Lutherans +/- Catholics +/- Anglicans Dialogue or Debate

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States (4.6 million members), just approved and welcomed into the clergy, actively gay ordained ministers who are in committed relationships.

Recently the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCC.   members) began the process of corporate union with the Roman Catholic Church as a “Personal Prelature.” 

Recently The Episcopal Church in the U.S. established a Committee to prepare  liturgical rites and resources to officially bless same-sex couples in an established relationship.

Because all three of these issues relate to homosexuality it would be appropriate to approach my commentary from that perspective. However, I have another interest for this post.

With Vatican II, the Catholic Church opened outward to engage in dialogue with other Churches and Christian “ecclesial communities.” For forty years theological discussions and cooperative activities grew and we saw ourselves as a growing mosaic of Christian communities in Christ. But I wonder how the different denominations will react to the kinds of events listed above, especially in light of recent moves in the Catholic Church to emphasize Catholic identity, increase boundary markers, and a theological focus on apologetics.

The Catholic Church is a central player in all of these issues. But there are serious internal stresses and strains within the Catholic Church and these other Christian communities.

As long as the current strong, centralized, even authoritarian, institutional structure of the Catholic Church maintains power, there is little likelihood that theological dialogue and advances will be made, for example in sexual ethics, women’s ordination  or the nature and suitability persons for ministry. In my state there are two Catholic and one ELCA dioceses. For a number of years the three bishops have publically affirmed a “Lutheran-Catholic Covenant” pledging continued dialogue and sharing (even facilities and some cooperative religious education programs). What is to happen now between the Church and the ELCA with approval of ordination and acceptance of active gays into the ministry? Will the “Covenant” be put on the back burner, shelved, or, less likely, become a key mechanism to maintain close fraternal relationships? It remains to be seen.

Perhaps the greatest hope  for continued ecumenical dialogue and cooperation rests on what happens at the congregational and parish level. Last evening the pastor of our parish and I attended a meeting called by the pastor of a Lutheran church (ELCA) in the city. Attending and participating were pastors and laity from the Episcopal, Methodist, Catholic, and, of course, the Lutheran churches. A Presbyterian pastor was not able to attend this meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to create a cooperative “College for Adults”  to develop, “…disciples through Christian educational opportunities that are: spiritually relevant, intellectually stimulating, and personally challenging”  and which assist Christian people to: understand their faith, live out their faith, and share their faith with others.

If the increasingly fragile fraternal relationships (I use this word because the power and leadership in these communities are dominated by males)  between the leadership of the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations / ecclesial communities  disintegrates there may be dire irreparable damage done well beyond the confines of these religious groups. Globalization of the world is increasing as a result of the rapid growth on new electronic, communication, and transportation systems. We used to say, “It takes a village to raise a child.” The whole world is rapidly becoming “the village.” Will there be any kind of “global ethic"?” Will the great religions of the world have any role in creating a world to assist in holding together the mosaic of cultures that will continue to exist? Or will the “ethic” be the crassest form of utilitarian ethics? God forbid, that we fall into a dog-eat-dog world or the “war of all against all.”

If Christians can realize they have more in common than the differences between them, they will be part of re-creating a renewed world. If Christians can reaffirm that those of “other faith traditions,” also seek to discover the Truth, there can be dialogue and cooperative action,especially regarding respect for each other and building a more peaceful world. We do have a common humanity and  a common search for the Ultimate.  All of us know only partially now;  and now only through many different perspectives or “faiths” in our search for Truth and purpose in life.  We have the opportunity, today, to live together in a more harmonious world. We no longer can allow differences to destroy the deeper realities of who we are together.

But for us here and now, we must maintain hope and openness to “the other” who can become our brothers and sisters, free to worship God by whatever name we give God and called to serve the world. So maybe in my case one beginning step to to help make this “College for Adults” a success. 

Denver, Boston and Lesbian Mothers:- Diversity in the Church

On March 18th I reported under the heading of "Denver Mess,"what I re-cap below and I updated that post on 3/23/10, but just published it  today.

