on faith just as much as religion is.
The fact is, no matter how the secular world tries to spin it, every pursuit of truth (religious or scientific) begins with the acceptance of an unprovable axiom -- an a priori belief upon which all subsequent deducted truths are based. This starting point , whatever it may be, can only be accepted by faith. If not, then both religion and science are impossible, for there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning. Otherwise, we are reduced to an infinite regression of unanswerable questions.
Religion presupposes acceptance of belief in god, in an uncaused cause, a prime mover, an omnipotent creator who is the source of all life and the order which can be perceived in creation.
But science begins with its own presupposition, equally unprovable, which requires an assent of faith, namely, that the physical universe obeys a set of rules, rules which can be deduced by observation and reduced to a series of mathematical formulae. The assumption here is that everything in the universe is observable and subject to quantification.
Within the realm of religion, we call those realities which cannot be understood or reasonably deduced mysteries, realities beyond the scope and limit of human comprehension. Within science, mysteries exist as well, realities which reach far beyond the narrow limits of man’s ability to observe and explain. Science, however, doesn't admit to mysteries, explaining that questions remain because certain data remains to be collected and collated.
Religion doesn’t have all the answers, but neither does science. Both never will.
The head of the Vatican Observatory, Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, says that you can believe in God and the big-bang theory.
That is correct. Both Genesis and the Big-bang theory require faith, both require belief. To suggest otherwise is pure arrogance and deception no matter who is espousing the lie.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
CHURCH FACING CRISIS IN THE SACRAMENTAL CARE OF GROWING NUMBERS OF AGED AND INFIRM CATHOLICS
Life expectancy is rising in many places across the U.S. There are some places where lifespans are getting shorter and geographical inequalities are becoming more pronounced, a new study suggests.
Nationwide in 2014, the average life expectancy was about 79.1 years, up 5.3 years from 1980, the study found. For men, life expectancy climbed from 70 years to 76.7 years, while for women it increased from 77.5 years to 81.5 years.
For some reason, the men seem to have outpaced the women in the number of increased years of life expectancy.
To examine changes in life expectancy over time, researchers looked at death certificates from each county in the country. One limitation of the study is that there might be errors in county death records, the authors note. Researchers also lacked data to explore how much the findings might be explained by migration of certain types of people to certain communities.
It seems that little, if any, attention is being paid to this phenomenon by either the Church itself or any of the social agencies the Church helps to support directly or indirectly.
With an aging population comes greater demands upon the Church for the spiritual care of elderly and infirm faithful.
At present, older Catholics become increasingly marginalized from the life of the Church due to physical infirmity and illness. As the number of Priests in active ministry continues to shrink, the availability of the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Anointing of the Sick will be severely curtailed.
Elderly Catholics are prone to believe that the Church has forgotten them and their many years of their fidelity in practicing the Faith. Permanent Deacons and Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist have proven themselves to be great blessing and resource to Pastors in the care of the ill and homebound elderly in their parishes. But, Permanent Deacons and Extraordinary Ministers are limited in the Sacramental services they can provide.
As life expectancy continues to rise, the Church will need to address the manner in which it will provide for the Sacramental care of aged members of the faithful.
Certainly, one response would be to provide the opportunity for married men of proven virtue (presumably our present Permanent Deacons) to be ordained Priests who would be capable of providing the full range of Sacramental and spiritual care to the aged. And yet, the official Church continues to drag its heels in even addressing such a possibility.
God’s People deserve the nourishment and refreshment that comes to them through the Sacramental life of the Church. Depriving them of these graces in order to uphold a canonical discipline (celibacy) is no virtue.
We can only hope that the Holy Spirit will move the hearts and minds of the Bishops and the Holy Father to insure that, when the Sacraments are most important in the lives of the faithful, that is, in their twilight years, there will be Priests to provide that care that will help usher these good and faithful servants into Eternal Life.
Nationwide in 2014, the average life expectancy was about 79.1 years, up 5.3 years from 1980, the study found. For men, life expectancy climbed from 70 years to 76.7 years, while for women it increased from 77.5 years to 81.5 years.
For some reason, the men seem to have outpaced the women in the number of increased years of life expectancy.
To examine changes in life expectancy over time, researchers looked at death certificates from each county in the country. One limitation of the study is that there might be errors in county death records, the authors note. Researchers also lacked data to explore how much the findings might be explained by migration of certain types of people to certain communities.
It seems that little, if any, attention is being paid to this phenomenon by either the Church itself or any of the social agencies the Church helps to support directly or indirectly.
With an aging population comes greater demands upon the Church for the spiritual care of elderly and infirm faithful.
At present, older Catholics become increasingly marginalized from the life of the Church due to physical infirmity and illness. As the number of Priests in active ministry continues to shrink, the availability of the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Anointing of the Sick will be severely curtailed.
Elderly Catholics are prone to believe that the Church has forgotten them and their many years of their fidelity in practicing the Faith. Permanent Deacons and Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist have proven themselves to be great blessing and resource to Pastors in the care of the ill and homebound elderly in their parishes. But, Permanent Deacons and Extraordinary Ministers are limited in the Sacramental services they can provide.
As life expectancy continues to rise, the Church will need to address the manner in which it will provide for the Sacramental care of aged members of the faithful.
Certainly, one response would be to provide the opportunity for married men of proven virtue (presumably our present Permanent Deacons) to be ordained Priests who would be capable of providing the full range of Sacramental and spiritual care to the aged. And yet, the official Church continues to drag its heels in even addressing such a possibility.
God’s People deserve the nourishment and refreshment that comes to them through the Sacramental life of the Church. Depriving them of these graces in order to uphold a canonical discipline (celibacy) is no virtue.
We can only hope that the Holy Spirit will move the hearts and minds of the Bishops and the Holy Father to insure that, when the Sacraments are most important in the lives of the faithful, that is, in their twilight years, there will be Priests to provide that care that will help usher these good and faithful servants into Eternal Life.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
CATHOLIC SOCIAL DOCTRINE APPLIES TO DIOCESAN ADMINISTRATION AS WELL
According to William Bowman, dean of Catholic University of America’s Busch School of Business, the Catholic Church’s social doctrine rests on four pillars: solidarity, subsidiarity, the dignity of the human person and the care of the common good.
