Two recent surveys were conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) with the aim of better understanding the stories, experiences, behavior and attitudes of baptized Catholics.
The first survey, commissioned by America Media, included responses from more than 1,500 American women who self-identify as Catholic.
The second survey, commissioned by Saint Mary’s Press, was a qualitative survey of young, disaffiliated Catholics — a group previously examined in a 2015 Pew Research Center survey.
Editors at America Media published a series of essays detailing the growing disaffiliation of women from the Church. The largest takeaway was that the majority of respondents, from differing generations, rarely, if ever, attend Mass on Sundays.
Many of these same women do not participate in any Sacraments, social ministries or faith communities. Many of these respondents support initiatives or ideas at odds with the Church’s teaching, particularly those related to human sexuality and Marriage, along with beliefs and practices related to Ordained ministry.
I know from personal experience -- in the comments I receive on this blog whenever I publish survey results from Cara or Pew -- that many Catholics adopt either a hostile or indifferent attitude to those who disassociate themselves from the Church.
This attitude of dismissal is not lost on young Catholics.
A number of respondents mentioned that the saddest part about their departure from actively practicing the Faith was the feeling that “no one cared that they had left.”
Pope Francis has called for a Church defined by a spirit of accompaniment, and one that listens to the lived experience of its members — which includes all of the baptized. He’s instructed the Church to “open its doors” and “let Jesus out.”
If people aren’t coming into our church buildings, then the Church needs to go out to them, the Holy Father has repeatedly said.
This refrain is sure to come up during the discussions of the upcoming meeting of the Synod on Young People, Vocation, and Discernment, a meeting of the world’s bishops that Pope Francis has called to be held at the Vatican this October.
Some suggest that the first step to bringing people back into the community of the Church will always be an invitation, offered in the context of a relationship. And that relationship will always require a willingness to sit with someone and listen to his or her experience and personal history.
Pope Francis has encouraged Church leadership to open their ears to what the folks in the pews have to say.
It is a noble challenge.
But, unless the Holy See and the Bishops are seriously and sincerely concerned with what the faithful and disaffiliated have to say and are willing to take practical steps to respond to their needs, all will seem to be yet other instance of empty gestures.
Pope Francis is hopeful that the upcoming Synod will be positive and fruitful.
We share that hope in prayer to the Holy Spirit that God's People will open their hearts to the Grace of Love and Forgiveness that comes to them through the ministry of the Church.
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Monday, February 26, 2018
FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE DEFACTO SCHISM WITHIN THE CHURCH
Thanks to the readers who expressed appreciation for the articles I have been writing concerning division within the ranks of the Bishops, division which I believe threatens the very Oneness which is fundamental to the essence and mission of the Catholic Church.
For those who suggest that I am exaggerating the issue, I propose the following as yet further evidence of how serious the division is and why I suggest that Catholicism itself is in a state of de facto schism.
Cardinal Cupich, the Archbishop of Chicago, announced that he has invited “some U.S. Bishops” (a fact which I find most curious in itself) to a series of conferences on the 2016 Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
The seminars will be held at three Catholic colleges later this month.
The gatherings, dubbed “New Momentum Conferences on Amoris Laetitia,” are designed to offer a “tailor-made program that goes from why Amoris Laetitia provides new momentum for moral formation and pastoral practice to how to provide formative pastoral programs within respective dioceses.”
Cardinal Cupich explained that his goal was to gather 15 to 20 Bishops to engage in conversations with theologians on topics related to the Exhortation.
His Eminence further stated that the conferences will be modeled after a seminar in the Fall of last year held at Boston College. That seminar treated the Exhortation, giving particular focus to its reception in the multicultural and diverse environment that characterizes the Church in the United States.
There is some indication that Cardinal Kevin Farrell, prefect of the Dicastery on Laity, Family and Life, has encouraged and endorsed the upcoming conferences, which will be held at Boston College, the University of Notre Dame and Santa Clara University.
The conferences come in the wake of a speech given by Cardinal Cupich this past February 9th at the Von Hügel Institute, at St. Edmund College, in Cambridge, England.
In that speech, Cardinal Cupich said that “Pope Francis is convinced of the need for a new ministerial approach to families as he looks at the challenges facing families in today’s world.”
The Cardinal spoke of Pope Francis’ so-called “revolution of mercy” that has caused what many are defending as a “paradigm shift” in Catholic practice.
His Eminence added that “some people misinterpret and misunderstand Amoris Laetitia simply because they fail or refuse to take into account the present reality in all its complexity.”
Within a matter of days, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated that the authentic development of doctrine is about making more explicit the revealed truths of faith, not changing, or “shifting,” Church teaching – and to use this idea to defend an agenda is wrong.
In an essay published on February 20th, Cardinal Muller noted that there can be no such thing as a “paradigm shift” in the interpretation of Catholic doctrine, and to push for one is to contradict God’s commandments.
Anyone who calls a major shift in the Church's teaching in moral theology as a “praiseworthy decision of conscience… speaks against the Catholic faith,” His Eminence stated.
The idea of a “paradigm shift” – a “fundamental change in theoretical forms of thought and social behavior” – with respect to “the form of the Church's being and of her presence in the world” is not possible,” Cardinal Müller wrote, simply because “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. This is, in contrast, our paradigm, which we will not exchange for any other.”
Cardinal Muller insisted that the Pope and his fellow Bishops have a duty to preserve the unity of faith and to prevent polarization and partisan mentalities. Therefore, it is also a duty of conscience to speak up in opposition when the term “pastoral change” is used by some to “express their agenda to sweep aside the Church’s teaching as if doctrine were an obstacle to pastoral care.”
And so, it is clear that the division among the Bishops, among leading Prelates, is very much public and, in some cases, bordering on failings against fraternal charity (which should be a hallmark within the Sacred College).
Where such divisions leave the Catholic faithful (you and I) "remains to be seen" -- an unfortunate phrase I find myself using more and more these days.
Again, I strive each day (and encourage others) to call upon the Holy Spirit for guidance through these difficult and threatening times.
Where there is unity and charity, there the Holy Spirit is found alive and at work. Where that unity and charity is lacking, the Same Spirit is absent.
Come, Holy Spirit, come!
For those who suggest that I am exaggerating the issue, I propose the following as yet further evidence of how serious the division is and why I suggest that Catholicism itself is in a state of de facto schism.
Cardinal Cupich, the Archbishop of Chicago, announced that he has invited “some U.S. Bishops” (a fact which I find most curious in itself) to a series of conferences on the 2016 Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
The seminars will be held at three Catholic colleges later this month.
The gatherings, dubbed “New Momentum Conferences on Amoris Laetitia,” are designed to offer a “tailor-made program that goes from why Amoris Laetitia provides new momentum for moral formation and pastoral practice to how to provide formative pastoral programs within respective dioceses.”
Cardinal Cupich explained that his goal was to gather 15 to 20 Bishops to engage in conversations with theologians on topics related to the Exhortation.
His Eminence further stated that the conferences will be modeled after a seminar in the Fall of last year held at Boston College. That seminar treated the Exhortation, giving particular focus to its reception in the multicultural and diverse environment that characterizes the Church in the United States.
There is some indication that Cardinal Kevin Farrell, prefect of the Dicastery on Laity, Family and Life, has encouraged and endorsed the upcoming conferences, which will be held at Boston College, the University of Notre Dame and Santa Clara University.
The conferences come in the wake of a speech given by Cardinal Cupich this past February 9th at the Von Hügel Institute, at St. Edmund College, in Cambridge, England.
In that speech, Cardinal Cupich said that “Pope Francis is convinced of the need for a new ministerial approach to families as he looks at the challenges facing families in today’s world.”
The Cardinal spoke of Pope Francis’ so-called “revolution of mercy” that has caused what many are defending as a “paradigm shift” in Catholic practice.
His Eminence added that “some people misinterpret and misunderstand Amoris Laetitia simply because they fail or refuse to take into account the present reality in all its complexity.”
Within a matter of days, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated that the authentic development of doctrine is about making more explicit the revealed truths of faith, not changing, or “shifting,” Church teaching – and to use this idea to defend an agenda is wrong.
In an essay published on February 20th, Cardinal Muller noted that there can be no such thing as a “paradigm shift” in the interpretation of Catholic doctrine, and to push for one is to contradict God’s commandments.
Anyone who calls a major shift in the Church's teaching in moral theology as a “praiseworthy decision of conscience… speaks against the Catholic faith,” His Eminence stated.
The idea of a “paradigm shift” – a “fundamental change in theoretical forms of thought and social behavior” – with respect to “the form of the Church's being and of her presence in the world” is not possible,” Cardinal Müller wrote, simply because “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. This is, in contrast, our paradigm, which we will not exchange for any other.”
Cardinal Muller insisted that the Pope and his fellow Bishops have a duty to preserve the unity of faith and to prevent polarization and partisan mentalities. Therefore, it is also a duty of conscience to speak up in opposition when the term “pastoral change” is used by some to “express their agenda to sweep aside the Church’s teaching as if doctrine were an obstacle to pastoral care.”
And so, it is clear that the division among the Bishops, among leading Prelates, is very much public and, in some cases, bordering on failings against fraternal charity (which should be a hallmark within the Sacred College).
Where such divisions leave the Catholic faithful (you and I) "remains to be seen" -- an unfortunate phrase I find myself using more and more these days.
Again, I strive each day (and encourage others) to call upon the Holy Spirit for guidance through these difficult and threatening times.
Where there is unity and charity, there the Holy Spirit is found alive and at work. Where that unity and charity is lacking, the Same Spirit is absent.
Come, Holy Spirit, come!
Sunday, February 25, 2018
THE WIDENING DIVISIONS AMONG THE BISHOPS
Sometimes, Divine Providence assures us that the inspirations of the Holy Spirit which come to us as a result of prayer and thoughtful reflection are true and correct.
I have had this experience in reference to a number of articles which I have posted to this blog.
Most recently, I have been commenting on the crisis developing and being witnessed in the widening disunity within the College of Bishops and between members of the College and the Holy Father, Pope Francis.
This disunity, which threatens both the essential definition and mission of the Church (the care and salvation of souls), has once again been affirmed by the controversy over the recent decision of the German Episcopal Conference to allow Bishops within the Conference to establish policies allowing Protestant spouses of Catholics to receive Holy Communion in individual cases.
Archbishop of Munich, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, President of the German Bishops Conference, announced that the great majority of the German bishops had approved an “orientation guide” with regard to mixed marriages and Holy Communion.
A precondition is that the Protestant partner “after a deep discernment in a spiritual conversation with a Priest or another pastoral worker comes to the decision of conscience to affirm the Faith of the Catholic Church, as well as to end a serious spiritual tension within the marriage as well as to fulfill a sincere desire and yearning for the Eucharist."
In making the announcement, Cardinal Marx praised this new orientation guide as “positive progress" following an “intensive debate” where “serious concerns” were raised. Moreover, he stressed that this pastoral initiative not a general admission, but a decision which is to be made in individual cases.
Cardinal Marx explained that it is now in the hands of each local bishop to establish policies with regard to this new pastoral orientation.
Pope Francis himself, in November of 2015, made some remarks that were understood to be an opening up to the idea of Protestant spouses receiving Holy Communion. The Pope told a Lutheran woman asking about receiving Communion with her Catholic husband to “go forward” guided by her individual conscience.
It will be difficult, if not impossible, to harmonize the Pope's counsel as well as this latest German initiative with the statements of Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship, who has emphasized that intercommunion with Protestants is impossible.
In the preface to his new book on the Eucharist, the Cardinal laments the reception of Holy Communion by those who do not profess Catholic faith as “sacrilegious” and an “outrage” against the Sacrament.
In reference to Pope Francis' 2015 comments on the subject, Cardinal Sarah stated: “Intercommunion is not permitted between Catholics and non-Catholics. You must confess the Catholic Faith. A non-Catholic cannot receive Communion. That is very, very clear. It’s not a matter of following your conscience.”
“It’s not a personal desire or a personal dialogue with Jesus that determines if I can receive Communion in the Catholic Church. How can I know that the Lord has really said: ‘Come and receive My Body.’ No. A person cannot decide if he is able to receive Communion. He has to have the rule of the Church: i.e., being a Catholic, being in a state of grace, and properly married.”
The statements of the Pope and the German Bishops and those of Cardinal Sarah are not different viewpoints. They are contradictions.
And contradictions simply cannot exist simultaneously within the Oneness of the Catholic Faith.
Once again, my concern that the Church finds itself in a state of de facto schism appears to have been affirmed in this latest critical division among the Bishops themselves and between some members of the College and the Vicar of Christ.
