I wish to take the opportunity of this post to extend to all those who regularly read my posts and to those who occasionally visit , to all family members and friends, my most sincere wishes and prayers for a safe and Happy Thanksgiving Day celebration.
Permit me also to inform you that, beginning today until December 4th or thereabouts, I shall not be publishing any posts.
The reason?
I shall not have access to the Internet during this period of time.
When I do return to posting again, I am assured by my cable provider that the new service to be installed will allow me to offer a variety of features my present service does not.
I am told that the upcoming Holiday Season is adding to the delay for the installation of new fiber optic equipment in the area.
I apologize to all those who find my posts interesting and worthy of their attention and comment.
Thanks to all of you for your kindness and encouragement.
I hope to see you here again after the new service is installed, up and (please God) actually running.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Father Joe
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Saturday, November 18, 2017
CARDINAL BURKE'S FINAL PLEA: CAN WE BUT HOPE SO
Cardinal Raymond Burke has again addressed the Pope, in what he calls a “final plea”, emphasizing “how urgent it is that, in exercising the ministry he has received from the Lord, the Pope should confirm his brothers in the faith with a clear expression of the teaching regarding both Christian morality and the meaning of the Church’s sacramental practice.”
The Holy Father has not yet responded to the original five-question dubia, signed by Cardinal Burke, along with Cardinal Walter Brandmüller and recently deceased Cardinals Joachim Meisner and Carlo Caffarra.
The Cardinals have sought to ascertain, among other matters, whether previous Church teaching forbidding civilly “remarried” divorcees engaging in sexual relations to receive the Sacraments remained in force.
Cardinal Burke has insisted that Amoris Laetitia has subverted essential teachings and practices pertaining to the Church’s Deposit of Faith (Scripture and Tradition). His Eminence alleges that the Holy Father and proponents of his Apostolic Exhortation have relativized absolute moral norms given “subjective, self-referential conscience” primacy in moral matters. Cardinal Burke further claims that the Exhortation represents a “paradigm shift” regarding the Church’s entire moral practice.
What is bothersome about Cardinal Burke’s assertion that Amoris Laetitia’s subversion of Church teaching is that he must know that his claim is untrue. Nowhere in the document does the Holy Father assert that Sacramental Marriage is dissoluble by any human agency, including the parties to the marriage itself, civil authority, or even the Church itself.
Cardinal Burke is fully aware that nowhere does the Exhortation suggest that couples in invalidly attempted second marriages, who fully engage in conjugal relations, are not engaged in actions clearly in violation of the teachings of the Gospel and Church Magisterium.
And His Eminence must admit that the Exhortation calls upon those precisely in such situations to seek the counsel of their Sacred Pastors in the process of seeking Sacramental absolution and a return to a full practice of their Catholic Faith.
What is troubling is the fact that Cardinal Burke must know and admit these truths, but denies them nonetheless.
But His Eminence is indeed correct that Amoris Laetitia does represent a “paradigm shift”. The shift itself, however, is not in Church teaching, but in the Church’s dispensation of mercy and forgiveness.
Pope Francis has been exceedingly clear. Couples in invalid marriages find themselves in situations which objectively contravene the moral prescriptions of the Scriptures and the consistent moral teachings of Church Magisterium. There is no “paradigm shift” in this position.
The “paradigm shift” to which His Eminence refers is found in the Holy Father’s offer of mercy in affording these couples access to the Grace of the Sacraments. Pope Francis chooses to embrace rather than punish and abandon these souls to a state of hopelessness and isolation.
The “paradigm shift” to which the Cardinal alludes is not one of moral doctrine, but one of charity and reconciliation.
To Peter and the Apostles, Christ gave the absolute power to release or bind from sin. No one can deny that, throughout its history, the Church has been all too eager to bind and overly hesitant to release.
Now comes Francis who is eager to emulate the generosity of Christ in the dispensation of mercy, the same Christ Who -- while we were still sinners -- offered His Life for the forgiveness of sins, all sins, for all time.
In His Death on the Cross, Jesus did not deny that mankind had sinned, was in the state of sin or would continue to sin in the future. Jesus chose to forgive and offer that forgiveness to anyone who would hunger for Divine Mercy and pardon.
Pope Francis does not deny the objective sinfulness of invalid second marriages, he chooses instead to offer a pathway to pardon and redemption.
Why are Cardinal Burke and the neo-conservative reactionaries which he eagerly enables and from whom he seeks constant affirmation so offended?
I am reminded of the haunting words of Jesus in the Parable of the generous householder who pays the laborers who came late to the field the same as those who toiled in the sun all day. “Are you jealous because I am generous....”
His Eminence is correct. The Pontificate of Pope Francis shifts the mission of the Church from judgment to mercy, from the Tribunal of Divine Justice to the Altar of Sublime Charity.
The Holy Father chooses to be as generous in forgiveness as was Jesus Himself. For this, the Pope should be commended. Instead, Cardinal Burke and his associates castigate him.
Why?
I have always been confused by those who would deny sinners access to the very Graces which could assist in their conversion.
If Sacramental Absolution requires the conversion of spirit evidenced in a full purpose of amendment which the Church has consistently taught is necessary, then what need is there for the Sacrament itself. If the penitent has already achieved the full conversion which the Sacrament requires, what does the Sacrament itself effect? Or is Absolution just the official seal of approval of a conversion of spirit which has and must already precede it?
Conversion is a process not an event. It requires patience, understanding, the acceptance of human frailty and repeated missteps. Along the way, there are many victories and many defeats.
The Church must be present ALL ALONG THE WAY, not employing the tactics of spiritual blackmail or ultimatum, but offering words of comfort and hope.
Any true Pastor of souls understands this.
Cardinal Burke insists upon the dotting of every “i” and the crossing of every “t” in respecting the laws and disciplines of the Church.
Sadly, he forgets the most fundamental of all those laws: the salvation of souls.
There is a hardness of heart lurking beneath the clamor and laments of His Eminence.
That saddens me greatly. For, the Cardinal himself suffers most by denying that Christ and His Bride, the Church, want to offer a sinful and wounded humanity the inspiration and hope which Our Savior wishes us to know and experience in this life as well as the life to come.
Asking first and foremost, as I must, that the Lord to forgive my own sinfulness, I ask the Lord to melt that hardness of heart in His Eminence and all those so prone to judge others and deny them the assistance, encouragement and refreshment of spirit that come from the Sacraments.
The Holy Father has not yet responded to the original five-question dubia, signed by Cardinal Burke, along with Cardinal Walter Brandmüller and recently deceased Cardinals Joachim Meisner and Carlo Caffarra.
The Cardinals have sought to ascertain, among other matters, whether previous Church teaching forbidding civilly “remarried” divorcees engaging in sexual relations to receive the Sacraments remained in force.
Cardinal Burke has insisted that Amoris Laetitia has subverted essential teachings and practices pertaining to the Church’s Deposit of Faith (Scripture and Tradition). His Eminence alleges that the Holy Father and proponents of his Apostolic Exhortation have relativized absolute moral norms given “subjective, self-referential conscience” primacy in moral matters. Cardinal Burke further claims that the Exhortation represents a “paradigm shift” regarding the Church’s entire moral practice.
What is bothersome about Cardinal Burke’s assertion that Amoris Laetitia’s subversion of Church teaching is that he must know that his claim is untrue. Nowhere in the document does the Holy Father assert that Sacramental Marriage is dissoluble by any human agency, including the parties to the marriage itself, civil authority, or even the Church itself.
Cardinal Burke is fully aware that nowhere does the Exhortation suggest that couples in invalidly attempted second marriages, who fully engage in conjugal relations, are not engaged in actions clearly in violation of the teachings of the Gospel and Church Magisterium.
And His Eminence must admit that the Exhortation calls upon those precisely in such situations to seek the counsel of their Sacred Pastors in the process of seeking Sacramental absolution and a return to a full practice of their Catholic Faith.
What is troubling is the fact that Cardinal Burke must know and admit these truths, but denies them nonetheless.
But His Eminence is indeed correct that Amoris Laetitia does represent a “paradigm shift”. The shift itself, however, is not in Church teaching, but in the Church’s dispensation of mercy and forgiveness.
Pope Francis has been exceedingly clear. Couples in invalid marriages find themselves in situations which objectively contravene the moral prescriptions of the Scriptures and the consistent moral teachings of Church Magisterium. There is no “paradigm shift” in this position.
The “paradigm shift” to which His Eminence refers is found in the Holy Father’s offer of mercy in affording these couples access to the Grace of the Sacraments. Pope Francis chooses to embrace rather than punish and abandon these souls to a state of hopelessness and isolation.
The “paradigm shift” to which the Cardinal alludes is not one of moral doctrine, but one of charity and reconciliation.
To Peter and the Apostles, Christ gave the absolute power to release or bind from sin. No one can deny that, throughout its history, the Church has been all too eager to bind and overly hesitant to release.
Now comes Francis who is eager to emulate the generosity of Christ in the dispensation of mercy, the same Christ Who -- while we were still sinners -- offered His Life for the forgiveness of sins, all sins, for all time.
In His Death on the Cross, Jesus did not deny that mankind had sinned, was in the state of sin or would continue to sin in the future. Jesus chose to forgive and offer that forgiveness to anyone who would hunger for Divine Mercy and pardon.
Pope Francis does not deny the objective sinfulness of invalid second marriages, he chooses instead to offer a pathway to pardon and redemption.
Why are Cardinal Burke and the neo-conservative reactionaries which he eagerly enables and from whom he seeks constant affirmation so offended?
I am reminded of the haunting words of Jesus in the Parable of the generous householder who pays the laborers who came late to the field the same as those who toiled in the sun all day. “Are you jealous because I am generous....”
His Eminence is correct. The Pontificate of Pope Francis shifts the mission of the Church from judgment to mercy, from the Tribunal of Divine Justice to the Altar of Sublime Charity.
The Holy Father chooses to be as generous in forgiveness as was Jesus Himself. For this, the Pope should be commended. Instead, Cardinal Burke and his associates castigate him.
Why?
I have always been confused by those who would deny sinners access to the very Graces which could assist in their conversion.
If Sacramental Absolution requires the conversion of spirit evidenced in a full purpose of amendment which the Church has consistently taught is necessary, then what need is there for the Sacrament itself. If the penitent has already achieved the full conversion which the Sacrament requires, what does the Sacrament itself effect? Or is Absolution just the official seal of approval of a conversion of spirit which has and must already precede it?
Conversion is a process not an event. It requires patience, understanding, the acceptance of human frailty and repeated missteps. Along the way, there are many victories and many defeats.
The Church must be present ALL ALONG THE WAY, not employing the tactics of spiritual blackmail or ultimatum, but offering words of comfort and hope.
Any true Pastor of souls understands this.
Cardinal Burke insists upon the dotting of every “i” and the crossing of every “t” in respecting the laws and disciplines of the Church.
Sadly, he forgets the most fundamental of all those laws: the salvation of souls.
There is a hardness of heart lurking beneath the clamor and laments of His Eminence.
That saddens me greatly. For, the Cardinal himself suffers most by denying that Christ and His Bride, the Church, want to offer a sinful and wounded humanity the inspiration and hope which Our Savior wishes us to know and experience in this life as well as the life to come.
Asking first and foremost, as I must, that the Lord to forgive my own sinfulness, I ask the Lord to melt that hardness of heart in His Eminence and all those so prone to judge others and deny them the assistance, encouragement and refreshment of spirit that come from the Sacraments.
Friday, November 17, 2017
POPE FRANCIS AND THE MORAL IMPERATIVES OF END OF LIFE ISSUES
In a letter to Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, just released this week, Pope Francis extended his personal greetings to the participants in the European Regional Meeting of the World Medical Association on end-of-life issues, which took place at the Vatican recently.
Pope Francis emphasized that, when faced with the new challenges that arise with regard to “end-of-life” issues, “the categorical imperative is to never abandon the sick.”
The Pope continued: “The anguish associated with conditions that bring us to the threshold of human mortality, and the difficulty of the decision we have to make, may tempt us to step back from the patient. Yet this is where, more than anything else, we are called to show love and closeness, recognizing the limit that we all share and showing our solidarity.”
The Holy Father called for “greater wisdom” in striking a balance between medical efforts to prolong life, and the responsible decision to withhold treatment when death becomes inevitable. “It is clear that not adopting, or else suspending, disproportionate measures, means avoiding overzealous treatment,” the Pope said.
But he insisted: “From an ethical standpoint, it is completely different from euthanasia, which is always wrong, in that the intent of euthanasia is to end life and cause death.”