A number of privately owned companies, he said, are living those principles in their business “day in and day out” without necessarily realizing that they have made Catholic social teaching part of their practices.
These practices include “incredible subsidiarity” with employees, by giving them a lot of discretion to exercise responsibility and initiative.
Other companies exemplify Catholic social teaching, Bowman said, by supporting a strong culture of solidarity linked with subsidiarity, where helping each other do better — like one plant team helping another team become more efficient on the line — means the company does better.
Bowman said, generally, large, publicly held companies have a “much tougher” time implementing the business practices Catholic social doctrine calls for because their boards base their decisions on strict metrics for return on investment. “That in itself is a minor violation of Catholic social teaching, because the person is the purpose of the business, and not the dollar, and that has to be reflected in how the company operates,” he said.
If Dean Bowman is correct, one must wonder why these same Catholic social principles are not ingrained into the corporate structure of dioceses not only in America but around the globe.
One need only consider the clear lack of solidarity and subsidiarity which characterizes much of the administrative decisions and communications between Bishops and their Pastors. Working with the local Bishop often means accepting whatever initiative or directive the Bishop has initiated most often without meaningful and real consultation with local Pastors.
Guidelines and procedures are often established by consultors close to the Bishop or his surrogates, people who have little practical knowledge or experience of the exigencies of parish administration.
And, deadly to almost any collegial endeavor, advancement is often based upon one’s closeness to the inner circle of administration rather than proven ability and competence.
Dean Bowman has highlighted how Catholic social doctrine can be of tremendous benefit in the marketplace. Perhaps, he needs now to turn his gaze upon diocesan administration and suggest ways Bishops can implement these same principles in their local churches.
A number of privately owned companies, he said, are living those principles in their business “day in and day out” without necessarily realizing that they have made Catholic social teaching part of their practices.
These practices include “incredible subsidiarity” with employees, by giving them a lot of discretion to exercise responsibility and initiative.
Other companies exemplify Catholic social teaching, Bowman said, by supporting a strong culture of solidarity linked with subsidiarity, where helping each other do better — like one plant team helping another team become more efficient on the line — means the company does better.
Bowman said, generally, large, publicly held companies have a “much tougher” time implementing the business practices Catholic social doctrine calls for because their boards base their decisions on strict metrics for return on investment. “That in itself is a minor violation of Catholic social teaching, because the person is the purpose of the business, and not the dollar, and that has to be reflected in how the company operates,” he said.
If Dean Bowman is correct, one must wonder why these same Catholic social principles are not ingrained into the corporate structure of dioceses not only in America but around the globe.
One need only consider the clear lack of solidarity and subsidiarity which characterizes much of the administrative decisions and communications between Bishops and their Pastors. Working with the local Bishop often means accepting whatever initiative or directive the Bishop has initiated most often without meaningful and real consultation with local Pastors.
Guidelines and procedures are often established by consultors close to the Bishop or his surrogates, people who have little practical knowledge or experience of the exigencies of parish administration.
And, deadly to almost any collegial endeavor, advancement is often based upon one’s closeness to the inner circle of administration rather than proven ability and competence.
Dean Bowman has highlighted how Catholic social doctrine can be of tremendous benefit in the marketplace. Perhaps, he needs now to turn his gaze upon diocesan administration and suggest ways Bishops can implement these same principles in their local churches.
Monday, May 8, 2017
FRANCIS' SEMINARIES NEED TO REFLECT HIS EXPECTATIONS OF PRIESTLY SERVICE
During Mass in St Peter’s Basilica, Pope Francis ordained six priests for the Diocese of Rome and one each for the Brothers of Our Lady of Mercy, the Peru-based Family of Disciples, the Apostolic Prefecture of Azerbaijan and the Diocese of Nocera Inferiore-Sarno, Italy. The men were between the ages of 26 and 38.
In his homily, the Holy Father said that a priest who does not willingly embrace Christ’s cross and who does not try to lighten the burdens of his people is not worthy of the name.
“A priest who perhaps has studied a lot of theology and has one, two or three degrees, but has not learned to carry the cross of Christ is useless,” the Pope said. “He might be a good academic, a good professor, but not a priest.”
What I find particularly intriguing about the Pope’s statements is the fact that much of seminary training is dedicated to theological study with little attention given to preparing future Priests for the practical application and administration of pastoral care they will be asked to offer to those entrusted to them in their future ministry.
It is very clear that, up until now, Priests have been trained primarily to be the teachers of the Faith and moral doctrines of the Church. Seminarians are expected to excel in academics, to be masters of the historical development of the dogmatic and doctrinal teachings of the Church.
They are required to have a working knowledge of the fundamental canonical precepts which govern the administration of the Sacraments as well as the practical requirements for the dutiful and reverential observance of their liturgical obligations and responsibilities.
And while I agree with everything which Francis had to say about the role of academics in the actual service which the Priest is called upon to offer to the faithful, the Holy Father’s remarks come a little late in the game for these and countless other selfless candidates who present themselves to be servants of God’s People as Priests of Jesus Christ.
One can only hope that the repeated calls which Francis makes for “caring and merciful” Priests be mirrored in the training seminaries under his care and jurisdiction will offer to those who eventually will serve the needs of the Church.
If the Holy Father insists that his Priests be sensitive, attentive and caring servants of Christ and not so much scholars and academics, then let him insist that his seminaries reflect his expectations and goals.
Thus far, while the Holy Father has been quick to critique many Priests who have diligently sought to teach, govern and sanctify their flocks in keeping with the training they received, the Pope has been much too slow and quire lethargic in insisting that his expectations be translated into a practical curriculum within the seminaries which operate under his supervision and authority.
In the meantime, while hoping to offer words of inspiration and challenge, let us hope that the Holy Father will be less severe in his admonitions and judgments of those who presently serve the People of God as His Priests.
Lord knows it's tough enough being a Priest today as it is without having to constantly incur the harsh words and piques of the Vicar of Christ!
In his homily, the Holy Father said that a priest who does not willingly embrace Christ’s cross and who does not try to lighten the burdens of his people is not worthy of the name.
“A priest who perhaps has studied a lot of theology and has one, two or three degrees, but has not learned to carry the cross of Christ is useless,” the Pope said. “He might be a good academic, a good professor, but not a priest.”
