Sometimes, after a long night’s sleep, I feel that I have awakened to a parallel universe where white is black, black is white, up is down, etc....
This morning I read that a German Bishop again (again, mind you) proposed that Catholic Church provide blessing ceremonies for gay couples, as well as divorced and civilly remarried couples.
That is news in and of itself, but what is truly remarkable is that the proposal actually gained support at the Church Conference in Frankfurt where it was discussed this past weekend.
In an interview with Neue Osnabrucker Zeitung, Bishop Franz-Josef Bode, Deputy Chairman of the German Bishops’ Conference, stated: "We need to think about how we can differentiate a relationship between two same-sex people. Is not there so much that is positive, good and right that we have to be fairer?"
The Bishop added that, since same-sex unions are a reality in the country, “We must therefore ask ourselves how we meet those who enter into this relationship and who are also partly involved in the Church. How do we accompany them pastorally and liturgically? How do we live up to them?"
Father Johannes Zu Eltz, the City-dean of the Catholic Church in Frankfurt and a senior official in the Diocese of Limburg, earlier stated that the Church should consider "theologically founded blessing ceremonies" for couples who do not meet the requirements for marriage in the Church.
His suggestion was made during the Frankfurt City Church Forum II, attended by 170 Church leaders. Such forums are used to discuss reforms that can be made within the local Church.
These recent proposals are not the first time that German Clergy have suggested the Church bless same-sex unions or couples in irregular situations.
In 2015, ahead of the Synod on the Family, Bishop Bode stated that, while he understood that the Church could not consider these unions as marriages, the Church should consider the strengths as well as the weaknesses of such unions and perhaps provide a private blessing.
Now, regarding those with same-sex attraction, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (CCC 2358-2359).
I understand this to mean that persons with same-sex attraction are to conform their lives (to the best of their ability as we all must) to the teachings of the Gospel and Holy Mother Church. They are (again to the best of their ability and with the help of God's grace) to avoid homosexual acts and relationships which disordered and contrary to the Will of the Creator and Natural Law itself.
But, in the parallel universe I earlier referenced, these same paragraphs are understood as somehow legitimizing same-sex unions but even affirming those unions by way of a religious ceremony as well.
And who, in this parallel universe, is advocating such proposals: Catholic Bishops in Germany (and elsewhere as I have noted in prior postings).
I best return to bed, hoping that when I awaken, I shall have returned to the universe where white is white and black is black and life and truth makes sense again.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
A REPRISE: THE REAL REASONS CATHOLIC PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS ARE DYING
In a recent post entitled "The Real Reasons Why Catholic Parochial Schools Are Dying", I stated the fact which many Bishops, Pastors and professional educators are loathe to admit, namely. that Catholic parochial education is not affordable and never really has been.
I further stated the fact that, in decades past, the perception Catholic parochial schools were flourishing was largely due to the fact that Women Religious served as teachers and administrators and were never justly compensated for their services to children, their parents, and to Pastors and their parishes.
I must say my article sparked a number of responses, overwhelmingly positive among lay people.
There were, however and as I expected, a number of negative reactions, mostly from Pastors and Priests who disagree with my premise completely.
To them and to those who take exception to my comments, I simply ask this question.
Why did the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops authorize the implementation of a never-ending Special Collection for Retired Religious that is conducted in every parish throughout the country?
Is this Special Collection not a tacit admission that every community of Women Religious was treated unjustly in the financial compensation they received for their dedication to their respective apostolates in teaching and other ministries of service?
As long as Bishops and Pastors could continue to compensate Women Religious at such extraordinarily meager rates, parochial schools could flourish without breaking the parish or diocesan budget.
However, when these dedicated women, for whatever reason, stopped offering their services as teachers and principals in parochial schools, the reality that Catholic parochial education is financially impossible to support was finally revealed once and for all.
No amount of objections or complaints about the harshness of this truth can serve to deny its reality and accuracy.
It is a sad fact that Bishops and most Pastors continue to be willing to fall on the sword of Catholic parochial schools which are beyond both parents and parishes abilities to fund.
Their reluctance to erect new models for the religious and spiritual formation of youngsters is quite confusing to me.
Nevertheless, in the face of this resistance to a new structure for Catholic education, parochial schools as they are now modeled and operate will continue to fall at an alarming rate and, as I suggest, soon be an extinct part of Catholic history in America.
I further stated the fact that, in decades past, the perception Catholic parochial schools were flourishing was largely due to the fact that Women Religious served as teachers and administrators and were never justly compensated for their services to children, their parents, and to Pastors and their parishes.
I must say my article sparked a number of responses, overwhelmingly positive among lay people.
There were, however and as I expected, a number of negative reactions, mostly from Pastors and Priests who disagree with my premise completely.
To them and to those who take exception to my comments, I simply ask this question.
Why did the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops authorize the implementation of a never-ending Special Collection for Retired Religious that is conducted in every parish throughout the country?
Is this Special Collection not a tacit admission that every community of Women Religious was treated unjustly in the financial compensation they received for their dedication to their respective apostolates in teaching and other ministries of service?
As long as Bishops and Pastors could continue to compensate Women Religious at such extraordinarily meager rates, parochial schools could flourish without breaking the parish or diocesan budget.
However, when these dedicated women, for whatever reason, stopped offering their services as teachers and principals in parochial schools, the reality that Catholic parochial education is financially impossible to support was finally revealed once and for all.
No amount of objections or complaints about the harshness of this truth can serve to deny its reality and accuracy.
It is a sad fact that Bishops and most Pastors continue to be willing to fall on the sword of Catholic parochial schools which are beyond both parents and parishes abilities to fund.
Their reluctance to erect new models for the religious and spiritual formation of youngsters is quite confusing to me.
Nevertheless, in the face of this resistance to a new structure for Catholic education, parochial schools as they are now modeled and operate will continue to fall at an alarming rate and, as I suggest, soon be an extinct part of Catholic history in America.
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
FISH AND CRACKERS ON VALENTINE'S DAY OR ELSE....(sigh) OH MY!
This year, Ash Wednesday—which traditionally begins the penitential season of Lent with a day of fasting, abstinence, and prayer—falls on February 14, Valentine’s Day.
Valentine’s Day celebrates a third-century Christian martyr, but it has also become a secular celebration of loving commitment and romantic love.
In a statement, the Archdiocese of Chicago has clarified that Lent is more important than candy hearts. It further suggests that Catholics pick some other day for paper hearts and Cupid’s arrows.
The Archdiocese explained that Catholics will not be dispensed from the laws of fasting and abstinence on Ash Wednesday. Perhaps, Catholics planning to celebrate Valentine’s Day could do so on February 13th, which is also Mardi Gras.
“The obligation of fast and abstinence must naturally be the priority in the Catholic community,” said the statement.
According to the disciplinary laws and customs of the Church, Catholics aged 18-59 are required to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Catholics aged 14 and older are also required to abstain from meat on those days, and on Lenten Fridays.
Once again, in the imposition of these arcane and increasingly irrelevant dietary disciplines, the Church proves how out of touch it is with the People of God.
Does Cardinal Cupich or anyone in the administration of the Archdiocese of Chicago really believe that such a statement will have any impact upon those who celebrate the secular feast of Valentine’s Day with as much fervor and reverence for the opportunity to express their love and commitment to a spouse or sweetheart as they do to the Lord?
How many wedding anniversaries are celebrated on this special day? How many wedding engagements will be pledged?
That the Archbishop of Chicago has chosen to make such a statement provides me with yet another opportunity to bemoan all the dietary disciplines related to the celebration of the Lenten Season.
The overwhelming number of Catholics do not observe these disciplines. That is a fact.
And the reality is that such regulations (laws if you will) are unenforceable to the extent that any sanction or penalty can be imposed should they be ignored or transgressed.
Does not the fundamental rule of law, that an unenforceable precept should never be promulgated not apply to arcane dietary regulations associated with Lent?
Perhaps a simple word to the faithful to honor Ash Wednesday by profoundly entering into the spirit of regret and sorrow for personal sin would have been better than a proclamation of obligation to some meaningless prescript against a meat item on a menu or dinner plate.
The irony of this.
The Chicago statement comes on exactly the same day that Pope Francis has announced a new Apostolic Constitution calling for a “radical” reform to the nature and curriculum of ecclesiastical universities and institutions emphasizing “the primary need today for the whole People of God to be ready to embark upon a new stage of Spirit-filled evangelization.”
A new stage of Spirit-filled evangelization? Eat fish on Valentine’s Day or else?
What am I missing here?
I can only hope there are others among the Bishops who are a bit more intelligent and realistic in calling those entrusted to their pastoral care to a spirit of reconciliation and peace with the Lord by emphasizing the remarkable opportunity which the Lenten Season presents for such personal renewal.
Valentine’s Day celebrates a third-century Christian martyr, but it has also become a secular celebration of loving commitment and romantic love.
In a statement, the Archdiocese of Chicago has clarified that Lent is more important than candy hearts. It further suggests that Catholics pick some other day for paper hearts and Cupid’s arrows.
The Archdiocese explained that Catholics will not be dispensed from the laws of fasting and abstinence on Ash Wednesday. Perhaps, Catholics planning to celebrate Valentine’s Day could do so on February 13th, which is also Mardi Gras.
“The obligation of fast and abstinence must naturally be the priority in the Catholic community,” said the statement.
According to the disciplinary laws and customs of the Church, Catholics aged 18-59 are required to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Catholics aged 14 and older are also required to abstain from meat on those days, and on Lenten Fridays.
Once again, in the imposition of these arcane and increasingly irrelevant dietary disciplines, the Church proves how out of touch it is with the People of God.
Does Cardinal Cupich or anyone in the administration of the Archdiocese of Chicago really believe that such a statement will have any impact upon those who celebrate the secular feast of Valentine’s Day with as much fervor and reverence for the opportunity to express their love and commitment to a spouse or sweetheart as they do to the Lord?
How many wedding anniversaries are celebrated on this special day? How many wedding engagements will be pledged?
That the Archbishop of Chicago has chosen to make such a statement provides me with yet another opportunity to bemoan all the dietary disciplines related to the celebration of the Lenten Season.
The overwhelming number of Catholics do not observe these disciplines. That is a fact.
And the reality is that such regulations (laws if you will) are unenforceable to the extent that any sanction or penalty can be imposed should they be ignored or transgressed.
Does not the fundamental rule of law, that an unenforceable precept should never be promulgated not apply to arcane dietary regulations associated with Lent?
Perhaps a simple word to the faithful to honor Ash Wednesday by profoundly entering into the spirit of regret and sorrow for personal sin would have been better than a proclamation of obligation to some meaningless prescript against a meat item on a menu or dinner plate.
The irony of this.
The Chicago statement comes on exactly the same day that Pope Francis has announced a new Apostolic Constitution calling for a “radical” reform to the nature and curriculum of ecclesiastical universities and institutions emphasizing “the primary need today for the whole People of God to be ready to embark upon a new stage of Spirit-filled evangelization.”
A new stage of Spirit-filled evangelization? Eat fish on Valentine’s Day or else?
What am I missing here?
I can only hope there are others among the Bishops who are a bit more intelligent and realistic in calling those entrusted to their pastoral care to a spirit of reconciliation and peace with the Lord by emphasizing the remarkable opportunity which the Lenten Season presents for such personal renewal.
Monday, January 29, 2018
THE REAL REASONS WHY CATHOLIC PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS ARE DYING
Catholic Bishops are looking to "transform" Catholic schools in response to decades of declining enrollment that has forced hundreds of schools to close since 2005.
Sponsored by the University of Notre Dame, a meeting was called, the sixth in a series since 2009, looking at the future of Catholic education.
Attendees heard sobering statistics on school closings and declining enrollment.
Figures from the National Catholic Educational Association show 1,393 Catholic school closings or consolidations from 2007 to 2017 compared with 287 school openings. During the same period, enrollment declined by 19 percent to less than 1.9 million students. Enrollment peaked in 1965 at more than 5.2 million students.
The Bishops and the educators chose to focus their attention on what they identified as four trends affecting declining parochial school enrollments:
1) The changing relationship across Catholic school leadership including those between Bishops and Pastors, Pastors and principals, and principals and teachers.
2) The evolving landscape of Catholic school governance as more advisory boards of lay leaders take shape.
3) Expanding access to Catholic schools through educational choice.
4) Charter school expansion.