We are left to pray to the Holy Spirit to help the Church, especially its leadership, to rediscover unity and harmony in the profession of the Catholic Faith.
The future of the Church depends on this.
Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle within us the fire of Your Love.
I have had this experience in reference to a number of articles which I have posted to this blog.
Most recently, I have been commenting on the crisis developing and being witnessed in the widening disunity within the College of Bishops and between members of the College and the Holy Father, Pope Francis.
This disunity, which threatens both the essential definition and mission of the Church (the care and salvation of souls), has once again been affirmed by the controversy over the recent decision of the German Episcopal Conference to allow Bishops within the Conference to establish policies allowing Protestant spouses of Catholics to receive Holy Communion in individual cases.
Archbishop of Munich, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, President of the German Bishops Conference, announced that the great majority of the German bishops had approved an “orientation guide” with regard to mixed marriages and Holy Communion.
A precondition is that the Protestant partner “after a deep discernment in a spiritual conversation with a Priest or another pastoral worker comes to the decision of conscience to affirm the Faith of the Catholic Church, as well as to end a serious spiritual tension within the marriage as well as to fulfill a sincere desire and yearning for the Eucharist."
In making the announcement, Cardinal Marx praised this new orientation guide as “positive progress" following an “intensive debate” where “serious concerns” were raised. Moreover, he stressed that this pastoral initiative not a general admission, but a decision which is to be made in individual cases.
Cardinal Marx explained that it is now in the hands of each local bishop to establish policies with regard to this new pastoral orientation.
Pope Francis himself, in November of 2015, made some remarks that were understood to be an opening up to the idea of Protestant spouses receiving Holy Communion. The Pope told a Lutheran woman asking about receiving Communion with her Catholic husband to “go forward” guided by her individual conscience.
It will be difficult, if not impossible, to harmonize the Pope's counsel as well as this latest German initiative with the statements of Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship, who has emphasized that intercommunion with Protestants is impossible.
In the preface to his new book on the Eucharist, the Cardinal laments the reception of Holy Communion by those who do not profess Catholic faith as “sacrilegious” and an “outrage” against the Sacrament.
In reference to Pope Francis' 2015 comments on the subject, Cardinal Sarah stated: “Intercommunion is not permitted between Catholics and non-Catholics. You must confess the Catholic Faith. A non-Catholic cannot receive Communion. That is very, very clear. It’s not a matter of following your conscience.”
“It’s not a personal desire or a personal dialogue with Jesus that determines if I can receive Communion in the Catholic Church. How can I know that the Lord has really said: ‘Come and receive My Body.’ No. A person cannot decide if he is able to receive Communion. He has to have the rule of the Church: i.e., being a Catholic, being in a state of grace, and properly married.”
The statements of the Pope and the German Bishops and those of Cardinal Sarah are not different viewpoints. They are contradictions.
And contradictions simply cannot exist simultaneously within the Oneness of the Catholic Faith.
Once again, my concern that the Church finds itself in a state of de facto schism appears to have been affirmed in this latest critical division among the Bishops themselves and between some members of the College and the Vicar of Christ.
We are left to pray to the Holy Spirit to help the Church, especially its leadership, to rediscover unity and harmony in the profession of the Catholic Faith.
The future of the Church depends on this.
Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle within us the fire of Your Love.
Saturday, February 24, 2018
ECCLESIOLOGY IN CRISIS
In an earlier article (“No Longer One: The De Facto Schism Within the Church”), I strongly suggested that the disputes among the Bishops arising from Pope Francis’ pastoral initiatives are threatening one of the fundamental principles which has defined the Church: its Oneness, that is, the unity that must exist in matters of faith and morals which proceed from the Deposit of Faith (Scripture and Tradition).
There is no question that in modern times there have been disputes, serious disputes, which have arisen over matters pertaining to Church doctrine, moral teachings and the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy. These controversies rose to a deafening crescendo following Vatican Council II.
But never did these contentions threaten to undermine what is and always has been the Oneness of the Church, that is, the unity that has existed between the Universal Vicar of Christ and the College of Bishops.
Both affirmed and assented to the supreme teaching authority of the Pope in union with the Bishops and recognized that this unity is what constituted the Church‘s essential character and mission: to teach, sanctify and govern in the person and name of Christ Himself.
Recent divisions between the Pope and the College as well as within the ranks of the Bishops themselves suggest that this is no longer the case.
The catalyst for this division appears to have been Pope Francis’s teachings as found in his 2016 Exhortation Amoris Laetitia and his pastoral initiatives seeking to allow invalidly married couples to receive Holy Communion.
The Nicene Creed (381 AD) defines and professes that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
These four “marks of the Church” form the theological foundation of the Church’s defining character.
Each “mark” is necessary to that definition. Where one or more is missing or seriously impaired, the Church’s very identity and efficacy is destroyed or put at critical risk.
The present bickering and grossly public infighting among the Bishops and between some Prelates and the Holy See risk putting the previously unquestionable spiritual and moral authority of the Church in jeopardy.
I contend that neo-conservative reactionaries and not Pope Francis are responsible for these threats to the Oneness of the Church. It is they who continue to sew seeds of discord as they resist and refuse to listen to what the Holy Father has suggested is an approach to those in irregular union with the Church to begin a pathway toward conversion.
Let those who demand allegiance to past approaches be careful that, in the process of defending their narrow viewpoints about the power of forgiveness and Grace, the leave a trail of ruin and destruction.
Let those who would separate themselves from the Office of Peter understand that they encourage others less knowledgeable about the Church’s authority and mission to do the same.
If Pope Francis’ moral authority can be questioned and disputed, why not that of Saint John Paul II or Benedict XVI? Why not the Apostolic Fathers themselves?
Ultimately, what is the role of the Vicar of Christ, if not to be the essential point of unity by which the Church itself is defined.
Make no mistake, those who would break their unity with Pope Francis are engaging in a redefinition of what it means to be Catholic.
The very essence and mission of the Church hangs in the balance -- I can think of no greater blasphemy.
There is no question that in modern times there have been disputes, serious disputes, which have arisen over matters pertaining to Church doctrine, moral teachings and the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy. These controversies rose to a deafening crescendo following Vatican Council II.
But never did these contentions threaten to undermine what is and always has been the Oneness of the Church, that is, the unity that has existed between the Universal Vicar of Christ and the College of Bishops.
Both affirmed and assented to the supreme teaching authority of the Pope in union with the Bishops and recognized that this unity is what constituted the Church‘s essential character and mission: to teach, sanctify and govern in the person and name of Christ Himself.
Recent divisions between the Pope and the College as well as within the ranks of the Bishops themselves suggest that this is no longer the case.
The catalyst for this division appears to have been Pope Francis’s teachings as found in his 2016 Exhortation Amoris Laetitia and his pastoral initiatives seeking to allow invalidly married couples to receive Holy Communion.
The Nicene Creed (381 AD) defines and professes that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
These four “marks of the Church” form the theological foundation of the Church’s defining character.
Each “mark” is necessary to that definition. Where one or more is missing or seriously impaired, the Church’s very identity and efficacy is destroyed or put at critical risk.
The present bickering and grossly public infighting among the Bishops and between some Prelates and the Holy See risk putting the previously unquestionable spiritual and moral authority of the Church in jeopardy.
I contend that neo-conservative reactionaries and not Pope Francis are responsible for these threats to the Oneness of the Church. It is they who continue to sew seeds of discord as they resist and refuse to listen to what the Holy Father has suggested is an approach to those in irregular union with the Church to begin a pathway toward conversion.
Let those who demand allegiance to past approaches be careful that, in the process of defending their narrow viewpoints about the power of forgiveness and Grace, the leave a trail of ruin and destruction.
Let those who would separate themselves from the Office of Peter understand that they encourage others less knowledgeable about the Church’s authority and mission to do the same.
If Pope Francis’ moral authority can be questioned and disputed, why not that of Saint John Paul II or Benedict XVI? Why not the Apostolic Fathers themselves?
Ultimately, what is the role of the Vicar of Christ, if not to be the essential point of unity by which the Church itself is defined.
Make no mistake, those who would break their unity with Pope Francis are engaging in a redefinition of what it means to be Catholic.
The very essence and mission of the Church hangs in the balance -- I can think of no greater blasphemy.
Friday, February 23, 2018
THE SILENT CIVIL WAR WITHIN THE CHURCH
I was ordained to the Sacred Priesthood 43 years ago.
On the day the Bishop imposed hands upon me calling me to the Sacred Order of the Presbyterate, I could never have imagined I would live to see the day when a war would take place for the very soul of the Church.
What is most shocking is that the battle isn’t between the Church and the world, the flesh and the devil.
No, it’s a civil war raging within the Body of Christ itself and, for the most part, it is being silently waged.
On one side are those Bishops, appointed by Saint Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI who have been reluctant to show allegiance to Pope Francis and the reforms he promised to the Cardinals who elected him.
Theirs is a quiet campaign to undermine Pope Francis and slow down any progress the Holy Father attempts.
There seems to be a growing consensus among this resistance movement that retired Pope Benedict is supportive of their disaffection with the direction in which Pope Francis is leading the Church.
On the other side, there are Bishops who have not only endorsed the Holy Father’s reforms but have taken active measures to establish concrete pastoral policies and guidelines within their respective dioceses, Argentine and Maltese Bishops most notably among them.
But what is remarkable about these divisions is that the vast majority of Bishops around the world, and most curiously within the United States, have said nothing at all. The Bishop of the Church are, for the most part, silent.
Why? What reasons can there be to explain or justify their silence?
I think the strategy most Bishops have adopted is to “wait and see”.
Waiting for what?
The next Conclave and the Pope who will be elected to succeed Francis.
Until then, the silent civil war will continue with some Bishops who believe the time finally has arrived when the Church must seriously and effectively adopt the spirit of Vatican Council II. And on the other side, will be those Bishops, neo-conservative reactionaries, and younger more traditional Clergy waiting (and praying) for this Papacy to end.
I believe and pray (for his own well-being and sanity) that Pope Francis understands that it will be his poor fortune never to see or know if the reforms he has attempted eventually will take solid root within the Church.
That will fall to his successor, either the candidate of the resistance or the candidate of continuing reform.
A dear friend has suggested that we should pay particular attention to the name the next Pope takes upon assuming the Office of the Vicar of Christ.
If he takes the name “Francis II”, we shall know in what direction he will seek to steer the Barque of Peter. If he takes the name “John Paul II”, we can likewise expect a conservative crackdown and suppression of many of the initiatives undertaken during the Pontificate of Pope Francis.
The next Pontificate will determine the future path the Church will take and, when that Conclave concludes and the new Pope emerges, then, I believe, the battle will be engaged publicly and loudly by the Bishops themselves.
At that point, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether the Oneness of the Catholic Faith will endure or be wounded by yet another historic schism.
Let us pray for the Church, for our Bishops and all the faithful, for unity and charity in all our ways. May the Holy Spirit truly be our Guide and Consoler.
On the day the Bishop imposed hands upon me calling me to the Sacred Order of the Presbyterate, I could never have imagined I would live to see the day when a war would take place for the very soul of the Church.
What is most shocking is that the battle isn’t between the Church and the world, the flesh and the devil.
No, it’s a civil war raging within the Body of Christ itself and, for the most part, it is being silently waged.
On one side are those Bishops, appointed by Saint Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI who have been reluctant to show allegiance to Pope Francis and the reforms he promised to the Cardinals who elected him.
Theirs is a quiet campaign to undermine Pope Francis and slow down any progress the Holy Father attempts.
There seems to be a growing consensus among this resistance movement that retired Pope Benedict is supportive of their disaffection with the direction in which Pope Francis is leading the Church.
On the other side, there are Bishops who have not only endorsed the Holy Father’s reforms but have taken active measures to establish concrete pastoral policies and guidelines within their respective dioceses, Argentine and Maltese Bishops most notably among them.
But what is remarkable about these divisions is that the vast majority of Bishops around the world, and most curiously within the United States, have said nothing at all. The Bishop of the Church are, for the most part, silent.
Why? What reasons can there be to explain or justify their silence?
I think the strategy most Bishops have adopted is to “wait and see”.
Waiting for what?
The next Conclave and the Pope who will be elected to succeed Francis.
Until then, the silent civil war will continue with some Bishops who believe the time finally has arrived when the Church must seriously and effectively adopt the spirit of Vatican Council II. And on the other side, will be those Bishops, neo-conservative reactionaries, and younger more traditional Clergy waiting (and praying) for this Papacy to end.
I believe and pray (for his own well-being and sanity) that Pope Francis understands that it will be his poor fortune never to see or know if the reforms he has attempted eventually will take solid root within the Church.