Denver Recap

In Denver, a pastor of a parish Catholic school refused admission next fall to two small girls because their mom's were lesbians. Both moms were physicians, have grown up Catholic, participated in the parish, had spoken to the school administrators about their situation and been given the go-ahead to enroll the older girl in the school last fall. The action of the pastor brought up a major controversy about what was the moral / ethical thing to do.

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput intervened in the situation and supported the pastor's decision. Among the things I posted in my original post were two questions: 1) Where was compassion shown to the children? and 2) Could not a more equitable solution without publicity be arranged between the archdiocese, the parish pastor and the parents of the two little girls. Apparently no other arrangements have been made to settle this issue with more equity and compassion.


Enter Boston

The NCR reported today that things happened very differently in the Archdiocese of Boston. The incidents appear to be similar in that a parish pastor, Fr. James Rafferty ,at St Paul School in Hingham, MA reportedly denied admission to an eight-year-old Catholic boy because his parent was a lesbian.

However, the response from the Boston archdiocese, has been quite different than that in Denver. Mary Grass O'Neill, an offical of the Boston  Archdiocese said,

We believe that every parent who wishes to send their child to a Catholic school should have the opportunity to pursue that dream..... The archdiocese does not prohibit children of same sex parents from attending Catholic schools." .... We will work in the coming weeks to develop a policy to eliminate any misunderstandings in the future.

The superintendent of schools,  Mary Grass O'Neill, met with the pastor and school principal and the boy's parent. Arrangements were made that the Archdiocese would help arrange for her son to be enrolled in another Catholic school in the Archdiocese. According to O'Neill, the boy's parent. "...indicated that she would look forward to considering some other Catholic schools that would welcome her child for the next academic year."

The differing responses to these similar events does show that there  is some diversity between dioceses. I am sure that both bishops accept the basic teachings of the Church about same-sex unions [we cannot add "and behavior," because we don't know what does or does not happen in the the bedrooms of these parents]. And we must remember that each bishop governs and pastors by virtue of his own ordination and not merely as a delegate of the Holy Father.

The approach in Boston appears to be a wise pastoral decision. There seems to be a focus on the whole situation and attention to the people invloved in it. Perhaps something has been learned from the sex-abuse scandals in the diocese or from the leadership of Cardinal Sean O'Malley. But for whatever reason there is room for compassion and a public witness value to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Cynics, may say that the response in Boston was merely to avoid being in the lime-light for another controversy. But I say, present the evidence before you make that judgment.

The approach in Denver, at least to my way of thinking, appears to be a legal/theological decision; in other words upholding of the Law based on a particular understanding of theology. In this manualist understanding it is taken-for-granted that there are clear, uniform positions held by the Church [even those which are in no way defined as infallible] that are in every way and everywhere objectively true and universal. From this perspective there is little room for emphasis on "person" and "relationship" [with God, others and self] as a significant element in moral judgment. Thus it is more difficult in this theology to focus on victims [whether of sex abuse or of innocent children suffering for what their parents may have done].

The Church and the world are always changing. However, as Alvin Toffler so aptly put it in 1971 human beings no longer deal only with "culture shock," but now also with "future shock." In the midst of all this change, John XXII, Vatican Council II and Paul VI tried to ready the Church to modify its stance in many areas and to enter into dialogue with the contemporary world as well as to challenge it to hear the Gospel message spoken in words and theologies that they could understand.

Today there has been a return to a more defensive stance by much of the hierarchy, some theologians, ever larger numbers of the faithful [some of my earlier posts speak to some of these trends]. What does this have to do with Denver and lesbian mothers as well as those in Boston and all over the country?

For lesbians and other LGBT persons, progressive Catholics, many orders of sisters, those of our clergy formed in the spirit of Vatican II, and many others it may mean 40 years in the desert. Archbishop Chaput is one of the most articulate leaders of the "new" defensive Catholicism and it's use of apologetics as the primary initial approach to preaching the Truth of Catholicism. There is no doubt that there are moments and on some issues that the Church must defend itself. But a generalized defensive, apologetic vision and practice will only lead to "more Denvers."