While true, these trends are really only half-truths.
Here is the real reason for the demise of Catholic elementary schools that the Bishops and Pastors lack the courage to admit: CATHOLIC SCHOOLS ARE AND NEVER HAVE BEEN AFFORDABLE.
They are unaffordable both to parents and to parishes.
And the reason they are unaffordable: WOMEN RELIGIOUS ARE NO LONGER IN THE CLASSROOMS!
Catholic parochial schools have never been affordable and only appeared to be because Women Religious served as teachers, principals and administrators for “slave-like” wages.
This allowed many Pastors in the past to boast that their parochial schools were “tuition free” and were able to operate on the free will contributions to the parish.
Those free will contributions were more than sufficient to cover the cost of faculties staffed by Women Religious who provided teaching and administrative services for a price that had little impact upon overall parochial costs.
When the Sisters left the classrooms -- as they did in droves in the late 1960s and 70s -- they were replaced by lay teachers and administrators who in justice demanded a living wage which for decades had been denied Women Religious.
At that point, the reality of the un-affordability of Catholic parochial education was exposed for the deception it always was.
That fundamental fact and the related fact that many parents today do not see any particular value in the religious formation which occurs in the Catholic school are sufficient to explain why Catholic parochial education is at death’s doorstep.
Society has become very secular. Fewer and fewer parents see the value of religious education and increasingly lack the financial ability to pay the tuitions which Catholic parochial schools are demanding.
Until the Bishops, Pastors and the National Catholic Association of Educators come to terms with these truths, parochial schools will continue their onward march toward extinction.
There are a number of Bishops who wish to address the staggering tuition of parochial schools by insisting that civil legislation be passed within their States to provide financial assistance to parents who choose private of faith-based schools.
Such a solution is folly for it invites government intrusion into parochial education, a thought too terrible to seriously consider.
Other Bishops and Pastors insist upon going to donors, people whose lives have been positively affected by Catholic schools and have been blessed with economic security and asking them to give back to Catholic schools.
A stopgap strategy at best -- as are any and all forms of fundraisers to support schools.
A new model of religious education and formation needs to be developed.
Cooperation between parishes and charter schools might be a promising alliance since, while publicly funded, charter schools are privately run and afford parents with an alternative to traditional public education.
Yet, almost every Bishop and Pastor has been publicly reluctant and openly opposed to such an alliance.
Such reluctance and opposition will, in my opinion, spell the end of Catholic parochial education.
For some strange and sad reason, Bishops and Pastors don’t seem to care enough about parochial schools to be truly be creative and bold in providing for their continued service in the education and religious formation of children.
Sponsored by the University of Notre Dame, a meeting was called, the sixth in a series since 2009, looking at the future of Catholic education.
Attendees heard sobering statistics on school closings and declining enrollment.
Figures from the National Catholic Educational Association show 1,393 Catholic school closings or consolidations from 2007 to 2017 compared with 287 school openings. During the same period, enrollment declined by 19 percent to less than 1.9 million students. Enrollment peaked in 1965 at more than 5.2 million students.
The Bishops and the educators chose to focus their attention on what they identified as four trends affecting declining parochial school enrollments:
1) The changing relationship across Catholic school leadership including those between Bishops and Pastors, Pastors and principals, and principals and teachers.
2) The evolving landscape of Catholic school governance as more advisory boards of lay leaders take shape.
3) Expanding access to Catholic schools through educational choice.
4) Charter school expansion.
While true, these trends are really only half-truths.
Here is the real reason for the demise of Catholic elementary schools that the Bishops and Pastors lack the courage to admit: CATHOLIC SCHOOLS ARE AND NEVER HAVE BEEN AFFORDABLE.
They are unaffordable both to parents and to parishes.
And the reason they are unaffordable: WOMEN RELIGIOUS ARE NO LONGER IN THE CLASSROOMS!
Catholic parochial schools have never been affordable and only appeared to be because Women Religious served as teachers, principals and administrators for “slave-like” wages.
This allowed many Pastors in the past to boast that their parochial schools were “tuition free” and were able to operate on the free will contributions to the parish.
Those free will contributions were more than sufficient to cover the cost of faculties staffed by Women Religious who provided teaching and administrative services for a price that had little impact upon overall parochial costs.
When the Sisters left the classrooms -- as they did in droves in the late 1960s and 70s -- they were replaced by lay teachers and administrators who in justice demanded a living wage which for decades had been denied Women Religious.
At that point, the reality of the un-affordability of Catholic parochial education was exposed for the deception it always was.
That fundamental fact and the related fact that many parents today do not see any particular value in the religious formation which occurs in the Catholic school are sufficient to explain why Catholic parochial education is at death’s doorstep.
Society has become very secular. Fewer and fewer parents see the value of religious education and increasingly lack the financial ability to pay the tuitions which Catholic parochial schools are demanding.
Until the Bishops, Pastors and the National Catholic Association of Educators come to terms with these truths, parochial schools will continue their onward march toward extinction.
There are a number of Bishops who wish to address the staggering tuition of parochial schools by insisting that civil legislation be passed within their States to provide financial assistance to parents who choose private of faith-based schools.
Such a solution is folly for it invites government intrusion into parochial education, a thought too terrible to seriously consider.
Other Bishops and Pastors insist upon going to donors, people whose lives have been positively affected by Catholic schools and have been blessed with economic security and asking them to give back to Catholic schools.
A stopgap strategy at best -- as are any and all forms of fundraisers to support schools.
A new model of religious education and formation needs to be developed.
Cooperation between parishes and charter schools might be a promising alliance since, while publicly funded, charter schools are privately run and afford parents with an alternative to traditional public education.
Yet, almost every Bishop and Pastor has been publicly reluctant and openly opposed to such an alliance.
Such reluctance and opposition will, in my opinion, spell the end of Catholic parochial education.
For some strange and sad reason, Bishops and Pastors don’t seem to care enough about parochial schools to be truly be creative and bold in providing for their continued service in the education and religious formation of children.
Sunday, January 28, 2018
THE UPCOMING SYNOD ON YOUTH
Pope Francis has called a Synod on “Young People, Faith and Vocational Discernment”.
At this gathering, leaders will discuss how the Church can assist young people in living their faith “through a series of choices that find expression in the states of life.”
Pope Francis wants the Church to encourage young people in realizing their vocation to holiness as lifelong adult Catholics by learning how to discern God’s will in their daily lives.
All this is well and good -- in theory.
But, the reality of life among young people today is totally different than it once was.
Young people do not mature and take personal responsibility for themselves as they once did.
And it seems everyone -- including the Church -- is eager and anxious to provide all kinds of reasons for this phenomenon.
Sadly, all those reasons appear to suggest that young people in today’s world take longer to mature because delaying the responsibilities of adulthood are less a choice now and “more the hand these poor youngsters have been dealt” by society.
In other words, young people are victims!
In the context of the Synod, here is what the theme is beginning to sound like: young adults in their crucial period of life are searching for belonging, identity and mission. Without mentors to teach them or a peer community to belong to, young adults often view the Church as irrelevant and look outside of it for meaning.
And so, it appears that already a pastoral approach to addressing this crisis is beginning to emerge even before the Synod has called its first meeting.
Here is a list of proposals to the Synod being touted by youth ministers in the United States.
First, listening sessions to ascertain the needs and interests of young adults through one-on-one conversations or listening sessions.
Really?
More listening sessions?
Really?
Doesn’t practical experience have anything of value to offer?
Is it all that difficult for the Church to realize and confront the fact that young people today are encouraged not to take personal responsibility for their lives by parents who provide every means support, excuse every failing, and protect their offspring by warding off all the rightful consequences of their irresponsible or selfish behavior?
Listening sessions for young people to whine about how life is so difficult isn’t going to help them.
On the contrary, young people need to be told and they need to listen to the reality that life is indeed tough and requires clear and committed moral choices which lead to a fulfilling successful future.
Another proposal to the Synod will be to invite young adults to represent key leadership areas of parish life.
Key leadership positions within the parish?
On the basis of what?
Knowledge? Expertise? Experience?
Oh, I missed it, just on the basis of their age!
That’s it.
Just another way of coddling to the subtle demands of young people who feel somehow neglected and overlooked.
Nonsense!
Once and for all, the Church needs to reject such pandering and assure young people that until such a time that they have shown they are capable of accepting the demands and burden of leadership, leadership positions will rightly be denied them.
Finally, the touchstone of all worthless suggestions is being proposed to the Synodal Fathers, that is, to offer small groups as young adult or intergenerational formation.
Small groups?
I would have hoped this nonsense had ended long ago with tie-dye tee shirts and lava lamps. What drivel!
Sadly, the Church has failed to respond to the reality of emerging adulthood in modern society.
The fact is that the last touch point for most Catholics is the Sacrament of Confirmation around age 13. From then on few, if any, young Catholics have any real contact with the Church until they seek to marry, if then.
There has been little or no practical outreach to parents and families designed to encourage fidelity to the practice of the Faith by every person within the home.
If the Synod on young people is to be effective and significant, then Church leaders need to understand that moral and spiritual formation is a lifetime process, dependent upon parents who establish a clear Catholic identity within their families by way of attendance at Mass and frequent reception of the Sacraments.
No program, no gimmick, no initiative directed at an age group can ever substitute for the influence which parents and family members have upon the formation and maturity of young people.
Until the Church clearly enunciates this fundamental reality and bases every initiative it undertakes in recognition and support of this fact, all the Synod, meetings, small groups and listening sessions will be meaningless and fruitless.
The Synod on young people is a tremendous opportunity for the Church to address its future.
That opportunity will be wasted if the Synodal Fathers welcome and encourage the useless proposals being laid at their doorstep right now.
At this gathering, leaders will discuss how the Church can assist young people in living their faith “through a series of choices that find expression in the states of life.”
Pope Francis wants the Church to encourage young people in realizing their vocation to holiness as lifelong adult Catholics by learning how to discern God’s will in their daily lives.
All this is well and good -- in theory.
But, the reality of life among young people today is totally different than it once was.
Young people do not mature and take personal responsibility for themselves as they once did.
And it seems everyone -- including the Church -- is eager and anxious to provide all kinds of reasons for this phenomenon.
Sadly, all those reasons appear to suggest that young people in today’s world take longer to mature because delaying the responsibilities of adulthood are less a choice now and “more the hand these poor youngsters have been dealt” by society.
In other words, young people are victims!
In the context of the Synod, here is what the theme is beginning to sound like: young adults in their crucial period of life are searching for belonging, identity and mission. Without mentors to teach them or a peer community to belong to, young adults often view the Church as irrelevant and look outside of it for meaning.
And so, it appears that already a pastoral approach to addressing this crisis is beginning to emerge even before the Synod has called its first meeting.
Here is a list of proposals to the Synod being touted by youth ministers in the United States.
First, listening sessions to ascertain the needs and interests of young adults through one-on-one conversations or listening sessions.
Really?
More listening sessions?
Really?
Doesn’t practical experience have anything of value to offer?
Is it all that difficult for the Church to realize and confront the fact that young people today are encouraged not to take personal responsibility for their lives by parents who provide every means support, excuse every failing, and protect their offspring by warding off all the rightful consequences of their irresponsible or selfish behavior?
Listening sessions for young people to whine about how life is so difficult isn’t going to help them.
On the contrary, young people need to be told and they need to listen to the reality that life is indeed tough and requires clear and committed moral choices which lead to a fulfilling successful future.
Another proposal to the Synod will be to invite young adults to represent key leadership areas of parish life.
Key leadership positions within the parish?
On the basis of what?
Knowledge? Expertise? Experience?
Oh, I missed it, just on the basis of their age!
That’s it.
Just another way of coddling to the subtle demands of young people who feel somehow neglected and overlooked.
Nonsense!
Once and for all, the Church needs to reject such pandering and assure young people that until such a time that they have shown they are capable of accepting the demands and burden of leadership, leadership positions will rightly be denied them.
Finally, the touchstone of all worthless suggestions is being proposed to the Synodal Fathers, that is, to offer small groups as young adult or intergenerational formation.
Small groups?
I would have hoped this nonsense had ended long ago with tie-dye tee shirts and lava lamps. What drivel!
Sadly, the Church has failed to respond to the reality of emerging adulthood in modern society.
The fact is that the last touch point for most Catholics is the Sacrament of Confirmation around age 13. From then on few, if any, young Catholics have any real contact with the Church until they seek to marry, if then.