Pope Francis acknowledged that it is often difficult to determine the proper course of action in increasingly complex cases. “There needs to be a careful discernment of the moral object, the attending circumstances, and the intentions of those involved,” he said, pointing to the traditional criteria of moral theology for evaluating human actions. But in this process, he insisted “the patient has the primary role.”
The Pope concluded that it is important to find agreed solutions to “these sensitive issues.” He, likewise, emphasized the need to recognize different world views and ethical systems, and noted the duty of the state to protect the dignity of every human person, especially the most vulnerable.
Certainly, advances in medical science and technology are providing treatments that were inconceivable a generation ago. In many cases, the life process can be extended well beyond the limits of what in the past would have been considered impossible.
Medico-moral decisions are becoming increasingly complex and the Church certainly needs to provide clear and convincing guidance to patients, family members and doctors as they seek to determine the right and proper course of treatment for those who are at the brink of death.
The Holy Father’s remarks to the Pontifical Academy for Life and the World Medical Association are commendable.
The ethical and moral questions regarding end of life issues will continue to be of concern as science delves more deeply into the biological processes that both determine and extend the life process.
Through it all, the Church must be present and helpful along the pathway of the technological advancements yet to be made.
The Holy Father has highlighted the reality that the line between life and death is becoming thinner with each medical discovery and its attendant treatment.
By insisting the “the patient exercises the primary role” in determining his medical condition and the desire for treatments which may extend life, the Pope has provided a safeguard against end of life decisions being made by others for any number of reasons which may or may not be related to the best interests and care of the patient himself.
In the end, the clearest moral imperative remains, that is, to be comforting and loving to the dying, assisting them with attention and prayer that they depart this life with dignity and grace in the hope of eternal salvation.
This is a message the world at large, not just the medical profession, needs to hear and embrace.
Pope Francis emphasized that, when faced with the new challenges that arise with regard to “end-of-life” issues, “the categorical imperative is to never abandon the sick.”
The Pope continued: “The anguish associated with conditions that bring us to the threshold of human mortality, and the difficulty of the decision we have to make, may tempt us to step back from the patient. Yet this is where, more than anything else, we are called to show love and closeness, recognizing the limit that we all share and showing our solidarity.”
The Holy Father called for “greater wisdom” in striking a balance between medical efforts to prolong life, and the responsible decision to withhold treatment when death becomes inevitable. “It is clear that not adopting, or else suspending, disproportionate measures, means avoiding overzealous treatment,” the Pope said.
But he insisted: “From an ethical standpoint, it is completely different from euthanasia, which is always wrong, in that the intent of euthanasia is to end life and cause death.”
Pope Francis acknowledged that it is often difficult to determine the proper course of action in increasingly complex cases. “There needs to be a careful discernment of the moral object, the attending circumstances, and the intentions of those involved,” he said, pointing to the traditional criteria of moral theology for evaluating human actions. But in this process, he insisted “the patient has the primary role.”
The Pope concluded that it is important to find agreed solutions to “these sensitive issues.” He, likewise, emphasized the need to recognize different world views and ethical systems, and noted the duty of the state to protect the dignity of every human person, especially the most vulnerable.
Certainly, advances in medical science and technology are providing treatments that were inconceivable a generation ago. In many cases, the life process can be extended well beyond the limits of what in the past would have been considered impossible.
Medico-moral decisions are becoming increasingly complex and the Church certainly needs to provide clear and convincing guidance to patients, family members and doctors as they seek to determine the right and proper course of treatment for those who are at the brink of death.
The Holy Father’s remarks to the Pontifical Academy for Life and the World Medical Association are commendable.
The ethical and moral questions regarding end of life issues will continue to be of concern as science delves more deeply into the biological processes that both determine and extend the life process.
Through it all, the Church must be present and helpful along the pathway of the technological advancements yet to be made.
The Holy Father has highlighted the reality that the line between life and death is becoming thinner with each medical discovery and its attendant treatment.
By insisting the “the patient exercises the primary role” in determining his medical condition and the desire for treatments which may extend life, the Pope has provided a safeguard against end of life decisions being made by others for any number of reasons which may or may not be related to the best interests and care of the patient himself.
In the end, the clearest moral imperative remains, that is, to be comforting and loving to the dying, assisting them with attention and prayer that they depart this life with dignity and grace in the hope of eternal salvation.
This is a message the world at large, not just the medical profession, needs to hear and embrace.
Thursday, November 16, 2017
WHAT THE AMERICAN BISHOPS NEED TO HEAR BUT DIDN'T AT THEIR GENERAL ASSEMBLY
This is the story of Catholicism in America today.
This is the story which the recent General Assembly of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) should have heard but lacked the willingness or courage to do so.
This is the story of a shift in contemporary American Catholicism.
It is not pretty!
Secularism is a powerful cultural truth about the American people and American Catholics as well.
Indifference (perhaps even a growing hostility) toward traditional Catholic values as well as increasing numbers of those who have abandoned the practice of the Faith appear to reinforce the conclusion that American Catholics are evolving (devolving?) into materialistic and self-centered persons more concerned about their quality of life rather than their eternal redemption.
What cannot be denied (but what the American Bishops clearly and willfully choose to ignore) is the fact that more and more Catholics are turning away from the Church.
For all the defensive cries from neo-conservative reactionary Catholics who see the Pontificate of Pope Francis as a rejection of their romantic and pseudo-nostalgic infatuation with the "traditional" Church, the fact is that the allegiance declared by many Catholics in the past was rather shallow.
In former times, people readily identified as Catholics or members of Christian denominations. But, practically, this did not mean very much.
The reality was that more and more Catholics had ceased attending Mass or confessing their sins, and more importantly, had ceased assimilating Catholic teachings and morality in the course of living out their daily lives.
What the Bishops seem loathe to admit is that there has been a critical cultural shift away from Judeo-Christian values, and even more specifically away from Catholicism itself.
True, Catholics still represent the largest Christian denomination in America, but the fact is secularism and the disturbing rise of practical-atheism has found and is finding growing resonance in every part of the country as well as across all age and ethnic groups.
The number of those who identify themselves as atheists is almost double what it was a decade ago. And it is not just the young and the healthy who are turning away from God; it is growing numbers of aging “baby boomers” who are increasingly discovering that death is at their front door.
The American Bishops are reluctant to admit the fact that, at their core, growing numbers of Catholics are not believers, let alone true believers.
While this has been no secret in the more liberal venues of the East and West Coast, the growing rise in secularism and self-professed atheism is progressing faster and becoming more entrenched in the heartland of the country.
Catholic census reports indicate that the number of practicing Catholics who have abandoned the practice of their Faith grows with each passing year.
Then again, I have always thought that the census numbers were bogus.
There is simply no practical way to what number of “official" Catholics on the books actually practice their Faith.
The Universal Church boasts “billions of souls" by virtue of Baptismal records. But there is no official record of the fallen-away, who are increasing willing to admit that they have definitively left the Church.
Other Catholics identify themselves as such as a kind of “default” position, not out of personal conviction, but simply because are at a loss or just hesitant to tell census-takers what they really think.
There is little doubt that Americans in general, and a goodly number of Catholics among them, are increasingly a secular people living “in the moment”, not caring about future consequences in this life or in the next.
Contemporary American Catholics are less inclined to accept any call to sacrifice or the postponement of personal gratification now for a greater reward at a later time.
In the face of these realities, the Bishops persist in “navel gazing”, concerned with such nonsensical topics as the precise vernacular translation of Latin rituals in the performance of exorcisms!
For goodness sake!
The entire leadership of the American Catholic Church, gathered this week for the manifest purpose of offering guidance, encouragement and support to those entrusted to their spiritual care.
The fact is that few, if any, Catholics will listen to anything they say.
Instead, they will turn on their TVs or surf the Net as they are prone to do, looking for truth from the tube or wisdom from the keyboard.
In reality, Jimmy Kimmel, CNN, the Huffington Post all have more relevance in forming moral attitudes and beliefs these days than than any of the American Bishops.
American Catholicism is going the way of European Church, giving way to materialism and secularism.
Sadly, so sadly, the Bishops of this country appear to be among the least able and effective at stopping the hemorrhage of souls abandoning the truths of the Gospel as well as the powerful grace of the Holy Spirit.
This is the story which the recent General Assembly of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) should have heard but lacked the willingness or courage to do so.
This is the story of a shift in contemporary American Catholicism.
It is not pretty!
Secularism is a powerful cultural truth about the American people and American Catholics as well.
Indifference (perhaps even a growing hostility) toward traditional Catholic values as well as increasing numbers of those who have abandoned the practice of the Faith appear to reinforce the conclusion that American Catholics are evolving (devolving?) into materialistic and self-centered persons more concerned about their quality of life rather than their eternal redemption.
What cannot be denied (but what the American Bishops clearly and willfully choose to ignore) is the fact that more and more Catholics are turning away from the Church.
For all the defensive cries from neo-conservative reactionary Catholics who see the Pontificate of Pope Francis as a rejection of their romantic and pseudo-nostalgic infatuation with the "traditional" Church, the fact is that the allegiance declared by many Catholics in the past was rather shallow.
In former times, people readily identified as Catholics or members of Christian denominations. But, practically, this did not mean very much.
The reality was that more and more Catholics had ceased attending Mass or confessing their sins, and more importantly, had ceased assimilating Catholic teachings and morality in the course of living out their daily lives.
What the Bishops seem loathe to admit is that there has been a critical cultural shift away from Judeo-Christian values, and even more specifically away from Catholicism itself.
True, Catholics still represent the largest Christian denomination in America, but the fact is secularism and the disturbing rise of practical-atheism has found and is finding growing resonance in every part of the country as well as across all age and ethnic groups.
The number of those who identify themselves as atheists is almost double what it was a decade ago. And it is not just the young and the healthy who are turning away from God; it is growing numbers of aging “baby boomers” who are increasingly discovering that death is at their front door.
The American Bishops are reluctant to admit the fact that, at their core, growing numbers of Catholics are not believers, let alone true believers.
While this has been no secret in the more liberal venues of the East and West Coast, the growing rise in secularism and self-professed atheism is progressing faster and becoming more entrenched in the heartland of the country.
Catholic census reports indicate that the number of practicing Catholics who have abandoned the practice of their Faith grows with each passing year.
Then again, I have always thought that the census numbers were bogus.
There is simply no practical way to what number of “official" Catholics on the books actually practice their Faith.
The Universal Church boasts “billions of souls" by virtue of Baptismal records. But there is no official record of the fallen-away, who are increasing willing to admit that they have definitively left the Church.
Other Catholics identify themselves as such as a kind of “default” position, not out of personal conviction, but simply because are at a loss or just hesitant to tell census-takers what they really think.
There is little doubt that Americans in general, and a goodly number of Catholics among them, are increasingly a secular people living “in the moment”, not caring about future consequences in this life or in the next.
Contemporary American Catholics are less inclined to accept any call to sacrifice or the postponement of personal gratification now for a greater reward at a later time.
In the face of these realities, the Bishops persist in “navel gazing”, concerned with such nonsensical topics as the precise vernacular translation of Latin rituals in the performance of exorcisms!
For goodness sake!
The entire leadership of the American Catholic Church, gathered this week for the manifest purpose of offering guidance, encouragement and support to those entrusted to their spiritual care.
The fact is that few, if any, Catholics will listen to anything they say.
Instead, they will turn on their TVs or surf the Net as they are prone to do, looking for truth from the tube or wisdom from the keyboard.
In reality, Jimmy Kimmel, CNN, the Huffington Post all have more relevance in forming moral attitudes and beliefs these days than than any of the American Bishops.
American Catholicism is going the way of European Church, giving way to materialism and secularism.
Sadly, so sadly, the Bishops of this country appear to be among the least able and effective at stopping the hemorrhage of souls abandoning the truths of the Gospel as well as the powerful grace of the Holy Spirit.
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
THE DISTURBING AND TELLING PLENARY MEETING OF THE USCCB
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voted 96 to 82 to name Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann Chairman of the Pro-life Committee, winning out against Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago.
Typically, the progressive partisans within the Body of Christ interpret the vote as a “pushback" against Pope Francis' agenda for the Church, as American Catholic Bishops appeared to bring with their customary practice in electing a decidely conservative Archbishop to lead a committee which for four decades has been headed by a Cardinal.
Liberal-leaning Catholic pundits suggest that the American Bishops are sending a message to Rome that they do not share Pope Francis' vision for the Church.
Neo-conservative reactionaries have voiced concern (nothing seems ever to console these poor souls) that Archbishop Naumann’s slight margin of victory suggest that there is growing support for Pope Francis among the USCCB members.
Personally, I support neither the liberal nor neo-conservative interpretation of the vote.
Instead, I look elsewhere to determine where the USCCB members stand in relation to the Holy See. In that searh, I find other dynamics which are more telling and disquieting.