Sex Abuse Questions: How would you answer them?

On Easter Sunday our pastor preached on the sex abuse scandal in the context of 5 people who were joining the Church. Our pastor is one of the most respected priests in the diocese. He was called out of retirement to become pastor of the parish after some serious difficulties the parish had been through recently. On April 11th he wrote a piece in the parish bulletin  (Scroll down to page 4) asking the following questions of himself, of us, and the Church itself. Here they are. See how you would answer them:

 I. The Problems of today [in the Church] were not handled as well as they could have been. The structure of the Church as begun by the Lord, handled problems differently than we might expect. Perhaps, some of the approaches to problems are archaic in our personal estimation. [Yes, No]

II. The following are general statements and do not necessarily apply to all circumstances (I put them in the form of questions for all to come to their own conclusions). .....

1. Is there [currently] an archaic understanding of humanity and the human condition, especially mind and body ???
2. Is there [currently] a misunderstanding of some maxims of theology; namely, as to the grace of God and the potentially terrible aspects of human beings???? [That] some people cannot be adequately and properly rehabilitated in spite of the grace of God. (Grace builds on nature).
3. Is there an unfortunate disregard for the importance of civil law ????
4. Is there a distorted understanding of the purpose of authority, leadership and accountability in the Church ????
5. Is there a lack of proper care or concern for those affected by the changeable nature of humanity [human "nature?"] ????
6. Is there a lack of courage to look at the fully human needs and aspects of human beings ????
7. Is there an inordinate attempt to control information ???? [In other words], Is there an attitude of secrecy to protect the Church and Church personnel and at the same time a lack of proper concern for the victims of the distortion of human beings ????

Father made three statements after listing the questions. Briefly,

• That in spite of these events and terrible revelation, that the Church will survive.
• The Church must learn from this terrible chapter in its history. Never again should a situation like this be handled as it was.Justice and mercy must be properly balanced and properly imposed.
• Our God looks down on the Church and asks, "What have they done to my people?" "How dumb could they be?" "How uncaring for all in the Church."
• Father then expresses his faith and hope in the Church.

How will you answer Father's questions? Are they fair questions? What other questions could / should be asked?


Please use the "comments" page to answer the questions and/or estimate how Father or I have answered them.

I will post his and my answers in a couple of days !!!!

NOTE: (words in parentheses in the original)  [words in brackets were added by me for clarification]

Sex Abuse and both/and ?

Can there be a middle ground in the ever widening sex-abuse scandal engulfing the Catholic Church? John Allen of the NCR asked this question yesterday and provided his judgment on that issue

I consider myself a Vatican II Progressive Catholic, but deeply impressed into my being is an appreciation of and commitment to the "both/and" characteristic (sacramentalism, analogical imagination) of Catholicism. I understand, but appreciate less, the "either/or" view of life. The world always appears in terms of gray, thus the both/and view is essential. However, we are sometimes (often?) called upon the make specific and clear choices.

The sex-abuse scandal is a complex situation and the issue of Benedict's action makes it more so. Those who have read my previous posts should know that I believe:

•  That the primary response of individuals and "the Church" must be compassion and assistance to the victims of abuse.
• That prevention of further abuse must occur even if that calls for dramatic or major changes in Church administration, internal procedures, and practices (E.g. optional celibacy, Married priests secrecy,).
• That abusers should also be treated with compassion, but should always be prosecuted to the full extent of Civil and Canon law. The goal must be the protection of the community (society) and not revenge. 
• That we must stop talking about "mistakes." Call things what they are: "illness" or "moral" evil as the case may be. In both civil life and the Church no one ever seem to do anything "wrong" these days. Everyone seems to only "make mistakes." Abusers my be ill; they make bad or sinful decisions. An adult doesn't just mistakenly abuse a child or anyone subject to his influence, authority or power.
• What has been said of abusers applies even more so to priests, bishops, and a system that neglects, covers up or "makes mistakes" about sex abuse. I have experienced the culture in which deviant behaviors (E.g. alcoholism, sexual behaviors)  were interpreted only as moral/spiritual problems. That is the culture that many Church leaders grew up in. However that day must pass.