There has been little or no practical outreach to parents and families designed to encourage fidelity to the practice of the Faith by every person within the home.
If the Synod on young people is to be effective and significant, then Church leaders need to understand that moral and spiritual formation is a lifetime process, dependent upon parents who establish a clear Catholic identity within their families by way of attendance at Mass and frequent reception of the Sacraments.
No program, no gimmick, no initiative directed at an age group can ever substitute for the influence which parents and family members have upon the formation and maturity of young people.
Until the Church clearly enunciates this fundamental reality and bases every initiative it undertakes in recognition and support of this fact, all the Synod, meetings, small groups and listening sessions will be meaningless and fruitless.
The Synod on young people is a tremendous opportunity for the Church to address its future.
That opportunity will be wasted if the Synodal Fathers welcome and encourage the useless proposals being laid at their doorstep right now.
Friday, January 26, 2018
CATHOLIC BLOGSITES vs CATHOLIC HATESITES
There are upward of 30 million bloggers on the Internet these days.
I am one of them.
In my observation and commentary regarding contemporary Catholicism, I try to present a balanced, unbiased viewpoint, all the while attempting to fulfill my promise of obedience and respect toward those whom the Church has placed in positions of authority and leadership.
This is not to say that I have been un-critical of Church leadership or practice.
But, I hope the readers will agree that my critiques are justified by the facts of history or the facts of the moment. I trust they find my commentary to be fair and balanced.
There are, however, bloggers who are the technological equivalent of town gossips, spreading rumors and innuendos, distrust and hatred wherever they can and over whatever issue they can concoct.
Why are these so-called "Catholic" bloggers so negative?
Why would anyone listen to them?
There was a time when opinions were difficult to be published. In fact, it still is hard to be published by reputable outlets.
But reputable outlets are being pushed off both stage and screen by self-publishing individuals with more time than education and knowledge.
These so-called self-appointed defenders of the faith spew their unedited musings without benefit of fact. They create facts from their own opinion and gain followers through their negativity.
And they repeatedly attack the Holy Father.
In the world of contemporary Catholicism, the official Church seems quite out of touch.
The fact is Priests need “faculties” to preach or teach the faithful. These “faculties” are a way of assuring the faithful that a given Priest speaks with the permission of and in the name of the Church itself. Faculties are territorial in that they are given by local Bishops to Priests within their own dioceses.
Bloggers, on the other hand, have no such faculties. Their territories are unlimited, extending to the furthest end of the Internet itself.
The Bishops need to speak to the faithful about this situation.
Followers of so-called Catholic blogsites need to be mindful that bloggers speak for no one other than themselves and oftentimes with little factual knowledge to support the opinions which they seek to impose upon their readers.
As a committed blogger, I just thought I’d set the record a bit straighter in this regard.
I am one of them.
In my observation and commentary regarding contemporary Catholicism, I try to present a balanced, unbiased viewpoint, all the while attempting to fulfill my promise of obedience and respect toward those whom the Church has placed in positions of authority and leadership.
This is not to say that I have been un-critical of Church leadership or practice.
But, I hope the readers will agree that my critiques are justified by the facts of history or the facts of the moment. I trust they find my commentary to be fair and balanced.
There are, however, bloggers who are the technological equivalent of town gossips, spreading rumors and innuendos, distrust and hatred wherever they can and over whatever issue they can concoct.
Why are these so-called "Catholic" bloggers so negative?
Why would anyone listen to them?
There was a time when opinions were difficult to be published. In fact, it still is hard to be published by reputable outlets.
But reputable outlets are being pushed off both stage and screen by self-publishing individuals with more time than education and knowledge.
These so-called self-appointed defenders of the faith spew their unedited musings without benefit of fact. They create facts from their own opinion and gain followers through their negativity.
And they repeatedly attack the Holy Father.
In the world of contemporary Catholicism, the official Church seems quite out of touch.
The fact is Priests need “faculties” to preach or teach the faithful. These “faculties” are a way of assuring the faithful that a given Priest speaks with the permission of and in the name of the Church itself. Faculties are territorial in that they are given by local Bishops to Priests within their own dioceses.
Bloggers, on the other hand, have no such faculties. Their territories are unlimited, extending to the furthest end of the Internet itself.
The Bishops need to speak to the faithful about this situation.
Followers of so-called Catholic blogsites need to be mindful that bloggers speak for no one other than themselves and oftentimes with little factual knowledge to support the opinions which they seek to impose upon their readers.
As a committed blogger, I just thought I’d set the record a bit straighter in this regard.
THE HYSTERIA MUST END
Perhaps this will be my final word on the hysteria that has gripped the Church with regard to the scandal resulting from the sexual abuse of minors by some members of the Clergy.
Most likely not.
We should all be profoundly disturbed by the mob mentality that has overtaken the Church in addressing the problem.
It is one thing to accuse, quite another to equate accusation with guilt.
Have we forgotten the parallel periods in history that are stains upon our collective consciences as human beings?
Those who are calling for and enacting summary judgment—particularly those who consider themselves defenders of the innocent—might want to consider their actions in the light of history.
Have we forgotten the horror of the Salem witch trials? The victims of Joe McCarthy? Blacks lynched, not by the decision of any court but as a result of accusations that they had assaulted or whistled or looked the wrong way at a white woman.
I am sure that those who are calling for immediate punishment of accused abusers would heartily condemn these prior events.
As members of the Body of Christ should we not give proper example by respecting a process which provides justice to the perpetrators as well as the victims of harassment and abuse?
Certainly, it is time for the abused to have their voices heard. It is long overdue!
But we must allow that the accused, rather than being summarily condemned, to have their voices heard as well—be it as an admission and acceptance of punishment or a denial and defense of their innocence.
Then we must consider the facts and weigh the evidence.
In defense of the faith and virtues we profess as followers of Jesus, can we not, must we not do better?
We can—indeed must—strengthen review processes so that the rights of both the accusers and the accused are protected.
Admittedly in a brusque and awkward way, Pope Francis recently brought this to our attention.
He has been pilloried for his effort to defend a Bishop accused of complicity, tried in the court of public opinion without any substantial evidence, and found guilty.
The Church is at a critical juncture.
This hysteria must end.
It’s time for reason and justice to lead on the reality of sexual abuse of minors by members of the Catholic Clergy.
It time for courage and allegiance to the Gospel to bring both an end to the sexual exploitation of young people by Clergy and provide a fitting model of addressing this horrific behavior with justice.
Most likely not.
We should all be profoundly disturbed by the mob mentality that has overtaken the Church in addressing the problem.
It is one thing to accuse, quite another to equate accusation with guilt.
Have we forgotten the parallel periods in history that are stains upon our collective consciences as human beings?
Those who are calling for and enacting summary judgment—particularly those who consider themselves defenders of the innocent—might want to consider their actions in the light of history.
Have we forgotten the horror of the Salem witch trials? The victims of Joe McCarthy? Blacks lynched, not by the decision of any court but as a result of accusations that they had assaulted or whistled or looked the wrong way at a white woman.
I am sure that those who are calling for immediate punishment of accused abusers would heartily condemn these prior events.
As members of the Body of Christ should we not give proper example by respecting a process which provides justice to the perpetrators as well as the victims of harassment and abuse?
Certainly, it is time for the abused to have their voices heard. It is long overdue!
But we must allow that the accused, rather than being summarily condemned, to have their voices heard as well—be it as an admission and acceptance of punishment or a denial and defense of their innocence.
Then we must consider the facts and weigh the evidence.
In defense of the faith and virtues we profess as followers of Jesus, can we not, must we not do better?
We can—indeed must—strengthen review processes so that the rights of both the accusers and the accused are protected.
Admittedly in a brusque and awkward way, Pope Francis recently brought this to our attention.
He has been pilloried for his effort to defend a Bishop accused of complicity, tried in the court of public opinion without any substantial evidence, and found guilty.
The Church is at a critical juncture.
This hysteria must end.
It’s time for reason and justice to lead on the reality of sexual abuse of minors by members of the Catholic Clergy.
It time for courage and allegiance to the Gospel to bring both an end to the sexual exploitation of young people by Clergy and provide a fitting model of addressing this horrific behavior with justice.
ENOUGH WITH THE ARISTOCRATIC NONSENSE OF VATICAN DIPLOMACY
Despite the public outcry that has arisen over bestowing Dutch politician, Lilianne Ploumen, with a medal and the title of Commander in the Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great last summer, the Vatican has stated that it has no plans to change the procedure of "exchanging honors" during historic official visits of heads of state to the Vatican.
A Church spokesperson states that the Holy See believes that the responsibility for any subsequent abuse of such decorations rests with the visiting delegation.
The Vatican and the Dutch government exchanged honors when Holland’s King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima made their first, historic official visit to the Pope and the Vatican last June.
Ploumen, a staunch promoter of abortion who started a fund called She Decides which has raised nearly $400 million for international pro-abortion organizations since July, took part in the delegation as a government minister.
Later, Ploumen stated the Pope had awarded it to her in recognition of her work in lobbying for abortion for girls.
The Vatican insists that this was “a very traditional procedure” for such an “historic occasion” and was really meant as a way of “honoring the king.” It is something that “has been done many times in the past for other visiting heads of state,” he said.
The Commander in the Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great medal is normally given in recognition of “personal service to the Holy See and to the Roman Catholic Church, through unusual labors, support of the Holy See, and excellent example set forth in one’s community and country.”
This is the 21st Century.
Isn’t it about time the anachronisms of aristocratic customs of past centuries be put away and done with once and for all?
What do practices more in line with the trappings of royal courts have to do with the proclamation of the Gospel?
How contrary to the teachings of Christ all these silly aristocratic titles and trivial diplomatic gestures are!
Certainly, those who labor to defend the faith and provide noteworthy and excellent example of Christian virtue are to be rightly esteemed for their noble work.
To receive the the Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great should be an honor earned for exemplary witness to the Catholic Faith -- Lord knows we need such witness in our secular world today.
But to reduce such honors to diplomatic gestures cheapens the really meaning of the recognition and demeans the credibility of the Church itself and insults those who have carried the rank of this Order with dignity and well-deserved recognition.
The Church needs to shed its European aristocratic and elitist apron strings, grow up and start living in the real world where every person should be respected and honor is bestowed for deeds and not on account of the accident of birth, heritage or political association.
When a political or secularist attitude is adopted in conducting its affairs, the Catholic Faith is always weakened and confirms that age-old accusations that Church courts the favor of the rich and powerful.
Such behavior needs to end.
Only by doing so will the Church in the future avoid the black eye it has inflicted upon itself in this and other debacles like this.
A Church spokesperson states that the Holy See believes that the responsibility for any subsequent abuse of such decorations rests with the visiting delegation.
The Vatican and the Dutch government exchanged honors when Holland’s King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima made their first, historic official visit to the Pope and the Vatican last June.
Ploumen, a staunch promoter of abortion who started a fund called She Decides which has raised nearly $400 million for international pro-abortion organizations since July, took part in the delegation as a government minister.
Later, Ploumen stated the Pope had awarded it to her in recognition of her work in lobbying for abortion for girls.
The Vatican insists that this was “a very traditional procedure” for such an “historic occasion” and was really meant as a way of “honoring the king.” It is something that “has been done many times in the past for other visiting heads of state,” he said.
The Commander in the Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great medal is normally given in recognition of “personal service to the Holy See and to the Roman Catholic Church, through unusual labors, support of the Holy See, and excellent example set forth in one’s community and country.”
This is the 21st Century.
Isn’t it about time the anachronisms of aristocratic customs of past centuries be put away and done with once and for all?
What do practices more in line with the trappings of royal courts have to do with the proclamation of the Gospel?
How contrary to the teachings of Christ all these silly aristocratic titles and trivial diplomatic gestures are!
Certainly, those who labor to defend the faith and provide noteworthy and excellent example of Christian virtue are to be rightly esteemed for their noble work.
To receive the the Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great should be an honor earned for exemplary witness to the Catholic Faith -- Lord knows we need such witness in our secular world today.
But to reduce such honors to diplomatic gestures cheapens the really meaning of the recognition and demeans the credibility of the Church itself and insults those who have carried the rank of this Order with dignity and well-deserved recognition.
The Church needs to shed its European aristocratic and elitist apron strings, grow up and start living in the real world where every person should be respected and honor is bestowed for deeds and not on account of the accident of birth, heritage or political association.