That will fall to his successor, either the candidate of the resistance or the candidate of continuing reform.
A dear friend has suggested that we should pay particular attention to the name the next Pope takes upon assuming the Office of the Vicar of Christ.
If he takes the name “Francis II”, we shall know in what direction he will seek to steer the Barque of Peter. If he takes the name “John Paul II”, we can likewise expect a conservative crackdown and suppression of many of the initiatives undertaken during the Pontificate of Pope Francis.
The next Pontificate will determine the future path the Church will take and, when that Conclave concludes and the new Pope emerges, then, I believe, the battle will be engaged publicly and loudly by the Bishops themselves.
At that point, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether the Oneness of the Catholic Faith will endure or be wounded by yet another historic schism.
Let us pray for the Church, for our Bishops and all the faithful, for unity and charity in all our ways. May the Holy Spirit truly be our Guide and Consoler.
Thursday, February 22, 2018
THE DARK AGES REVISITED?
If there were such a thing as a “time machine”, I wonder what the past would really look like.
For example, what historians now refer to as the “Dark Ages”.
What was it really like during that period in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire?
Did the historical Dark Ages look anything like what we are experiencing today in the moral, social and political battles that are being waged and seemingly lost in our modern day society?
Certainly, there is an anti-intellectualism that is running rampant in almost every facet of modern human experience.
The Church itself has not been immune.
Christians are routinely ridiculed and, in some instances, persecuted for their faith. Priests and religious as well as Christian faithful are dying as they witness to the Gospel and their faith in the Church.
It was largely the Church that rescued Western Civilization from the Dark Ages of the past.
But sadly, in today’s world, the only Catholic certainty now appears to uncertainty itself.
Absolute truths have become completely subjective.
Moral relativism rules the day.
Church’s teaching on Holy Communion for remarried divorcees varies from country to country and diocese to diocese. Even supporters of Pope Francis (like me) do not fully understand or apparently cannot agree on what the official Vatican position entails.
Even the Church’s teaching on suicide now varies in different parts of Canada.
Recently, the Vatican seems to have accepted the fact that a Belgian Religious Order has pushed things even further, insisting that it intends to actually carry out euthanasia and assisted suicide at its hospitals.
As for the laity, radical secularization has transformed the Christian faithful into a heartland of moral indifference and relativism.
For the most part, the laity have been quite content and eager to surrender themselves to what is socially and politically expedient. Their consequent loss of practical religious faith has impacted every aspect of contemporary living.
Marriage, human sexuality have ceased to have any religious significance or definition. The family, building block of human society itself, is in a state of ruin.
Christian virtues are the stuff of derision and mockery.
Nor can the faithful look to their Priests for inspiration or support, when the Ministers of the Gospel choose not to proclaim the truths of the Evangelical counsels but offer instead the worthless therapeutic regimen of false and failed psychological babble.
Catholicism is dying in Europe and, as I have often lamented, Western Civilization is dying with it. We are indeed living in the Dark Ages once again.
But, alas, the Church that rescued civilization from the Dark Ages of the past is no longer the forceful agent for conversion and renewal it proved to be in the Middle Ages.
Where does that leave humanity?
That will be the judgment of generations and historians yet to be born.
In the meantime, the seemingly few of us who remain faithful to the Lord Jesus and His Church need to remain faithful to our Creed and ask the Holy Spirit to fortify our human frailty.
Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Your faithful and inspire in us the fire of Your Love.
For example, what historians now refer to as the “Dark Ages”.
What was it really like during that period in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire?
Did the historical Dark Ages look anything like what we are experiencing today in the moral, social and political battles that are being waged and seemingly lost in our modern day society?
Certainly, there is an anti-intellectualism that is running rampant in almost every facet of modern human experience.
The Church itself has not been immune.
Christians are routinely ridiculed and, in some instances, persecuted for their faith. Priests and religious as well as Christian faithful are dying as they witness to the Gospel and their faith in the Church.
It was largely the Church that rescued Western Civilization from the Dark Ages of the past.
But sadly, in today’s world, the only Catholic certainty now appears to uncertainty itself.
Absolute truths have become completely subjective.
Moral relativism rules the day.
Church’s teaching on Holy Communion for remarried divorcees varies from country to country and diocese to diocese. Even supporters of Pope Francis (like me) do not fully understand or apparently cannot agree on what the official Vatican position entails.
Even the Church’s teaching on suicide now varies in different parts of Canada.
Recently, the Vatican seems to have accepted the fact that a Belgian Religious Order has pushed things even further, insisting that it intends to actually carry out euthanasia and assisted suicide at its hospitals.
As for the laity, radical secularization has transformed the Christian faithful into a heartland of moral indifference and relativism.
For the most part, the laity have been quite content and eager to surrender themselves to what is socially and politically expedient. Their consequent loss of practical religious faith has impacted every aspect of contemporary living.
Marriage, human sexuality have ceased to have any religious significance or definition. The family, building block of human society itself, is in a state of ruin.
Christian virtues are the stuff of derision and mockery.
Nor can the faithful look to their Priests for inspiration or support, when the Ministers of the Gospel choose not to proclaim the truths of the Evangelical counsels but offer instead the worthless therapeutic regimen of false and failed psychological babble.
Catholicism is dying in Europe and, as I have often lamented, Western Civilization is dying with it. We are indeed living in the Dark Ages once again.
But, alas, the Church that rescued civilization from the Dark Ages of the past is no longer the forceful agent for conversion and renewal it proved to be in the Middle Ages.
Where does that leave humanity?
That will be the judgment of generations and historians yet to be born.
In the meantime, the seemingly few of us who remain faithful to the Lord Jesus and His Church need to remain faithful to our Creed and ask the Holy Spirit to fortify our human frailty.
Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Your faithful and inspire in us the fire of Your Love.
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
PRIESTS AND FAITHFUL OF AHIARA IN NIGERIA SUCCESSFUL IN REJECTING POPE FRANCIS' ULTIMATUM
In the Diocese of Ahiara in southwestern Nigeria, a test of wills between Pope Francis and many Priests and faithful had been unfolding ever since Bishop Okpaleke had been appointed Bishop by Pope Benedict XVI in 2012.
Many Clergy and laity refused to accept the Bishop because he is not from Mbaise.
Protests prevented the Bishop from taking possession of his diocese. His installation ceremony took place in another area of Nigeria because the doors of the Ahiara cathedral had been locked and barred so that the Bishop could not enter.
Last June, the crisis came to a head when Pope Francis demanded that all Priests in the diocese write him a letter within 30 days pledging their acceptance of Bishop Okpaleke and by so doing honor the supreme authority of the Papacy to appoint Bishops.
The Pope insisted that those Priests who did not write such a letter would be suspended from the practice of their Priesthood (a divinis). Pope Francis likewise demanded that rebellious Priests write a letter of apology to the Bishop.
In the intervening period of time, some 200 Priests had succumbed to the Pope’s threatened sanctions and wrote to the Holy See indicating their acceptance of the Bishop’s appointment. But many Priests indicated that they themselves and the faithful had “psychological difficulty in collaborating with the Bishop after years of conflict.
Now comes word that the Pope has accepted the resignation of Peter Ebere Okpaleke as Bishop of the Diocese of Ahiara.
It said the position had been declared vacant and that a Papal Administrator would govern it for the time being.
In announcing the acceptance of the Bishop’s resignation, the Vatican said that the rebellious Priests should “reflect on the grave damage inflicted on the Church” through their “unreasonable actions opposing a Bishop legitimately appointed by the Supreme Pontiff”.
In his resignation letter, Bishop Okpaleke said remaining Bishop would not be beneficial to the Church.
Whether or not this instance will set a precedent for other dioceses reluctant to accept legitimately appointed Bishops remains to be seen.
Many Clergy and laity refused to accept the Bishop because he is not from Mbaise.
Protests prevented the Bishop from taking possession of his diocese. His installation ceremony took place in another area of Nigeria because the doors of the Ahiara cathedral had been locked and barred so that the Bishop could not enter.
Last June, the crisis came to a head when Pope Francis demanded that all Priests in the diocese write him a letter within 30 days pledging their acceptance of Bishop Okpaleke and by so doing honor the supreme authority of the Papacy to appoint Bishops.
The Pope insisted that those Priests who did not write such a letter would be suspended from the practice of their Priesthood (a divinis). Pope Francis likewise demanded that rebellious Priests write a letter of apology to the Bishop.
In the intervening period of time, some 200 Priests had succumbed to the Pope’s threatened sanctions and wrote to the Holy See indicating their acceptance of the Bishop’s appointment. But many Priests indicated that they themselves and the faithful had “psychological difficulty in collaborating with the Bishop after years of conflict.
Now comes word that the Pope has accepted the resignation of Peter Ebere Okpaleke as Bishop of the Diocese of Ahiara.
It said the position had been declared vacant and that a Papal Administrator would govern it for the time being.
In announcing the acceptance of the Bishop’s resignation, the Vatican said that the rebellious Priests should “reflect on the grave damage inflicted on the Church” through their “unreasonable actions opposing a Bishop legitimately appointed by the Supreme Pontiff”.
In his resignation letter, Bishop Okpaleke said remaining Bishop would not be beneficial to the Church.
Whether or not this instance will set a precedent for other dioceses reluctant to accept legitimately appointed Bishops remains to be seen.
THE SAD CONSEQUENCE OF MORAL COWARDICE
Antipathy toward same-sex “marriage” is over.
And the Catholic Church lost on this issue.
According to recent surveys, Americans—especially younger generations—are more supportive of gay “marriage” than ever before.
One research firm, the Barna Group, recently reported that teenagers today are at least twice as likely as adults to identify as LGBT.
How is it possible that in the few short years since 2011, when the overwhelming majority of States had defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, could State after State strike down such prescriptions?
The impact of the 2015 US Supreme Court Obergefell Decision, which invented and bestowed rights to same-sex couples seeking recognition of their marriages, has yet to be fully determined. But it’s clear that some three years later, clearly 64% of Americans approve of the decision.
That the entertainment industry has had a profound affect upon societal acceptance of homosexuality is evident.
Now, it seems that the latest LGBT initiative to have garnered the attention and support of social platforms and corporate sponsorship is transgenderism.
The success of the Human Rights Campaign in pressuring companies to actively promote LGBT causes is, well, incredible.
From a clearly transexual co-anchor of the Olympic Games on NBC to the myriad commercials which include transgender individuals, the LGBT movement is actively engaged in its successful effort to reshape the collective conscience of America.
Politicians have eagerly “evolved” on the issue, especially Democrats whose base—which was already largely pro-gay—have responded with a fast and radical leftward swing. Government leadership in state after state, with rare exceptions like North Carolina, caved to the corporate financial leverages that were being threatened against them.
I suggest, in agreement with others, that decades before all that happened in entertainment, politics, and business, there was something else that made the LGBT revolution inevitable: the formal divorce of Marriage and procreation.
Fifty-years ago, Blessed Pope Paul VI lamented that acceptance of artificial contraception would be enough to change how Catholics would embrace Church teaching regarding Marriage and the essential link between the conjugal act and procreation.
Many Catholic Clergy and laity chose to ignore the Holy Father’s wisdom and counsel.
In the five decades that have transpired since Humanae Vitae, Catholic Clergy and laity have accepted the social and cultural transformations brought about by the LGBT advocacy groups with hardly a murmur.
In today’s brave new sexual world, the last few vestiges of Marriage are quickly becoming stigmatized. The words “father", “mother", will quickly fall by the wayside as ultimately will “male" or “female".
Pity our children, whom we as Church and as citizens have so miserably failed.
This Lenten Season, each of us has much to regret in our moral failings.
Our cowardice in not defending the sanctity of Holy Matrimony should be high on our list of transgressions.
Father, forgive us for our complacency and indifference.
And the Catholic Church lost on this issue.
According to recent surveys, Americans—especially younger generations—are more supportive of gay “marriage” than ever before.
One research firm, the Barna Group, recently reported that teenagers today are at least twice as likely as adults to identify as LGBT.
How is it possible that in the few short years since 2011, when the overwhelming majority of States had defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, could State after State strike down such prescriptions?
The impact of the 2015 US Supreme Court Obergefell Decision, which invented and bestowed rights to same-sex couples seeking recognition of their marriages, has yet to be fully determined. But it’s clear that some three years later, clearly 64% of Americans approve of the decision.
That the entertainment industry has had a profound affect upon societal acceptance of homosexuality is evident.
Now, it seems that the latest LGBT initiative to have garnered the attention and support of social platforms and corporate sponsorship is transgenderism.
The success of the Human Rights Campaign in pressuring companies to actively promote LGBT causes is, well, incredible.