What I find particularly intriguing about the Pope’s statements is the fact that much of seminary training is dedicated to theological study with little attention given to preparing future Priests for the practical application and administration of pastoral care they will be asked to offer to those entrusted to them in their future ministry.
It is very clear that, up until now, Priests have been trained primarily to be the teachers of the Faith and moral doctrines of the Church. Seminarians are expected to excel in academics, to be masters of the historical development of the dogmatic and doctrinal teachings of the Church.
They are required to have a working knowledge of the fundamental canonical precepts which govern the administration of the Sacraments as well as the practical requirements for the dutiful and reverential observance of their liturgical obligations and responsibilities.
And while I agree with everything which Francis had to say about the role of academics in the actual service which the Priest is called upon to offer to the faithful, the Holy Father’s remarks come a little late in the game for these and countless other selfless candidates who present themselves to be servants of God’s People as Priests of Jesus Christ.
One can only hope that the repeated calls which Francis makes for “caring and merciful” Priests be mirrored in the training seminaries under his care and jurisdiction will offer to those who eventually will serve the needs of the Church.
If the Holy Father insists that his Priests be sensitive, attentive and caring servants of Christ and not so much scholars and academics, then let him insist that his seminaries reflect his expectations and goals.
Thus far, while the Holy Father has been quick to critique many Priests who have diligently sought to teach, govern and sanctify their flocks in keeping with the training they received, the Pope has been much too slow and quire lethargic in insisting that his expectations be translated into a practical curriculum within the seminaries which operate under his supervision and authority.
In the meantime, while hoping to offer words of inspiration and challenge, let us hope that the Holy Father will be less severe in his admonitions and judgments of those who presently serve the People of God as His Priests.
Lord knows it's tough enough being a Priest today as it is without having to constantly incur the harsh words and piques of the Vicar of Christ!
Sunday, May 7, 2017
CATHOLIC HOSPITALS IN NAME ONLY?
It was with great interest that I read the following story.
The Board of Directors of several Catholic psychiatric hospitals in Belgium has decided to start performing euthanasia. However, the Brothers of Charity who actually operate the hospitals and provide immediate care to patients have said that the policy change is unacceptable and will not be implemented.
The Brothers of Charity operate 15 psychiatric hospitals with over 5,000 patients. The Superior General has informed the Board of Directors that the Order cannot accept the decision to allow euthanasia because “it is going totally against our charism of charity”.
Only a few of the Brothers of Charity are involved on the Board of Directors governing the Belgium hospitals. The majority of members are lay people. The Superior General has charged that “a spirit of secularization is poisoning the Board”.
Raf De Ryce, chairman of the Board overseeing the psychiatric institutions, contended that the new policy was not a major change. “It is not that we used to be against euthanasia and now suddenly are for it. This is consistent with our existing criteria,” he said. “We are making both possible routes for our patients: both a pro-life perspective and euthanasia.” De Ryce said the inviolability of life is “an important foundation” but for the board it is not an absolute.
However, the Brothers of Charity contend that the Catholic hospitals’ previous policy was clear about opposition to euthanasia. “When someone asked for euthanasia, the question was taken seriously; everything was done to help the patient to change his vision of things,” the Superior General said. If the situation remained unchanged, the patient was transferred. “This transfer was done with respect, but always convinced that a signal was given to society that inside our institutes no euthanasia was possible,” he said. “This was very important.”
I believe we are seeing the battle lines which will be drawn in the near future as regards Catholic medical institutions eventual support for euthanasia which is gaining more and more acceptance among the Catholic laity and Christians in general.
Certainly, official Church teaching condemns euthanasia. At present, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest single funder opposed to euthanasia. It invests more money in its fight against euthanasia than all the combined resources of right to die societies around the world many times over.
Of the other Christian churches, the Episcopalian (Anglican) Unitarian, Methodist, Presbyterian and Quaker movements are amongst the most liberal, allowing at least individual decision making in cases of active euthanasia. Hindu and Sikh Dharma may also leave it to individual conscience.
Nowadays, however, few Christian denominations prohibit passive euthanasia, or refusal of treatment decisions. Those that do tend to oppose it include conservative Evangelicals, Islam, and the Mormon Church.
Opinion polls consistently show that a majority of people professing all variety of faiths support a change in the law for voluntary euthanasia. Even among Roman Catholics, more people support euthanasia than oppose it (a recent poll showed over 50% support, in spite of the Church's opposition).
Many Religious Orders in the United States invite (in some cases require) their members to consider a living will or medical directive of some kind.
One must read the signs of the times.
Sister Mary Jean Ryan, one of the last CEO's in the Church from a Religious Community, has retired from her post as the head of SSM Health Care, a group of charitable Catholic hospitals. In 1970, virtually every Catholic hospital in the United States was overseen by clergy or religious. Today, that number is down to 8.
As lay business people take up the mantle of leadership, the question remains if these institutions will continue in their tradition of Catholic medico-moral teaching, or if they too will succumb to the seductive prevailing culture of profits that has made multi-millionaires out of hospital executives. In 2008, Catholic hospitals generated revenues of $30 billion dollars, but had expenses of $85 billion which includes nearly $6 billion in charity--a shortfall of $55 billion dollars.
What remains to be seen is whether the quality of care be the same under lay leadership as it was under Religious leadership? Will the Church's emphasis on the sanctity of life always be upheld over profits? Will the hospitals eventually become so secularized as to be "Catholic" only in name?
We shall see if the same spirit of secularization is poisoning once-Catholic hospitals in our country.
And we shall see this, I am afraid, sooner than later.
The Board of Directors of several Catholic psychiatric hospitals in Belgium has decided to start performing euthanasia. However, the Brothers of Charity who actually operate the hospitals and provide immediate care to patients have said that the policy change is unacceptable and will not be implemented.
The Brothers of Charity operate 15 psychiatric hospitals with over 5,000 patients. The Superior General has informed the Board of Directors that the Order cannot accept the decision to allow euthanasia because “it is going totally against our charism of charity”.
Only a few of the Brothers of Charity are involved on the Board of Directors governing the Belgium hospitals. The majority of members are lay people. The Superior General has charged that “a spirit of secularization is poisoning the Board”.
Raf De Ryce, chairman of the Board overseeing the psychiatric institutions, contended that the new policy was not a major change. “It is not that we used to be against euthanasia and now suddenly are for it. This is consistent with our existing criteria,” he said. “We are making both possible routes for our patients: both a pro-life perspective and euthanasia.” De Ryce said the inviolability of life is “an important foundation” but for the board it is not an absolute.