When a political or secularist attitude is adopted in conducting its affairs, the Catholic Faith is always weakened and confirms that age-old accusations that Church courts the favor of the rich and powerful.
Such behavior needs to end.
Only by doing so will the Church in the future avoid the black eye it has inflicted upon itself in this and other debacles like this.
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
THE TIME HAS COME
Cardinal Beniamino, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, in his recently released book All Francis’ Men, has intimated that the Church should consider ordaining married men -- in some cases.
The Cardinal suggests that the Church ought not to be “closed nor rigid" in considering this issue. He writes, “there is acute suffering because of a real ‘sacramental emergency,’ which the few Priests present are not able to accommodate.”
The Cardinal continues, “Continuing to maintain their family and jobs and receiving a formation contextualized for their environment,” married Priests “could offer part-time service to the community they come from in order to guarantee the sacraments, especially by presiding at the Eucharistic celebration.”
His Eminence further reflects urging the Church to consider if “the Spirit suggests something” and use “a widespread ecclesial discernment” on this topic.
In the face of the reality of the paucity of Priests to provide sacramental and pastoral care for the multitudes, it is time that the Church confront the fact that marriage does not nor ever has constituted an impediment to Ordination to the Priesthood.
In the Latin Church, celibate Priests are the norm.
But the norm is in itself an aberration from the history of the Sacred Priesthood which for well over a millenium was conferred upon married men.
The Orthodox Church as well as Eastern Catholic Rites have maintained the Apostolic Tradition regarding ordaining married men to the Priesthood.
It is beyond understanding that some Protestant Pastors who become Catholic are granted the privilege to be ordained Priests in the Latin Rite, while at the same time, denying Ordination to Latin Rite married men who present themselves for service to the Church as Priests.
Priestly celibacy is one of the hallmarks of the Latin Rite Church.
Increasingly, it is a hallmark that serves no purpose other than as to be obstacle to providing pastoral care to increasing numbers of the faithful who are being deprived the Sacraments for lack of a Priest or Pastor.
Let no one deceive themselves, most of all Bishops. A married Priesthood will very quickly become the norm in the Latin Rite.
At the outset, the justification for the return to the more Apostolic tradition will be to provide Priestly and sacramental care “in the remote places of the world”. But quickly, very quickly, that reasoning will expose itself as shoddy and indefensible.
Wherever the faithful are deprived the Sacraments justifies the ordaining of married men.
As we have seen in the case of the Permanent Diaconate, revived and envisioned as a resource of assistance to Priests and Pastors especially in missionary contexts, the Order was soon quickly adopted in America where the overwhelming majority of Permanent Deacons now exists.
Once the Church breaks its Medieval stranglehold upon the Priesthood demanding that only celibate men present themselves for Priestly Ordination, the Latin Rite Priesthood will quickly become the norm universally.
This is what the Bishops have and continue to fear.
Sadly, the Bishops, who consistently encourage the faithful to trust in God’s Providential care, are the quickest to fear the presence and assistance of that Providence in matters pertaining to the proclamation and celebration of the Catholic Faith.
The time has come for this bold return to the Priesthood in the fullness of its Apostolic expression.
One final word.
The spectacle of the Church allowing Protestant dissenters being ordained to the Latin Rite Priesthood while continuing to punish Priests who were forced into laicization because the realized and sought the blessing of Sacramental Marriage should no longer be tolerated.
The Church needs to reconcile with those Priests who were forced to abandon their ministry because they believed themselves incapable of celibacy yet still wished to serve the Body of Christ.
The Church needs to stop being punitive to these Priests and allow them to return, in some fashion, to fulfilling their Priestly vocations.
God bless Pope Francis, Cardinal Beniamino and all those in positions of authority and leadership for calling the Church to accountability and maturity in the dispensation of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
The Cardinal suggests that the Church ought not to be “closed nor rigid" in considering this issue. He writes, “there is acute suffering because of a real ‘sacramental emergency,’ which the few Priests present are not able to accommodate.”
The Cardinal continues, “Continuing to maintain their family and jobs and receiving a formation contextualized for their environment,” married Priests “could offer part-time service to the community they come from in order to guarantee the sacraments, especially by presiding at the Eucharistic celebration.”
His Eminence further reflects urging the Church to consider if “the Spirit suggests something” and use “a widespread ecclesial discernment” on this topic.
In the face of the reality of the paucity of Priests to provide sacramental and pastoral care for the multitudes, it is time that the Church confront the fact that marriage does not nor ever has constituted an impediment to Ordination to the Priesthood.
In the Latin Church, celibate Priests are the norm.
But the norm is in itself an aberration from the history of the Sacred Priesthood which for well over a millenium was conferred upon married men.
The Orthodox Church as well as Eastern Catholic Rites have maintained the Apostolic Tradition regarding ordaining married men to the Priesthood.
It is beyond understanding that some Protestant Pastors who become Catholic are granted the privilege to be ordained Priests in the Latin Rite, while at the same time, denying Ordination to Latin Rite married men who present themselves for service to the Church as Priests.
Priestly celibacy is one of the hallmarks of the Latin Rite Church.
Increasingly, it is a hallmark that serves no purpose other than as to be obstacle to providing pastoral care to increasing numbers of the faithful who are being deprived the Sacraments for lack of a Priest or Pastor.
Let no one deceive themselves, most of all Bishops. A married Priesthood will very quickly become the norm in the Latin Rite.
At the outset, the justification for the return to the more Apostolic tradition will be to provide Priestly and sacramental care “in the remote places of the world”. But quickly, very quickly, that reasoning will expose itself as shoddy and indefensible.
Wherever the faithful are deprived the Sacraments justifies the ordaining of married men.
As we have seen in the case of the Permanent Diaconate, revived and envisioned as a resource of assistance to Priests and Pastors especially in missionary contexts, the Order was soon quickly adopted in America where the overwhelming majority of Permanent Deacons now exists.
Once the Church breaks its Medieval stranglehold upon the Priesthood demanding that only celibate men present themselves for Priestly Ordination, the Latin Rite Priesthood will quickly become the norm universally.
This is what the Bishops have and continue to fear.
Sadly, the Bishops, who consistently encourage the faithful to trust in God’s Providential care, are the quickest to fear the presence and assistance of that Providence in matters pertaining to the proclamation and celebration of the Catholic Faith.
The time has come for this bold return to the Priesthood in the fullness of its Apostolic expression.
One final word.
The spectacle of the Church allowing Protestant dissenters being ordained to the Latin Rite Priesthood while continuing to punish Priests who were forced into laicization because the realized and sought the blessing of Sacramental Marriage should no longer be tolerated.
The Church needs to reconcile with those Priests who were forced to abandon their ministry because they believed themselves incapable of celibacy yet still wished to serve the Body of Christ.
The Church needs to stop being punitive to these Priests and allow them to return, in some fashion, to fulfilling their Priestly vocations.
God bless Pope Francis, Cardinal Beniamino and all those in positions of authority and leadership for calling the Church to accountability and maturity in the dispensation of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
MORE ON THAT SO-CALLED SPONTANEOUS AIRPLANE WEDDING CELEBRATED BY POPE FRANCIS
Earlier this week, I posted an article regarding a marriage ceremony which Pope Francis celebrated aboard the Papal airplane while on a recent flight to Chile.
Almost every news account regarding the event seemed to indicate that the wedding was spontaneous.
Now, however, information is coming forth which indicates that the celebration of the Marriage may well have been planned in advance.
On the website of the Chilean newspaper, El Mercurio, published on December 19 , 2017, an article speaks of the same couple, flight attendants named Carlos Ciuffardi and Paula Podest Ruiz, who say they were hoping that Pope Francis would marry them at high altitude during the pre-planned flight.
The same article explains that the two were married civilly but postponed an expected Catholic wedding for eight years. They were hoping that Pope Francis would marry them during the flight.
However, when the news report of the actual wedding ceremony broke, Ciuffardi’s account to the press following the event gave the impression that the wedding was offered and given spontaneously by Pope himself.
Although Director of the Holy See Press Office, Greg Burke. later told the media that the wedding “was not the Pope's idea; it was their idea, but the Pope was happy to do it,” the Holy See’s Vatican News site has done nothing to counteract the impression that the event was spontaneous and unplanned, as it has been portrayed in most of the international media.
Certainly, some Bishops who try to uphold Church norms fostering values such as deliberate marriage preparation, an ecclesial context for a Catholic wedding, and the use of established and reliable texts for expressing consent may have the Podest-Ciuffardi wedding tossed in their face as evidence that, "if Pope Francis does not insist on such legalistic silliness and only cares about whether two people love one another, why shouldn’t they do likewise?”
In some cases, the ministry of conscientious Clergy in this regard may have gotten a bit harder, but perhaps just a bit.
Still, by his positive response to what now seems to have been a request by the flight attendants to have their civil marriage blessed and validated by the Church, the Holy Father may have provided Bishops and Priests with a positive example of what it means to be of service to God’s people.
Perhaps, this moment will allow the Church to step back and question whether or not all the rules and regulations regarding the celebration of weddings are not arcane obstacles to the celebration of the Sacrament.
In my opinion, both the couples and the Church pay far too much attention to the celebration of the Sacrament of Marriage and far too little attention to the reality of love and self-sacrifice the marital bond requires of individuals.
If a couple comes forth committed to each other, fully cognizant and ready to embrace the demands of Marriage, and wish to have their union blessed and validated sacramentally, perhaps the Church, her Bishops and Priests might be a bit more disposed to accommodate their wishes as to how and where the exchange of vows will be celebrated.
Of course, there will be ludicrous requests and not so subtle demands made by some couples who may be unreasonable and even frivolous in their wedding plans, but the vast majority of couples who come to the Church to receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony may be presumed to be reasonable people.
Is it all that problematic or unreasonable for the Church to accede to their requests?
Apparently, the Holy Father has shown that he is willing to do so. May Bishops and Pastors show a similar disposition.
Almost every news account regarding the event seemed to indicate that the wedding was spontaneous.
Now, however, information is coming forth which indicates that the celebration of the Marriage may well have been planned in advance.
On the website of the Chilean newspaper, El Mercurio, published on December 19 , 2017, an article speaks of the same couple, flight attendants named Carlos Ciuffardi and Paula Podest Ruiz, who say they were hoping that Pope Francis would marry them at high altitude during the pre-planned flight.
The same article explains that the two were married civilly but postponed an expected Catholic wedding for eight years. They were hoping that Pope Francis would marry them during the flight.
However, when the news report of the actual wedding ceremony broke, Ciuffardi’s account to the press following the event gave the impression that the wedding was offered and given spontaneously by Pope himself.
Although Director of the Holy See Press Office, Greg Burke. later told the media that the wedding “was not the Pope's idea; it was their idea, but the Pope was happy to do it,” the Holy See’s Vatican News site has done nothing to counteract the impression that the event was spontaneous and unplanned, as it has been portrayed in most of the international media.
Certainly, some Bishops who try to uphold Church norms fostering values such as deliberate marriage preparation, an ecclesial context for a Catholic wedding, and the use of established and reliable texts for expressing consent may have the Podest-Ciuffardi wedding tossed in their face as evidence that, "if Pope Francis does not insist on such legalistic silliness and only cares about whether two people love one another, why shouldn’t they do likewise?”
In some cases, the ministry of conscientious Clergy in this regard may have gotten a bit harder, but perhaps just a bit.
Still, by his positive response to what now seems to have been a request by the flight attendants to have their civil marriage blessed and validated by the Church, the Holy Father may have provided Bishops and Priests with a positive example of what it means to be of service to God’s people.
Perhaps, this moment will allow the Church to step back and question whether or not all the rules and regulations regarding the celebration of weddings are not arcane obstacles to the celebration of the Sacrament.
In my opinion, both the couples and the Church pay far too much attention to the celebration of the Sacrament of Marriage and far too little attention to the reality of love and self-sacrifice the marital bond requires of individuals.
If a couple comes forth committed to each other, fully cognizant and ready to embrace the demands of Marriage, and wish to have their union blessed and validated sacramentally, perhaps the Church, her Bishops and Priests might be a bit more disposed to accommodate their wishes as to how and where the exchange of vows will be celebrated.
Of course, there will be ludicrous requests and not so subtle demands made by some couples who may be unreasonable and even frivolous in their wedding plans, but the vast majority of couples who come to the Church to receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony may be presumed to be reasonable people.