Immigration it appears has become the single most prominent issue of concern and attention by the Bishops. Even so, the leadership of the Conference did not display a sense of urgency in addressing the matter.
During the immigration discussion, Michael Sheehan, Archbishop-emeritus of Santa Fe, New Mexico, asked if the Conference might issue a statement of support for immigrants during the course of the plenary session.
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, President of the Conference, responded by noting that such a proposal was not on the agenda schedule for this General Assembly. His Eminence suggested that, instead of rushing ahead with such a move, perhaps he could issue a statement on behalf of the entire USCCB at a later time.
Members went on to listen to and discuss the same tired issues which have been the focus of the USCCB for decades, concerns that seem to have been taken from the platform of the National Democratic Party rather than the Deposit of Faith. Gun control, health care, tax reform, global warning. Oh my!
Pope Francis has challenged the Church, specifically regional and national Conferences of Bishops, to adopt a mature and responsible attitude regarding the mission of the Church to introduce and invite the world to the Mercy of Christ.
The Pope has been crystal clear that the Church for too long has been out of sync and out of touch with real life issues which Christians as well as non-believers confront on a daily basis.
The Holy Father has called upon Bishops to exercise the collegial role (primarily through the policies they adopt in their regional and national Conferences) which they must accept in responding to the pastoral needs of those entrusted to their care.
The USCCB is completely oblivious to Pope Francis’ call to action.
Such a lack of awareness of the Holy Father’s invitation to return to the ancient “synodal” model of Church teaching and governance by the USCCB members is disturbing.
This year’s General Assembly will produce a mountain of paperwork and perpetuate entrenched bureaucratic lethargy in fulfilling the primary mission of the Church: to bring wounded souls to the Merciful Savior, Jesus Christ.
The Holy Father’s enthusiasm in calling all Bishops to exercise the apostolic ministry which is properly theirs is commendable.
Unfortunately, the USCCB seems incapable and willfully reluctant to receive and accept this responsibility.
Typically, the progressive partisans within the Body of Christ interpret the vote as a “pushback" against Pope Francis' agenda for the Church, as American Catholic Bishops appeared to bring with their customary practice in electing a decidely conservative Archbishop to lead a committee which for four decades has been headed by a Cardinal.
Liberal-leaning Catholic pundits suggest that the American Bishops are sending a message to Rome that they do not share Pope Francis' vision for the Church.
Neo-conservative reactionaries have voiced concern (nothing seems ever to console these poor souls) that Archbishop Naumann’s slight margin of victory suggest that there is growing support for Pope Francis among the USCCB members.
Personally, I support neither the liberal nor neo-conservative interpretation of the vote.
Instead, I look elsewhere to determine where the USCCB members stand in relation to the Holy See. In that searh, I find other dynamics which are more telling and disquieting.
Immigration it appears has become the single most prominent issue of concern and attention by the Bishops. Even so, the leadership of the Conference did not display a sense of urgency in addressing the matter.
During the immigration discussion, Michael Sheehan, Archbishop-emeritus of Santa Fe, New Mexico, asked if the Conference might issue a statement of support for immigrants during the course of the plenary session.
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, President of the Conference, responded by noting that such a proposal was not on the agenda schedule for this General Assembly. His Eminence suggested that, instead of rushing ahead with such a move, perhaps he could issue a statement on behalf of the entire USCCB at a later time.
Members went on to listen to and discuss the same tired issues which have been the focus of the USCCB for decades, concerns that seem to have been taken from the platform of the National Democratic Party rather than the Deposit of Faith. Gun control, health care, tax reform, global warning. Oh my!
Pope Francis has challenged the Church, specifically regional and national Conferences of Bishops, to adopt a mature and responsible attitude regarding the mission of the Church to introduce and invite the world to the Mercy of Christ.
The Pope has been crystal clear that the Church for too long has been out of sync and out of touch with real life issues which Christians as well as non-believers confront on a daily basis.
The Holy Father has called upon Bishops to exercise the collegial role (primarily through the policies they adopt in their regional and national Conferences) which they must accept in responding to the pastoral needs of those entrusted to their care.
The USCCB is completely oblivious to Pope Francis’ call to action.
Such a lack of awareness of the Holy Father’s invitation to return to the ancient “synodal” model of Church teaching and governance by the USCCB members is disturbing.
This year’s General Assembly will produce a mountain of paperwork and perpetuate entrenched bureaucratic lethargy in fulfilling the primary mission of the Church: to bring wounded souls to the Merciful Savior, Jesus Christ.
The Holy Father’s enthusiasm in calling all Bishops to exercise the apostolic ministry which is properly theirs is commendable.
Unfortunately, the USCCB seems incapable and willfully reluctant to receive and accept this responsibility.
A PERNICIOUSLY ANEMIC CATHOLIC CHURCH
Pernicious anemia is a condition in which the body cannot make enough red blood cells because it does not have enough vitamin B12, according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Symptoms of pernicious anemia include fatigue, loss of appetite, pale skin and difficulty concentrating. Shortness of breath; confusion; balance problems and numbness may also occur. Some people with pernicious anemia have no symptoms.
Looking at the progressive shift away from religious sentiment and practice that has been happening for a long time, one can say metaphorically that the European Catholicism is suffering similar symptoms from its own form of pernicious anemia. The cause: secularization.
In the various statistics which I have presented in numerous past postings, there is convincing evidence that the decline in Catholic practice throughout Europe is factual.
Likewise, there is little doubt that the official Catholic response throughout Europe to these developments has proved anemic and ineffective.
My consistent metaphor for European Catholicism is that the Catholic Church in Europe is dead and the Bishops are its pall bearers.
One has only to recall the recent remarks of Cardinal Marx who stated that the greatest challenge facing Europe today is climate change!
For pity's sake!
Many Western European Catholics have embraced a liberal theology as the best way of engaging the secular European mindset. The effect, however, has been to empty much of Catholic life of any distinct content.
Both in Europe and in the Americas, Catholics take their primary cues from whatever is happening in the world. In this effort, they gravitate towards secular left-liberal preoccupations rather than the Scriptures and 2000 years of Christian reflection.
This has left many Catholics with little to say about anything which has not be said by the typical secularist. So why listen to the what the Church has to say about anything at all?
What is particularly salvific in about global warming or a new world order?
The secularization of Europe, the harbinger of the fate of Western Catholicism in general, is of particular concern. In this regard, the bureaucratization of much of the Church throughout Europe is noteworthy.
In Germany, for example, the state levies a tax on people who belong to particular churches. These revenues help the church pay for the upkeep of historical buildings and fund its extensive welfare and humanitarian services. That is one reason why the Catholic Church is Germany’s second largest private employer.
Whether there’s anything especially Christian about how the German Church delivers social welfare is debatable.
But an associated and deeper problem is the accompanying bureaucratization of Church life. This contributes to unhealthy trends, such as prioritizing institutional maintenance over spreading the Gospel. Bureaucratization also facilitates resistance to any initiatives which imply that the present state of Catholicism is dysfunctional.
When combined with the liberal theology that dominates German-speaking Catholicism, the result is the worst of all worlds: a Church that resembles an appendage of the welfare state and which self-marginalizes its core messages.
Throughout Catholic Europe, there’s also plenty of resignation to secularization. In some instances, there is an unspoken assumption that Catholicism should morph into liberal Protestantism. One might conclude from his many remarks about the Protestant Reformation, that the Holy Father himself might welcome such a development.
But a secularized, anemic and ineffectual Catholicism would appear to guarantee little other than permanent decline and eventual extinction.
Europe is perhaps the poster-child for the way of contemporary Catholicism. And the symptoms of such a persistent and pernicious religious pathology are spreading quickly throughout the Americas (North and South) as well.
The antidote remains elusive.
One only hopes a spiritual remedy can be found before the patient, the Body of Christ itself, becomes terminal.
Symptoms of pernicious anemia include fatigue, loss of appetite, pale skin and difficulty concentrating. Shortness of breath; confusion; balance problems and numbness may also occur. Some people with pernicious anemia have no symptoms.
Looking at the progressive shift away from religious sentiment and practice that has been happening for a long time, one can say metaphorically that the European Catholicism is suffering similar symptoms from its own form of pernicious anemia. The cause: secularization.
In the various statistics which I have presented in numerous past postings, there is convincing evidence that the decline in Catholic practice throughout Europe is factual.
Likewise, there is little doubt that the official Catholic response throughout Europe to these developments has proved anemic and ineffective.
My consistent metaphor for European Catholicism is that the Catholic Church in Europe is dead and the Bishops are its pall bearers.
One has only to recall the recent remarks of Cardinal Marx who stated that the greatest challenge facing Europe today is climate change!
For pity's sake!
Many Western European Catholics have embraced a liberal theology as the best way of engaging the secular European mindset. The effect, however, has been to empty much of Catholic life of any distinct content.
Both in Europe and in the Americas, Catholics take their primary cues from whatever is happening in the world. In this effort, they gravitate towards secular left-liberal preoccupations rather than the Scriptures and 2000 years of Christian reflection.
This has left many Catholics with little to say about anything which has not be said by the typical secularist. So why listen to the what the Church has to say about anything at all?
What is particularly salvific in about global warming or a new world order?
The secularization of Europe, the harbinger of the fate of Western Catholicism in general, is of particular concern. In this regard, the bureaucratization of much of the Church throughout Europe is noteworthy.
In Germany, for example, the state levies a tax on people who belong to particular churches. These revenues help the church pay for the upkeep of historical buildings and fund its extensive welfare and humanitarian services. That is one reason why the Catholic Church is Germany’s second largest private employer.
Whether there’s anything especially Christian about how the German Church delivers social welfare is debatable.
But an associated and deeper problem is the accompanying bureaucratization of Church life. This contributes to unhealthy trends, such as prioritizing institutional maintenance over spreading the Gospel. Bureaucratization also facilitates resistance to any initiatives which imply that the present state of Catholicism is dysfunctional.
When combined with the liberal theology that dominates German-speaking Catholicism, the result is the worst of all worlds: a Church that resembles an appendage of the welfare state and which self-marginalizes its core messages.
Throughout Catholic Europe, there’s also plenty of resignation to secularization. In some instances, there is an unspoken assumption that Catholicism should morph into liberal Protestantism. One might conclude from his many remarks about the Protestant Reformation, that the Holy Father himself might welcome such a development.
But a secularized, anemic and ineffectual Catholicism would appear to guarantee little other than permanent decline and eventual extinction.
Europe is perhaps the poster-child for the way of contemporary Catholicism. And the symptoms of such a persistent and pernicious religious pathology are spreading quickly throughout the Americas (North and South) as well.
The antidote remains elusive.
One only hopes a spiritual remedy can be found before the patient, the Body of Christ itself, becomes terminal.
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF USCCB OFF TO AN UNPROMISING START
The General Assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is meeting this week and once again it is clear that the Catholic Church in America finds itself lacking the clear pastoral leadership necessary to respond to the spiritual crisis among the faithful, both clergy and laity alike.
Once again, the Bishops will introduce new programs with a great deal of fanfare, all promising to bring people back to the Church. But these new gimmicks will look very much like those of the past. They will require a great deal of financial resource, bureaucratic support, organizational structure and a heck of a lot of human resource and energy. But they will lack any real substance and be as lackluster in results as those which have preceded them and failed to achieve any substantive spiritual conversion.
As I listen to the various Committee reports and the discussions which follow, the pattern is the same. Everything is reducible to administrative concerns, or psychology or sociology. Very little in their conversation is truly spiritual or religious.
Listening to Cardinal DiNardo, President of the Conference, in his opening remarks to the Conference attendees, I could have been listening to the Chairman of the Democratic Platform Committee. Racism, immigration reform, health care, welfare, pietistically framed but of no particular import when it comes to developing or nurturing personal or communal sanctity.
All indicators point to a serious spiritual crisis within the Church and yet the Bishops seem incapable (and clearly unwilling) to exercise any real pastoral leadership.
Pastors are aging, with little hope of sufficient numbers to replace them. Pressure is brought to bear upon them to balance budgets, to comply with mandates imposed upon them by bloated and self-sustaining diocesan agencies. Meetings upon meetings abound to promote the latest programs or fundraising schemes. And only rarely are Priests encouraged or supported by their Bishops, and then only in passing.
Little wonder, the USCCB is consistently silent about the challenges facing Pastors and the need for constant spiritual and fraternal support.
The same need is evident among the laity. Mass attendance keeps falling. Church weddings and baptisms are also declining. Confession is almost a rarity. The indications of a crisis are evident everywhere. What is the USCCB’s response?
Avoiding the spiritual crisis altogether by seeking relevance in what is politically correct at any given moment.