From a clearly transexual co-anchor of the Olympic Games on NBC to the myriad commercials which include transgender individuals, the LGBT movement is actively engaged in its successful effort to reshape the collective conscience of America.
Politicians have eagerly “evolved” on the issue, especially Democrats whose base—which was already largely pro-gay—have responded with a fast and radical leftward swing. Government leadership in state after state, with rare exceptions like North Carolina, caved to the corporate financial leverages that were being threatened against them.
I suggest, in agreement with others, that decades before all that happened in entertainment, politics, and business, there was something else that made the LGBT revolution inevitable: the formal divorce of Marriage and procreation.
Fifty-years ago, Blessed Pope Paul VI lamented that acceptance of artificial contraception would be enough to change how Catholics would embrace Church teaching regarding Marriage and the essential link between the conjugal act and procreation.
Many Catholic Clergy and laity chose to ignore the Holy Father’s wisdom and counsel.
In the five decades that have transpired since Humanae Vitae, Catholic Clergy and laity have accepted the social and cultural transformations brought about by the LGBT advocacy groups with hardly a murmur.
In today’s brave new sexual world, the last few vestiges of Marriage are quickly becoming stigmatized. The words “father", “mother", will quickly fall by the wayside as ultimately will “male" or “female".
Pity our children, whom we as Church and as citizens have so miserably failed.
This Lenten Season, each of us has much to regret in our moral failings.
Our cowardice in not defending the sanctity of Holy Matrimony should be high on our list of transgressions.
Father, forgive us for our complacency and indifference.
Sunday, February 18, 2018
ENOUGH WITH THE PSYCHOBABBLE AND PUBLIC RELATIONS STUNTS: LET'S FINALLY GET HONEST ABOUT THE SEXUAL ABUSE SCANDALS
According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People is a comprehensive set of procedures established by the USCCB in June 2002 for addressing allegations of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy.
The Charter includes guidelines for reconciliation, healing, accountability, and prevention of future acts of abuse.
Unfortunately, the Charter and the Church’s actions based upon it are deeply compromised and can never address or repair what is fundamentally broken in modern day Catholic teaching and practice.
In the jargon of the therapeutic culture in which we now live, the Charter references “fixated ephebophilia” in order to hide the reality of the fact that adolescents and minors were molested by homosexual Clergy. The admonition to Clergy to “observe the boundaries” replaces the moral caution to “avoid serious sin”.
Such phony language is part of the problem, not the solution to the scandal caused by homosexual Clergy who violated those entrusted to their care as well as by those Bishops who were made knowledgeable of these scandals but who chose to protect the institution rather than faithful, especially innocent adolescents.
Let’s get honest, shall we!
Let’s speak plainly.
Here is the real scandal of the Clergy sexual abuse phenomenon.
Homosexual Priests, weakened by their disordered inclinations and lack of Christ-like spirituality, encountered vulnerable (often socially isolated) teenagers and young men and used them for their own sexual gratification. Subsequently, Bishops, absorbing the managerial counsel of their bureaucratic advisers, reacted not as Shepherds of souls but as CEOs.
If that is the truth, and nothing I have seen or heard suggests to me that it is not, then the Church has yet to address what is truly and manifestly at the heart of the sexual abuse scandal.
Something is wrong when psychobabble is used to constantly trump moral theology, when the language of the boardroom replaces the wisdom of the Scriptures in confronting the horror of a homosexual Priest seducing a teenage or even younger boy.
And something is more profoundly at odds with the Catholic Faith when the admission of sin and the need for repentance and restitution is equated by Bishops with the need to “restore public trust in the institution of the Priesthood and the Church”.
In the decades that have passed since these scandals first broke, very little of what the Church has said or done addresses the true source of the crisis.
But these scandals simply did not erupt from nowhere.
They come forth out of a weakened Church, a Church that has become complacent in its response to a culture of dissent (both internal and external) regarding fundamental Catholic morality and the authority which promotes it.
It has become increasingly accepted and experienced that the Priesthood is just another form of “ministry” among “all the different ministries” in the Church.
Respect and deference to the Priest as the ontological embodiment of Christ Himself has all but disappeared within the rank and file of Church membership.
For his part, the Bishop is no longer the valued teacher who, by virtue of his Apostolic Office and in union with the Vicar of Christ, is the guarantor of truths leading to personal redemption.
Rather, the Bishop appears to have become a "moderator" whose primary task is to keep contentious disagreements among the faithful to a minimum, keeping everyone feeling welcome, warm and accepted no matter how errant their opinions or behavior.
Leadership has been replaced by public relations gimmickry.
Now, when a scandal breaks and when a community is damaged by it, it is a spokesperson (very often the sly and clever choice of a female spokesperson at that) who stands before the People of God to read statements and bulletins prepared by a panel of lawyers.
The Bishops are content to be AWOL before the cameras and microphones, except when it comes to the latest diocesan-wide collection or fundraiser.
Of course, the faithful see through this thin veneer of manipulative response, simply shrug their shoulders and turn away from the Bishops, sometimes their Pastors, and sometimes even from the Church itself.
What the Church needs are Bishops and Priests who have the courage to see and admit the failures of leadership, institutional bureaucracy and the moral corruption within the Clergy and begin doing something to correct it.
A starting point is to begin changing the language used to characterize the scandal, replacing all the psychobabble with the words of the Gospel and the moral truths of the Church.
Where there is no truth, there can be no justice. No justice, no charity. No charity, no Church.
It’s all about fidelity. Fidelity to the truth behind the abuse scandal, fidelity to the Sacred Priesthood, and fidelity to Lord Jesus Himself.
The crisis over the sexual molestation of minors by homosexual Priests and Bishops who have compromised their sacred office will continue until these issues of honesty and fidelity have been addressed and the Church reclaims its moral authority in proclaiming them once again.
The Charter includes guidelines for reconciliation, healing, accountability, and prevention of future acts of abuse.
Unfortunately, the Charter and the Church’s actions based upon it are deeply compromised and can never address or repair what is fundamentally broken in modern day Catholic teaching and practice.
In the jargon of the therapeutic culture in which we now live, the Charter references “fixated ephebophilia” in order to hide the reality of the fact that adolescents and minors were molested by homosexual Clergy. The admonition to Clergy to “observe the boundaries” replaces the moral caution to “avoid serious sin”.
Such phony language is part of the problem, not the solution to the scandal caused by homosexual Clergy who violated those entrusted to their care as well as by those Bishops who were made knowledgeable of these scandals but who chose to protect the institution rather than faithful, especially innocent adolescents.
Let’s get honest, shall we!
Let’s speak plainly.
Here is the real scandal of the Clergy sexual abuse phenomenon.
Homosexual Priests, weakened by their disordered inclinations and lack of Christ-like spirituality, encountered vulnerable (often socially isolated) teenagers and young men and used them for their own sexual gratification. Subsequently, Bishops, absorbing the managerial counsel of their bureaucratic advisers, reacted not as Shepherds of souls but as CEOs.
If that is the truth, and nothing I have seen or heard suggests to me that it is not, then the Church has yet to address what is truly and manifestly at the heart of the sexual abuse scandal.
Something is wrong when psychobabble is used to constantly trump moral theology, when the language of the boardroom replaces the wisdom of the Scriptures in confronting the horror of a homosexual Priest seducing a teenage or even younger boy.
And something is more profoundly at odds with the Catholic Faith when the admission of sin and the need for repentance and restitution is equated by Bishops with the need to “restore public trust in the institution of the Priesthood and the Church”.
In the decades that have passed since these scandals first broke, very little of what the Church has said or done addresses the true source of the crisis.
But these scandals simply did not erupt from nowhere.
They come forth out of a weakened Church, a Church that has become complacent in its response to a culture of dissent (both internal and external) regarding fundamental Catholic morality and the authority which promotes it.
It has become increasingly accepted and experienced that the Priesthood is just another form of “ministry” among “all the different ministries” in the Church.
Respect and deference to the Priest as the ontological embodiment of Christ Himself has all but disappeared within the rank and file of Church membership.
For his part, the Bishop is no longer the valued teacher who, by virtue of his Apostolic Office and in union with the Vicar of Christ, is the guarantor of truths leading to personal redemption.
Rather, the Bishop appears to have become a "moderator" whose primary task is to keep contentious disagreements among the faithful to a minimum, keeping everyone feeling welcome, warm and accepted no matter how errant their opinions or behavior.
Leadership has been replaced by public relations gimmickry.
Now, when a scandal breaks and when a community is damaged by it, it is a spokesperson (very often the sly and clever choice of a female spokesperson at that) who stands before the People of God to read statements and bulletins prepared by a panel of lawyers.
The Bishops are content to be AWOL before the cameras and microphones, except when it comes to the latest diocesan-wide collection or fundraiser.
Of course, the faithful see through this thin veneer of manipulative response, simply shrug their shoulders and turn away from the Bishops, sometimes their Pastors, and sometimes even from the Church itself.
What the Church needs are Bishops and Priests who have the courage to see and admit the failures of leadership, institutional bureaucracy and the moral corruption within the Clergy and begin doing something to correct it.
A starting point is to begin changing the language used to characterize the scandal, replacing all the psychobabble with the words of the Gospel and the moral truths of the Church.
Where there is no truth, there can be no justice. No justice, no charity. No charity, no Church.
It’s all about fidelity. Fidelity to the truth behind the abuse scandal, fidelity to the Sacred Priesthood, and fidelity to Lord Jesus Himself.
The crisis over the sexual molestation of minors by homosexual Priests and Bishops who have compromised their sacred office will continue until these issues of honesty and fidelity have been addressed and the Church reclaims its moral authority in proclaiming them once again.
Saturday, February 17, 2018
SAINTS GALORE!
Under Pope Francis, Popes John Paul II and John XXIII became the 79th and 80th heads of the Roman Catholic Church to be canonized as Saints, a rare event in modern Church history.
Still, approximately 30% of those venerated as Saints are former Vicars of Christ.
Starting with St. Peter, 52 of the first 55 popes were venerated as Saints during the Church’s first 500 years.
In the last 1,000 years, just 7 Popes have been canonized.
Pope John Paul II died on April 2, 2005. Pope Benedict XVI then waived the 5 year waiting period, which Pope John Paul II had shortened from the traditional 50 years after a person’s death, and officially began his predecessor's canonization process.
Nine years later – a lightning flash in Vatican time – Pope John Paul II was canonized.
Let’s put that in perspective.
Since 1588, when the Congregation for the Causes of Saints was established, the average time between the death of an eventual saint and canonization had been 181 years.
Lately, Popes have been celebrating canonizations in large numbers. Saint John Paul II canonized 482 saints – more than the 300 or so canonizations in the previous 600 years.
For his part, Pope Francis’ first canonization included 813 people – the “Martyrs of Otranto” – who were beheaded by Ottoman soldiers in 1480 after refusing to convert to Islam.
So why the sudden momentum for canonizations after centuries of relative quiet?
And why the recent trend to have Popes of recent memory have their causes for Sainthood fast tracked?
I note that, while not yet canonized, Popes Pius IX (died 1878), Pius XII (died 1958), and John Paul I (died 1978) are all in some stage of the canonization process.
This past week, Blessed Pope Paul VI, who led the Roman Catholic Church during one of its most turbulent modern periods, will be canonized this year, Pope Francis has decided.
The Holy Father made the announcement at a private meeting with Rome priests. The Vatican issued the transcript of that conversation this weekend.
As he made the announcement on Thursday, Pope Francis joked that he and former Pope Benedict XVI , who resigned in 2013 and is now 90 years old, “are on the waiting list”.
But that quip may not be a joke at all.
Francis, in fact, has now presided over three of the fastest canonizations in modern Church history — those of Mother Teresa, John Paul II and a Spanish nun who died in 1998 and was declared a Saint last year.
Personally, I find this haste a little disquieting. But just a little.
I tend to agree with others who suggest that a certain historical distance should be respected, one that allows time and dispassionate discretion in order to properly examine the holiness of a person’s life.
Sainthood should not be a popularity contest.
Still, I never imagined that I would have had personal contact with at least two Pope Saints, Saint Pope Paul VI (whom I served as Acolyte at many a Mass in the Pauline Chapel) and Pope Saint John Paul II (with whom I had the rare and remarkable privilege of conversing in private audience).
And, as I write this article, I must remind myself of the untold number of Saints I have met and with whom I have associated my whole life: the good and decent people, dear relatives and friends, who have been examples of fidelity and service to the Lord Jesus throughout their lifetimes.
God be praised by the Angels and Saints, in whose company we yet hope to enjoy the blessings of eternity!
Still, approximately 30% of those venerated as Saints are former Vicars of Christ.