Is it all that problematic or unreasonable for the Church to accede to their requests?
Apparently, the Holy Father has shown that he is willing to do so. May Bishops and Pastors show a similar disposition.
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
POPE FRANCIS' ANNUAL MEETING WITH PAPAL DIPLOMATS
On January 10th each year, the Pope traditionally meets with diplomats to the Vatican. This year was no exception.
The Pope described Papal diplomacy’s fundamental role: an international mission working to secure the common good, an always increasing network of relations, and the certainty of an impartial voice working for peace.
For Pope Francis, pontifical diplomacy has three main threads —three themes that include all the others.
The first is a commitment to peace; the second is a commitment to human dignity; and the third is a commitment to fight poverty.
In the mind of the Pope, all three are linked to one another.
The Vatican’s commitment to peace is practiced via the art of mediation, and the Holy See has been a critical participant in the mediation of global conflict for decades.
The Vatican’s commitment to human dignity is based on the principle that all people are equal and dignified in the sight of God. And the Church’s commitment to fight poverty is expressed in its diplomatic work for peace, international development, and support for marginalized.
On that front, Pope Francis has asked who, in the end, is poorer than an unborn child, or than the forgotten or marginalized elderly.
These three commitments will shape the Holy See’s diplomatic activity for the upcoming year. Within that framework, there are two clear priorities for the diplomatic work of the Holy See in the upcoming year.
The first is advocating for migrants and refugees.
The second diplomatic focus is on peacekeeping. The Holy See is aims to helping and assisting countries in achieving peace.
The Holy See Mission at the United Nations in New York provided data on the Holy See’s work at the UN during the last year.
The Holy See at the UN in New York delivered 82 interventions, and 10 of them were delivered by Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, Vatican “foreign ministry,” who led the Holy See’s delegation at the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly in September.
The Holy See Mission at the UN Office in Geneva, led by Archbishop Ivan Jurkovic, delivered 48 interventions, participating in many panels on the Global Compact on Migrations. The Holy See Mission in Geneva also represents the Holy See at the International Organization for Migration: the Holy See has been a member state of the IOM since 2012.
No less important is the Holy See’s Mission at the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome. Pope Francis has personally demonstrated that fighting world hunger is a priority to the Holy See. The Pope has visited the FAO headquarters two times, Nov. 20, 2014 and Oct. 16, 2017, and went to the World Food Program Headquarters June 13, 2016. In addition to that, the Pope symbolically donated $25,000 dollars to the FAO to support the Eastern African populations facing food insecurity and famine.
The diplomatic efforts of the Holy See are considerable, and, as Pope Francis emphasized, committed to important and deeply Catholic international goals.
The Pope described Papal diplomacy’s fundamental role: an international mission working to secure the common good, an always increasing network of relations, and the certainty of an impartial voice working for peace.
For Pope Francis, pontifical diplomacy has three main threads —three themes that include all the others.
The first is a commitment to peace; the second is a commitment to human dignity; and the third is a commitment to fight poverty.
In the mind of the Pope, all three are linked to one another.
The Vatican’s commitment to peace is practiced via the art of mediation, and the Holy See has been a critical participant in the mediation of global conflict for decades.
The Vatican’s commitment to human dignity is based on the principle that all people are equal and dignified in the sight of God. And the Church’s commitment to fight poverty is expressed in its diplomatic work for peace, international development, and support for marginalized.
On that front, Pope Francis has asked who, in the end, is poorer than an unborn child, or than the forgotten or marginalized elderly.
These three commitments will shape the Holy See’s diplomatic activity for the upcoming year. Within that framework, there are two clear priorities for the diplomatic work of the Holy See in the upcoming year.
The first is advocating for migrants and refugees.
The second diplomatic focus is on peacekeeping. The Holy See is aims to helping and assisting countries in achieving peace.
The Holy See Mission at the United Nations in New York provided data on the Holy See’s work at the UN during the last year.
The Holy See at the UN in New York delivered 82 interventions, and 10 of them were delivered by Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, Vatican “foreign ministry,” who led the Holy See’s delegation at the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly in September.
The Holy See Mission at the UN Office in Geneva, led by Archbishop Ivan Jurkovic, delivered 48 interventions, participating in many panels on the Global Compact on Migrations. The Holy See Mission in Geneva also represents the Holy See at the International Organization for Migration: the Holy See has been a member state of the IOM since 2012.
No less important is the Holy See’s Mission at the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome. Pope Francis has personally demonstrated that fighting world hunger is a priority to the Holy See. The Pope has visited the FAO headquarters two times, Nov. 20, 2014 and Oct. 16, 2017, and went to the World Food Program Headquarters June 13, 2016. In addition to that, the Pope symbolically donated $25,000 dollars to the FAO to support the Eastern African populations facing food insecurity and famine.
The diplomatic efforts of the Holy See are considerable, and, as Pope Francis emphasized, committed to important and deeply Catholic international goals.
Sunday, January 21, 2018
SHAME ON YOU, CARDINAL O'MALLEY
Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, a top adviser to Pope Francis, has stated that the Holy Father’s remarks targeting Chilean sexual abuse claims “abandon” survivors of the church’s sex abuse crisis to “discredited exile.”
In a strongly worded statement rebuking Pope Francis’ remarks, the Boston Archbishop said the remarks were clearly “a source of great pain for survivors of sexual abuse by clergy or any other perpetrator.”
“Words that convey the message ‘if you cannot prove your claims then you will not be believed’ abandon those who have suffered reprehensible criminal violations of their human dignity and relegate survivors to discredited exile,” O’Malley said in a statement.
Francis was leaving Chile Thursday when he accused victims of the country’s most notorious pedophile priest of having slandered another Bishop, Juan Barros, by claiming Barros covered up the abuse from the Rev. Fernando Karadima.
“The day they bring me proof against Bishop Barros, I’ll speak,” Francis told Chilean journalists in the northern city of Iquique. “There is not one shred of proof against him. It’s all calumny. Is that clear?”
In my preceding post, I commented on the Pope’s remarks stating that I fundamentally agreed with the Holy Father.
Every human being is entitled to a presumption of innocence to any accusation of any crime no matter how heinous. To do otherwise is both a violation of the moral and civil order.
It seems as though Cardinal O’Malley, caught up in the hysteria over the abuse of minors by Priests, has forgotten this fundamental rule of law and ordinance of charity.
Every person is likewise entitled to his or her good name and reputation. To have that right denied by a mere accusation of wrongdoing without a presentation of evidence does great violence to justice and charity as well.
Cardinal O’Malley needs to be very careful about what he has said lest he himself be accused of complicity in the abuse scandal and be judged guilty without any proof of such an accusation being put forth.
Certainly, the abuse of minors by some Clerics is scandalous, but so too is the disrespect which some Prelates have shown to the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ, who has attempted to address the pitiable situation with compassion and justice toward the accuser and the accused.
Shame on Cardinal O”Malley for his very public rebuke of Pope Francis, an unwarranted act aimed at pandering to the strident voices of those whose agendas may not necessarily be acting in the best interests of the victims or the Church itself.
In a strongly worded statement rebuking Pope Francis’ remarks, the Boston Archbishop said the remarks were clearly “a source of great pain for survivors of sexual abuse by clergy or any other perpetrator.”
“Words that convey the message ‘if you cannot prove your claims then you will not be believed’ abandon those who have suffered reprehensible criminal violations of their human dignity and relegate survivors to discredited exile,” O’Malley said in a statement.
Francis was leaving Chile Thursday when he accused victims of the country’s most notorious pedophile priest of having slandered another Bishop, Juan Barros, by claiming Barros covered up the abuse from the Rev. Fernando Karadima.
“The day they bring me proof against Bishop Barros, I’ll speak,” Francis told Chilean journalists in the northern city of Iquique. “There is not one shred of proof against him. It’s all calumny. Is that clear?”
In my preceding post, I commented on the Pope’s remarks stating that I fundamentally agreed with the Holy Father.
Every human being is entitled to a presumption of innocence to any accusation of any crime no matter how heinous. To do otherwise is both a violation of the moral and civil order.
It seems as though Cardinal O’Malley, caught up in the hysteria over the abuse of minors by Priests, has forgotten this fundamental rule of law and ordinance of charity.
Every person is likewise entitled to his or her good name and reputation. To have that right denied by a mere accusation of wrongdoing without a presentation of evidence does great violence to justice and charity as well.
Cardinal O’Malley needs to be very careful about what he has said lest he himself be accused of complicity in the abuse scandal and be judged guilty without any proof of such an accusation being put forth.
Certainly, the abuse of minors by some Clerics is scandalous, but so too is the disrespect which some Prelates have shown to the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ, who has attempted to address the pitiable situation with compassion and justice toward the accuser and the accused.
Shame on Cardinal O”Malley for his very public rebuke of Pope Francis, an unwarranted act aimed at pandering to the strident voices of those whose agendas may not necessarily be acting in the best interests of the victims or the Church itself.
IRONIC END TO POPE FRANCIS' PASTORAL VISITATION TO CHILE
In an astonishing end to a visit meant to help heal the wounds of a sex abuse scandal that has cost the Catholic church its credibility in the country, Pope Francis has accused victims of Chile’s most notorious paedophile of slander.
The Holy Father said that until he sees proof that Bishop Juan Barros was complicit in covering up the sex crimes of the Reverend Fernando Karadima, such accusations against Barros are “all calumny”.
The Pope’s remarks drew shock from Chileans and immediate rebuke from victims and their advocates.
Frankly, I think both the Pope is justified in his remarks.
Why?
Pope Francis noted that the accusations against Father Karadima were judged, after an extensive investigation, to be credible enough to have justified sentencing the Priest to a lifetime of “penance and prayer” for his crimes in 2011.
But, as His Holiness notes, the judgment against Father Karadima was proven on the basis of evidence presented against him.
To date, no such evidence has been put forth which establishes that Bishop Barros covered up Father Karadima’s crimes.
Yet victims and advocacy groups already have judged the Bishop to be guilty of complicity and want him punished without any recourse to the due process to which the Bishop, as is any accused, is entitled by both Canon and civil law.
Those who continue to bellow that Bishop Barros is “guilty” of any crime are, in the absence of proof, slandering the reputation of the Bishop as Pope Francis rightfully observes.
No one of good faith or good will doubts the isolation and suffering of victims of clerical sexual abuse.
The Priest-abusers and those who may have been complicit in protecting them should be rightfully held accountable according to Church and civil law.
The Church itself is rightfully embarrassed and ashamed that such criminality could have occurred in the first place.
Sadly, however, when it comes to any allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a Priest, victims and their advocates (who often profit from their suffering) are beyond any reasoning or reasonableness. Any Priest accused of such horrific behavior is immediately presumed to be guilty.
Such presumptions are neither fair nor just. They are reckless to the extent that they destroy reputations based on accusation alone.
The Pope is right in his comments about the way Bishop Barros has been treated throughout this sordid affair.
Let those who accuse the Bishop should bring evidence of such complicity to a proper court and prove their case. In the absence of that evidence, the Bishop is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
The Holy Father’s attempt to bring introduce such rationality into this dispute has and will continue to be rebuked, in Chile and elsewhere.
We are living in an era in which the loudest voices are allowed to pass judgment, an era of mob rule and hysteria.
Given this final ironic twist to the Pope’s visit to Chile, perhaps it would have been better if he had just remained at the Vatican.
The Holy Father said that until he sees proof that Bishop Juan Barros was complicit in covering up the sex crimes of the Reverend Fernando Karadima, such accusations against Barros are “all calumny”.
The Pope’s remarks drew shock from Chileans and immediate rebuke from victims and their advocates.
Frankly, I think both the Pope is justified in his remarks.
Why?
Pope Francis noted that the accusations against Father Karadima were judged, after an extensive investigation, to be credible enough to have justified sentencing the Priest to a lifetime of “penance and prayer” for his crimes in 2011.
But, as His Holiness notes, the judgment against Father Karadima was proven on the basis of evidence presented against him.
To date, no such evidence has been put forth which establishes that Bishop Barros covered up Father Karadima’s crimes.
Yet victims and advocacy groups already have judged the Bishop to be guilty of complicity and want him punished without any recourse to the due process to which the Bishop, as is any accused, is entitled by both Canon and civil law.
Those who continue to bellow that Bishop Barros is “guilty” of any crime are, in the absence of proof, slandering the reputation of the Bishop as Pope Francis rightfully observes.