I have asked myself why that is so many times. And I guess that is the way bureaucratic organisms function. Rather than addressing problems deeply rooted in a loss of what is profoundly spiritual, tangible solutions are proposed by way of programmatic policies or agendas which manifestly fail to address what is the core mission of the Church: the salvation of souls.
True, the pastoral office of the Bishops involves fundraising, organizing, planning, managing, and community leadership. But these are only incidental roles. Their critical responsibility is to serve as spiritual fathers to the Christian faithful.
If the Bishops would but fulfill that function, the other needs will fall into place. If they fail at spiritual leadership, all the other roles and politically motivated agendas won’t matter.
If only Cardinal Dinardo would have reminded the Bishops of the primacy of their spiritual leadership, perhaps this General Assembly of the USCCB might have been more productive than I fear it will be.
Once again, the Bishops will introduce new programs with a great deal of fanfare, all promising to bring people back to the Church. But these new gimmicks will look very much like those of the past. They will require a great deal of financial resource, bureaucratic support, organizational structure and a heck of a lot of human resource and energy. But they will lack any real substance and be as lackluster in results as those which have preceded them and failed to achieve any substantive spiritual conversion.
As I listen to the various Committee reports and the discussions which follow, the pattern is the same. Everything is reducible to administrative concerns, or psychology or sociology. Very little in their conversation is truly spiritual or religious.
Listening to Cardinal DiNardo, President of the Conference, in his opening remarks to the Conference attendees, I could have been listening to the Chairman of the Democratic Platform Committee. Racism, immigration reform, health care, welfare, pietistically framed but of no particular import when it comes to developing or nurturing personal or communal sanctity.
All indicators point to a serious spiritual crisis within the Church and yet the Bishops seem incapable (and clearly unwilling) to exercise any real pastoral leadership.
Pastors are aging, with little hope of sufficient numbers to replace them. Pressure is brought to bear upon them to balance budgets, to comply with mandates imposed upon them by bloated and self-sustaining diocesan agencies. Meetings upon meetings abound to promote the latest programs or fundraising schemes. And only rarely are Priests encouraged or supported by their Bishops, and then only in passing.
Little wonder, the USCCB is consistently silent about the challenges facing Pastors and the need for constant spiritual and fraternal support.
The same need is evident among the laity. Mass attendance keeps falling. Church weddings and baptisms are also declining. Confession is almost a rarity. The indications of a crisis are evident everywhere. What is the USCCB’s response?
Avoiding the spiritual crisis altogether by seeking relevance in what is politically correct at any given moment.
I have asked myself why that is so many times. And I guess that is the way bureaucratic organisms function. Rather than addressing problems deeply rooted in a loss of what is profoundly spiritual, tangible solutions are proposed by way of programmatic policies or agendas which manifestly fail to address what is the core mission of the Church: the salvation of souls.
True, the pastoral office of the Bishops involves fundraising, organizing, planning, managing, and community leadership. But these are only incidental roles. Their critical responsibility is to serve as spiritual fathers to the Christian faithful.
If the Bishops would but fulfill that function, the other needs will fall into place. If they fail at spiritual leadership, all the other roles and politically motivated agendas won’t matter.
If only Cardinal Dinardo would have reminded the Bishops of the primacy of their spiritual leadership, perhaps this General Assembly of the USCCB might have been more productive than I fear it will be.
Monday, November 13, 2017
THE CHURCH AND THE SECESSIONIST CRISIS IN CATALONIA
Catalonia declared independence from Spain on October 27.
The local Church finds itself in the middle of the fray and is as equally divided as the broader social climate throughout the region.
The unity of the country is at stake, as is the political survival of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, who’s had to fight off Catalan pressure before.
Five years ago, Rajoy also found himself trying to put out separatist fires when an economic crisis, coupled with resentments over Catalonia’s tax contributions to poorer regions, bolstered the secessionist movement.
Hoping to ward off a constitutional crisis, the Spanish Bishops issued a statement, avoiding taking a position on Catalan independence.
Read by Cardinal Ricardo Blázquez of Valladolid, President of the Conference, the message instead is an appeal to dialogue amidst the “grave” situation.
But the Church itself is not of one mind.
Pope Francis has publicly referred to the crisis stating: “Every division worries me."
The Holy Father distinguished between independence for emancipation, as was the case of the American continent, which emancipated itself from Great Britain, and independence by secession, which he called “a dismemberment.”
“The secession of a nation without a precedent of forced unity has to be taken with many tweezers and analyzed on a case by case basis,” the Pope said.
While the Bishops of Catalonia have remained impartial, urging Catholics to pray for Catalonia in this “delicate moment,” , some Priests in favor of secession have taken to the pulpit or communication agencies to have their say.
Spain's Senate is expected to approve a federal takeover of Catalonia's regional government. Some members of the secessionist movement already have been arrested.
Whatever the government in Madrid does, the sense of separateness that many Catalans feel from the Spaniards with whom they share a nation-state will not be extinguished. That is partly because it is a very old and seasoned sense, and one that has survived through long spells of Spanish suppression.
How and why did Catalonia become part of Spain the first place?
Catalans see themselves as always having been more entrepreneurial and modern than Castilians, whom they see as more concerned with power and religion and honor and purity of blood.
In the 12th century, a largely independent Catalonia was subsumed into the Kingdom of Aragon, through a dynastic union (when royals arrange a marriage as a way of merging territory, or forming an alliance). Catalan interests dominated that union, and trade in the Western Mediterranean was largely their domain.
A few hundred years later, another dynastic union merged Aragon with Castile. After a series of minor conquests, the Spanish state roughly assumed its modern borders.
Since then, Catalonia has been a linguistic minority in a country mostly populated and ruled by Spanish-speakers. Modern Spain has many other such minorities, including Galicians, Basques and Canarians. To differing degrees, they have each experienced suppression of their language and culture. Separatist movements have been born and quashed for centuries.
There is little hope of Catalonia’s independence movement surviving.
Still, the Spanish federal authorities need to understand that contemporary Catalan politics remains as divided as ever.
While retaining its cultural distinctions, Catalonia has become more secular, as has much of the European Continent. Its industry and vibrancy have been a major draw for people from other parts of Spain, Europe and elsewhere.
From the late 19th century until about 20 years ago, Catalonia had by far the most advanced economy in Spain. In post-Franco Spain, Catalonia regained much of its lost autonomy, including its own parliament and police force.
During that same period of time, the influence of the Church has waned to the point of being irrelevant.
That the Bishops think they can exert any sway over the political minds and hearts of the people of Catalonia is remarkable.
Perhaps, the best and most powerful contribution they can make is to pray that the present crisis be resolved with as little violence and bloodshed as possible.
The local Church finds itself in the middle of the fray and is as equally divided as the broader social climate throughout the region.
The unity of the country is at stake, as is the political survival of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, who’s had to fight off Catalan pressure before.
Five years ago, Rajoy also found himself trying to put out separatist fires when an economic crisis, coupled with resentments over Catalonia’s tax contributions to poorer regions, bolstered the secessionist movement.
Hoping to ward off a constitutional crisis, the Spanish Bishops issued a statement, avoiding taking a position on Catalan independence.
Read by Cardinal Ricardo Blázquez of Valladolid, President of the Conference, the message instead is an appeal to dialogue amidst the “grave” situation.
But the Church itself is not of one mind.
Pope Francis has publicly referred to the crisis stating: “Every division worries me."
The Holy Father distinguished between independence for emancipation, as was the case of the American continent, which emancipated itself from Great Britain, and independence by secession, which he called “a dismemberment.”
“The secession of a nation without a precedent of forced unity has to be taken with many tweezers and analyzed on a case by case basis,” the Pope said.
While the Bishops of Catalonia have remained impartial, urging Catholics to pray for Catalonia in this “delicate moment,” , some Priests in favor of secession have taken to the pulpit or communication agencies to have their say.
Spain's Senate is expected to approve a federal takeover of Catalonia's regional government. Some members of the secessionist movement already have been arrested.
Whatever the government in Madrid does, the sense of separateness that many Catalans feel from the Spaniards with whom they share a nation-state will not be extinguished. That is partly because it is a very old and seasoned sense, and one that has survived through long spells of Spanish suppression.
How and why did Catalonia become part of Spain the first place?
Catalans see themselves as always having been more entrepreneurial and modern than Castilians, whom they see as more concerned with power and religion and honor and purity of blood.
In the 12th century, a largely independent Catalonia was subsumed into the Kingdom of Aragon, through a dynastic union (when royals arrange a marriage as a way of merging territory, or forming an alliance). Catalan interests dominated that union, and trade in the Western Mediterranean was largely their domain.
A few hundred years later, another dynastic union merged Aragon with Castile. After a series of minor conquests, the Spanish state roughly assumed its modern borders.
Since then, Catalonia has been a linguistic minority in a country mostly populated and ruled by Spanish-speakers. Modern Spain has many other such minorities, including Galicians, Basques and Canarians. To differing degrees, they have each experienced suppression of their language and culture. Separatist movements have been born and quashed for centuries.
There is little hope of Catalonia’s independence movement surviving.
Still, the Spanish federal authorities need to understand that contemporary Catalan politics remains as divided as ever.
While retaining its cultural distinctions, Catalonia has become more secular, as has much of the European Continent. Its industry and vibrancy have been a major draw for people from other parts of Spain, Europe and elsewhere.
From the late 19th century until about 20 years ago, Catalonia had by far the most advanced economy in Spain. In post-Franco Spain, Catalonia regained much of its lost autonomy, including its own parliament and police force.
During that same period of time, the influence of the Church has waned to the point of being irrelevant.
That the Bishops think they can exert any sway over the political minds and hearts of the people of Catalonia is remarkable.
Perhaps, the best and most powerful contribution they can make is to pray that the present crisis be resolved with as little violence and bloodshed as possible.
CARDINAL CUPICH'S INITIATIVE TO RESTRUCTURE THE ARCHDIOCESE OF CHICAGO
An initiative, presently underway in the Archdiocese of Chicago. will likely determine the legacy and place of Cardinal Cupich in Chicago history for decades to come.
It is the Archdiocese-wide initiative to consider the big questions of revitalization and reorganization for a local church that spans some 1,411 square miles and includes nearly six million people across Illinois' Lake and Cook counties.
At the heart of the deliberations is the drastic decline in the number of Chicago's Priests which makes parish and school closures or mergers, or even a total restructuring, almost inevitable.
The Chicago Archdiocese is one of the nation's largest. Depending on the statistic cited, it's either the second or third biggest in the country, behind Los Angeles and rivaling New York in both size and Catholic population.
Spanning 1,411 square miles over the two most populous counties in northeastern Illinois, it stretches along the shores of Lake Michigan from the state's eastern border with Indiana to its northern border with Wisconsin.
Archdiocesan statistics show that the Archbishop is responsible for 346 parishes that serve 2.2 million Catholics, with some 30,000 baptisms a year and more than 1,600 Masses celebrated each weekend. The territory includes 193 elementary schools, 46 cemeteries, 36 secondary schools, 15 hospitals, four colleges and universities, two seminaries and two houses of formation.
The Archdiocese reported total assets in 2015 of $353 million, including the value of its landholdings and investments, and had nearly $19 million in cash on hand.
Yet, like many Dioceses across the country, Chicago has faced significant changes in population and use of Catholic institutions in recent decades.
Parishes that were once vibrant, pivotal parts of their communities are now not as central. Many of Chicago's parishes were set up in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as ethnic enclaves, each acting as a home base for different immigrant communities in the city.
The Pastor was more or less a city councilman, advising new immigrants on how to get jobs or put their children into schools. The parish was so vital to its surrounding area that locals, even non-Catholics, would describe where they lived in the city not by the name of the neighborhood but by the name of the Church.
But after World War II, many of the immigrants' children moved out of the city and their traditional enclaves for the suburbs springing up to the city's north and south. The people who moved in were often not of the same immigrant community and not Catholic.
Decades later, many of the parishes still exist but with decreasing numbers of Mass attendance and weakened impact on their wider communities.
Changes in parish use have occurred alongside a drastic decline in the number of archdiocesan Priests, which has fallen from a high of 1,264 in 1980 to 766 at the beginning of 2015.
With the average age of the Priests now 61, the archdiocese is projecting that by 2030 there may only be some 240 priests to serve those 346 parishes.
To address the changing landscape, Cardinal Cupich launched his Archdiocesan-wide revitalization and reorganization program in February.
Called "Renew My Church," a nod to the words St. Francis of Assisi is said to have heard Jesus say to him about a small church in rural Italy, the initiative is first placing Chicago parishes in "groupings" to undertake joint evaluation of and planning for the needs of Catholics in their local areas.