However, the Brothers of Charity contend that the Catholic hospitals’ previous policy was clear about opposition to euthanasia. “When someone asked for euthanasia, the question was taken seriously; everything was done to help the patient to change his vision of things,” the Superior General said. If the situation remained unchanged, the patient was transferred. “This transfer was done with respect, but always convinced that a signal was given to society that inside our institutes no euthanasia was possible,” he said. “This was very important.”
I believe we are seeing the battle lines which will be drawn in the near future as regards Catholic medical institutions eventual support for euthanasia which is gaining more and more acceptance among the Catholic laity and Christians in general.
Certainly, official Church teaching condemns euthanasia. At present, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest single funder opposed to euthanasia. It invests more money in its fight against euthanasia than all the combined resources of right to die societies around the world many times over.
Of the other Christian churches, the Episcopalian (Anglican) Unitarian, Methodist, Presbyterian and Quaker movements are amongst the most liberal, allowing at least individual decision making in cases of active euthanasia. Hindu and Sikh Dharma may also leave it to individual conscience.
Nowadays, however, few Christian denominations prohibit passive euthanasia, or refusal of treatment decisions. Those that do tend to oppose it include conservative Evangelicals, Islam, and the Mormon Church.
Opinion polls consistently show that a majority of people professing all variety of faiths support a change in the law for voluntary euthanasia. Even among Roman Catholics, more people support euthanasia than oppose it (a recent poll showed over 50% support, in spite of the Church's opposition).
Many Religious Orders in the United States invite (in some cases require) their members to consider a living will or medical directive of some kind.
One must read the signs of the times.
Sister Mary Jean Ryan, one of the last CEO's in the Church from a Religious Community, has retired from her post as the head of SSM Health Care, a group of charitable Catholic hospitals. In 1970, virtually every Catholic hospital in the United States was overseen by clergy or religious. Today, that number is down to 8.
As lay business people take up the mantle of leadership, the question remains if these institutions will continue in their tradition of Catholic medico-moral teaching, or if they too will succumb to the seductive prevailing culture of profits that has made multi-millionaires out of hospital executives. In 2008, Catholic hospitals generated revenues of $30 billion dollars, but had expenses of $85 billion which includes nearly $6 billion in charity--a shortfall of $55 billion dollars.
What remains to be seen is whether the quality of care be the same under lay leadership as it was under Religious leadership? Will the Church's emphasis on the sanctity of life always be upheld over profits? Will the hospitals eventually become so secularized as to be "Catholic" only in name?
We shall see if the same spirit of secularization is poisoning once-Catholic hospitals in our country.
And we shall see this, I am afraid, sooner than later.
Saturday, May 6, 2017
THE REAL MEANING OF THE FEAST OF SAINT JOSEPH THE WORKER
May 1, 2017 and the Feast of Saint Joseph the Worker has come and gone.
To foster deep devotion to Saint Joseph among Catholics, and in response to the “May Day” celebrations for workers sponsored by Communists, Pope Pius XII instituted this feast in 1955.
Beginning in the Book of Genesis, human work has been understood to be a participation in the creative work of God. By work, humankind both fulfills the command found in Genesis to care for the earth (Gn 2:15) and to be productive in their labors.
But the fact is that the man was placed in the Garden of Eden to lead a life of repose, not indolence, in fulfilment of the course assigned him, which was very different from the trouble and restlessness of the weary toil into which he was plunged by sin.
In Paradise, Adam was to dress the garden; for the earth was meant to be tended and cultivated by man, so that without human culture, plants and even the different varieties of corn degenerate and grow wild. Cultivation therefore preserved the divine plantation, not merely from injury on the part of any evil power, either penetrating into, or already existing in the creation, but also from running wild through natural degeneracy.
As nature was created for man, it was his vocation not only to ennoble it by his work, to make it subservient to himself, but also to raise it into the sphere of the spirit and further its glorification.
This applied not merely to the soil beyond the limits of Paradise, but to the Garden itself which was allotted to man, in order that by his care and culture he might make it into a transparent mirror of the glory of the Creator.
As the Church celebrates work and workers on May 1st, it is important to distinguish between the original nature of work delegated to man before the Fall from the experience of labor which man incurred after his sin.
All work, whether manual or intellectual, is inevitably linked with toil. The Book of Genesis expresses it in a truly penetrating manner: the original blessing of work contained in the very mystery of creation and connected with man’s elevation as the image of God is contrasted with the curse that sin brought with it: “Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life”.
Human beings experience this paradox in that they both desire work, as poignantly experienced by those seeking employment and the appeal in various contexts to a “right to work,” yet they also complain about work and the exhaustion it can bring.
So, as we earn our daily bread and strive to provide to those who depend upon us for sustenance and care, we are constantly challenged to strike a balance between the labors we endure and their ultimate meaning and purpose, to offset the burden of labor with the enjoyment of the fruits it provides.
Contrary to the Communist view that man is defined by the work he performs, the Biblical image of man is that his true nature can be perfected by his labors and the opportunities they afford him to discover his true self and his destiny as the handiwork of a generous and loving Creator.
The Marxist-Communist idealization of the “man-worker” (homo faber) has been relegated to the trash heap of so many other socio-political failures. But so too will the Socialist experiments of today which seek to provide human beings with all means of sustenance and accessibility to leisure without personal effort or investment of any kind.
Oppressive demands upon workers demean the dignity of man. But depriving or excusing man of the need and right to work destroys a person’s self-esteem and self-worth just as much, if not more so.
When societies rediscover the Biblical understanding of human work and its nature and purpose, perhaps then will the world rediscover the Divine Mind which fashioned this universe for mankind to bring it to perfection in mirroring the omnipotent power of its Creator.
Let this be the lesson of May 1st and the real celebration of the Feast of Saint Joseph the Worker.
To foster deep devotion to Saint Joseph among Catholics, and in response to the “May Day” celebrations for workers sponsored by Communists, Pope Pius XII instituted this feast in 1955.
Beginning in the Book of Genesis, human work has been understood to be a participation in the creative work of God. By work, humankind both fulfills the command found in Genesis to care for the earth (Gn 2:15) and to be productive in their labors.