Starting with St. Peter, 52 of the first 55 popes were venerated as Saints during the Church’s first 500 years.
In the last 1,000 years, just 7 Popes have been canonized.
Pope John Paul II died on April 2, 2005. Pope Benedict XVI then waived the 5 year waiting period, which Pope John Paul II had shortened from the traditional 50 years after a person’s death, and officially began his predecessor's canonization process.
Nine years later – a lightning flash in Vatican time – Pope John Paul II was canonized.
Let’s put that in perspective.
Since 1588, when the Congregation for the Causes of Saints was established, the average time between the death of an eventual saint and canonization had been 181 years.
Lately, Popes have been celebrating canonizations in large numbers. Saint John Paul II canonized 482 saints – more than the 300 or so canonizations in the previous 600 years.
For his part, Pope Francis’ first canonization included 813 people – the “Martyrs of Otranto” – who were beheaded by Ottoman soldiers in 1480 after refusing to convert to Islam.
So why the sudden momentum for canonizations after centuries of relative quiet?
And why the recent trend to have Popes of recent memory have their causes for Sainthood fast tracked?
I note that, while not yet canonized, Popes Pius IX (died 1878), Pius XII (died 1958), and John Paul I (died 1978) are all in some stage of the canonization process.
This past week, Blessed Pope Paul VI, who led the Roman Catholic Church during one of its most turbulent modern periods, will be canonized this year, Pope Francis has decided.
The Holy Father made the announcement at a private meeting with Rome priests. The Vatican issued the transcript of that conversation this weekend.
As he made the announcement on Thursday, Pope Francis joked that he and former Pope Benedict XVI , who resigned in 2013 and is now 90 years old, “are on the waiting list”.
But that quip may not be a joke at all.
Francis, in fact, has now presided over three of the fastest canonizations in modern Church history — those of Mother Teresa, John Paul II and a Spanish nun who died in 1998 and was declared a Saint last year.
Personally, I find this haste a little disquieting. But just a little.
I tend to agree with others who suggest that a certain historical distance should be respected, one that allows time and dispassionate discretion in order to properly examine the holiness of a person’s life.
Sainthood should not be a popularity contest.
Still, I never imagined that I would have had personal contact with at least two Pope Saints, Saint Pope Paul VI (whom I served as Acolyte at many a Mass in the Pauline Chapel) and Pope Saint John Paul II (with whom I had the rare and remarkable privilege of conversing in private audience).
And, as I write this article, I must remind myself of the untold number of Saints I have met and with whom I have associated my whole life: the good and decent people, dear relatives and friends, who have been examples of fidelity and service to the Lord Jesus throughout their lifetimes.
God be praised by the Angels and Saints, in whose company we yet hope to enjoy the blessings of eternity!
NO LONGER ONE: THE DE FACTO SCHISM WITHIN THE CHURCH
The Catholic Church today finds itself in a condition of objective schism over matters pertaining to both faith and morals.
After some 44 years of Priesthood, that statement is most difficult and disturbing to admit.
More sadly, this is nothing new.
The Church has been in a state of de facto schism for most of my adult life.
In 1968 (six years prior to my Ordination), the Church found itself irreversibly wounded by the dissent which greeted Blessed Pope Paul VI’s encyclical which had reiterated the ancient doctrinal teachings of the Church concerning the objective moral evil of artificial contraception.
The negative response and harsh criticism of Humanae Vitae amounted to a contradictory morality with so-called Catholic Clergy and laity denying the existence of intrinsically evil actions, acts never permissable because they violate both the Natural Law and the good of persons.
This opposing and contradictory “Catholic” morality was never adequately addressed and refuted by the Bishops. Eventually, it became generally accepted and encouraged a rejection of Church teaching regarding a host of morally offensive actions which had been defined as intrinsically evil.
In the half century that has transpired since that time, the division within the Church over matters pertaining to faith and morals has become both resolute and obstinate.
Today, the de facto schism which continues is manifest in reactions to another Papal teaching, Amoris Laetitia, with some Bishops and Clergy in union with the Pope holding that invalidly remarried Catholic divorcees, in certain situations, may avail themselves of Holy Communion while remaining sexually active with their partners.
At the same time, other Bishops and Clergy are equally demanding in their assertion that traditional Catholic teaching holds that such a position is not and never can be permissable.
Both Humane Vitae and Amoris Laetitia showcase the conflicting and contradictory interpretations which prevail and coexist in the Church today.
And because these interpretations concern matters which are infallibly affirmed by Sacred Scripture and Tradition, the unity that should and must exist within the Church is broken.
For if these contradictory teachings are true, then the Church’s teachings regarding the indissolubility of marriage, the intrinsically evil act of adultery, and the sacrilege of unworthy reception of Holy Communion must themselves be redefined in such a way that those engaged in such adulterous relationships are not doing anything objectively wrong.
But this can only be the case if adultery is sometimes licit, or marriage is sometimes dissoluble.
What is serious about this division is that it exists, not solely among the laity, but more critically among the Bishops, some of whom recognize a contradiction and oppose pastoral initiatives allowing invalidly married Catholics to receive Holy Communion and others denying any conflict and granting such permission.
The Church is no longer one in matters of faith and morals.
The Catholic hierarchy presently exists in a state of grave disunity regarding the Deposit of Faith, Scripture and Tradition.
For their part, the Catholic faithful are either ignorant or indifferent to anything the official teaching authority of the Church has to say about almost anything.
Amoris Laetitia is not the cause of this state of schism, it serves only as the most recent occasion by which divisions are re-affirmed and deepened.
It is difficult to determine the pathway forward.
In days of old, bold Clerics or lay persons would appear on the stage of Church history and proclaim a particular teaching as truth or heresy, calling others to remain faithful to the Church or follow them in formally establishing schismatic sects.
I think those days are over and gone forever.
These days, the choice to remain or disassociate oneself from the Church is quieter, almost anonymous.
Some will simply and silently continue in attending Holy Mass and receiving the Sacraments as they always have.
Then there are the others who, in their quiet departure, will abandon their faith in the teaching authority of the Vicar of Christ and the Bishops.
This is the sad but real state of Oneness in the Church today.
But listening to the Holy Father and the Bishops, you’d never know.
And that is sadder still.
After some 44 years of Priesthood, that statement is most difficult and disturbing to admit.
More sadly, this is nothing new.
The Church has been in a state of de facto schism for most of my adult life.
In 1968 (six years prior to my Ordination), the Church found itself irreversibly wounded by the dissent which greeted Blessed Pope Paul VI’s encyclical which had reiterated the ancient doctrinal teachings of the Church concerning the objective moral evil of artificial contraception.
The negative response and harsh criticism of Humanae Vitae amounted to a contradictory morality with so-called Catholic Clergy and laity denying the existence of intrinsically evil actions, acts never permissable because they violate both the Natural Law and the good of persons.
This opposing and contradictory “Catholic” morality was never adequately addressed and refuted by the Bishops. Eventually, it became generally accepted and encouraged a rejection of Church teaching regarding a host of morally offensive actions which had been defined as intrinsically evil.
In the half century that has transpired since that time, the division within the Church over matters pertaining to faith and morals has become both resolute and obstinate.
Today, the de facto schism which continues is manifest in reactions to another Papal teaching, Amoris Laetitia, with some Bishops and Clergy in union with the Pope holding that invalidly remarried Catholic divorcees, in certain situations, may avail themselves of Holy Communion while remaining sexually active with their partners.
At the same time, other Bishops and Clergy are equally demanding in their assertion that traditional Catholic teaching holds that such a position is not and never can be permissable.
Both Humane Vitae and Amoris Laetitia showcase the conflicting and contradictory interpretations which prevail and coexist in the Church today.
And because these interpretations concern matters which are infallibly affirmed by Sacred Scripture and Tradition, the unity that should and must exist within the Church is broken.
For if these contradictory teachings are true, then the Church’s teachings regarding the indissolubility of marriage, the intrinsically evil act of adultery, and the sacrilege of unworthy reception of Holy Communion must themselves be redefined in such a way that those engaged in such adulterous relationships are not doing anything objectively wrong.
But this can only be the case if adultery is sometimes licit, or marriage is sometimes dissoluble.
What is serious about this division is that it exists, not solely among the laity, but more critically among the Bishops, some of whom recognize a contradiction and oppose pastoral initiatives allowing invalidly married Catholics to receive Holy Communion and others denying any conflict and granting such permission.
The Church is no longer one in matters of faith and morals.
The Catholic hierarchy presently exists in a state of grave disunity regarding the Deposit of Faith, Scripture and Tradition.
For their part, the Catholic faithful are either ignorant or indifferent to anything the official teaching authority of the Church has to say about almost anything.
Amoris Laetitia is not the cause of this state of schism, it serves only as the most recent occasion by which divisions are re-affirmed and deepened.
It is difficult to determine the pathway forward.
In days of old, bold Clerics or lay persons would appear on the stage of Church history and proclaim a particular teaching as truth or heresy, calling others to remain faithful to the Church or follow them in formally establishing schismatic sects.
I think those days are over and gone forever.
These days, the choice to remain or disassociate oneself from the Church is quieter, almost anonymous.
Some will simply and silently continue in attending Holy Mass and receiving the Sacraments as they always have.
Then there are the others who, in their quiet departure, will abandon their faith in the teaching authority of the Vicar of Christ and the Bishops.
This is the sad but real state of Oneness in the Church today.
But listening to the Holy Father and the Bishops, you’d never know.
And that is sadder still.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
WHAT IS GOING ON AT THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY FOR LIFE?
What is going on at the Pontifical Academy for life?
Conceding that the Scriptures clearly and forcefully condemn abortion on demand, Rabbi Dr. Fishel Szlajen, one of the members appointed by Pope Francis to serve on the new Pontifical Academy for Life, also believes that abortion is allowed in some rare and exceptional cases where the baby is conceived by rape or when the unborn child, because of disease or illness, undeniably threatens the life of the mother.
Rabbi Dr. Szlajen reportedly bases his argument about abortion on the Jewish law of dif rodef, a concept in Jewish law that stipulates that if an individual is chasing after another person with the intention to kill them, it is permitted for any other person to kill the individual threatening to commit murder."
A perversion of this teaching has been cited in cases of assassination, such as the murder of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
The Catholic Church forbids abortion in cases of rape or incest, arguing that the innocent child, regardless of how he was conceived, is a child of God and merits the same rights as all human beings, principally the right to life.
So why is Rabbi Dr. Szlajen a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life?
Still, Rabbi Dr. Szlajen is not the only member of the Pontifical Academy of Life who appears to support abortion.
Anglican cleric, Nigel Biggar, approved by Pope Francis for the Academy, said in 2011, “I would be inclined to draw the line for abortion at 18 weeks after conception, which is roughly about the earliest time when there is some evidence of brain activity, and therefore of consciousness."
He also said, “It’s not clear that a human foetus is the same kind of thing as an adult or a mature human being, and therefore deserves quite the same treatment. It then becomes a question of where we draw the line, and there is no absolutely cogent reason for drawing it in one place over another.”
So why does Nigel Biggar continue in his appointment to the Academy?
Rabbi Avraham Steinberg, appointed to the Academy by Pope Francis in 2017, said in 2008 that a human embryo has "no human status" before 40 days, and "after 40 days it has 'a certain status of a human being, not a full status. Abortion is not permissible by Jewish law but if the situation of the mother is in a psychological upset to a degree that it may cause her serious trouble, then abortion may be permissible despite the fact that for the foetus’s sake, we would not allow it. So case by case, occasionally abortion might be permissible," he said, "something which is probably unheard-of in the Catholic point of view.”
Again, why hasn't Rabbi Steinberg been removed from the Academy?
Another Academy member, Fr. Maurizio Chiodi, has also argued, based on Pope Francis's letter on the family, Amoris Laetitia, that artifical birth control may be required for some married couples.
It is astonishing that Father Chiodi as well as other persons holding to beliefs and points of view so contradictory to consistent Catholic moral teaching have been appointed to the Pontifical Academy for Life and continue to hold these appointments!
If one thing has been certain and clear, the Catholic Church has consistently held that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder, the unjust taking of life. In a corollary to that teaching, the Church has taught that sterilization and contraception are "morally unaccepable means" to regulate births.
How beliefs and opinions so contrary to these fundamental truths can be attested to by those holding appointments to the Pontifical Academy for Life is beyond any understanding whatsoever!
I know I am shocked by such reports and wonder what in the world and in the Church is happening to our beloved Catholic Faith!
What thinkest you?