The process, expected to take several years, will likely lead to a number of parishes closing or merging with their neighbors. The Cardinal and his staff have sought to reassure Catholics that nothing has been predetermined, holding consultative meetings with Archdiocesan riests, parish personnel and other invested groups.
His Eminence wants the process to be open-ended and focused on asking broad questions about how the church can plan to use what resources it has to better serve the communities it is in.
The Cardinal said the decision to reevaluate the Archdiocese's overall structure was simply necessary because of budgetary realities.
Beside the $40-million yearly budget shortfall Cupich inherited, the Archdiocese had also been subsidizing its schools to the tune of $16 million a year and its parishes to the tune of $7 million.
Many of the Archdiocese's assets are landholdings or properties, or are already dedicated to some sort of mission activity.
The Cardinal put it bluntly. "We're going to go broke if we don't do something," he said, adding: "We're not only going to go broke, we're also going to not do the mission."
Mentioning the funds being used to subsidize the parishes and schools, the Archbishop said he isn't averse to dedicating such resources, but, "I want to make sure that we're doing it for parishes that really are going to be vibrant, vital, and sustainable in the future."
"I think that if we do not have this process, we're only going to continue to spin our wheels," he said. While the Archdiocese had closed about 70 parishes in the last 20 years, he said, those closures did not necessarily happen as part of an overall plan of continued vibrancy for the whole archdiocese.
One common concern from parishioners about the Renew My Church initiative is the commonly-held skepticism that, although the Archbishop is using a consultative process, the decisions about which parishes will close have already been determined.
But the Cardinal is emphatic: “No decisions about parish closings have been made.”
He has no illusions that the process won't anger some people, or perhaps even seriously injure his own standing in the Archdiocese.
So far at least, it seems that Chicago Catholics are expressing support for Cupich's approach.
We offer Cardinal Cupich our fondest hopes for success and the support of our prayers.
It is the Archdiocese-wide initiative to consider the big questions of revitalization and reorganization for a local church that spans some 1,411 square miles and includes nearly six million people across Illinois' Lake and Cook counties.
At the heart of the deliberations is the drastic decline in the number of Chicago's Priests which makes parish and school closures or mergers, or even a total restructuring, almost inevitable.
The Chicago Archdiocese is one of the nation's largest. Depending on the statistic cited, it's either the second or third biggest in the country, behind Los Angeles and rivaling New York in both size and Catholic population.
Spanning 1,411 square miles over the two most populous counties in northeastern Illinois, it stretches along the shores of Lake Michigan from the state's eastern border with Indiana to its northern border with Wisconsin.
Archdiocesan statistics show that the Archbishop is responsible for 346 parishes that serve 2.2 million Catholics, with some 30,000 baptisms a year and more than 1,600 Masses celebrated each weekend. The territory includes 193 elementary schools, 46 cemeteries, 36 secondary schools, 15 hospitals, four colleges and universities, two seminaries and two houses of formation.
The Archdiocese reported total assets in 2015 of $353 million, including the value of its landholdings and investments, and had nearly $19 million in cash on hand.
Yet, like many Dioceses across the country, Chicago has faced significant changes in population and use of Catholic institutions in recent decades.
Parishes that were once vibrant, pivotal parts of their communities are now not as central. Many of Chicago's parishes were set up in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as ethnic enclaves, each acting as a home base for different immigrant communities in the city.
The Pastor was more or less a city councilman, advising new immigrants on how to get jobs or put their children into schools. The parish was so vital to its surrounding area that locals, even non-Catholics, would describe where they lived in the city not by the name of the neighborhood but by the name of the Church.
But after World War II, many of the immigrants' children moved out of the city and their traditional enclaves for the suburbs springing up to the city's north and south. The people who moved in were often not of the same immigrant community and not Catholic.
Decades later, many of the parishes still exist but with decreasing numbers of Mass attendance and weakened impact on their wider communities.
Changes in parish use have occurred alongside a drastic decline in the number of archdiocesan Priests, which has fallen from a high of 1,264 in 1980 to 766 at the beginning of 2015.
With the average age of the Priests now 61, the archdiocese is projecting that by 2030 there may only be some 240 priests to serve those 346 parishes.
To address the changing landscape, Cardinal Cupich launched his Archdiocesan-wide revitalization and reorganization program in February.
Called "Renew My Church," a nod to the words St. Francis of Assisi is said to have heard Jesus say to him about a small church in rural Italy, the initiative is first placing Chicago parishes in "groupings" to undertake joint evaluation of and planning for the needs of Catholics in their local areas.
The process, expected to take several years, will likely lead to a number of parishes closing or merging with their neighbors. The Cardinal and his staff have sought to reassure Catholics that nothing has been predetermined, holding consultative meetings with Archdiocesan riests, parish personnel and other invested groups.
His Eminence wants the process to be open-ended and focused on asking broad questions about how the church can plan to use what resources it has to better serve the communities it is in.
The Cardinal said the decision to reevaluate the Archdiocese's overall structure was simply necessary because of budgetary realities.
Beside the $40-million yearly budget shortfall Cupich inherited, the Archdiocese had also been subsidizing its schools to the tune of $16 million a year and its parishes to the tune of $7 million.
Many of the Archdiocese's assets are landholdings or properties, or are already dedicated to some sort of mission activity.
The Cardinal put it bluntly. "We're going to go broke if we don't do something," he said, adding: "We're not only going to go broke, we're also going to not do the mission."
Mentioning the funds being used to subsidize the parishes and schools, the Archbishop said he isn't averse to dedicating such resources, but, "I want to make sure that we're doing it for parishes that really are going to be vibrant, vital, and sustainable in the future."
"I think that if we do not have this process, we're only going to continue to spin our wheels," he said. While the Archdiocese had closed about 70 parishes in the last 20 years, he said, those closures did not necessarily happen as part of an overall plan of continued vibrancy for the whole archdiocese.
One common concern from parishioners about the Renew My Church initiative is the commonly-held skepticism that, although the Archbishop is using a consultative process, the decisions about which parishes will close have already been determined.
But the Cardinal is emphatic: “No decisions about parish closings have been made.”
He has no illusions that the process won't anger some people, or perhaps even seriously injure his own standing in the Archdiocese.
So far at least, it seems that Chicago Catholics are expressing support for Cupich's approach.
We offer Cardinal Cupich our fondest hopes for success and the support of our prayers.
Sunday, November 12, 2017
IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING MY PRECEDING POST
Perhaps no other post that I have written in recent months has received as much response as the article immediately preceding this post. Entitled “Teach, Don’t Judge”, the article repeats a theme that I have repeated consistently ever since this blog was created.
I suggest that it is the mission of the Church to enunciate and clarify the moral doctrine contained in the Scriptures. Together, the Living Word of God and the teachings of the Church’s Magisterium constitute the Deposit of Faith, wherein the Divine Will is expressed and human beings are provided with a pathway by which they order their lives in conformity to that Will.
I further suggest that it is the proper function of the Church and the Bishops to inform human conscience as it seeks to determine the rightness or wrongness of individual human choices. However, the Church and the Bishops often and inappropriately assume to themselves the unique and critical place which the exercise of the individual conscience plays in moral judgments and their consequences.
Thus, I suggest it is the role of the Church and the Bishops to inform the human conscience, but never to usurp its inviolable sanctity.
A good number of readers have taken exception to this position.
Either by coincidence (which my belief in Divine Providence denies) or by virtue of Divine Providence itself, I listened today to a video message from the Holy Father this past Saturday to participants in a conference organized by the Italian Bishops Conference (CEI) on Pope Francis’ post-Synodal Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.
Under the theme, The Gospel of Love between Conscience and Norm, participants are exploring how to respond to the desire for family that emerges in the soul of the young generations, and seeking together ways to help the faithful assimilate and develop Amoris laetitia’s content and style.
In the video, the Holy Father states, “The family born of marriage creates fruitful bonds, which reveal themselves to be the most effective antidote against the individualism that currently runs rampant; however, along the journey of marital love and family life there are situations that require arduous choices, which must be made with rectitude.”
And here is where I find some vindication. Pope Francis insists upon the proper role of Pastors in forming consciences, so that the Christian faithful are capable of acting with moral integrity. The Holy Father states: We are called to form consciences (citing Amoris laetitia 37) not to pretend to substitute them.”
The precise and sacrosanct role of the conscience – beginning with a right understanding of it – was a central focus of the Holy Father’s recorded remarks.
“The contemporary world,” the Holy Father says in the message, “risks confusing the primacy of conscience, which is always to be respected, with the exclusive autonomy of the individual with respect to the relations that he entertains in life.”
“In the very depths of each one of us,” Pope Francis says, “there is a place wherein the Mystery reveals itself, and illuminates the person, making the person the protagonist of his story.”
“Conscience, as the II Vatican Council recalls, is this, ‘most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths (Gaudiam et Spes, 16). To the Christian falls the task of being vigilant, so that in this sort of tabernacle is no want of divine grace, which illuminates and strengthens married love and parental mission. Grace fills the amphorae of human hearts with an extraordinary capacity for gift, renewing for the families of today the miracle of the wedding feast at Cana.”
So to those readers who have voiced either outrage or concern at what I wrote in my previous post, let me reassure you that my words echo the words and the wisdom of the Council Fathers of Vatican II as well as the consistent teachings of the Church regarding what Saint Thomas Aquinas referred to as the “cathedral of the conscience”, a cathedral which no human agency is permitted to invade or violate.
In that context, then, I repeat my consistent plea: teach, don’t judge. Let the Church exercise its mission to inform and enlighten our hearts and minds. But leave the judgment of our choices to the Lord alone Who perceives our innermost thoughts and motives and Who alone is worthy of judgment.
I suggest that it is the mission of the Church to enunciate and clarify the moral doctrine contained in the Scriptures. Together, the Living Word of God and the teachings of the Church’s Magisterium constitute the Deposit of Faith, wherein the Divine Will is expressed and human beings are provided with a pathway by which they order their lives in conformity to that Will.
I further suggest that it is the proper function of the Church and the Bishops to inform human conscience as it seeks to determine the rightness or wrongness of individual human choices. However, the Church and the Bishops often and inappropriately assume to themselves the unique and critical place which the exercise of the individual conscience plays in moral judgments and their consequences.
Thus, I suggest it is the role of the Church and the Bishops to inform the human conscience, but never to usurp its inviolable sanctity.
A good number of readers have taken exception to this position.
Either by coincidence (which my belief in Divine Providence denies) or by virtue of Divine Providence itself, I listened today to a video message from the Holy Father this past Saturday to participants in a conference organized by the Italian Bishops Conference (CEI) on Pope Francis’ post-Synodal Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.
Under the theme, The Gospel of Love between Conscience and Norm, participants are exploring how to respond to the desire for family that emerges in the soul of the young generations, and seeking together ways to help the faithful assimilate and develop Amoris laetitia’s content and style.
In the video, the Holy Father states, “The family born of marriage creates fruitful bonds, which reveal themselves to be the most effective antidote against the individualism that currently runs rampant; however, along the journey of marital love and family life there are situations that require arduous choices, which must be made with rectitude.”
And here is where I find some vindication. Pope Francis insists upon the proper role of Pastors in forming consciences, so that the Christian faithful are capable of acting with moral integrity. The Holy Father states: We are called to form consciences (citing Amoris laetitia 37) not to pretend to substitute them.”
The precise and sacrosanct role of the conscience – beginning with a right understanding of it – was a central focus of the Holy Father’s recorded remarks.
“The contemporary world,” the Holy Father says in the message, “risks confusing the primacy of conscience, which is always to be respected, with the exclusive autonomy of the individual with respect to the relations that he entertains in life.”
“In the very depths of each one of us,” Pope Francis says, “there is a place wherein the Mystery reveals itself, and illuminates the person, making the person the protagonist of his story.”
“Conscience, as the II Vatican Council recalls, is this, ‘most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths (Gaudiam et Spes, 16). To the Christian falls the task of being vigilant, so that in this sort of tabernacle is no want of divine grace, which illuminates and strengthens married love and parental mission. Grace fills the amphorae of human hearts with an extraordinary capacity for gift, renewing for the families of today the miracle of the wedding feast at Cana.”
So to those readers who have voiced either outrage or concern at what I wrote in my previous post, let me reassure you that my words echo the words and the wisdom of the Council Fathers of Vatican II as well as the consistent teachings of the Church regarding what Saint Thomas Aquinas referred to as the “cathedral of the conscience”, a cathedral which no human agency is permitted to invade or violate.
In that context, then, I repeat my consistent plea: teach, don’t judge. Let the Church exercise its mission to inform and enlighten our hearts and minds. But leave the judgment of our choices to the Lord alone Who perceives our innermost thoughts and motives and Who alone is worthy of judgment.