I long for and struggle to discover the kind of both/and view and decisions that will move us forward. I must admit it's a difficult. Any of, you, my readers, have any insights or suggestions? Send a comment!!!

When it comes to the current crisis, especially regarding the Holy Father, John Allen asks whether there is a middle ground.  Based on his extensive knowledge and experience, he makes two points.

The two cases from Pope Benedict's past that have recently come to light, one in Munich and one from his years at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, raise important questions, and the pope needs to answer them in order to move ahead. (Emphasis added)

 We live in a new age, a time that requires, demands, transparency. Look at our political life. Think of Richard Nixon and Watergate, Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair, the whole debate about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or recent accusations of "back room politics" and health care reform. People can no longer, and will never, accept "cover-ups, appeals to secrecy, etc.

People want, increasingly demand, the "truth" and admission of wrong doing from their leaders. Whether or not Benedict has told the "truth" or allowed or participated "cover ups," it will eventually become necessary to provide a credible explanation and, if necessary admission of wrong doing by commission or omission.

Allen's second point is that:

Those questions, however, have to be seen in the context of his overall record on the crisis, and particularly since 2001, when John Paul II put then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in charge of reviewing the case files, there's a lot to be said for that record.

I believe any objective observer will agree that some positive change has occurred since 2001. The question is whether there has been enough "positive changes" and if they are the correct changes in the right places.
If you have an opinion leave a comment.

Sadly, Allen reports that response his article(s) has been divided between the two extremes: those who claim that he's part of the extreme Left and doing a "hatchet job" on the Church. At the opposite extreme, commentors  say things like, "Don't you ever get tired of being an apologist for the Vatican?"

John  ends by asking, about very controversial issues, "Is there room for a middle ground?"

My answer right now is "I don't know, but I hope so."

What about you, my readers? Do you have an opinion?

Reactions to Benedict's Letter to the Irish People

Before all else, people owe it to themselves to read the Pope's full letter.

There was never a question but that the Holy Father:'s  the letter would please some and anger others. In his letter:

• He shows his personal sorrow over the sex abuse charges.
• He speaks directly to those abused with words of comfort.
• He chastises the abusers and the bishops of Ireland.
• He asks for forgiveness for the abuse in the name of the Church.
• He says that he is currently setting up a "Visitation" (investigation) of the dioceses and Catholic institutions in Ireland.
• He directs the clergy and bishops to cooperate with civil authorities in bringing abusers to justice.
• He directs that "spiritual practices" be carried out in penance and petition for healing; he specifically mentions Eucharistic Adoration in every diocese, a mission for all the clergy, and year long petition and penance by all the Irish people.

No one who is fair-minded can deny that this is a positive step in the right direction. John Allen gives a number of instances in which, for a number of years, as Cardinal Ratzinger and as pope, Benedict has taken other positive steps to stop child sex abuse.

Today however, many remain critical of the pope and his letter to the Irish. The most salient criticisms seem to be the following:

• He placed all the real "blame" on the accused priests and local bishops alone.
• He did not discuss, what many believe is the crux of the problem: the systemic nature of Clerical power and actions or inaction of the higher clergy in hiding or covering up abuse.
• He did not address the increasing international sex abuse scandal, currently being investigated in Germany, Holland, Switzerland, Italy and Brazil.
• He, himself, didn't announce specific Vatican actions and programs for a "zero tolerance" policy similar to the program approved for the U.S.
• He didn't accept personal responsibility for the system nor say anything about his own role in these cases while he was archbishop of Munich.

Most of the dailies (Washington Post, New York Times, National Post) reported on the letter with a mixture of fact and subtle interpretation none of which was particularly positive. That may be  because of the outrage over such hideous crimes. The "comments" by readers of the various articles were all disappointed or angry that the pope did not take a stronger stand. The comments made in  the three British dailies (The Guardian, The Times, and the Daily Telegraph) I follow expressed extreme anger over the sex abuse and how the Church has handled it. These comments were often vicious attacks on the Catholic Church itself.