But the fact is that the man was placed in the Garden of Eden to lead a life of repose, not indolence, in fulfilment of the course assigned him, which was very different from the trouble and restlessness of the weary toil into which he was plunged by sin.
In Paradise, Adam was to dress the garden; for the earth was meant to be tended and cultivated by man, so that without human culture, plants and even the different varieties of corn degenerate and grow wild. Cultivation therefore preserved the divine plantation, not merely from injury on the part of any evil power, either penetrating into, or already existing in the creation, but also from running wild through natural degeneracy.
As nature was created for man, it was his vocation not only to ennoble it by his work, to make it subservient to himself, but also to raise it into the sphere of the spirit and further its glorification.
This applied not merely to the soil beyond the limits of Paradise, but to the Garden itself which was allotted to man, in order that by his care and culture he might make it into a transparent mirror of the glory of the Creator.
As the Church celebrates work and workers on May 1st, it is important to distinguish between the original nature of work delegated to man before the Fall from the experience of labor which man incurred after his sin.
All work, whether manual or intellectual, is inevitably linked with toil. The Book of Genesis expresses it in a truly penetrating manner: the original blessing of work contained in the very mystery of creation and connected with man’s elevation as the image of God is contrasted with the curse that sin brought with it: “Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life”.
Human beings experience this paradox in that they both desire work, as poignantly experienced by those seeking employment and the appeal in various contexts to a “right to work,” yet they also complain about work and the exhaustion it can bring.
So, as we earn our daily bread and strive to provide to those who depend upon us for sustenance and care, we are constantly challenged to strike a balance between the labors we endure and their ultimate meaning and purpose, to offset the burden of labor with the enjoyment of the fruits it provides.
Contrary to the Communist view that man is defined by the work he performs, the Biblical image of man is that his true nature can be perfected by his labors and the opportunities they afford him to discover his true self and his destiny as the handiwork of a generous and loving Creator.
The Marxist-Communist idealization of the “man-worker” (homo faber) has been relegated to the trash heap of so many other socio-political failures. But so too will the Socialist experiments of today which seek to provide human beings with all means of sustenance and accessibility to leisure without personal effort or investment of any kind.
Oppressive demands upon workers demean the dignity of man. But depriving or excusing man of the need and right to work destroys a person’s self-esteem and self-worth just as much, if not more so.
When societies rediscover the Biblical understanding of human work and its nature and purpose, perhaps then will the world rediscover the Divine Mind which fashioned this universe for mankind to bring it to perfection in mirroring the omnipotent power of its Creator.
Let this be the lesson of May 1st and the real celebration of the Feast of Saint Joseph the Worker.
Thursday, May 4, 2017
SOME PERSONAL MISGIVINGS ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM EXECUTIVE ORDER
I don’t know how to react and respond to the following development.
President Trump has signed an executive order “promoting free speech and religious liberty”. The final version of the order addresses two issues.
First, it instructs the Internal Revenue Service to “not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization” that endorse or oppose candidates from the pulpit, which is currently outlawed by a provision typically referred to as the Johnson Amendment. “We are giving churches their voices back,” the President said during a ceremony in the Rose Garden.
Second, it instructs the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services to consider amending regulations in the Affordable Care Act that require most employers to cover contraception in employee insurance plans. A number of religious non-profit organizations have been litigating their objections to this requirement.
I confess that I have some reservations about what one would think would be immediately lauded and applauded by a Preacher of the Gospel.
The problem I am having is not with the Executive Order which certainly seems to be a fair and equitable reading and application of the First Amendment.
Rather, my concern is how this will be received by politically active churches and clergymen across the country.
I believe it is the responsibility of the preacher to proclaim his or her church’s teaching regarding the Scriptures in a way which allows the faithful to understand the implications of the Biblical wisdom and apply that insight to the political choices which are their duty to make.
I believe it is the duty of the Church to inform the consciences of the faithful not to prescribe what political choices they must or must not make in fulfilling their obligations as loyal and law-abiding citizens.
Certainly, for decades, there has been a disparity in the way the Johnson Amendment was applied by administrations which were Democrat. African-American churches, the meat and potatoes of the Democratic Party, engaged in all sorts of political endorsements of Democratic candidates and policies with impunity.
Meanwhile, white Conservative (mostly Republican) Christian churches were consistently monitored and threatened whenever the Democratic Party felt they were straying into matters of political content.
The Executive Order which President Trump signed will effectively eliminate this disparity.
Yet, I still feel uneasy with the thought of believers, especially my Catholic sisters and brothers, attending Church services only to hear the Priest or minister engage in a harangue against this or that politician or policy. Dear Lord, spare us the self-appointed prophets of the town square!
I think this is what really happened with regard to churches and politics in recent years. The Democratic Party has become so amoral and immoral in the policies it advances that any Biblical response to that immorality seems to be more political than religious.
How the Executive Order will affect the preaching from our pulpits is a question for the future.
For the moment, I find myself caught in the middle between applauding President Trump for his courage and integrity in keeping one of his bedrock campaign promises and a bit concerned that some preachers and Pastors will abuse the privilege of the protection which the Executive Order affords them.
What thinkest you?
President Trump has signed an executive order “promoting free speech and religious liberty”. The final version of the order addresses two issues.
First, it instructs the Internal Revenue Service to “not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization” that endorse or oppose candidates from the pulpit, which is currently outlawed by a provision typically referred to as the Johnson Amendment. “We are giving churches their voices back,” the President said during a ceremony in the Rose Garden.
Second, it instructs the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services to consider amending regulations in the Affordable Care Act that require most employers to cover contraception in employee insurance plans. A number of religious non-profit organizations have been litigating their objections to this requirement.
I confess that I have some reservations about what one would think would be immediately lauded and applauded by a Preacher of the Gospel.
The problem I am having is not with the Executive Order which certainly seems to be a fair and equitable reading and application of the First Amendment.
Rather, my concern is how this will be received by politically active churches and clergymen across the country.
I believe it is the responsibility of the preacher to proclaim his or her church’s teaching regarding the Scriptures in a way which allows the faithful to understand the implications of the Biblical wisdom and apply that insight to the political choices which are their duty to make.
I believe it is the duty of the Church to inform the consciences of the faithful not to prescribe what political choices they must or must not make in fulfilling their obligations as loyal and law-abiding citizens.