TEACH DON'T JUDGE
Despite “passages of great wisdom and beauty on marriage and on family life,” Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia said that “persons of fidelity and substance” who have criticized the Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, for problems such as seemingly opening a door to the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion “can’t in justice — be dismissed.”
The Archbishop may have been referring to the four Dubia Cardinals and others, such as the signers of the Filial Correction and Father Thomas Weinandy. He made his remarks at the Third Annual National Assembly of Filipino Priests in Houston, Texas.
Archbishop Chaput said that the Exhortation has created “pastoral challenges” regarding what it means for priests to accompany straying Catholics and to be merciful to them, especially when it comes to Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality.
And so, the debate regarding the Apostolic Exhortation continues!
Some Prelates regard the document as normative and are establishing policies within their respective diocese for the implementation of what Pope Francis has described as a “pastoral accompaniment,” while others see it as problematic and in contradiction to the traditional moral teaching and practice of the Church regarding Catholics in second marriages.
Here’s the problem with both viewpoints.
In both cases, the Bishops are seeking to intervene inappropriately and abrogate the proper role which the individual human conscience rightfully exercises in determining whether or not it accepts or rejects Church teaching and decides to either engage or avoid engaging in a particular action.
Those who reject Pope Francis' call for pastoral accompaniment say they are defending the consistent moral doctrine of the Church that anyone who divorces a spouse and attempts marriage which is fully conjugal commits adultery. And they further defend their position by automatically judging that every person in such situations is guilty of grave sin and therefore is to be denied access to the Sacraments.
By so doing, these self-proclaimed “defenders of the faith” deny the role which the human conscience plays, a role so critical that. in some cases, personal responsibility may be so mitigated as to negate the imposition of any sanction or penalty for the objective state of sin in which these people may find themselves.
On the other hand, those who tout Pope Francis’ call for pastoral accompaniment suggest that somehow Pastors are now to assume the responsibility for a couples’ actions and give them approbation to avail themselves of the Sacraments.
These proponents of the Apostolic Exhortation make the same mistake as its detractors and assume to themselves the unique and critical place which the exercise of the individual conscience plays in moral judgments and their consequences.
Let me repeat what I have written about this subject ad nauseam by now.
The teachings of the Scriptures and the Church’s magisterium (together constituting the Deposit of the Faith) are clear and convincing.
Marriage constitutes a covenant by which a man and a woman enter into a relationship of lifetime permanence and exclusive fidelity which is ordered to the procreation and formation of children.
No human agency (including the Church) can nullify a valid indissoluble Marriage. Those who attempt to do so and enter into a invalid marriage engage in actions which are objectively and gravely sinful as they contravene the truths which derive from Scripture and Tradition.
Regarding this teaching, no Catholic of good faith can disagree.
But whether or not an individual is personally responsible to the extent that they are culpable of grave sin and incur the ecclesiastical penalty of being deprived access to the Sacraments is a judgment which only the individual conscience rightfully exercises.
No other person (including the Church itself) can substitute itself for the proper role and exercise of the individual conscience. Not the so-called “defenders of the faith” and not Pope Francis' "Pastors of accompaniment".
Each of us one day will stand before the judgment of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
When we do so, we must accept the responsibility for the judgments and actions we, not others, made in life. We will claim our lives and life choices without excuse. We will not be able to defend ourselves by pleas that we did what we did because “others” told us to do those things or to avoid those actions.
Jesus gave us the Gospel as a pathway by which we could order our lives in the service of truth and charity. How we do or not do that belongs to us alone.
It belongs to the Lord alone to then render judgment regarding whether we lived with integrity or not.
So, then, once and for all, let the Church and the Bishops speak clearly and with one voice: teach, don't judge.
Announce the truth of the Gospels and the doctrine of the Church, help couples’ with the sincere questions they raise about their particular situations, but leave the judgments they make to themselves, neither approving or punishing what they decide and leaving that to the Unique Tribunal of Divine Judgment.
In this argument, I believe, can be found both truth, charity and mercy combined.
The Archbishop may have been referring to the four Dubia Cardinals and others, such as the signers of the Filial Correction and Father Thomas Weinandy. He made his remarks at the Third Annual National Assembly of Filipino Priests in Houston, Texas.
Archbishop Chaput said that the Exhortation has created “pastoral challenges” regarding what it means for priests to accompany straying Catholics and to be merciful to them, especially when it comes to Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality.
And so, the debate regarding the Apostolic Exhortation continues!
Some Prelates regard the document as normative and are establishing policies within their respective diocese for the implementation of what Pope Francis has described as a “pastoral accompaniment,” while others see it as problematic and in contradiction to the traditional moral teaching and practice of the Church regarding Catholics in second marriages.
Here’s the problem with both viewpoints.
In both cases, the Bishops are seeking to intervene inappropriately and abrogate the proper role which the individual human conscience rightfully exercises in determining whether or not it accepts or rejects Church teaching and decides to either engage or avoid engaging in a particular action.
Those who reject Pope Francis' call for pastoral accompaniment say they are defending the consistent moral doctrine of the Church that anyone who divorces a spouse and attempts marriage which is fully conjugal commits adultery. And they further defend their position by automatically judging that every person in such situations is guilty of grave sin and therefore is to be denied access to the Sacraments.
By so doing, these self-proclaimed “defenders of the faith” deny the role which the human conscience plays, a role so critical that. in some cases, personal responsibility may be so mitigated as to negate the imposition of any sanction or penalty for the objective state of sin in which these people may find themselves.
On the other hand, those who tout Pope Francis’ call for pastoral accompaniment suggest that somehow Pastors are now to assume the responsibility for a couples’ actions and give them approbation to avail themselves of the Sacraments.
These proponents of the Apostolic Exhortation make the same mistake as its detractors and assume to themselves the unique and critical place which the exercise of the individual conscience plays in moral judgments and their consequences.
Let me repeat what I have written about this subject ad nauseam by now.
The teachings of the Scriptures and the Church’s magisterium (together constituting the Deposit of the Faith) are clear and convincing.
Marriage constitutes a covenant by which a man and a woman enter into a relationship of lifetime permanence and exclusive fidelity which is ordered to the procreation and formation of children.
No human agency (including the Church) can nullify a valid indissoluble Marriage. Those who attempt to do so and enter into a invalid marriage engage in actions which are objectively and gravely sinful as they contravene the truths which derive from Scripture and Tradition.
Regarding this teaching, no Catholic of good faith can disagree.
But whether or not an individual is personally responsible to the extent that they are culpable of grave sin and incur the ecclesiastical penalty of being deprived access to the Sacraments is a judgment which only the individual conscience rightfully exercises.
No other person (including the Church itself) can substitute itself for the proper role and exercise of the individual conscience. Not the so-called “defenders of the faith” and not Pope Francis' "Pastors of accompaniment".
Each of us one day will stand before the judgment of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
When we do so, we must accept the responsibility for the judgments and actions we, not others, made in life. We will claim our lives and life choices without excuse. We will not be able to defend ourselves by pleas that we did what we did because “others” told us to do those things or to avoid those actions.
Jesus gave us the Gospel as a pathway by which we could order our lives in the service of truth and charity. How we do or not do that belongs to us alone.
It belongs to the Lord alone to then render judgment regarding whether we lived with integrity or not.
So, then, once and for all, let the Church and the Bishops speak clearly and with one voice: teach, don't judge.
Announce the truth of the Gospels and the doctrine of the Church, help couples’ with the sincere questions they raise about their particular situations, but leave the judgments they make to themselves, neither approving or punishing what they decide and leaving that to the Unique Tribunal of Divine Judgment.
In this argument, I believe, can be found both truth, charity and mercy combined.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
USCCB GENERAL ASSEMBLY AGENDA
This month (November 13 - 15), the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) will meet in Baltimore to consider a strategic plan to implement their priorities as a Conference.
A year ago, when the Bishops set the agenda, most of which seemed little influenced by Pope Francis, the priorities they selected were the following.
1) Evangelization: Open wide the doors to Christ through missionary discipleship and personal encounter.
2) Family and Marriage: Encourage and heal families; inspire Catholics to embrace the Sacrament of Matrimony.
3) Human life and dignity: Uphold the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death with special concern for the poor and vulnerable.
4) Vocations and ongoing formation: Encourage vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life, and provide meaningful ongoing formation to clergy, religious and lay ministers.
5) Religious freedom: Promote and defend the freedom to serve, witness and worship, in the U.S. and abroad.
While there is nothing particularly wrong with these, they could have been written before Francis ever became Pope.
It is increasingly clear that the American Bishops are oblivious to Holy Father and the spirit of the teachings and pastoral sensitivity which are defining his Papacy.
In none of the Bishops' proposals is the content and tone of Pope Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium reflected. Neither do the American Bishops as a body accept or seek to implement the teachings and practice with regard to Marriage and the Family advocated by Amoris Laetitia.
Should not the all of the Conference’s programs and policies be reexamined to see if they reflect the spirit of these Papal teachings?
Should they not affirm the Holy Father’s admonition that Evangelization "is not about preaching complicated doctrines, but joyfully proclaiming Christ who died and rose for our sake”?
Likewise, should not the USCCB mirror Pope Francis’ encouragement of a much more pastoral and less condemnatory approach toward people?
If so, would not the USCCB’s approach to how the Church approaches and accompanies those who disagree with the Bishops would have to change?
Should not the USCCB incorporate into their discussions about "human life and dignity" the principles enunciated in Pope Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium and Laudato Si, wherein in concern for the poor and marginalized and care for the environment have become signature features of the Pope’s initiatives?
At the moment, Pope Francis is preparing to address "vocations and ongoing formation" at the 2018 Synod of Bishops.
Should not the USCCB encourage a conversation in the Church in preparation for that Synod, a conversation that should include youth of a variety of viewpoints, especially the large number of Millennials who have abandoned the practice of the Faith?
The November meeting of the USCCB is an opportunity for the Bishops to unite with the Holy Father and to make sure that the Conference is traveling along the same path as Pope Francis.
Yet, the USCCB seems quite content to simply rubber stamp the same tired programs that are neither effective or helpful.
The Bishops need to show that they understand Pope Francis and support his change in direction, a direction that includes more dialogue, more pastoral sensitivity, and more compassion.
But, in an October press release for the upcoming General Assembly, the USCCB has shown precious little interest in doing anything even remotely associated with recent Papal initiatives.
Consider how Francis’s recent motu proprio, Magnum principium, has caused not even a ripple within the Conference.
A month after he announced a basic and consequential change in the Bishops’ responsibility for liturgical translations, giving them new criteria by which to judge the prior instruction on translation, Liturgiam authenticam, what do we see on the agenda? They are going to vote on the new translation of the Order of Baptism, prepared according to Liturgiam authenticam.
It’s as if Magnum principium did not even exist.
Why does it seem there is so little comprehension in the USCCB when they read what Pope Francis has to say? The Conference seems to be screening out anything that would call for change.
The USCCB’s Advisor on Doctrine denounces the Pope and the Conference call this “dialogue”?
Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy, released to the press a letter in which he mounted a serious attack on Pope Francis, accusing him of misleading the faithful, appointing bishops whose teaching promotes falsehoods, demeaning doctrine itself, and risking “the sin against the Holy Spirit.”
In response to this outrageous and scandalous behavior, Father Weinandy was asked to resign. Yet in announcing the decision, Conference President. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, offered a statement about the value of dialogue.
Dialogue?
Their Advisor on Coctrine publicly denounces the Pope and the USCCB calls this “dialogue”?
Pope Francis has clearly signaled the inception of the Church’s return toward a spirit of Synodality which the Pontiff has aimed to implement on a structural and practical basis.
After decades of Roman Curia’s attempts to crack down on the purview of the Conferences, Pope Francis has shown how dramatically he wishes the pendulum to shift back in the regional and national Bishops Conferences’ direction.
But the American Bishops seem ill prepared and hesitant to accept this responsibility.
If the vision of collegiality and subsidiarity encouraged by the Fathers of Vatican II and fully supported in the initiatives of Pope Francis is to have any real and lasting effect on Church governance, the Bishops themselves need to understand and enthusiastically embrace the mission that has been and remains rightfully theirs to teach, govern and sanctify those entrusted to their pastoral care.
The USCCB is woefully unprepared and clearly reluctant to embrace the responsibilities that are surely theirs.
What a pity as it relates to the vision of Pope Francis! What a pity for the American Church in such dire need of a relevant voice from the Successors of the Apostles!
A year ago, when the Bishops set the agenda, most of which seemed little influenced by Pope Francis, the priorities they selected were the following.
1) Evangelization: Open wide the doors to Christ through missionary discipleship and personal encounter.
2) Family and Marriage: Encourage and heal families; inspire Catholics to embrace the Sacrament of Matrimony.