No one of good faith or good will doubts the isolation and suffering of victims of clerical sexual abuse.
The Priest-abusers and those who may have been complicit in protecting them should be rightfully held accountable according to Church and civil law.
The Church itself is rightfully embarrassed and ashamed that such criminality could have occurred in the first place.
Sadly, however, when it comes to any allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a Priest, victims and their advocates (who often profit from their suffering) are beyond any reasoning or reasonableness. Any Priest accused of such horrific behavior is immediately presumed to be guilty.
Such presumptions are neither fair nor just. They are reckless to the extent that they destroy reputations based on accusation alone.
The Pope is right in his comments about the way Bishop Barros has been treated throughout this sordid affair.
Let those who accuse the Bishop should bring evidence of such complicity to a proper court and prove their case. In the absence of that evidence, the Bishop is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
The Holy Father’s attempt to bring introduce such rationality into this dispute has and will continue to be rebuked, in Chile and elsewhere.
We are living in an era in which the loudest voices are allowed to pass judgment, an era of mob rule and hysteria.
Given this final ironic twist to the Pope’s visit to Chile, perhaps it would have been better if he had just remained at the Vatican.
Friday, January 19, 2018
A PERSONAL RESPONSE TO THOSE WHO CHALLENGE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE PERFORMED BY POPE FRANCIS ON PLANE
Pope Francis conducted a spontaneous marriage ceremony for a Catholic couple living in a civil, non-sacramental marriage during a flight in Chile today.
The Chilean couple, Carlos Ciuffardi and Paula Podest Ruiz, are flight attendants who say that the Pope proposed the idea to them while they sat and chatted with him after a group photo with the plane’s crew.
“When the time came for the group photo of all flight crew with the Pope, he invited us to sit down,” said Ciuffardi to the press afterwards in a video interview.
“He asked us...” Ciuffardi said.
American Canon Lawyer Ed Peters , darling of neo-conservative reactionaries, raised concern that the marriage was contrary to canonical form and may not be valid.
"Based on the reports...I cannot tell whether the ‘wedding’ that the Pope put together for an unsuspecting couple satisfies Church requirements on Marriage, and several other laws impacting the liceity of marriage seem simply to have been disregarded in the event," he wrote.
"As happened several times under earlier administrations, a representative from the Vatican Press Office assures us that 'everything was valid.' Such assertions by canonically unqualified and unauthorized PR staff carry, of course, no weight. Real questions worthy of real answers are still raised by this event," Mr. Peters added.
Well, as a Canon lawyer myself, I feel qualified to respond to Mr. Peters concerns.
The Code of Canon Law requires for marriages to be sacramentally valid that the vows of the couple must be received the local Bishop or Pastor or a clergyman or even layman to whom the local Bishop has delegated the authority (can. 1108 §1) and must take place within a Catholic church unless a dispensation from the law is given by the requisite authority (can. 1118).
However, and a most important “however" indeed, there is no question (except in the mind of Mr. Peters) that the Pope -- by virtue of his Supreme Apostolic Office -- has the authority to dispense from these obligations.
Why did the Pope seem to act so spontaneously?
Ciuffardi told the media that the Pope said to the couple, “Marriage is the sacrament that the world is lacking. Let’s hope that what you have done will be an inspiration to other couples. That’s why I’m doing this.” He also reportedly gave the couple two rosaries as gifts.
The couple has reportedly been living in a merely civil marriage for years and have two children. They claim not to have had a Catholic wedding because the church in which the ceremony would have taken place was damaged in the 2010 earthquake that struck the Santiago area.
But, getting back to Mr. Peter’s contention, it is clear that any Pope can add to, subtract from, and change Canon Law.
Pope Saint John Paul II signed into effect the current Code of Canon Law in 1983. This new Code includes hundreds of changes from the older 1917 Code.
Any Pope at any time can issue changes to these laws of the Church.
So, is the Pope above Canon law? The answer is a qualified “Yes”.
Some “laws” in the Code are direct expressions of magisterial teachings on faith and morals. These are not laws in the traditional sense, since they do not require or forbid some type of behavior. They are so-called “teaching Canons” which relate the doctrines of the Church to the disciplines of the Church.
The Pope cannot change or nullify the dogmas of the Magisterium. He is subject to the definitive teachings of the Church, just as any believer is subject. For each Pope is a disciple of Christ. So the Pope is NOT above those portions of Canon law which directly and correctly state definitive doctrine.
However, if a Pope wished to do so, he could remove any or all of the “teaching Canons”, without harming any truth, since these teachings are all expressed in the magisterial documents of the Church. But he would still be under the authority of those teachings.
Regarding those canons which are a direct expression of teachings on faith or morals, they are not teachings, but disciplines.
These are rules, regulations, instructions, and penalties issued in order to govern the Church dispersed in the world. They are relatively few, and they are fairly easy to read and understand. easy to understand.
The Pope is above all of those Canons in the law which are per se of the law, and not of the teaching authority.
The Pope holds the highest office in the teaching authority of the Church, but he is also a believer and disciple of Christ, so he is subject to that authority.
There is no contradiction in this principle, since the Pope can only teach truths found in Divine Revelation (and also Natural Law). He does not teach from his own mind, but from the mind of Christ.
On the other hand, the temporal authority of the Church is his to administer as he sees fit.
The disciplines of the Church are not truths of Divine Revelation, but judgments of the prudential order and practical decisions on how to organize the people of God. The Pope is not bound to follow those laws of the Church that are per se of the temporal authority, not the teaching authority.
Some commentators argue that the Pope must first change the law, if he wishes to do what it forbids.
Not so.
Whoever is above the law, need not follow the law. If he were required to change the law first, he would not be above it.
And in the case of this specific couple, the Pope provided them a special privilege which did not change Canon Law but dispensed from it for the reasons the Pope explained to the couple themselves.
This is first year Canon Law material, Mr. Peters.
Either your ignorance of these principles or your eagerness to ignore them should be disturbing to all those who choose to give any of your opinions a forum.
The Chilean couple, Carlos Ciuffardi and Paula Podest Ruiz, are flight attendants who say that the Pope proposed the idea to them while they sat and chatted with him after a group photo with the plane’s crew.
“When the time came for the group photo of all flight crew with the Pope, he invited us to sit down,” said Ciuffardi to the press afterwards in a video interview.
“He asked us...” Ciuffardi said.
American Canon Lawyer Ed Peters , darling of neo-conservative reactionaries, raised concern that the marriage was contrary to canonical form and may not be valid.
"Based on the reports...I cannot tell whether the ‘wedding’ that the Pope put together for an unsuspecting couple satisfies Church requirements on Marriage, and several other laws impacting the liceity of marriage seem simply to have been disregarded in the event," he wrote.
"As happened several times under earlier administrations, a representative from the Vatican Press Office assures us that 'everything was valid.' Such assertions by canonically unqualified and unauthorized PR staff carry, of course, no weight. Real questions worthy of real answers are still raised by this event," Mr. Peters added.
Well, as a Canon lawyer myself, I feel qualified to respond to Mr. Peters concerns.
The Code of Canon Law requires for marriages to be sacramentally valid that the vows of the couple must be received the local Bishop or Pastor or a clergyman or even layman to whom the local Bishop has delegated the authority (can. 1108 §1) and must take place within a Catholic church unless a dispensation from the law is given by the requisite authority (can. 1118).
However, and a most important “however" indeed, there is no question (except in the mind of Mr. Peters) that the Pope -- by virtue of his Supreme Apostolic Office -- has the authority to dispense from these obligations.
Why did the Pope seem to act so spontaneously?
Ciuffardi told the media that the Pope said to the couple, “Marriage is the sacrament that the world is lacking. Let’s hope that what you have done will be an inspiration to other couples. That’s why I’m doing this.” He also reportedly gave the couple two rosaries as gifts.
The couple has reportedly been living in a merely civil marriage for years and have two children. They claim not to have had a Catholic wedding because the church in which the ceremony would have taken place was damaged in the 2010 earthquake that struck the Santiago area.
But, getting back to Mr. Peter’s contention, it is clear that any Pope can add to, subtract from, and change Canon Law.
Pope Saint John Paul II signed into effect the current Code of Canon Law in 1983. This new Code includes hundreds of changes from the older 1917 Code.
Any Pope at any time can issue changes to these laws of the Church.
So, is the Pope above Canon law? The answer is a qualified “Yes”.
Some “laws” in the Code are direct expressions of magisterial teachings on faith and morals. These are not laws in the traditional sense, since they do not require or forbid some type of behavior. They are so-called “teaching Canons” which relate the doctrines of the Church to the disciplines of the Church.
The Pope cannot change or nullify the dogmas of the Magisterium. He is subject to the definitive teachings of the Church, just as any believer is subject. For each Pope is a disciple of Christ. So the Pope is NOT above those portions of Canon law which directly and correctly state definitive doctrine.
However, if a Pope wished to do so, he could remove any or all of the “teaching Canons”, without harming any truth, since these teachings are all expressed in the magisterial documents of the Church. But he would still be under the authority of those teachings.
Regarding those canons which are a direct expression of teachings on faith or morals, they are not teachings, but disciplines.
These are rules, regulations, instructions, and penalties issued in order to govern the Church dispersed in the world. They are relatively few, and they are fairly easy to read and understand. easy to understand.
The Pope is above all of those Canons in the law which are per se of the law, and not of the teaching authority.
The Pope holds the highest office in the teaching authority of the Church, but he is also a believer and disciple of Christ, so he is subject to that authority.
There is no contradiction in this principle, since the Pope can only teach truths found in Divine Revelation (and also Natural Law). He does not teach from his own mind, but from the mind of Christ.
On the other hand, the temporal authority of the Church is his to administer as he sees fit.
The disciplines of the Church are not truths of Divine Revelation, but judgments of the prudential order and practical decisions on how to organize the people of God. The Pope is not bound to follow those laws of the Church that are per se of the temporal authority, not the teaching authority.
Some commentators argue that the Pope must first change the law, if he wishes to do what it forbids.
Not so.
Whoever is above the law, need not follow the law. If he were required to change the law first, he would not be above it.
And in the case of this specific couple, the Pope provided them a special privilege which did not change Canon Law but dispensed from it for the reasons the Pope explained to the couple themselves.
This is first year Canon Law material, Mr. Peters.
Either your ignorance of these principles or your eagerness to ignore them should be disturbing to all those who choose to give any of your opinions a forum.
CIVILITY IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE IS ALL BUT DEAD THESE DAYS
It is with some sadness that I note the death of public civility.
I don’t mean the social graces like table manners and that sort of thing, though I deplore the use of cell phones at the dinner table and elsewhere in social settings.
In the context of this post, I am referring the social actions and interactions we exhibit when we express differing, sometimes opposing points of view.
Civility and respect are important because they are a reflection of our attitude toward our fellow man or woman.
Growing up in decades past, many of us were taught about how to deal with people. Most of the lessons had some basis in the Scriptures.
At the top of list of wise counsel, the Ten Commandments, the fabulous yet simple articles of behavior which direct treating the Creator and one’s fellow men and women with the same respect one would expect for himself.
It used to be said that, if you had nothing nice to say about a person, the wise and right thing to do was to keep silent.
Sadly, that isn’t the case any longer.
We are bombarded with the most awful and salacious commentary about people in government, in business, and especially in the entertainment industry.
Little wonder.
Given the fact that the Ten Commandments cannot be posted in public buildings, given the fact that the name of Jesus has itself become taboo in public speech, civility is a thing of the past.
Certainly, all of us are poorer for present state of affairs.
In the shrillness of the vitriol that has become the steady diet of social engagement these days, we find ourselves hopelessly divided as a nation and society.
The best we can hope for is that the hallmark of our personal interaction with others will always be civility and respect.
We may not be able to change the world at-large, but we can always take charge of our own actions and attitudes so that the little world we live in will be infused with charity and a willingness to listen and respond with kindness and courtesy.
I don’t mean the social graces like table manners and that sort of thing, though I deplore the use of cell phones at the dinner table and elsewhere in social settings.
In the context of this post, I am referring the social actions and interactions we exhibit when we express differing, sometimes opposing points of view.
Civility and respect are important because they are a reflection of our attitude toward our fellow man or woman.
Growing up in decades past, many of us were taught about how to deal with people. Most of the lessons had some basis in the Scriptures.