Certainly, for decades, there has been a disparity in the way the Johnson Amendment was applied by administrations which were Democrat. African-American churches, the meat and potatoes of the Democratic Party, engaged in all sorts of political endorsements of Democratic candidates and policies with impunity.
Meanwhile, white Conservative (mostly Republican) Christian churches were consistently monitored and threatened whenever the Democratic Party felt they were straying into matters of political content.
The Executive Order which President Trump signed will effectively eliminate this disparity.
Yet, I still feel uneasy with the thought of believers, especially my Catholic sisters and brothers, attending Church services only to hear the Priest or minister engage in a harangue against this or that politician or policy. Dear Lord, spare us the self-appointed prophets of the town square!
I think this is what really happened with regard to churches and politics in recent years. The Democratic Party has become so amoral and immoral in the policies it advances that any Biblical response to that immorality seems to be more political than religious.
How the Executive Order will affect the preaching from our pulpits is a question for the future.
For the moment, I find myself caught in the middle between applauding President Trump for his courage and integrity in keeping one of his bedrock campaign promises and a bit concerned that some preachers and Pastors will abuse the privilege of the protection which the Executive Order affords them.
What thinkest you?
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
AMERICAN BISHOPS MIA (Missing in Action) ON AMORIS LAETITIA
In a recent interview posted on the America Magazine website, Jesuit Ethecist, James Keenan, in response to a question about Amoris Laetitia’s reception among Catholics since its promulgation in April 2016, had this to say:
“One of the things I’ve tried to do is look beyond the United States, because the way our bishops’ conference has received it is not terribly significant. If you look at what the German, Austrian, Italian and French bishops and cardinals have done, to say nothing of the Argentinians and South Africans, you see time and again how robustly these churches have received “Amoris Laetitia.” You see a lot of innovation and acknowledgement that the pope’s summons is challenging but necessary. In the U.S., we can see Cardinal Cupich speaking and writing on“Amoris Laetitia,” and Cardinals Farrell and Tobin as well, and Bishop McElroy has addressed it through his important local synod, but we need to see something more from our other bishops.
When you start looking at what Cardinal Vingt-Trois has to say about it in Paris, what Cardinals Marx and Schönborn and the German bishops conference have done, what the Argentine bishops have done, you are naturally hopeful to see a reception here in the same way.”
Father Keenan’s remarks certainly beg the question: where is the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States on the moral and Sacramental implications of Amoris Laetita?
It is clear that, for the most part, the American Bishops are MIA (Missing in Action) on this issue.
With few exceptions, most American Bishops and the Conference as a whole have been strangely silent. Why?
The Bishops have not shown reticence to be vocal about climate change, overindustrialization, immigration and other social issues which have little or nothing to do with the essential mission of the Church to sanctify the world. The Bishops are almost immediate in their responses to issues such as gun control, taxation, medical care as well as other politically charged agendas.
But, when it comes to a question regarding the availability of the Sacraments for couples who find themselves marginalized by their marital circumstances, the Bishops have collectively lost their voices.
Why?
Is it a fear that, in taking sides with Pope Francis, they may be siding with a Pontificate whose impact upon the Church will be short-lived? Are they afraid they may find themselves out of favor with the more traditionally minded hierarchs in the Vatican who may outlive Francis?
On the other hand, why haven’t the American Bishops collectively rejected Amoris Laetitia?
Is a fear that, by doing so, they will alienate those presently in positions of power within the Vatican? Are they fearful that American Catholics have already made up their minds about the issue and whatever the Bishops say will reveal just how irrelevant their moral voices have become?
The Lord Jesus did not mince words when it came to dealing with the Jewish authority and those who clung to positions of influence or power. He insisted that one either accept or reject His teachings. He forcefully condemned who were cleverly and slyly indifferent: “'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth."
There is no question but that, for a host of reasons ranging from the scandals of the sexual abuse of minors to their radical social and ecological agendas, the American Bishops have lost the moral ear of the Catholic faithful.
Their collective silence on the issue of providing Sacramental care to countless Catholics in irregular marital situations only adds another nail to their coffin.
Where are the voices and spirits of those American Bishops whose fearless insights and advocacy for a rapproachment of the Church with the world helped inspire the reforms of Vatican Council II?
Would that such bold leadership would return to the ranks of the American hierarchy for service to the Church and for the greater honor and glory to God!
“One of the things I’ve tried to do is look beyond the United States, because the way our bishops’ conference has received it is not terribly significant. If you look at what the German, Austrian, Italian and French bishops and cardinals have done, to say nothing of the Argentinians and South Africans, you see time and again how robustly these churches have received “Amoris Laetitia.” You see a lot of innovation and acknowledgement that the pope’s summons is challenging but necessary. In the U.S., we can see Cardinal Cupich speaking and writing on“Amoris Laetitia,” and Cardinals Farrell and Tobin as well, and Bishop McElroy has addressed it through his important local synod, but we need to see something more from our other bishops.
When you start looking at what Cardinal Vingt-Trois has to say about it in Paris, what Cardinals Marx and Schönborn and the German bishops conference have done, what the Argentine bishops have done, you are naturally hopeful to see a reception here in the same way.”
Father Keenan’s remarks certainly beg the question: where is the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States on the moral and Sacramental implications of Amoris Laetita?
It is clear that, for the most part, the American Bishops are MIA (Missing in Action) on this issue.
With few exceptions, most American Bishops and the Conference as a whole have been strangely silent. Why?
The Bishops have not shown reticence to be vocal about climate change, overindustrialization, immigration and other social issues which have little or nothing to do with the essential mission of the Church to sanctify the world. The Bishops are almost immediate in their responses to issues such as gun control, taxation, medical care as well as other politically charged agendas.
But, when it comes to a question regarding the availability of the Sacraments for couples who find themselves marginalized by their marital circumstances, the Bishops have collectively lost their voices.
Why?
Is it a fear that, in taking sides with Pope Francis, they may be siding with a Pontificate whose impact upon the Church will be short-lived? Are they afraid they may find themselves out of favor with the more traditionally minded hierarchs in the Vatican who may outlive Francis?
On the other hand, why haven’t the American Bishops collectively rejected Amoris Laetitia?