Conceding that the Scriptures clearly and forcefully condemn abortion on demand, Rabbi Dr. Fishel Szlajen, one of the members appointed by Pope Francis to serve on the new Pontifical Academy for Life, also believes that abortion is allowed in some rare and exceptional cases where the baby is conceived by rape or when the unborn child, because of disease or illness, undeniably threatens the life of the mother.
Rabbi Dr. Szlajen reportedly bases his argument about abortion on the Jewish law of dif rodef, a concept in Jewish law that stipulates that if an individual is chasing after another person with the intention to kill them, it is permitted for any other person to kill the individual threatening to commit murder."
A perversion of this teaching has been cited in cases of assassination, such as the murder of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
The Catholic Church forbids abortion in cases of rape or incest, arguing that the innocent child, regardless of how he was conceived, is a child of God and merits the same rights as all human beings, principally the right to life.
So why is Rabbi Dr. Szlajen a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life?
Still, Rabbi Dr. Szlajen is not the only member of the Pontifical Academy of Life who appears to support abortion.
Anglican cleric, Nigel Biggar, approved by Pope Francis for the Academy, said in 2011, “I would be inclined to draw the line for abortion at 18 weeks after conception, which is roughly about the earliest time when there is some evidence of brain activity, and therefore of consciousness."
He also said, “It’s not clear that a human foetus is the same kind of thing as an adult or a mature human being, and therefore deserves quite the same treatment. It then becomes a question of where we draw the line, and there is no absolutely cogent reason for drawing it in one place over another.”
So why does Nigel Biggar continue in his appointment to the Academy?
Rabbi Avraham Steinberg, appointed to the Academy by Pope Francis in 2017, said in 2008 that a human embryo has "no human status" before 40 days, and "after 40 days it has 'a certain status of a human being, not a full status. Abortion is not permissible by Jewish law but if the situation of the mother is in a psychological upset to a degree that it may cause her serious trouble, then abortion may be permissible despite the fact that for the foetus’s sake, we would not allow it. So case by case, occasionally abortion might be permissible," he said, "something which is probably unheard-of in the Catholic point of view.”
Again, why hasn't Rabbi Steinberg been removed from the Academy?
Another Academy member, Fr. Maurizio Chiodi, has also argued, based on Pope Francis's letter on the family, Amoris Laetitia, that artifical birth control may be required for some married couples.
It is astonishing that Father Chiodi as well as other persons holding to beliefs and points of view so contradictory to consistent Catholic moral teaching have been appointed to the Pontifical Academy for Life and continue to hold these appointments!
If one thing has been certain and clear, the Catholic Church has consistently held that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder, the unjust taking of life. In a corollary to that teaching, the Church has taught that sterilization and contraception are "morally unaccepable means" to regulate births.
How beliefs and opinions so contrary to these fundamental truths can be attested to by those holding appointments to the Pontifical Academy for Life is beyond any understanding whatsoever!
I know I am shocked by such reports and wonder what in the world and in the Church is happening to our beloved Catholic Faith!
What thinkest you?
SPEAKING OF THE RIGHTS OF THE FAITHFUL
Speaking to some 10,000 or so pilgrims present in St. Peter’s Square on Ash Wednesday, Pope Francis continued his recent catechesis on the celebration of the Mass.
The Holy Father repeated his earlier reflections regarding the Liturgy of the Word insisting that the faithful who attend Mass are denied a fundamental “right” if they do not receive a well-prepared and well-preached homily.
In the Liturgy of the Word, the Lord speaks for both pastors and faithful, and he “knocks on the door of those who participate in Mass, each one in their condition of life, age and situation,” Pope Francis stated.
He continued: “Because of this, after the readings are done, people in the pews are entitled to a well-written, well-preached homily. We have the right to hear the word of God.”
Who wouldn’t agree with that?
But speaking of the rights of the faithful, don’t they (we) also have a right to Papal statements and pronouncements that are equally well-prepared and which clearly (and without doubt or confusion) enunciate the fundamental teachings of Catholic faith and morals?
Speaking of the rights of the faithful, don’t they (we) have a right to expect that the Vicar of Christ will resist the temptation to make impromptu, off-the-cuff remarks which could easily be misinterpreted or considered hurtful or insulting?
Now, anyone familiar with this blog knows what a fan I am and continue to be of Pope Francis.
He has certainly challenged some long-held (and I confess stuffy) opinions I have harbored for many years without a great deal of reflection. I welcome the breath of fresh air Pope Francis has introduced into the dark and dank halls of the Vatican and elsewhere in the Church (like my mind and soul).
I love this Pope, but he does consternate me at times, especially when he is so quick to criticize Clergy and then turn right around and do what he has criticized his Priestly brothers of doing.
Priests should seriously and assiduously prepare their homilies. But let’s face it, not everyone is a good, let alone effective preacher.
And while the faithful have a right to a “good homily”, they (we) have an equal obligation of continuing their (our) Catholic formation by reading, studying, and reflecting upon the Sacred Scriptures themselves. And then, inspired by God’s Word, they (all of us) should bring those inspirations before the Lord in prayer and supplications.
Pope Francis remarks to the crowds on Ash Wednesday were appropriate, but incomplete.
Let Priests take their preaching duties seriously, and let the faithful take their responsibilities in like fashion.
And along the way, let Popes be a bit more circumspect in the impromptu remarks they make, especially to the media on airplanes.
The Holy Father repeated his earlier reflections regarding the Liturgy of the Word insisting that the faithful who attend Mass are denied a fundamental “right” if they do not receive a well-prepared and well-preached homily.
In the Liturgy of the Word, the Lord speaks for both pastors and faithful, and he “knocks on the door of those who participate in Mass, each one in their condition of life, age and situation,” Pope Francis stated.
He continued: “Because of this, after the readings are done, people in the pews are entitled to a well-written, well-preached homily. We have the right to hear the word of God.”
Who wouldn’t agree with that?
But speaking of the rights of the faithful, don’t they (we) also have a right to Papal statements and pronouncements that are equally well-prepared and which clearly (and without doubt or confusion) enunciate the fundamental teachings of Catholic faith and morals?
Speaking of the rights of the faithful, don’t they (we) have a right to expect that the Vicar of Christ will resist the temptation to make impromptu, off-the-cuff remarks which could easily be misinterpreted or considered hurtful or insulting?
Now, anyone familiar with this blog knows what a fan I am and continue to be of Pope Francis.
He has certainly challenged some long-held (and I confess stuffy) opinions I have harbored for many years without a great deal of reflection. I welcome the breath of fresh air Pope Francis has introduced into the dark and dank halls of the Vatican and elsewhere in the Church (like my mind and soul).
I love this Pope, but he does consternate me at times, especially when he is so quick to criticize Clergy and then turn right around and do what he has criticized his Priestly brothers of doing.
Priests should seriously and assiduously prepare their homilies. But let’s face it, not everyone is a good, let alone effective preacher.
And while the faithful have a right to a “good homily”, they (we) have an equal obligation of continuing their (our) Catholic formation by reading, studying, and reflecting upon the Sacred Scriptures themselves. And then, inspired by God’s Word, they (all of us) should bring those inspirations before the Lord in prayer and supplications.
Pope Francis remarks to the crowds on Ash Wednesday were appropriate, but incomplete.
Let Priests take their preaching duties seriously, and let the faithful take their responsibilities in like fashion.
And along the way, let Popes be a bit more circumspect in the impromptu remarks they make, especially to the media on airplanes.
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
WHY DO THE BISHOPS MUDDLE THE REMARKABLE OPPORTUNITIES OF LENT?
Yesterday, I published an article which noted the fact that fully half of young people leave the Church after high school, and some say that only 7% of Millennials raised Catholic actively practice their faith today, meaning they attend weekly Mass, pray a few times each week, and say their faith is “extremely” or “very” important.
For the remaining 93% who have disassociated themselves from the Church, only one conclusion is possible: the Church is in danger of losing the next and future generation of Catholics.
Why?
Because the parents of these children do not actively practice the faith themselves.
Put another way, the religious commitment of some 93% of Catholic parents is certainly questionable.
So, in light of these facts (the conclusions of multiple studies conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as well as numerous surveys undertaken by various Catholic university social departments), let me see if I get this right.
This Wednesday, as our secular culture celebrates Valentine’s Day, is Ash Wednesday, the beginning of the Lenten Season.
A number of Bishops have reminded (some gently, others sternly) that Valentine’s Day or not, the rules regarding fasting and abstinence on Ash Wednesday still apply and Catholics are expected to observe them.
These same Bishops have taken the coincidence of Valentine’s Day falling on Ash Wednesday to encourage or insist that the dietary regulations of fasting and abstinence remain in force and Catholics are obliged not to excuse themselves of these obligations lightly.
But who in the world do these Bishops think they are addressing?
Do these Bishops honestly believe that the 93% of Catholic Milennials will honor the Church’s dietary restrictions it imposes during the Lenten Season?
Do these Bishops honestly believe that the overwhelming majority of Catholics who are regularly absent from the pews on weekends will observe the dietary rules and regulations regarding the days of fast and abstinence during Lent?
Are these Bishops living in the real world?
Why do the Bishops continue to demean such the remarkably graced Lenten Season by continuing to focus upon what has become so trivial and so meaningless in today’s culture.
Lent is a remarkable opportunity, a moment of grace, during which a person is both invited and encouraged to look inward at what is weak and vulnerable, to reflect upon the missteps and mistakes one has made, to be mindful of the frailty of a soul weakened by sin, a soul fickle in its commitments and promises, but a soul beloved by an eternal and ever-loving Father.
Lent is a remarkable opportunity for conversion, not from moral failure to moral victory, but a conversion of faith, hope, trust, assurance that no matter what else may prove untrue or unfulfilled, God’s love and mercy endure.
No matter how weak, sinful or selfish, no matter how much we may give up on ourselves, God never will.
Lent is a remarkable opportunity to remind ourselves that, while we daily see what is unlovable in ourselves and our fellow human beings, God Our Father sees something quite different, something to love and cherish and jealously cling to forever.
Lent is a remarkable opportunity to hear again that Our Father has and will spare nothing, not even His Beloved Son, to bear the brunt of the evil our sinfulness causes.
Lent is a remarkable opportunity to be inspired by the fact that Jesus, the Son of God and Our Heavenly Brother, is the Unconditional Lover Who is always there with us and for us, no matter what.
The Bishops need to inspire us with these truths and stop the nonsense of the dietary prescriptions they publish each Lent to audiences long deaf to the ridiculousness of such trivialities.
For what it is, here is my focus this Lent. Here is my Lenten prayer this year:
Dearest Jesus, Dear Father in Heaven, I regret all my sins for the evils they have caused and the lost moments of love and service they could have been. I confess my arrogance, my weakness, my infidelity, my sinfulness. I thank You for Your forgiveness, Your patience, Your love and Your embrace. I rejoice in Your constancy, Your fidelity to me and to all the broken human beings like me. I celebrate Your love and forgiveness. Help me to be an instrument of Your love and forgiveness to others. Amen.
For the remaining 93% who have disassociated themselves from the Church, only one conclusion is possible: the Church is in danger of losing the next and future generation of Catholics.
Why?
Because the parents of these children do not actively practice the faith themselves.
Put another way, the religious commitment of some 93% of Catholic parents is certainly questionable.
So, in light of these facts (the conclusions of multiple studies conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as well as numerous surveys undertaken by various Catholic university social departments), let me see if I get this right.
This Wednesday, as our secular culture celebrates Valentine’s Day, is Ash Wednesday, the beginning of the Lenten Season.
A number of Bishops have reminded (some gently, others sternly) that Valentine’s Day or not, the rules regarding fasting and abstinence on Ash Wednesday still apply and Catholics are expected to observe them.
These same Bishops have taken the coincidence of Valentine’s Day falling on Ash Wednesday to encourage or insist that the dietary regulations of fasting and abstinence remain in force and Catholics are obliged not to excuse themselves of these obligations lightly.
But who in the world do these Bishops think they are addressing?
Do these Bishops honestly believe that the 93% of Catholic Milennials will honor the Church’s dietary restrictions it imposes during the Lenten Season?
Do these Bishops honestly believe that the overwhelming majority of Catholics who are regularly absent from the pews on weekends will observe the dietary rules and regulations regarding the days of fast and abstinence during Lent?
Are these Bishops living in the real world?
Why do the Bishops continue to demean such the remarkably graced Lenten Season by continuing to focus upon what has become so trivial and so meaningless in today’s culture.
Lent is a remarkable opportunity, a moment of grace, during which a person is both invited and encouraged to look inward at what is weak and vulnerable, to reflect upon the missteps and mistakes one has made, to be mindful of the frailty of a soul weakened by sin, a soul fickle in its commitments and promises, but a soul beloved by an eternal and ever-loving Father.