3) Human life and dignity: Uphold the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death with special concern for the poor and vulnerable.
4) Vocations and ongoing formation: Encourage vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life, and provide meaningful ongoing formation to clergy, religious and lay ministers.
5) Religious freedom: Promote and defend the freedom to serve, witness and worship, in the U.S. and abroad.
While there is nothing particularly wrong with these, they could have been written before Francis ever became Pope.
It is increasingly clear that the American Bishops are oblivious to Holy Father and the spirit of the teachings and pastoral sensitivity which are defining his Papacy.
In none of the Bishops' proposals is the content and tone of Pope Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium reflected. Neither do the American Bishops as a body accept or seek to implement the teachings and practice with regard to Marriage and the Family advocated by Amoris Laetitia.
Should not the all of the Conference’s programs and policies be reexamined to see if they reflect the spirit of these Papal teachings?
Should they not affirm the Holy Father’s admonition that Evangelization "is not about preaching complicated doctrines, but joyfully proclaiming Christ who died and rose for our sake”?
Likewise, should not the USCCB mirror Pope Francis’ encouragement of a much more pastoral and less condemnatory approach toward people?
If so, would not the USCCB’s approach to how the Church approaches and accompanies those who disagree with the Bishops would have to change?
Should not the USCCB incorporate into their discussions about "human life and dignity" the principles enunciated in Pope Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium and Laudato Si, wherein in concern for the poor and marginalized and care for the environment have become signature features of the Pope’s initiatives?
At the moment, Pope Francis is preparing to address "vocations and ongoing formation" at the 2018 Synod of Bishops.
Should not the USCCB encourage a conversation in the Church in preparation for that Synod, a conversation that should include youth of a variety of viewpoints, especially the large number of Millennials who have abandoned the practice of the Faith?
The November meeting of the USCCB is an opportunity for the Bishops to unite with the Holy Father and to make sure that the Conference is traveling along the same path as Pope Francis.
Yet, the USCCB seems quite content to simply rubber stamp the same tired programs that are neither effective or helpful.
The Bishops need to show that they understand Pope Francis and support his change in direction, a direction that includes more dialogue, more pastoral sensitivity, and more compassion.
But, in an October press release for the upcoming General Assembly, the USCCB has shown precious little interest in doing anything even remotely associated with recent Papal initiatives.
Consider how Francis’s recent motu proprio, Magnum principium, has caused not even a ripple within the Conference.
A month after he announced a basic and consequential change in the Bishops’ responsibility for liturgical translations, giving them new criteria by which to judge the prior instruction on translation, Liturgiam authenticam, what do we see on the agenda? They are going to vote on the new translation of the Order of Baptism, prepared according to Liturgiam authenticam.
It’s as if Magnum principium did not even exist.
Why does it seem there is so little comprehension in the USCCB when they read what Pope Francis has to say? The Conference seems to be screening out anything that would call for change.
The USCCB’s Advisor on Doctrine denounces the Pope and the Conference call this “dialogue”?
Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy, released to the press a letter in which he mounted a serious attack on Pope Francis, accusing him of misleading the faithful, appointing bishops whose teaching promotes falsehoods, demeaning doctrine itself, and risking “the sin against the Holy Spirit.”
In response to this outrageous and scandalous behavior, Father Weinandy was asked to resign. Yet in announcing the decision, Conference President. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, offered a statement about the value of dialogue.
Dialogue?
Their Advisor on Coctrine publicly denounces the Pope and the USCCB calls this “dialogue”?
Pope Francis has clearly signaled the inception of the Church’s return toward a spirit of Synodality which the Pontiff has aimed to implement on a structural and practical basis.
After decades of Roman Curia’s attempts to crack down on the purview of the Conferences, Pope Francis has shown how dramatically he wishes the pendulum to shift back in the regional and national Bishops Conferences’ direction.
But the American Bishops seem ill prepared and hesitant to accept this responsibility.
If the vision of collegiality and subsidiarity encouraged by the Fathers of Vatican II and fully supported in the initiatives of Pope Francis is to have any real and lasting effect on Church governance, the Bishops themselves need to understand and enthusiastically embrace the mission that has been and remains rightfully theirs to teach, govern and sanctify those entrusted to their pastoral care.
The USCCB is woefully unprepared and clearly reluctant to embrace the responsibilities that are surely theirs.
What a pity as it relates to the vision of Pope Francis! What a pity for the American Church in such dire need of a relevant voice from the Successors of the Apostles!
Friday, November 10, 2017
NEO-CONSERVATIVE REACTIONARIES DISTORT THE WORDS OF POPE FRANCIS... AGAIN!
The neo-conservative reactionaries within the Church will grab and hold on to any straw that seems to support their narrow and nostalgic agendas.
Here’s a story which appeared on one of the more visible websites touted by such groups.
Quoting the story which appeared on The Crux:
Pope Francis appeared to wade into one of the most contentious liturgical debates in Catholicism in recent years, siding with his predecessor Pope emeritus Benedict XVI by insisting that Christ died “for many,” instead of using the phrase “for all.”
“The ‘many’ who will rise for eternal life are to be understood as the ‘many’ for whom the blood of Christ was shed,” Pope Francis said. “They are the multitude that, thanks to the goodness and mercy of God, can experience the life that does not pass away, the complete victory over death brought by the resurrection.” The quotation marks around the word “many” were used by the Vatican when distributing the text of the Holy Father’s homily.
Francis argued that “for many” better captures the sense that human beings have to make a choice during this life, either for or against God.
“Awakening from death isn’t, in itself, a return to life,” the Pope said. “Some in fact will awake to eternal life, others for eternal shame.
“Death renders definitive the ‘crossroads’ which, already here in this world, stand before us: The way of life, that is, the one that leads us to communion with God, or the path of death, that is, the one that leads us away from Him,” the Pontiff said.
The Pope’s words came during a homily as he was saying Mass for the eternal response of the 14 Cardinals and Bishops who died in the past year.
Well now, let’s peel away the layers of this story.
First, there is no indication whatsoever that the Holy Father’s remarks had anything to do with the translation of liturgical texts. He was speaking in the context of offering Mass for the Faithful Departed whom the Church commends to the Mercy of God in the hope and promise of Eternal Life in the Divine Presence. This was not an exercise of liturgical debate, but an expression of faith and worship.
Second, the Pope once again is clearly speaking in poetic language rather than precise doctrinal terms. His words should not be received or interpreted to be literal treatises on Church teaching or practice.
In this homily, the Pope states: “Awakening from death isn’t, in itself, a return to life. Some in fact will awake to eternal life, others for eternal shame.”
But just a little over a month ago, the Holy Father stated that those who die rejecting the forgiveness of God and His salvific grace need not fear hell, for these souls will suffer annihilation after death.
So which is it? Wakening to shame or annihilation?
The reasonable person understands that the Pope is speaking metaphorically, not setting forth precise doctrinal formulations or credal formulae.
And one final thought for The Crux and its knee-jerk conservative subscribers.
The ancient proclamation of faith, the kerygma itself, speaks of Christ’s death for all humanity for all time. This is the context in which the liturgical understanding of the words "pro multis" should be properly understood.
Christ died “for all”.
Whether or not individuals embrace His Death and seek salvation from the Lord is a matter of personal choice and responsibility. In that sense, the death of Christ “for all” may indeed only be expedient for some or for many.
But to suggest that the liturgical phrase “for many” trumps the ancient credal formula of “for all” is neo-conservative reactionary nonsense!
The Crux and its followers need to be ashamed of themselves!
Here’s a story which appeared on one of the more visible websites touted by such groups.
Quoting the story which appeared on The Crux:
Pope Francis appeared to wade into one of the most contentious liturgical debates in Catholicism in recent years, siding with his predecessor Pope emeritus Benedict XVI by insisting that Christ died “for many,” instead of using the phrase “for all.”
“The ‘many’ who will rise for eternal life are to be understood as the ‘many’ for whom the blood of Christ was shed,” Pope Francis said. “They are the multitude that, thanks to the goodness and mercy of God, can experience the life that does not pass away, the complete victory over death brought by the resurrection.” The quotation marks around the word “many” were used by the Vatican when distributing the text of the Holy Father’s homily.
Francis argued that “for many” better captures the sense that human beings have to make a choice during this life, either for or against God.
“Awakening from death isn’t, in itself, a return to life,” the Pope said. “Some in fact will awake to eternal life, others for eternal shame.
“Death renders definitive the ‘crossroads’ which, already here in this world, stand before us: The way of life, that is, the one that leads us to communion with God, or the path of death, that is, the one that leads us away from Him,” the Pontiff said.
The Pope’s words came during a homily as he was saying Mass for the eternal response of the 14 Cardinals and Bishops who died in the past year.
Well now, let’s peel away the layers of this story.
First, there is no indication whatsoever that the Holy Father’s remarks had anything to do with the translation of liturgical texts. He was speaking in the context of offering Mass for the Faithful Departed whom the Church commends to the Mercy of God in the hope and promise of Eternal Life in the Divine Presence. This was not an exercise of liturgical debate, but an expression of faith and worship.
Second, the Pope once again is clearly speaking in poetic language rather than precise doctrinal terms. His words should not be received or interpreted to be literal treatises on Church teaching or practice.
In this homily, the Pope states: “Awakening from death isn’t, in itself, a return to life. Some in fact will awake to eternal life, others for eternal shame.”
But just a little over a month ago, the Holy Father stated that those who die rejecting the forgiveness of God and His salvific grace need not fear hell, for these souls will suffer annihilation after death.
So which is it? Wakening to shame or annihilation?
The reasonable person understands that the Pope is speaking metaphorically, not setting forth precise doctrinal formulations or credal formulae.
And one final thought for The Crux and its knee-jerk conservative subscribers.
The ancient proclamation of faith, the kerygma itself, speaks of Christ’s death for all humanity for all time. This is the context in which the liturgical understanding of the words "pro multis" should be properly understood.
Christ died “for all”.
Whether or not individuals embrace His Death and seek salvation from the Lord is a matter of personal choice and responsibility. In that sense, the death of Christ “for all” may indeed only be expedient for some or for many.
But to suggest that the liturgical phrase “for many” trumps the ancient credal formula of “for all” is neo-conservative reactionary nonsense!
The Crux and its followers need to be ashamed of themselves!
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
NEW MODEL OF CATECHESIS NEEDED TO REPLACE FAILED CATHOLIC SCHOOLS AND PARISH SCHOOLS OF RELIGION
The National Catholic Educational Association conducts Catholic education research as well as providing private education resources for a range of audiences.
NCEA published selected results from its annual survey of Catholic elementary and secondary schools, including enrollment patterns, regional geographic trends, types and locations of schools, student and staffing demographic characteristics, and student participation in selected education programs .
This annual report (2016-2017 academic year) presents national data on Catholic elementary and secondary schools.
Enrollment patterns, regional geographic trends, types and locations of schools, student and staffing demographic characteristics and student participation in selected education programs are reported.
Where data permit, the exhibits compare information across the last decade as well as the past five years.
U.S. Catholic school enrollment reached its peak during the early 1960s when there were more than 5.2 million students in almost thirteen thousand schools across the nation. The 1970s and 1980s saw a steep decline in both the number of schools and students.
By 1990, there were approximately 2.5 million students in 8,719 schools.
From the mid 1990s though 2000, there was a steady enrollment increase (1.3%) despite continued closings of schools.
In the 10 years since the 2006 school year, 1,511 schools were reported closed or consolidated (19.9%), while 314 school openings were reported.
Due to different definitions used by dioceses for consolidations, closings and their transitions into new configurations, along with actual new schools opened, the actual decrease in number of schools since 2006 is 1,064 schools (14.0%).
The number of students declined by 409,384 (17.6%). The most seriously impacted have been elementary schools.
The actual decrease in number of elementary schools in the twelve large urban areas of the country since 2006 is 338 schools (19.3%).
Since 2006, elementary school enrollment has declined by 27.6% in the 12 urban dioceses and 20.1% in the rest of the U.S.
To say that there is a crisis in Catholic education in this country is not to discount the profound generosity of many volunteers and teachers who sustain parish programs around the country. If their dedication were the only factor determining success, there would be no problem.
Yet in many if not most settings, religious education is not accomplishing its purpose: to hand on the faith from generation to generation.
Ineffective catechesis—whether in the parish setting or in Catholic schools—is not the sole cause.
For the most part, religious education as presently conducted does not give these young people a compelling reason to believe.
The first step is admitting there is a problem—and any parent who has dragged a squirming fifth grader to a Parish School of Religion class can say what it is: most 10-year-olds do not want to spend such time in a classroom.
More fundamentally, the assumptions built into the current system of religious education, developed at a different time and in a different cultural context, no longer hold.