Is a fear that, by doing so, they will alienate those presently in positions of power within the Vatican? Are they fearful that American Catholics have already made up their minds about the issue and whatever the Bishops say will reveal just how irrelevant their moral voices have become?
The Lord Jesus did not mince words when it came to dealing with the Jewish authority and those who clung to positions of influence or power. He insisted that one either accept or reject His teachings. He forcefully condemned who were cleverly and slyly indifferent: “'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth."
There is no question but that, for a host of reasons ranging from the scandals of the sexual abuse of minors to their radical social and ecological agendas, the American Bishops have lost the moral ear of the Catholic faithful.
Their collective silence on the issue of providing Sacramental care to countless Catholics in irregular marital situations only adds another nail to their coffin.
Where are the voices and spirits of those American Bishops whose fearless insights and advocacy for a rapproachment of the Church with the world helped inspire the reforms of Vatican Council II?
Would that such bold leadership would return to the ranks of the American hierarchy for service to the Church and for the greater honor and glory to God!
NO PRAYER, NO POWER
It is true for individuals. And it is true for churches. No prayer, no power. And humanity itself is in need spiritual power, perhaps now more than ever.
The Leonine Prayers formed a ritual that from 1884 to early 1965 was prescribed for recitation by the Priest and the people after the celebration of Mass. They were not part of the rubrics of the Mass itself, but were commonly referred to as the Prayers after Mass.
The name "Leonine" derived from the fact that they were initially introduced by Pope Leo XIII and were modified under the Pontificate of Pope Saint Pius X.
The intention for which the prayers were offered changed over time. Originally they were offered for the defense of the temporal sovereignty of the Vatican.
After this problem was settled with the Lateran Treaty of 1929, Pope Pius XI ordered them to be said for the tranquillity and freedom of the people of Russia to profess the Catholic faith. This gave rise to the unofficial use of the term Prayers for the Conversion of Russia in referring to them.
The formula of the Leonine Prayers most familiar to American Catholics consisted of the recitation of the Hail Mary three times, followed by the praying of the Hail, Holy Queen, a versicle and response, a prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel and a threefold invocation, “Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us."
On September 26, 1964, the Holy See declared that these prayers were to be suppressed, the order itself taking effect the following March 7, 1965.
I was 18 years of age and in minor seminary when the decree of suppression took force. I thought then and still do that it was a mistake to deprive the world of such a powerful witness of the invocation of prayer itself in responding to and combating against the evils of this world.
Again, simply put, no prayer, no power.
Unfortunately, many Catholics do not have a clear understanding of prayer.
Prayer is not magic. We cannot summon God as though He were a genie, waiting to grant our wishes without regard for our circumstances or the consequences.
Prayer does not make demands. While we can make requests of God in prayer, we dare not make demands. God is the Creator of the universe and does not take orders from us.
Prayer is for our benefit, not God's. We need a relationship with God, available to us through Jesus Christ and engaged primarily through prayer, because we were made to function best when we are in a proper relationship with our Creator.
Prayer is not a guarantee against suffering.
Prayer is a relationship. More specifically, prayer is the conversation of that relationship. In our prayers, we humbly communicate, worship, and sincerely seek God's face, knowing that He hears us, loves us and will respond, though not always in a manner we may expect or desire.
Since it is a conversation, it requires our input: the admission of sin and request for forgiveness, the acknowledgment of favor and a word of thankfulness, a request for a particular need, and perhaps, most importantly, a humble recognition of the sovereignty of the Divine Godhead over our lives.
But prayer, likewise, requires a goodly amount of listening on our part, allowing God to truly respond as He opens our minds and our wills to accept both the timing and the answers to our prayers best suited to bring us to salvation.
Sadly, the Church has lost track of the majesty of prayer as an ever-available and power spiritual resource in our lives, not just offered in times of crisis, but regularly in our journey of faith. Sadly, we are hardly ever reminded by of the many prayers Jesus Himself offered and how we can learn from His Divine example.
It seems today the Church is more ready to emulate the wisdom of secular society and turn to programs and funds in seeking to resolve life’s problems rather than the rich and beautiful spiritual resource of prayer.
For Catholics and all Christians, life is a journey. As we journey together, let us ask the Lord to instill within us a joyful and fruitful prayer life.
Prayer can make a profound difference in our world. But it is up to us to offer our prayers humbly and regularly.
Let us simply never forget this simple yet enduring wisdom: no prayer, no power!
The Leonine Prayers formed a ritual that from 1884 to early 1965 was prescribed for recitation by the Priest and the people after the celebration of Mass. They were not part of the rubrics of the Mass itself, but were commonly referred to as the Prayers after Mass.
The name "Leonine" derived from the fact that they were initially introduced by Pope Leo XIII and were modified under the Pontificate of Pope Saint Pius X.
The intention for which the prayers were offered changed over time. Originally they were offered for the defense of the temporal sovereignty of the Vatican.
After this problem was settled with the Lateran Treaty of 1929, Pope Pius XI ordered them to be said for the tranquillity and freedom of the people of Russia to profess the Catholic faith. This gave rise to the unofficial use of the term Prayers for the Conversion of Russia in referring to them.
The formula of the Leonine Prayers most familiar to American Catholics consisted of the recitation of the Hail Mary three times, followed by the praying of the Hail, Holy Queen, a versicle and response, a prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel and a threefold invocation, “Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us."
On September 26, 1964, the Holy See declared that these prayers were to be suppressed, the order itself taking effect the following March 7, 1965.
I was 18 years of age and in minor seminary when the decree of suppression took force. I thought then and still do that it was a mistake to deprive the world of such a powerful witness of the invocation of prayer itself in responding to and combating against the evils of this world.
Again, simply put, no prayer, no power.
Unfortunately, many Catholics do not have a clear understanding of prayer.
Prayer is not magic. We cannot summon God as though He were a genie, waiting to grant our wishes without regard for our circumstances or the consequences.
Prayer does not make demands. While we can make requests of God in prayer, we dare not make demands. God is the Creator of the universe and does not take orders from us.
Prayer is for our benefit, not God's. We need a relationship with God, available to us through Jesus Christ and engaged primarily through prayer, because we were made to function best when we are in a proper relationship with our Creator.
Prayer is not a guarantee against suffering.
Prayer is a relationship. More specifically, prayer is the conversation of that relationship. In our prayers, we humbly communicate, worship, and sincerely seek God's face, knowing that He hears us, loves us and will respond, though not always in a manner we may expect or desire.