At the top of list of wise counsel, the Ten Commandments, the fabulous yet simple articles of behavior which direct treating the Creator and one’s fellow men and women with the same respect one would expect for himself.
It used to be said that, if you had nothing nice to say about a person, the wise and right thing to do was to keep silent.
Sadly, that isn’t the case any longer.
We are bombarded with the most awful and salacious commentary about people in government, in business, and especially in the entertainment industry.
Little wonder.
Given the fact that the Ten Commandments cannot be posted in public buildings, given the fact that the name of Jesus has itself become taboo in public speech, civility is a thing of the past.
Certainly, all of us are poorer for present state of affairs.
In the shrillness of the vitriol that has become the steady diet of social engagement these days, we find ourselves hopelessly divided as a nation and society.
The best we can hope for is that the hallmark of our personal interaction with others will always be civility and respect.
We may not be able to change the world at-large, but we can always take charge of our own actions and attitudes so that the little world we live in will be infused with charity and a willingness to listen and respond with kindness and courtesy.
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
THE CATHOLIC FATHER OF THE BIG BANG THEORY
Who was the first scientist to put forward the Big Bang Theory?
Most would presume that it was either Albert Einstein or Edwin Hubble.
Instead, the correct answer is a Diocesan Priest from Belgium by the name of Monsignor Georges Lemaitre.
The "popular" narrative of the day is that faith and science are irreconcilable foes that are locked in a constant battle with one another. Ignored are examples like Monsignor Lemaitre who, in his very person, represents a living example of why the popular narrative is in error.
After his Ordination in 1923, Father Lemaitre was sent to study math and science at Cambridge where Arthur Eddington was the director of the campus observatory. His studies focused upon Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Father Lemaitre argued that the Theory of Relativity supported the idea that the universe was expanding. Einstein, on the other hand, argued for a static universe, balanced by something called the "Cosmological Constant." Lemaitre disagreed, arguing against the static universe.
The importance of this insight is that if the universe is expanding, then, in the past, it must have been much smaller. In fact, the universe would have been extremely small and extremely dense.
At first, the theory was laughed off and joking called Lemaitre's "Big Bang Theory." In fact, Einstein's initial assessment of Father Laemaitre's theory was that the math was quite good, but his grasp of the physical universe was abominable.
Over time, the negative opinion of Lemaitre's theory changed as Edwin Hubble began to observe the shift in the light spectrum of celestial objects, confirming that the universe is in a state of expansion.
Due to these and other insights, Einstein reversed his opinion on Father Lemaitre's theory, calling it "the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."
In light of this, Father Lemaitre's theory was vindicated and is fundamental to our understanding of the Big Bang Theory to this day.
Most noteworthy, Father Lemaitre's brilliance was celebrated by Pope Pius XII.
In an age in which the cultural presumption is that Popes are looking to condemn scientists and reject their theories, the relationship between Father Lemaitre and Pius XII was quite different, showing this narrative of divisiveness to be in error.
Even more surprising, it was Father Lematire that warned the Pope not to use the theory as a "proof" of Biblical creation. As a good scientist,he knew that, with time, his theory would be improved upon, shown to have errors, and/or be disproven all together.
Nevertheless, Pope Pius XII still embraced the work of Father Lemaitre and reflected the science of the day in his Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on November 22, 1951. In regard to the expansion of the universe, Pius XII said the following: "The examination of various spiral nebulae, especially as carried out by Edwin W. Hubble at the Mount Wilson Observatory, has led to the significant conclusion, presented with all due reservations, that these distant systems of galaxies tend to move away from one another with such velocity that, in the space of 1,300 million years, the distance between such spiral nebulae is doubled. If we look back into the past at the time required for this process of the "expanding universe," it follows that, from one to ten billion years ago, the matter of the spiral nebulae was compressed into a relatively restricted space, at the time the cosmic processes had their beginning." (Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on November 22, 1951, Paragraph 36.)
Even in this statement, we can see Father Lemaitre's warning was proven to be correct as science now thinks the initial "Big Bang" occurred some 13.7 billion years ago instead of the one to ten billion years cited by Pope Pius XII.
Nevertheless, the mere fact the Pius XII was willing, as Pope, to affirm the best science of his time does set a clear precedence for today that Catholics and all people of good will can trust scientific investigation, presuming, of course, it is done in a truly scientific manner.
Of course, to Biblical fundamentalists, all this is anathema.
Still, the truth remains that the Church supports true science.
This does not mean that we must accept every scientific finding with the doctrinal weight of Church teaching.
However, it does mean that Christians should avoid the petty wars that break out between faith and science, affirming that both are partners of dialogue in the exploration of truth, not treating each other as enemies.
Stories such as these can be helpful in revealing how the Church supports science, detaching ourselves from the common narrative that drives a wedge between sincere people of faith and sincere people of science.
Most would presume that it was either Albert Einstein or Edwin Hubble.
Instead, the correct answer is a Diocesan Priest from Belgium by the name of Monsignor Georges Lemaitre.
The "popular" narrative of the day is that faith and science are irreconcilable foes that are locked in a constant battle with one another. Ignored are examples like Monsignor Lemaitre who, in his very person, represents a living example of why the popular narrative is in error.
After his Ordination in 1923, Father Lemaitre was sent to study math and science at Cambridge where Arthur Eddington was the director of the campus observatory. His studies focused upon Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Father Lemaitre argued that the Theory of Relativity supported the idea that the universe was expanding. Einstein, on the other hand, argued for a static universe, balanced by something called the "Cosmological Constant." Lemaitre disagreed, arguing against the static universe.
The importance of this insight is that if the universe is expanding, then, in the past, it must have been much smaller. In fact, the universe would have been extremely small and extremely dense.
At first, the theory was laughed off and joking called Lemaitre's "Big Bang Theory." In fact, Einstein's initial assessment of Father Laemaitre's theory was that the math was quite good, but his grasp of the physical universe was abominable.
Over time, the negative opinion of Lemaitre's theory changed as Edwin Hubble began to observe the shift in the light spectrum of celestial objects, confirming that the universe is in a state of expansion.
Due to these and other insights, Einstein reversed his opinion on Father Lemaitre's theory, calling it "the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."
In light of this, Father Lemaitre's theory was vindicated and is fundamental to our understanding of the Big Bang Theory to this day.
Most noteworthy, Father Lemaitre's brilliance was celebrated by Pope Pius XII.
In an age in which the cultural presumption is that Popes are looking to condemn scientists and reject their theories, the relationship between Father Lemaitre and Pius XII was quite different, showing this narrative of divisiveness to be in error.
Even more surprising, it was Father Lematire that warned the Pope not to use the theory as a "proof" of Biblical creation. As a good scientist,he knew that, with time, his theory would be improved upon, shown to have errors, and/or be disproven all together.
Nevertheless, Pope Pius XII still embraced the work of Father Lemaitre and reflected the science of the day in his Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on November 22, 1951. In regard to the expansion of the universe, Pius XII said the following: "The examination of various spiral nebulae, especially as carried out by Edwin W. Hubble at the Mount Wilson Observatory, has led to the significant conclusion, presented with all due reservations, that these distant systems of galaxies tend to move away from one another with such velocity that, in the space of 1,300 million years, the distance between such spiral nebulae is doubled. If we look back into the past at the time required for this process of the "expanding universe," it follows that, from one to ten billion years ago, the matter of the spiral nebulae was compressed into a relatively restricted space, at the time the cosmic processes had their beginning." (Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on November 22, 1951, Paragraph 36.)
Even in this statement, we can see Father Lemaitre's warning was proven to be correct as science now thinks the initial "Big Bang" occurred some 13.7 billion years ago instead of the one to ten billion years cited by Pope Pius XII.
Nevertheless, the mere fact the Pius XII was willing, as Pope, to affirm the best science of his time does set a clear precedence for today that Catholics and all people of good will can trust scientific investigation, presuming, of course, it is done in a truly scientific manner.
Of course, to Biblical fundamentalists, all this is anathema.
Still, the truth remains that the Church supports true science.
This does not mean that we must accept every scientific finding with the doctrinal weight of Church teaching.
However, it does mean that Christians should avoid the petty wars that break out between faith and science, affirming that both are partners of dialogue in the exploration of truth, not treating each other as enemies.
Stories such as these can be helpful in revealing how the Church supports science, detaching ourselves from the common narrative that drives a wedge between sincere people of faith and sincere people of science.
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
SPEAKING OF PARADIGM SHIFTS
Vatican's Secretary of State, Pietro Cardinal Parolin, stated that Pope Francis’ teaching on Marriage and the family found in his 2016 controversial Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, arose from the Pope’s “new paradigm” for the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Parolin stated: “ultimately Amoris Laetitia arose from a new paradigm that Pope Francis is carrying out with wisdom, prudence and even patience.”
The Exhortation certainly has been controversial with many neoconservative reactionary groups claiming that it is a contradiction of Catholic teaching concerning divorce and remarriage.
Specifically, the Exhortation has been interpreted by a number of Bishops and Cardinals as allowing Catholics in an invalid second “marriage” to receive Holy Communion.
When asked why the Exhortation caused such a heated confrontation, Cardinal Parolin responded: “Probably the difficulties that have arisen and still exist in the Church are due, to this change in attitude that the Pope asks of us.A change in paradigm, inherent in the text itself, that is asked of us: this new spirit, this new approach!”
Well, speaking of paradigm shifts, I thought I would offer some comments about the “paradigm shift” relative to the present-day sexual morality embraced by so many in our secular culture.
What are the elements of this “paradigm shift” regarding sex?
First, sexual acts have no intrinsic meaning or purpose. They are not governed by any deeper natural order, which is inviolable. Their meaning is defined and determined by society in general as well as by the persons engaging in them. Sexual relations between a man and a woman need not involve the natural significance of making them “one flesh,” with all that entails. “Meaningless or recreational” sex is a genuine reality.
Second, sexuality itself is purely subjective. Provided no harm is caused to others, we have a duty of care for ourselves to realize and express our desired sexual identities. Society has an obligation to ensure the sexual identities of our neighbors are affirmed and supported.
Third, human beings are autonomous, rights-bearing individuals. Appropriate sexual relations presuppose the partners are equal in their agency and there are no significant imbalances of power between them. For those who have developed this principle, traditional forms of marriage are unacceptable since they presuppose a fundamental inequality in the roles of husband and wife.
Fourth, freely given consent is the watchword for sexual relations. Where a relationship between given parties is consensual, few if any reasonable objections can be raised against it.
Fifth, beyond the prevention of harm, sexual relations should be freed from social policing and constraint, from norms and from stigmas. While marriage may grant public recognition and affirmation to a couple, each couple should be freed to practice marriage as they choose, and no couple should be expected to get married.
This “paradigm shift” is the sexual morality of modern society. And it is so pervasive that traditional Catholic teaching has shown itself incapable of presenting a challenge to it.
Cardinal Parolin, the Pope and the Church in general has seen the replacement of Christian sexual morality by an alternative form: the elevation of the individual will over against the natural order and divine and social norms, rendering individual self-realization a more central moral end.
Until the Church leaders admit and confront this new sexual morality head on and provides an intelligent and positive response to each and everyone of its underpinnings, Church teaching will continue to be irrelevant and ignored.
Cardinal Parolin stated: “ultimately Amoris Laetitia arose from a new paradigm that Pope Francis is carrying out with wisdom, prudence and even patience.”
The Exhortation certainly has been controversial with many neoconservative reactionary groups claiming that it is a contradiction of Catholic teaching concerning divorce and remarriage.
Specifically, the Exhortation has been interpreted by a number of Bishops and Cardinals as allowing Catholics in an invalid second “marriage” to receive Holy Communion.
When asked why the Exhortation caused such a heated confrontation, Cardinal Parolin responded: “Probably the difficulties that have arisen and still exist in the Church are due, to this change in attitude that the Pope asks of us.A change in paradigm, inherent in the text itself, that is asked of us: this new spirit, this new approach!”
Well, speaking of paradigm shifts, I thought I would offer some comments about the “paradigm shift” relative to the present-day sexual morality embraced by so many in our secular culture.
What are the elements of this “paradigm shift” regarding sex?
First, sexual acts have no intrinsic meaning or purpose. They are not governed by any deeper natural order, which is inviolable. Their meaning is defined and determined by society in general as well as by the persons engaging in them. Sexual relations between a man and a woman need not involve the natural significance of making them “one flesh,” with all that entails. “Meaningless or recreational” sex is a genuine reality.