Lent is a remarkable opportunity for conversion, not from moral failure to moral victory, but a conversion of faith, hope, trust, assurance that no matter what else may prove untrue or unfulfilled, God’s love and mercy endure.
No matter how weak, sinful or selfish, no matter how much we may give up on ourselves, God never will.
Lent is a remarkable opportunity to remind ourselves that, while we daily see what is unlovable in ourselves and our fellow human beings, God Our Father sees something quite different, something to love and cherish and jealously cling to forever.
Lent is a remarkable opportunity to hear again that Our Father has and will spare nothing, not even His Beloved Son, to bear the brunt of the evil our sinfulness causes.
Lent is a remarkable opportunity to be inspired by the fact that Jesus, the Son of God and Our Heavenly Brother, is the Unconditional Lover Who is always there with us and for us, no matter what.
The Bishops need to inspire us with these truths and stop the nonsense of the dietary prescriptions they publish each Lent to audiences long deaf to the ridiculousness of such trivialities.
For what it is, here is my focus this Lent. Here is my Lenten prayer this year:
Dearest Jesus, Dear Father in Heaven, I regret all my sins for the evils they have caused and the lost moments of love and service they could have been. I confess my arrogance, my weakness, my infidelity, my sinfulness. I thank You for Your forgiveness, Your patience, Your love and Your embrace. I rejoice in Your constancy, Your fidelity to me and to all the broken human beings like me. I celebrate Your love and forgiveness. Help me to be an instrument of Your love and forgiveness to others. Amen.
PARENTS AND FAMILIES CRITICAL TO CATHOLIC FORMATION OF YOUNG PEOPLE STILL ANOTHER STUDY SHOWS
Over and over again, studies show that many of our young people are leaving the Church.
Researchers say that now fully half of young people leave the Church after high school, and some say that only 7% of Millennials raised Catholic actively practice their faith today, meaning they attend weekly Mass, pray a few times each week, and say their faith is “extremely” or “very” important.
For the remaining 93% who have disassociated themselves from the Church, only one conclusion is possible: the Church is in danger of losing the next and future generation of Catholics.
Christian Smith of the University of Notre Dame has been studying this phenomenon for years.
His studies point to one clear factor that statistically determines whether or not young people will stay in the Church when they become adults: their parents.
The single greatest predictor of whether or not young people will practice the faith when they enter adulthood is the degree of religious commitment of their parents.
The findings of his various studies are dramatic.
His research shows that it is not enough for parents simply to practice their faith, and much less to practice it intermittently.
Young people who stay in the Church say that their family regularly talk about religious topics in the home, that faith is “very important” to their family, and that they themselves are regularly involved in religious activities. These parents see their own faith not as something they occasionally do, but who they are.
Today, the culture young people encounter does not see the world from a Christian perspective.
Studies show that unless parents have created a Catholic culture in the home, the children will succumb to our society’s non-Christian way of seeing the world as they mature into adulthood.
Bishops everywhere need to take heed of this fundamental truth: the parish, the parochial school and youth programs are all helpful, but parental religious influence is the singular most critical condition of possibility over all other influences.
Smith and his fellow scholar Justin Bartkus give examples of ways families are successful in handing on the faith. They identify the following four essential aspects:
First, successful parents are able to give their own narrative about why their faith is import to them — “the why.”
Second, they are intentional about establishing a religious culture in the household and eschew autopilot in order to achieve these aims — “the how.”
Third, they give good content, meaning that they expose their children to religiously significant practices, relationships and experiences — “the what.”
Fourth and last, they help their children to interpret the world through the eyes of our faith.
Remember, research studies have found that the Church is in serious danger of losing future generations of the Christian faithful.
Still, Bishops, Pastors, religious educators and youth ministers are seemingly blind, deaf and dumb when it comes to implementing models which incorporate the family as a whole in the effort to promote Catholic spiritual and religious formation.
Perhaps, Pope Francis’ and the upcoming Synod on Youth will finally understand the critical role which parents and families play in evangelizing the next and future generations of the Church.
The challenge of passing on the faith to the next generation has gotten more difficult in our age.
If the Church is willing to be bold and creative in a continuing program of formation and education of Catholic families, perhaps young people may grow up to express the faith in God and love of their fellow human beings as members of the Church.
Researchers say that now fully half of young people leave the Church after high school, and some say that only 7% of Millennials raised Catholic actively practice their faith today, meaning they attend weekly Mass, pray a few times each week, and say their faith is “extremely” or “very” important.
For the remaining 93% who have disassociated themselves from the Church, only one conclusion is possible: the Church is in danger of losing the next and future generation of Catholics.
Christian Smith of the University of Notre Dame has been studying this phenomenon for years.
His studies point to one clear factor that statistically determines whether or not young people will stay in the Church when they become adults: their parents.
The single greatest predictor of whether or not young people will practice the faith when they enter adulthood is the degree of religious commitment of their parents.
The findings of his various studies are dramatic.
His research shows that it is not enough for parents simply to practice their faith, and much less to practice it intermittently.
Young people who stay in the Church say that their family regularly talk about religious topics in the home, that faith is “very important” to their family, and that they themselves are regularly involved in religious activities. These parents see their own faith not as something they occasionally do, but who they are.
Today, the culture young people encounter does not see the world from a Christian perspective.
Studies show that unless parents have created a Catholic culture in the home, the children will succumb to our society’s non-Christian way of seeing the world as they mature into adulthood.
Bishops everywhere need to take heed of this fundamental truth: the parish, the parochial school and youth programs are all helpful, but parental religious influence is the singular most critical condition of possibility over all other influences.
Smith and his fellow scholar Justin Bartkus give examples of ways families are successful in handing on the faith. They identify the following four essential aspects:
First, successful parents are able to give their own narrative about why their faith is import to them — “the why.”
Second, they are intentional about establishing a religious culture in the household and eschew autopilot in order to achieve these aims — “the how.”
Third, they give good content, meaning that they expose their children to religiously significant practices, relationships and experiences — “the what.”
Fourth and last, they help their children to interpret the world through the eyes of our faith.
Remember, research studies have found that the Church is in serious danger of losing future generations of the Christian faithful.
Still, Bishops, Pastors, religious educators and youth ministers are seemingly blind, deaf and dumb when it comes to implementing models which incorporate the family as a whole in the effort to promote Catholic spiritual and religious formation.
Perhaps, Pope Francis’ and the upcoming Synod on Youth will finally understand the critical role which parents and families play in evangelizing the next and future generations of the Church.
The challenge of passing on the faith to the next generation has gotten more difficult in our age.
If the Church is willing to be bold and creative in a continuing program of formation and education of Catholic families, perhaps young people may grow up to express the faith in God and love of their fellow human beings as members of the Church.
Monday, February 12, 2018
BLESSED ARCHBISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN: A TALE OF TWO CRYPTS
In 2016, Joan Cunningham, the niece and only living relative of the Blessed Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, she filed a legal complaint seeking to have her uncle’s remains moved to Peoria, Ill.
Archbishop Sheen was born in the Peoria diocese and served as an altar boy at its cathedral, where he was ordained a priest in 1919. He served New York City as an Auxiliary Bishop from 1951-66 before becoming Bishop of Rochester. He retired to New York City before his death in 1979 at the age of 84.
The New York State Appeals Court ruled that a lower court’s decision upholding Cunningham’s lawsuit failed to give sufficient attention to a sworn statement from a colleague of Archbishop Sheen, Monsignor Hilary C. Franco.
Monsignor Franco had said that Sheen told him he wanted to be buried in New York and that Cardinal Terence Cooke, New York’s then-archbishop, had offered him a space in the crypt of St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
The Archbishop’s Last Will and Testament had declared his wish to be buried in the New York Archdiocese Calvary Cemetery.
Soon after Sheen died, Cardinal Cooke asked his niece if his remains could be placed in the New York cathedral’s crypt, and she consented. But, the niece contends that the Archbishop would have wanted to have been interred in Peoria if he knew that he would be considered for sainthood.
The Peoria diocese opened the cause for Sheen’s Canonization in 2002 after Cardinal Dolan of New York said it would not explore the case.
A decade later, in 2012, Pope Benedict XVI recognized the heroic virtues of the beloved Archbishop, who served as host of the “Catholic Hour” radio show and the television show “Life is Worth Living.” He now has the title “Blessed" or “Venerable.”
Despite the progress of the cause for beatification, the fate of Archbishop’s body has become the subject of an embarrassing impasse.
Peoria’s Bishop, Daniel R. Jenky, suspended the beatification cause in September 2014 on the grounds that the Holy See expected Sheen’s remains to be in the Peoria diocese.
The Archdiocese of New York, however, has said that Vatican officials have said the Peoria diocese can pursue Sheen’s canonization regardless of whether his body is at rest there.
In the wake of Tuesday’s decision, both the Peoria and New York dioceses predicted success.
“We believe that Archbishop Sheen clearly stated his intention in his will, written just days before his death, that he be buried in New York, where he conducted his ministry, and where he lived most of his years, including at the time of his death,” the Archdiocese of New York said in a statement.
Monsignor James E. Kruse, Vicar General of the Diocese of Peoria, discussed the case in a February 7th update to the Priests of the diocese, reported in the diocese newspaper the Catholic Post.
“We are confident that the new hearing and ruling will be completed in short time,” he said. “Please continue your prayers for the success of these legal issues and for the Cause of Canonization for our brother, Venerable Fulton Sheen.”
Monsignor Kruse of Peoria predicted that the future ruling would favor Cunningham’s position. Her attorneys “are very confident the new hearing will end in re-affirming the original ruling,” said the priest, who added that the same judge who sided with Cunningham’s argument will preside at the evidentiary hearing.
New York archdiocese spokesman Joseph Zwilling voiced hope that the Peoria diocese will reopen the beatification cause, the New York Post reports.
The Venerable Archbishop’s niece has praised the efforts of Bishop Jenky to pursue the beatification, arguing this work means he “deserved the honor” of hosting Sheen’s remains.
In addition to his pioneering radio and television shows, Archbishop Sheen authored many books, with proceeds supporting foreign missions. He headed the Society for the Propagation of the Faith at one point in his life, and continued to be a leading figure in U.S. Catholicism until his death.
Archbishop Sheen’s intercession is credited with the miraculous recovery of a pronounced stillborn American baby from the Peoria area.
In June 2014, a panel of theologians that advises the Congregation for the Causes of Saints ruled that the baby’s recovery was miraculous.
The baby, later named James Fulton Engstrom, was born in September 2010 showing no signs of life. As medical professionals tried to revive him, his parents prayed for his recovery through the intercession of Fulton Sheen.
Although the baby showed no pulse for an hour after his birth, his heart started beating again and he escaped serious medical problems.
Archbishop Sheen was born in the Peoria diocese and served as an altar boy at its cathedral, where he was ordained a priest in 1919. He served New York City as an Auxiliary Bishop from 1951-66 before becoming Bishop of Rochester. He retired to New York City before his death in 1979 at the age of 84.
The New York State Appeals Court ruled that a lower court’s decision upholding Cunningham’s lawsuit failed to give sufficient attention to a sworn statement from a colleague of Archbishop Sheen, Monsignor Hilary C. Franco.
Monsignor Franco had said that Sheen told him he wanted to be buried in New York and that Cardinal Terence Cooke, New York’s then-archbishop, had offered him a space in the crypt of St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
The Archbishop’s Last Will and Testament had declared his wish to be buried in the New York Archdiocese Calvary Cemetery.
Soon after Sheen died, Cardinal Cooke asked his niece if his remains could be placed in the New York cathedral’s crypt, and she consented. But, the niece contends that the Archbishop would have wanted to have been interred in Peoria if he knew that he would be considered for sainthood.
The Peoria diocese opened the cause for Sheen’s Canonization in 2002 after Cardinal Dolan of New York said it would not explore the case.
A decade later, in 2012, Pope Benedict XVI recognized the heroic virtues of the beloved Archbishop, who served as host of the “Catholic Hour” radio show and the television show “Life is Worth Living.” He now has the title “Blessed" or “Venerable.”
Despite the progress of the cause for beatification, the fate of Archbishop’s body has become the subject of an embarrassing impasse.
Peoria’s Bishop, Daniel R. Jenky, suspended the beatification cause in September 2014 on the grounds that the Holy See expected Sheen’s remains to be in the Peoria diocese.
The Archdiocese of New York, however, has said that Vatican officials have said the Peoria diocese can pursue Sheen’s canonization regardless of whether his body is at rest there.
In the wake of Tuesday’s decision, both the Peoria and New York dioceses predicted success.