There was a time when religious belief and self-identification were default positions, supported by social norms. But today, when young people are surrounded by a culture in which choosing to believe is more and more a revolutionary act, religious education must do much more than hand on the basic tenets of the faith.
Unless the option of belief is made real by family and community relationships that offer examples of true Christian discipleship, creedal affirmations are taking root in rocky soil.
What is needed are models of Catholic education that are forcus on Catholic formation. They work to make discipleship tangible and imaginable first, rather than focusing on transmitting the content of the faith. Not coincidentally, they can also be resource-intensive, requiring greater involvement and investment on the part of families, parish staff and Clergy.
No program, however, can ever replace the central role of parents as “the principal and first educators of their children”. The Church must develop a model which seeks to form parents for this mission.
Such a radical shift away from the traditional Catholic elementary school and Parish School of Religion model will require Bishops and Pastors to admit that the path we have been on for decades is not sufficient to respond to today’s needs and cannot be fixed merely with different books, better curricula or more training.
It will likewise require parents to not only teach the faith but live it out joyfully.
Now is the time for the Church to move urgently to develop religious formation programs that introduce children to the Person at the heart of our Faith, Jesus Christ, Who desires not only well-informed students but lifelong disciples.
NCEA published selected results from its annual survey of Catholic elementary and secondary schools, including enrollment patterns, regional geographic trends, types and locations of schools, student and staffing demographic characteristics, and student participation in selected education programs .
This annual report (2016-2017 academic year) presents national data on Catholic elementary and secondary schools.
Enrollment patterns, regional geographic trends, types and locations of schools, student and staffing demographic characteristics and student participation in selected education programs are reported.
Where data permit, the exhibits compare information across the last decade as well as the past five years.
U.S. Catholic school enrollment reached its peak during the early 1960s when there were more than 5.2 million students in almost thirteen thousand schools across the nation. The 1970s and 1980s saw a steep decline in both the number of schools and students.
By 1990, there were approximately 2.5 million students in 8,719 schools.
From the mid 1990s though 2000, there was a steady enrollment increase (1.3%) despite continued closings of schools.
In the 10 years since the 2006 school year, 1,511 schools were reported closed or consolidated (19.9%), while 314 school openings were reported.
Due to different definitions used by dioceses for consolidations, closings and their transitions into new configurations, along with actual new schools opened, the actual decrease in number of schools since 2006 is 1,064 schools (14.0%).
The number of students declined by 409,384 (17.6%). The most seriously impacted have been elementary schools.
The actual decrease in number of elementary schools in the twelve large urban areas of the country since 2006 is 338 schools (19.3%).
Since 2006, elementary school enrollment has declined by 27.6% in the 12 urban dioceses and 20.1% in the rest of the U.S.
To say that there is a crisis in Catholic education in this country is not to discount the profound generosity of many volunteers and teachers who sustain parish programs around the country. If their dedication were the only factor determining success, there would be no problem.
Yet in many if not most settings, religious education is not accomplishing its purpose: to hand on the faith from generation to generation.
Ineffective catechesis—whether in the parish setting or in Catholic schools—is not the sole cause.
For the most part, religious education as presently conducted does not give these young people a compelling reason to believe.
The first step is admitting there is a problem—and any parent who has dragged a squirming fifth grader to a Parish School of Religion class can say what it is: most 10-year-olds do not want to spend such time in a classroom.
More fundamentally, the assumptions built into the current system of religious education, developed at a different time and in a different cultural context, no longer hold.
There was a time when religious belief and self-identification were default positions, supported by social norms. But today, when young people are surrounded by a culture in which choosing to believe is more and more a revolutionary act, religious education must do much more than hand on the basic tenets of the faith.
Unless the option of belief is made real by family and community relationships that offer examples of true Christian discipleship, creedal affirmations are taking root in rocky soil.
What is needed are models of Catholic education that are forcus on Catholic formation. They work to make discipleship tangible and imaginable first, rather than focusing on transmitting the content of the faith. Not coincidentally, they can also be resource-intensive, requiring greater involvement and investment on the part of families, parish staff and Clergy.
No program, however, can ever replace the central role of parents as “the principal and first educators of their children”. The Church must develop a model which seeks to form parents for this mission.
Such a radical shift away from the traditional Catholic elementary school and Parish School of Religion model will require Bishops and Pastors to admit that the path we have been on for decades is not sufficient to respond to today’s needs and cannot be fixed merely with different books, better curricula or more training.
It will likewise require parents to not only teach the faith but live it out joyfully.
Now is the time for the Church to move urgently to develop religious formation programs that introduce children to the Person at the heart of our Faith, Jesus Christ, Who desires not only well-informed students but lifelong disciples.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
IDIOCY ON DISPLAY AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
A pro-Marriage student group at Georgetown University is in danger of being defunded and barred from campus facilities, after fellow students have petitioned that it be recognized as a “hate group.”
The Hoya, Georgetown’s student newspaper, reported on Oct. 20 that Love Saxa, a student organization promoting Catholic doctrine regarding marriage, will undergo a Student Activities Commission hearing on Oct. 23, to defend itself against charges that the group fosters hatred and intolerance.
The hearing is a response to a petition filed by a student-senator in the Georgetown University Student Association, and supported by leaders of gay pride student organizations at Georgetown.
The Student Activities Commission hearing has been postponed until October 30.
So, let me understand this.
There exists the possibility that Georgetown’s student government may deny Love Saxa student activity funding (about $ 250) for the group’s use of university facilities to publicly express Catholic beliefs?
Is that right?
The proximate cause for the so-called investigation by student government leaders is a September op-ed in The Hoya where Love Saxa President,Amelia Irvine, wrote, “we believe that Marriage is a conjugal union on every level—emotional, spiritual, physical and mental—directed toward caring for biological children. To us, Marriage is much more than commitment of love between two consenting adults.”
This completely balanced and particularly Catholic understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage is now alleged to constitute “hate speech” at a Catholic University?
Is that right?
Georgetown is a Catholic university.
Is that right?
There is nothing stopping the administration from stepping in and stopping this before it starts, and castigating the student government for not acting in a manner consistent Catholic doctrine.
Is that right?
The fact the Jesuit-run administration has let things get this far is a disgraceful.
That's right, for sure!
Over the years, the one thing that has been manifestly clear about the Jesuits is this: you will find them lurking around wherever there is money, or power or positions of influence.
If rationality and a commitment to honor the consistent dogmatic and doctrinal teachings of the Church regarding Marriage are not persuasive to the Jesuits who govern Georgetown, perhaps alumni withdrawing financial support will be.
And so, may I suggest to said alumni that perhaps their contributions might be better served if they were donated to institutions which have a clear understanding of what their missions are and are committed to fulfilling those missions.
Clearly, Georgetown University is suffering from a serious identity crisis and has forgotten what its mission as a Catholic institution truly is.
The Hoya, Georgetown’s student newspaper, reported on Oct. 20 that Love Saxa, a student organization promoting Catholic doctrine regarding marriage, will undergo a Student Activities Commission hearing on Oct. 23, to defend itself against charges that the group fosters hatred and intolerance.
The hearing is a response to a petition filed by a student-senator in the Georgetown University Student Association, and supported by leaders of gay pride student organizations at Georgetown.
The Student Activities Commission hearing has been postponed until October 30.
So, let me understand this.
There exists the possibility that Georgetown’s student government may deny Love Saxa student activity funding (about $ 250) for the group’s use of university facilities to publicly express Catholic beliefs?
Is that right?
The proximate cause for the so-called investigation by student government leaders is a September op-ed in The Hoya where Love Saxa President,Amelia Irvine, wrote, “we believe that Marriage is a conjugal union on every level—emotional, spiritual, physical and mental—directed toward caring for biological children. To us, Marriage is much more than commitment of love between two consenting adults.”
This completely balanced and particularly Catholic understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage is now alleged to constitute “hate speech” at a Catholic University?
Is that right?
Georgetown is a Catholic university.
Is that right?
There is nothing stopping the administration from stepping in and stopping this before it starts, and castigating the student government for not acting in a manner consistent Catholic doctrine.
Is that right?
The fact the Jesuit-run administration has let things get this far is a disgraceful.
That's right, for sure!
Over the years, the one thing that has been manifestly clear about the Jesuits is this: you will find them lurking around wherever there is money, or power or positions of influence.
If rationality and a commitment to honor the consistent dogmatic and doctrinal teachings of the Church regarding Marriage are not persuasive to the Jesuits who govern Georgetown, perhaps alumni withdrawing financial support will be.
And so, may I suggest to said alumni that perhaps their contributions might be better served if they were donated to institutions which have a clear understanding of what their missions are and are committed to fulfilling those missions.
Clearly, Georgetown University is suffering from a serious identity crisis and has forgotten what its mission as a Catholic institution truly is.
Monday, November 6, 2017
AMERICAN EPISCOPAL AND CANADIAN ANGLICAN CHURCHES CHANGING MARRIAGE RITUAL TO ALLOW FOR SAME-SEX WEDDINGS?
Eight Anglican Primates have said that they are "deeply grieved" by the decision of the Episcopal Church in the United States to remove references to "husband and wife" from the Marriage Rite.
The changes to the Rite remove all gender-specific language from its definition of marriage, which it no longer defines as between a man and a woman. The changes are designed to make it possible for the Church to hold same-sex weddings.
In a joint statement, the leaders of the Global South group of provinces say that the Episcopal Church "has chosen by its own will and actions in clear knowledge to depart from the Anglican Communion’s standard teaching on human sexuality".
They say that the "unilateral decision" was taken "without giving the least consideration to the possible consequences on other provinces and the Anglican Communion as a whole. . . This resolution clearly contradicts the holy scriptures and God’s plan for creation."
It follows a statement last month from Lambeth Palace which expressed the Archbishop of Canterbury’s "deep concern about the stress for the Anglican Communion".
The move was also criticised by 18 Bishops within the Episcopal Church who have put their name to a "minority report". In it, they say that, by making the changes, the Episcopal Church "has made a significant change in the Church’s understanding of Christian marriage. As bishops of the Church, we must dissent from these actions."
The dissenting bishops commend the definition of marriage in the Prayer Book. Despite their disagreement, however, the bishops say that they will remain with the Episcopal Church.
Canadian Anglicans are also considering changes to the Marriage Rite.
The Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue of Canada (ARC) has described proposals to change the Marriage Rite in Canada to permit same-sex marriages as "worrisome".
"Anglicans and Roman Catholics have agreed that Bishops are responsible for assuring continuity of the apostolic faith. . . Where is that understanding of the Episcopate evidenced in the Anglican synodal process as it addresses the possibility of changing the marriage canon?"
The Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith, and Order has urged the Anglican Church in Canada to resist the move, saying that "for one member Church to make a change of this magnitude . . . would cause great distress for the Communion as a whole."
For its part, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada, which allows its ministers to bless and preside at same-sex marriages, says that it will "respect the decisions of its General Synod, no matter what they are".
The changes to the Rite remove all gender-specific language from its definition of marriage, which it no longer defines as between a man and a woman. The changes are designed to make it possible for the Church to hold same-sex weddings.
In a joint statement, the leaders of the Global South group of provinces say that the Episcopal Church "has chosen by its own will and actions in clear knowledge to depart from the Anglican Communion’s standard teaching on human sexuality".
They say that the "unilateral decision" was taken "without giving the least consideration to the possible consequences on other provinces and the Anglican Communion as a whole. . . This resolution clearly contradicts the holy scriptures and God’s plan for creation."
It follows a statement last month from Lambeth Palace which expressed the Archbishop of Canterbury’s "deep concern about the stress for the Anglican Communion".
The move was also criticised by 18 Bishops within the Episcopal Church who have put their name to a "minority report". In it, they say that, by making the changes, the Episcopal Church "has made a significant change in the Church’s understanding of Christian marriage. As bishops of the Church, we must dissent from these actions."
The dissenting bishops commend the definition of marriage in the Prayer Book. Despite their disagreement, however, the bishops say that they will remain with the Episcopal Church.
Canadian Anglicans are also considering changes to the Marriage Rite.
The Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue of Canada (ARC) has described proposals to change the Marriage Rite in Canada to permit same-sex marriages as "worrisome".
"Anglicans and Roman Catholics have agreed that Bishops are responsible for assuring continuity of the apostolic faith. . . Where is that understanding of the Episcopate evidenced in the Anglican synodal process as it addresses the possibility of changing the marriage canon?"
The Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith, and Order has urged the Anglican Church in Canada to resist the move, saying that "for one member Church to make a change of this magnitude . . . would cause great distress for the Communion as a whole."
For its part, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada, which allows its ministers to bless and preside at same-sex marriages, says that it will "respect the decisions of its General Synod, no matter what they are".