Second, sexuality itself is purely subjective. Provided no harm is caused to others, we have a duty of care for ourselves to realize and express our desired sexual identities. Society has an obligation to ensure the sexual identities of our neighbors are affirmed and supported.
Third, human beings are autonomous, rights-bearing individuals. Appropriate sexual relations presuppose the partners are equal in their agency and there are no significant imbalances of power between them. For those who have developed this principle, traditional forms of marriage are unacceptable since they presuppose a fundamental inequality in the roles of husband and wife.
Fourth, freely given consent is the watchword for sexual relations. Where a relationship between given parties is consensual, few if any reasonable objections can be raised against it.
Fifth, beyond the prevention of harm, sexual relations should be freed from social policing and constraint, from norms and from stigmas. While marriage may grant public recognition and affirmation to a couple, each couple should be freed to practice marriage as they choose, and no couple should be expected to get married.
This “paradigm shift” is the sexual morality of modern society. And it is so pervasive that traditional Catholic teaching has shown itself incapable of presenting a challenge to it.
Cardinal Parolin, the Pope and the Church in general has seen the replacement of Christian sexual morality by an alternative form: the elevation of the individual will over against the natural order and divine and social norms, rendering individual self-realization a more central moral end.
Until the Church leaders admit and confront this new sexual morality head on and provides an intelligent and positive response to each and everyone of its underpinnings, Church teaching will continue to be irrelevant and ignored.
Monday, January 15, 2018
DIVERSITY PROGRAMS AT CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES: A BETRAYAL OF MISSION AND LEGACY
History will judge that the scourge of the 20th Century was the creed of relativism which staunchly proclaims that there are no truths to be known about anything. No truths about humanity, physics, biology, society and especially no truth relating to God.
Of course, the result is a destructive search for artificial diversification which assumes that the relevance of anything or anyone arises randomly according to the circumstances in which persons or things are situated.
If there are no truths to be known, then artificial diversification possesses a certain logic to it, since the relative significance of persons or things is imposed rather than discovered.
For this reason, the clarion call which secularists espouse for greater awareness and sensitivity to diversity is more a political strategy to impose certain codes of acceptable speech, thought-policing and punishments targeted against those who do not accept or support politically correct ideologies.
For in reality, secularists want their artificially constructed diversity programs and campaigns to demand the thought and behavior of their choosing, their intention not being to actually foster acceptance of greater variety but rather the imposition and ascendancy of their ideology and agendas.
Of course, the what artificial diversity may be in vogue at any one time -- at present it is homosexuality and gender identity -- there is no foundation for such in Catholic belief and tradition which is, by its very definition, universal and directed at the whole of humanity. As Saint Paul admonishes us to remember: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).
The diversity which our secular culture cherishes is one defined by groups, where an elite few are politically empowered to select the category.
As Catholics, however, we are committed to respecting the individuality of all persons, who are without exception created in God’s image and therefore enjoy a sacred dignity.
That is why it is particularly disappointing that relativism (sometimes disguised as pluralism) and group diversity are now the mantras of Catholic universities just as much as state institutions.
Some Catholic universities are actively striving to attract more gay and lesbian students, professors, and staff, provide public forums for them.
And this is the saddest aspect of their unnecessary and destructive ideology. Its propagators do not reveal simple joy in the wondrous multiformity of God’s Creation but a dogged determination to make the world conform to a standard that they, the enlightened and righteous few, have thought up.
Pope Francis was on point when he castigated the “spirit of adolescent progressivism” which seductively suggests that it is always right, when faced with any decision, to move on rather than remain faithful to one’s own traditions: “Still today, the spirit of worldliness leads us to progressivism, to this uniformity of thought.”
Negotiating one’s identity, the Pope declared, is squarely impossible, because it is a gift from God, a grace that must be recognized and nourished but that can be rejected or changed only at one’s own peril.
Sadly, more and more Catholic universities (under the direction of increasing numbers of lay Boards of Directors) are abandoning the search for truth to which they have been called. Thus they betray the mission and legacy of the university, which since its inception has been to unite rather than to divide knowledge.
They substitute empty slogans for the direction laid down by Jesus Christ as the fount of truth for us and for all time.
Diversity is by no means a Catholic value. It is a fact, a gift we have received and that we should not artificially distort in order to follow a siren song that only intends to establish a uniformity imposed by the opponents of our faith and morals.
As believers, we Catholics are rather guided by the eternal truth of the One, the Good, and the Omnipotent Creator.
For Catholics, the diversity of Creation, which is our gift and legacy, can never be relativized, and certainly not by politically secular groups or agendas.
Of course, the result is a destructive search for artificial diversification which assumes that the relevance of anything or anyone arises randomly according to the circumstances in which persons or things are situated.
If there are no truths to be known, then artificial diversification possesses a certain logic to it, since the relative significance of persons or things is imposed rather than discovered.
For this reason, the clarion call which secularists espouse for greater awareness and sensitivity to diversity is more a political strategy to impose certain codes of acceptable speech, thought-policing and punishments targeted against those who do not accept or support politically correct ideologies.
For in reality, secularists want their artificially constructed diversity programs and campaigns to demand the thought and behavior of their choosing, their intention not being to actually foster acceptance of greater variety but rather the imposition and ascendancy of their ideology and agendas.
Of course, the what artificial diversity may be in vogue at any one time -- at present it is homosexuality and gender identity -- there is no foundation for such in Catholic belief and tradition which is, by its very definition, universal and directed at the whole of humanity. As Saint Paul admonishes us to remember: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).
The diversity which our secular culture cherishes is one defined by groups, where an elite few are politically empowered to select the category.
As Catholics, however, we are committed to respecting the individuality of all persons, who are without exception created in God’s image and therefore enjoy a sacred dignity.
That is why it is particularly disappointing that relativism (sometimes disguised as pluralism) and group diversity are now the mantras of Catholic universities just as much as state institutions.
Some Catholic universities are actively striving to attract more gay and lesbian students, professors, and staff, provide public forums for them.
And this is the saddest aspect of their unnecessary and destructive ideology. Its propagators do not reveal simple joy in the wondrous multiformity of God’s Creation but a dogged determination to make the world conform to a standard that they, the enlightened and righteous few, have thought up.
Pope Francis was on point when he castigated the “spirit of adolescent progressivism” which seductively suggests that it is always right, when faced with any decision, to move on rather than remain faithful to one’s own traditions: “Still today, the spirit of worldliness leads us to progressivism, to this uniformity of thought.”
Negotiating one’s identity, the Pope declared, is squarely impossible, because it is a gift from God, a grace that must be recognized and nourished but that can be rejected or changed only at one’s own peril.
Sadly, more and more Catholic universities (under the direction of increasing numbers of lay Boards of Directors) are abandoning the search for truth to which they have been called. Thus they betray the mission and legacy of the university, which since its inception has been to unite rather than to divide knowledge.
They substitute empty slogans for the direction laid down by Jesus Christ as the fount of truth for us and for all time.
Diversity is by no means a Catholic value. It is a fact, a gift we have received and that we should not artificially distort in order to follow a siren song that only intends to establish a uniformity imposed by the opponents of our faith and morals.
As believers, we Catholics are rather guided by the eternal truth of the One, the Good, and the Omnipotent Creator.
For Catholics, the diversity of Creation, which is our gift and legacy, can never be relativized, and certainly not by politically secular groups or agendas.
Sunday, January 14, 2018
POPE FRANCIS AVOIDS VISITING ARGENTINA....AGAIN!
Much to the chagrin of many of his countrymen, Francis has not set foot in his homeland since his election in March 2013.
In contrast, Pope John Paul II visited his native Poland in 1979, less than a year after he became pontiff. His successor, Pope Benedict XVI, went to his homeland, Germany, during his first foreign trip in 2005.
But almost five years after Archbishop Jorge Cardinal Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires became the first Pope from Latin America, the decision by Pope Francis to steer clear from Argentina has left many faithful feeling perplexed and dejected.
The Pope has not spoken at length about why he has not visited Argentina, which analysts attribute at least in part to a reluctance to get swept up in the country’s polarized politics.
It is not that Francis has ignored South America, a region where the Roman Catholic Church’s influence has been waning steadily in recent years.
By the end of his coming trip, the Holy Father will have visited every country that borders Argentina, with the exception of Uruguay, plus three additional countries on the continent. He traveled to Brazil in 2013, Bolivia, Paraguay and Ecuador in 2015, Colombia last year and now Chile and Peru during a six-day trip that starts Monday.
Many in Argentina have interpreted the Pope’s apparent snub as a decision to avoid contact with President Mauricio Macri. Francis also had a tense relationship with former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her late husband and predecessor, Néstor Kirchner, while he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, often making thinly veiled criticisms about poverty and corruption.
But while he may avoid any awkward encounters with leaders in Argentina, the coming trip will still put Pope Francis in some uncomfortable situations.
In Santiago, Francis is expected to face demonstrations for keeping Bishop Juan Barros as head of the Diocese of Osorno, 570 miles south of the capital, despite allegations he helped cover up a notorious case of clerical sexual abuse. The Holy Father appointed him in January 2015 even though he was part of the inner circle of the Rev. Fernando Karadima, whom the Vatican found guilty of sexual abuse in 2011.
Sex abuse scandals are among the reasons millions of Latin Americans have turned away from the Catholic Church in recent years. In prosperous nations, including Chile and Uruguay, societies have become increasingly secular. In countries in the region troubled by violence, stark inequality and entrenched poverty like Brazil, Evangelical Protestant denominations have cut deeply into the base of the Catholic Church.
The number of Chileans who described themselves as Catholic dropped from 74 percent in 1995 to 45 percent last year, according to a poll by Latinobarómetro.
In Argentina, local church authorities acknowledge that people are frustrated that Pope Francis has not come home, but they urge patience. Jorge Oesterheld, the spokesman for Argentina’s Bishops’ Conference, told a local radio station recently that the pope is “looking for the moment” to return home.
In contrast, Pope John Paul II visited his native Poland in 1979, less than a year after he became pontiff. His successor, Pope Benedict XVI, went to his homeland, Germany, during his first foreign trip in 2005.
But almost five years after Archbishop Jorge Cardinal Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires became the first Pope from Latin America, the decision by Pope Francis to steer clear from Argentina has left many faithful feeling perplexed and dejected.
The Pope has not spoken at length about why he has not visited Argentina, which analysts attribute at least in part to a reluctance to get swept up in the country’s polarized politics.
It is not that Francis has ignored South America, a region where the Roman Catholic Church’s influence has been waning steadily in recent years.
By the end of his coming trip, the Holy Father will have visited every country that borders Argentina, with the exception of Uruguay, plus three additional countries on the continent. He traveled to Brazil in 2013, Bolivia, Paraguay and Ecuador in 2015, Colombia last year and now Chile and Peru during a six-day trip that starts Monday.
Many in Argentina have interpreted the Pope’s apparent snub as a decision to avoid contact with President Mauricio Macri. Francis also had a tense relationship with former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her late husband and predecessor, Néstor Kirchner, while he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, often making thinly veiled criticisms about poverty and corruption.
But while he may avoid any awkward encounters with leaders in Argentina, the coming trip will still put Pope Francis in some uncomfortable situations.
In Santiago, Francis is expected to face demonstrations for keeping Bishop Juan Barros as head of the Diocese of Osorno, 570 miles south of the capital, despite allegations he helped cover up a notorious case of clerical sexual abuse. The Holy Father appointed him in January 2015 even though he was part of the inner circle of the Rev. Fernando Karadima, whom the Vatican found guilty of sexual abuse in 2011.
Sex abuse scandals are among the reasons millions of Latin Americans have turned away from the Catholic Church in recent years. In prosperous nations, including Chile and Uruguay, societies have become increasingly secular. In countries in the region troubled by violence, stark inequality and entrenched poverty like Brazil, Evangelical Protestant denominations have cut deeply into the base of the Catholic Church.
The number of Chileans who described themselves as Catholic dropped from 74 percent in 1995 to 45 percent last year, according to a poll by Latinobarómetro.
In Argentina, local church authorities acknowledge that people are frustrated that Pope Francis has not come home, but they urge patience. Jorge Oesterheld, the spokesman for Argentina’s Bishops’ Conference, told a local radio station recently that the pope is “looking for the moment” to return home.