Personally, I agree that the Church must discover and implement a process that is much more transparent and honest; a process that places the victims of abuse and the People of God above the "protection" of the institutional church's current manner of dealing with new issues.

Yes the abusing priests committed unspeakable crimes. Yes, the bishops made terrible "mistakes" as the Holy Father said in his letter. These men must accept the responsibility for what happened. On the other hand, the Vatican has fostered or allowed practices of secrecy, even directing all involved: Bishops, clergy, abusers, and very often the victims themselves to remain silent under the pain of sin or excommunication. Why?

The easy answer is "pure power" and maintenance of the the status quo. There is some truth to that argument. However there are other elements to consider. Most of the Cardinals and senior bishops come from a time and a culture in which alcoholism and sexual deviance were understood only as moral problems. In that culture it was sufficient to confess, do penance and renew one's prayer life. Such moral deviance was the province of the Church to cure or punish. It was never understood as something that related to secular authorties.

This view easily led to the idea of "protecting the Church" from "scandal." Although not right, it is understandable as part of the early defenses of the Church after the Reformation. The exercise of near absolute power by the hierarchy became "standard operating procedure."

But as 20th century theologians, liturgists and Scripture scholars began to understand and appreciate the situation of a Medieval Church facing the modern world, they suggested ways to speak to this new world. Pope John the XXIII was inspired to call Vatican II with its many changes. However, many old inadequate procedures continued. For some reason fundamental changes never came about.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the sex abuse scandals are forcing the Church to reassess its internal and external processes and methods of operation. The Church hierarchy are called to enact more transparent and collegial ways to lead the People of God; more compassionate ways that include justice tempered by mercy.

Denver Mess: Breslin, Chaput, two small children and gay moms

The issue that has emerged here has to do with the meaning of love. Is love heavy on compassion and light on judgment? Or does Christian love require vigilance and hard choices, separating eternal truths from passing fancies and misguided desires?  [Tom Fox, Editor, NCR]

Summary of the Mess in Denver.
The controversy over the dismissal of a young child from a parochial in Denver  because her parents were lesbians, should have been dealt with at the local level between the pastor and the girl's moms. As in the past there were a number of acceptable options for a wise, Solomon-like solution. Whether or not it was the "right thing to do," someone leaked to the press the decision to expel the girl from school.. The pastoral leaders ( Fr. Breslin and Archbishop Chaput) have "stood their ground" and "defended Church Doctrine," the parish is split over the issue and, in the meantime, the moms and children have been pushed pretty much out of the picture.

The moms agreed to an interview by the NCR. They detailed much about their lives and Catholic beliefs and practices.They described the whole procedure they went through to ensure there was common understanding between themselves and the school / parish regarding their daughters' school attendance. Even in his most recent statement, Fr. Breslin repeated the "official position" of the Church and implied that the underlying issue had to do with homosexuality. Although unstated, there was an assumption, without evidence, that the two women were sexually active. Nothing in Breslin's statement gave any indication of his having read any of the women's words. It seems to me that at least the pastor on the scene would have shown  at least some pastoral concern to hear and express understanding to the children and directly to the moms along with what they were saying.

The Larger Picture.
It is very unfortunate that this particular situation has occurred at this time, when the Church leadership is returning to a very defensive posture because it feels so under attack by raging "secularism, " "materialism." and  "internal opposition" to Papal direction. This movement toward "apologetics" began under Pope John Paul II and has been championed by Pope Benedict XVI. One of the staunchest and most articulate spokespersons for this point of view in the U.S. Church is Archbishop Chaput of Denver.

So many of the "Catholic Culture Wars" today (E.g. the "reform of the reform" in Liturgy, making the old Latin Mass equal in legitimacy to the Mass of Paul the VI, control by the Vatican of the English translation of the Mass, the refusal  to even discuss clerical celibacy, homosexuality, or married priests [except Anglican priests and some Protestant ministers who "convert"], or women priests) derive from the Holy Father's and many bishops' fear of the modern and post-modern world; excessive fear of secularism, materialism, expressive individualism and perceived opposition on the part of the laity and some priests.