“We believe that Archbishop Sheen clearly stated his intention in his will, written just days before his death, that he be buried in New York, where he conducted his ministry, and where he lived most of his years, including at the time of his death,” the Archdiocese of New York said in a statement.
Monsignor James E. Kruse, Vicar General of the Diocese of Peoria, discussed the case in a February 7th update to the Priests of the diocese, reported in the diocese newspaper the Catholic Post.
“We are confident that the new hearing and ruling will be completed in short time,” he said. “Please continue your prayers for the success of these legal issues and for the Cause of Canonization for our brother, Venerable Fulton Sheen.”
Monsignor Kruse of Peoria predicted that the future ruling would favor Cunningham’s position. Her attorneys “are very confident the new hearing will end in re-affirming the original ruling,” said the priest, who added that the same judge who sided with Cunningham’s argument will preside at the evidentiary hearing.
New York archdiocese spokesman Joseph Zwilling voiced hope that the Peoria diocese will reopen the beatification cause, the New York Post reports.
The Venerable Archbishop’s niece has praised the efforts of Bishop Jenky to pursue the beatification, arguing this work means he “deserved the honor” of hosting Sheen’s remains.
In addition to his pioneering radio and television shows, Archbishop Sheen authored many books, with proceeds supporting foreign missions. He headed the Society for the Propagation of the Faith at one point in his life, and continued to be a leading figure in U.S. Catholicism until his death.
Archbishop Sheen’s intercession is credited with the miraculous recovery of a pronounced stillborn American baby from the Peoria area.
In June 2014, a panel of theologians that advises the Congregation for the Causes of Saints ruled that the baby’s recovery was miraculous.
The baby, later named James Fulton Engstrom, was born in September 2010 showing no signs of life. As medical professionals tried to revive him, his parents prayed for his recovery through the intercession of Fulton Sheen.
Although the baby showed no pulse for an hour after his birth, his heart started beating again and he escaped serious medical problems.
Saturday, February 10, 2018
A RE-INTERPRETATION OF HUMANAE VITAE: TEMPEST IN A TEAPOT
Since Blessed Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae was published 50 years ago, it has sparked wide-ranging debates, and frequent calls to change its teaching from some theologians.
At the 50th anniversary of the encyclical, some theologians have again begun calling for a reinterpretation of the document, or suggesting that adhering to it may be morally impossible for some Catholics.
Moves are underway to push the idea that what some see as a “new moral paradigm” in Amoris Laetitia — to give Holy Communion to some living in irregular unions — could be applied to Humanae Vitae to allow contraception in certain cases.
The latest example of this comes from a newly appointed member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Professor Maurizio Chiodi, who delivered a lecture last month saying there are “circumstances — I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 — that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception.”
And so it seems that five decades after its promulgation, Humanae Vitae will continue to be a source of controversy, but controversy among Bishops and theologians and not the Catholic in the pew.
Why?
My take on that answer may be very surprising and it has to do not with Humane Vitae (whose 50th Anniversary the Church will make on July 25th this year). Rather, I refer to an event which took place 52 years ago.
For centuries, the Church had insisted upon strict adherence to regulations regarding fasting and abstinence. These included abstinence from meat on all Fridays of the year and certain other occasions, and fasting on all weekdays of Lent and certain other days.
For generations, Catholics had been told that a violation of these dietary regulations amounted to a mortal sin which needed to be sacramentally confessed and reconciled before attempting to receive Holy Communion.
Then, suddenly (without any substantial catechesis) in the aftermath of Vatican Council II, in 1966, the United States Bishops released a pastoral statement on penance and abstinence that terminated the traditional regulations which had demanded abstinence from meat on Friday under penalty of mortal sin.
The new regulations were simple: fasting and abstinence on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Abstinence on the other Fridays of Lent were “recommended” and other personal acts of penance were "encouraged", not mandated by Church authority.
The pastoral statement was accompanied by the following admonition: “While the Bishops have give definite guidelines to follow in the matter of Lenten penance, and these may not be lightly disregarded, still the individual can and should judge for himself whether he has valid reason to be excused from these precepts.”
I suggest that this change completely undermined the laity’s trust in the authority of Church teaching and governance.
I further contend that this change contained within it the seeds of the present practice among Catholics to question the authority and discount any moral precept uttered by the Pope universally as well as the Bishops locally.
Looking back on that simple change in age-old Catholic practice, I believe we can see how we have gotten to where we are now, with the faithful excusing themselves from any and all disciplinary precepts.
Every now and then in the course of the past five decade, there have been futile attempts by the Bishops or the Holy See to swing the pendulum back toward tradition and the imposition of obligations on the basis of Church authority.
Every attempt has been doomed to failure.
As a good friend is want to remind me about other phenomena in our changing world and culture: “you can’t get the toothpaste back in the tube once it’s been squeezed out”.
So, the theologians will debate, the Bishops will pontificate, the Church may utter whatever it wishes regarding the obligation which Catholics may have vis a vis the teachings and obligations, old or revised, of Humanae Vitae.
I suggest that the laity are no longer listening and have accepted the challenge and burden of deciding issues such as contraception and other forms of birth control for themselves.
I further suggest that most Priests are in agreement with the Catholic faithful on this particular moral issue.
At the 50th anniversary of the encyclical, some theologians have again begun calling for a reinterpretation of the document, or suggesting that adhering to it may be morally impossible for some Catholics.
Moves are underway to push the idea that what some see as a “new moral paradigm” in Amoris Laetitia — to give Holy Communion to some living in irregular unions — could be applied to Humanae Vitae to allow contraception in certain cases.
The latest example of this comes from a newly appointed member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Professor Maurizio Chiodi, who delivered a lecture last month saying there are “circumstances — I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 — that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception.”
And so it seems that five decades after its promulgation, Humanae Vitae will continue to be a source of controversy, but controversy among Bishops and theologians and not the Catholic in the pew.
Why?
My take on that answer may be very surprising and it has to do not with Humane Vitae (whose 50th Anniversary the Church will make on July 25th this year). Rather, I refer to an event which took place 52 years ago.
For centuries, the Church had insisted upon strict adherence to regulations regarding fasting and abstinence. These included abstinence from meat on all Fridays of the year and certain other occasions, and fasting on all weekdays of Lent and certain other days.
For generations, Catholics had been told that a violation of these dietary regulations amounted to a mortal sin which needed to be sacramentally confessed and reconciled before attempting to receive Holy Communion.
Then, suddenly (without any substantial catechesis) in the aftermath of Vatican Council II, in 1966, the United States Bishops released a pastoral statement on penance and abstinence that terminated the traditional regulations which had demanded abstinence from meat on Friday under penalty of mortal sin.
The new regulations were simple: fasting and abstinence on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Abstinence on the other Fridays of Lent were “recommended” and other personal acts of penance were "encouraged", not mandated by Church authority.
The pastoral statement was accompanied by the following admonition: “While the Bishops have give definite guidelines to follow in the matter of Lenten penance, and these may not be lightly disregarded, still the individual can and should judge for himself whether he has valid reason to be excused from these precepts.”
I suggest that this change completely undermined the laity’s trust in the authority of Church teaching and governance.
I further contend that this change contained within it the seeds of the present practice among Catholics to question the authority and discount any moral precept uttered by the Pope universally as well as the Bishops locally.
Looking back on that simple change in age-old Catholic practice, I believe we can see how we have gotten to where we are now, with the faithful excusing themselves from any and all disciplinary precepts.
Every now and then in the course of the past five decade, there have been futile attempts by the Bishops or the Holy See to swing the pendulum back toward tradition and the imposition of obligations on the basis of Church authority.
Every attempt has been doomed to failure.
As a good friend is want to remind me about other phenomena in our changing world and culture: “you can’t get the toothpaste back in the tube once it’s been squeezed out”.
So, the theologians will debate, the Bishops will pontificate, the Church may utter whatever it wishes regarding the obligation which Catholics may have vis a vis the teachings and obligations, old or revised, of Humanae Vitae.
I suggest that the laity are no longer listening and have accepted the challenge and burden of deciding issues such as contraception and other forms of birth control for themselves.
I further suggest that most Priests are in agreement with the Catholic faithful on this particular moral issue.
Friday, February 9, 2018
SILENCE CAN INDEED BE GOLDEN
On the plane from Lima to Rome on January 21st, Pope Francis asked forgiveness for offending the sex abuse victims and explained that when he said they had yet to provide “proof” for their accusations, he actually meant “evidence.”
He asked their pardon for what he said was felt as “a slap in the face” to the victims.
That apology apparently was not sufficient to quell the strident voices which have judged Bishop Barros guilty without evidence and want him summarily punished.
Pope Francis has staunchly defended Bishop Barros and revealed that at his personal direction investigations had been carried out more than once into the accusations against him.
These investigation did not produce any evidence with which to condemn or punish the Bishop.
Since there were no findings of proof against Bishop Barros, Pope Francis has said that he is personally convinced that Bishop Barros is innocent.
This latest unexpected decision to send Archbishop Scicluna to open yet another investigation is quite obviously a move by the Vatican to provide some kind of damage control in the qake of the overwhelming negative press the Holy Father has received regarding his defense of the Bishop and his remarks that those who continue to accuse the Bishop are guilty of calumny.
Pope Francis’ choice of Archbishop Scicluna is significant. He enjoys great credibility among survivors because of his work from 2002 to 2012 as Promoter of Justice at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in cases brought against Priests and Religious accused of the sexual abuse of minors.
In those years at the CDF, Archbishop Scicluna played a key role in drafting the new norms for the church’s handling of sexual abuse allegations, norms that are now operational throughout the Catholic Church. He traveled widely to explain the new zero tolerance policy and the accompanying norms to church leaders in different countries and gave many public conferences.
The Pope’s decision to re-investigate the charges against Bishop Barros will not resolve the controversy. If Pope Francis believes it will, he is deluding himself.
The mob wants blood, not justice. Hysteria rules the day whenever a Priest or Religious or anyone in a leadership position within the Church is accused of sexually abusing a minor.
The accusation itself amounts to a verdict of guilty and the mob wants swift (if not instant) punishment.
It is unfortunate that whoever has influence with Pope Francis convinced him to re-involve himself in this ugly and bitter campaign against Bishop Barros.
It would have been more prudent to let civil officials conduct their own investigations and report their findings to a civil prosecutor to determine if an criminal indictment was warranted.
Pope Francis has not done himself any favors in this latest move.
It is a lesson he will soon and sadly learn.
Perhaps, the Holy Father may have learned another lesson: stay in front of the plane and do not hold impromptu news conferences with reporters.
Silence truly can be golden.
He asked their pardon for what he said was felt as “a slap in the face” to the victims.
That apology apparently was not sufficient to quell the strident voices which have judged Bishop Barros guilty without evidence and want him summarily punished.
Pope Francis has staunchly defended Bishop Barros and revealed that at his personal direction investigations had been carried out more than once into the accusations against him.
These investigation did not produce any evidence with which to condemn or punish the Bishop.
Since there were no findings of proof against Bishop Barros, Pope Francis has said that he is personally convinced that Bishop Barros is innocent.
This latest unexpected decision to send Archbishop Scicluna to open yet another investigation is quite obviously a move by the Vatican to provide some kind of damage control in the qake of the overwhelming negative press the Holy Father has received regarding his defense of the Bishop and his remarks that those who continue to accuse the Bishop are guilty of calumny.
Pope Francis’ choice of Archbishop Scicluna is significant. He enjoys great credibility among survivors because of his work from 2002 to 2012 as Promoter of Justice at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in cases brought against Priests and Religious accused of the sexual abuse of minors.
In those years at the CDF, Archbishop Scicluna played a key role in drafting the new norms for the church’s handling of sexual abuse allegations, norms that are now operational throughout the Catholic Church. He traveled widely to explain the new zero tolerance policy and the accompanying norms to church leaders in different countries and gave many public conferences.
The Pope’s decision to re-investigate the charges against Bishop Barros will not resolve the controversy. If Pope Francis believes it will, he is deluding himself.
The mob wants blood, not justice. Hysteria rules the day whenever a Priest or Religious or anyone in a leadership position within the Church is accused of sexually abusing a minor.
The accusation itself amounts to a verdict of guilty and the mob wants swift (if not instant) punishment.
It is unfortunate that whoever has influence with Pope Francis convinced him to re-involve himself in this ugly and bitter campaign against Bishop Barros.
It would have been more prudent to let civil officials conduct their own investigations and report their findings to a civil prosecutor to determine if an criminal indictment was warranted.
Pope Francis has not done himself any favors in this latest move.
It is a lesson he will soon and sadly learn.
Perhaps, the Holy Father may have learned another lesson: stay in front of the plane and do not hold impromptu news conferences with reporters.
Silence truly can be golden.