Since it is a conversation, it requires our input: the admission of sin and request for forgiveness, the acknowledgment of favor and a word of thankfulness, a request for a particular need, and perhaps, most importantly, a humble recognition of the sovereignty of the Divine Godhead over our lives.
But prayer, likewise, requires a goodly amount of listening on our part, allowing God to truly respond as He opens our minds and our wills to accept both the timing and the answers to our prayers best suited to bring us to salvation.
Sadly, the Church has lost track of the majesty of prayer as an ever-available and power spiritual resource in our lives, not just offered in times of crisis, but regularly in our journey of faith. Sadly, we are hardly ever reminded by of the many prayers Jesus Himself offered and how we can learn from His Divine example.
It seems today the Church is more ready to emulate the wisdom of secular society and turn to programs and funds in seeking to resolve life’s problems rather than the rich and beautiful spiritual resource of prayer.
For Catholics and all Christians, life is a journey. As we journey together, let us ask the Lord to instill within us a joyful and fruitful prayer life.
Prayer can make a profound difference in our world. But it is up to us to offer our prayers humbly and regularly.
Let us simply never forget this simple yet enduring wisdom: no prayer, no power!
Monday, May 1, 2017
GETTING HONEST WITH YOUNG CATHOLICS AT THE NEXT SYNOD OF BISHOPS
Last October, Pope Francis announced the topic for the next General Assembly of Catholic Bishops: “Youth, Faith and Vocational Discernment.” The Synod will be held in Rome in October 2018.
According to a Vatican statement, the topic is an “expression of the Church’s pastoral concern for the young,” and is in continuity with findings of the two-fold synod on the family and the Pope’s controversial post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.
The topic for the 2018 synod was chosen by the majority of members on the XIV Ordinary Council of the Synod of Bishops, the body charged with drawing up the theme of the next synod.
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia is the sole American in this council, which also includes Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Austria, Cardinal Wilfrid Napier of South Africa, Cardinal Vincent Nichols of England and Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea.
The upcoming Synod aims to “accompany young people on their way of life towards maturity so that, through a process of discernment, they can discover their life project and realize it with joy, opening the encounter with God and with men, and actively participating in the building up of the Church and society.”
The fact is young adults are leaving the Church in alarming numbers. The reasons for the defection are many and varied.
Changes in life experience were generally identified as the major reason why young adults abandon an active practice of their faith. More specifically, a move away from home (often to attend college) or the pursuit of a career and work schedule made attending Church difficult, if not impossible.
Oftentimes, young people find the attitudes of those who regularly attend Church to be judgmental and hypocritical. A goodly number of young adults say they are disenchanted with their local Pastors and do not feel very connected with the spiritual and social life of their local parochial communities.
I believe that these are excuses and self-justifications which young adults use to justify their abandonment of the Catholic Faith.
Rather, I believe that young people stop practicing the Faith because they do not have a first-hand appreciation and valuation of the Church within their families. Most often, these young people have been raised in families in which the Church has no real meaning and in which the Catholic Faith was seldom, if not inconsistently, practiced. The Church was not valued or relevant to them. They had no personal attachment to the Church. Abandonment of the ritual observances and doctrinal teachings of the Church was a natural progression to adulthood in a diverse and multi-cultural society.
The next Synod of Bishops needs to understand that the Church cannot establish ministries and programs which will contain these disaffected young people in a holding-tank with the distractions of social gatherings, beer and pizza parties.
The Church needs to speak to young people frankly and honestly, sharing with them the fact that life will present them with stark choices between goodness and evil, between selflessness and selfishness, between sacrifice and self-gratification. Their choices will define not only their character as human beings but their fidelity as disciples of Christ.
If they are to be committed to the Lord and His Gospel, young people need to reminded that the pathway to that fidelity can only be found in the nourishment of their minds and hearts with the truth of the Gospel and the Grace of the Sacraments.
According to a Vatican statement, the topic is an “expression of the Church’s pastoral concern for the young,” and is in continuity with findings of the two-fold synod on the family and the Pope’s controversial post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.
The topic for the 2018 synod was chosen by the majority of members on the XIV Ordinary Council of the Synod of Bishops, the body charged with drawing up the theme of the next synod.
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia is the sole American in this council, which also includes Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Austria, Cardinal Wilfrid Napier of South Africa, Cardinal Vincent Nichols of England and Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea.
The upcoming Synod aims to “accompany young people on their way of life towards maturity so that, through a process of discernment, they can discover their life project and realize it with joy, opening the encounter with God and with men, and actively participating in the building up of the Church and society.”
The fact is young adults are leaving the Church in alarming numbers. The reasons for the defection are many and varied.
Changes in life experience were generally identified as the major reason why young adults abandon an active practice of their faith. More specifically, a move away from home (often to attend college) or the pursuit of a career and work schedule made attending Church difficult, if not impossible.
Oftentimes, young people find the attitudes of those who regularly attend Church to be judgmental and hypocritical. A goodly number of young adults say they are disenchanted with their local Pastors and do not feel very connected with the spiritual and social life of their local parochial communities.
I believe that these are excuses and self-justifications which young adults use to justify their abandonment of the Catholic Faith.
Rather, I believe that young people stop practicing the Faith because they do not have a first-hand appreciation and valuation of the Church within their families. Most often, these young people have been raised in families in which the Church has no real meaning and in which the Catholic Faith was seldom, if not inconsistently, practiced. The Church was not valued or relevant to them. They had no personal attachment to the Church. Abandonment of the ritual observances and doctrinal teachings of the Church was a natural progression to adulthood in a diverse and multi-cultural society.
The next Synod of Bishops needs to understand that the Church cannot establish ministries and programs which will contain these disaffected young people in a holding-tank with the distractions of social gatherings, beer and pizza parties.
The Church needs to speak to young people frankly and honestly, sharing with them the fact that life will present them with stark choices between goodness and evil, between selflessness and selfishness, between sacrifice and self-gratification. Their choices will define not only their character as human beings but their fidelity as disciples of Christ.
If they are to be committed to the Lord and His Gospel, young people need to reminded that the pathway to that fidelity can only be found in the nourishment of their minds and hearts with the truth of the Gospel and the Grace of the Sacraments.