The actions of both the pastor and the archbishop seem so bound into an almost post-reformation worldview that they cannot even entertain the idea that "progressive" change is possible and necessary, and quite possibly from the Holy Spirit. At least for now the faith and hope of Pope John XXIII and Vatican Council II for a Church in dialogue with a beautiful, if wounded modern world, has not been lost, but stymied for awhile.

We need fewer "Proclaimers of Certainties" like Archbishop Chaput, and more Seekers after Truth like these two moms.

Compassion

The Parable of the Prodigal Son was the Gospel reading at Mass this weekend 3/13-14. For those who have not read it see; Luke 15:11-31.

After the younger son has traversed the world beyond his home and spent all of his inheritance, he decides to return home and seek the forgiveness of his father.

While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him , and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him. (Verse 20b).

In recent posts I have spoken, with some degree of sadness and anger about what I perceive to be a lack of compassionate pastoral response from many Church leaders.

There was the case of incompassionate response to the plight of a nine year old girl who had been raped and whose mother had her twins aborted.

There was the case of the Mexican Cardinal, who spoke out so publicly and harshly about LGBT people.

There was the case where a pastor, with the support of the bishop's later public statement, removed an elementary school child from a Catholic school because his caregivers were partnered lesbians.

Why is there no indication that the little girl, gay people, and the little boy were shown compassion? It would seem that these victims who have been the first to be protected from public attention. It seems that the innocent victims would have been shown pastoral care, love and support.

But we've been there not too long ago when the victims of pedophilia were paid little attention as traumatized human beings. Money was spent to "defend" the Church's reputation. A bunch of money was transferred to some victims for counseling and psychotherapy. But why were so many hierarchs unable or unwilling to meet one-on-one with victims and feel their hurt, fragility and justifiable anger at the Church with the compassion of God as proclaimed in this parable? It seems that the bishops (and many others) are more like the elder son who was "faithful" in following the Law, but jealous and incompassionate toward his younger  brother.

 I have deep faith in and hope for the Christian-Catholic community. However, particularly these days the  institutional bureaucracy of the Church is called to a continued repentance and to heed the Gospel call in the way it operates. There are those in the Church (both clergy and laity) who believe that the essence of the Church and Christian Life are to "follow the Law" as laid out in legal fashion as the means to spiritual growth and salvation. It is sufficient to know the rules and obey them. They have been called "Proclaimers of Certainty" because they believe they already know God's plan and can administer it. In many cases, those who believe this way are more comfortable with the words and images expressed in Deut: 21:18-21.

There are others in the Church, who by no means reject the value of Law and rules. However they see these as ideals to be striven for, but maybe never reached, in the attempt to be true to the Gospel, to Jesus; to be compassionate. Take for example,  Archbishop Quinn when he was in San Francisco. He was able to work out arrangements for the availability of heath benefits for gays who worked for Catholic agencies and to honor and keep to the Church's teachings about homosexuality. Those who believe this way are more comfortable with Psalm 103, especially verses 4, 8, and 12-13

What appears in some of my posts as anger, is really frustration and a call to take seriously the Gospel message and the teachings of Vatican II, rather than a view in which Law trumps compassion and Love.

Now it's not enough to be against gays themselves?

Today CNN reported on a young grade school student who was "disenrolled" (I.e. kicked out) of a Catholic Parochial School. Why? Because the parents were partnered lesbians!

Now a child will suffer for the "sins" of the parents. The pastor took the action, and was supported in a public statement by the Chancery (I.e the bishop) because the same-sex couple were violating the teaching of the Church forbidding same-sex sexual behavior.
 
How did the pastor or bishop know that the couple were having sex?

Regardless of their private behavior, was it appropriate to punish the child? And you better believe the child will be negatively affected.

Where is the compassion of Christ in this situation? I am distant from the actual incident, but at least as reported, I see no reaching out with care, love and compassion to the child.There seems to be no compassion offered to  the couple either. Again as reported, for church leaders to say, adults should know the teaching and obey it or suffer the consequences, seems hardly Christlike  [I will certainly will correct distortion of facts, if they are brought to my attention].

One has only to recall the Mexican Cardinal who uttered such hateful words about homosexuals. The Vatican had to remind the Cardinal that even the Catholic Catechism  requires respect for homosexuals. What about the often (usual?) formal, impersonal treatment or total neglect of sex abuse victims here in the U.S?

The argument about the hurtful outcome for the child and other children in the school and the "scandal" caused to the laity" are those commonly dragged out. Some churchmen must begin to realize that the laity are hard to scandalize. The most recent case I can remember of the laity being scandalized is at the cover-up behavior of bishops who hid the crimes of pedophilia.

Just think of what a Catholic/Christian response of love and compassion might look like. The clergy would plainly state there was a pastoral concern for the child and the couple. They could, personally and through others show deep understanding, support and love for the child. They could speak with (not to) the couple and at least appreciate their lives and love for each other.

Thirteen years ago when Cardinal Laveda was archbishop of San Francisco, he was able to work with others to discover a way for same-sex couples to share health benefits and remain employed by Catholic agencies without violating Catholic teaching or principles. Can't at least this kind of solution be arrived at?

We need to act with the love and compassion of Christ FIRST and then deal with the words we use to express the beliefs Catholics hold.

Earlier in the day I had been commenting on a friend D's joy and happiness over being a godparent; the hope he has to support, nurture and love DA, and the big celebration the family had. I shared with him my joy in becoming Confirmation sponsor for my nephew who is 14.

After hearing about the above "incident," I began to ponder what kind of Church these youngsters will grow up into: one showing greater compassion or one so bound to statements of "teachings" and "correctness" that love and compassion will wither. I do agree here with the Holy Father that what we need  is to maintain hope. 

Could Jesus be gay?

The headline in the Guardian  read, "Jesus is Gay, Says Elton."  Regardless of who said it, this presents us with an opportunity to reflect on both Jesus and gays.

Sir Elton John, 62, in an interview with Parade Magazine, said  he believed Jesus Christ was a "...compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems."

He also said, "On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wants us to be loving and forgiving. I don't know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East - you're as good as dead."

There  was immediate negative response from Bill Donohue, a reactionary, self-proclaimed "protector" of what he thinks is "orthodox Catholicism," He said, "Jesus was certainly compassionate, but to say he was 'super-intelligent' is to compare Jesus the son of God to a successful game-show host."

He continues, "More seriously, to call Jesus a homosexual is to label him a sexual deviant."

Even more theologically wrong-headed was the statement made by Stephen Green, Director of the right-wing Christian group "Christian Voice." He said, "Jesus was without sin and that rules out homosexuality."

Even from the conservative, official, Catholic teachings these statements are false and can be refuted.

Being homosexual is never in and of itself sinful just as being left-handed or blue-eyed is not sinful. The Church teaches pure and simply that there are people who are homosexual and who cannot "change." In fact for a gay to deny who he is in God's plan  and try to change his very being would be sinful.

As for Donohue, he confuses the Church's teaching that homosexuality is an "objective disorder" (which I do not accept), with a moral evil when he says that if homosexual, Jesus is a sexual deviant. Bill ought to be more careful. Even in the View of the Vatican, if Jesus is homosexual he could only be a "sexual deviant" in the Church's eyes if he engaged in homosexual behaviors. If Jesus were gay the institutional Church would "require him to carry the cross of celibacy."

If Jesus is like us in all things but sin, even by the Church's teaching this allows for being homosexual, just as it would allow for Jesus to have a spontaneous erection when an attractive person came by. The real issue for Jesus and a Christian is "What is God's will for me to do here and now?"

Much of what Elton John said about Jesus' compassion and message of love seems not to have been heard by Donohue or Green. Perhaps they should listen to all that others say.

On the other hand, a spokesman for the Church of England was much more moderate. He said, "Sir Elton's reflection that Jesus calls us all  to love and forgive is one shared by all Christians. But insights into aspects of the historic person of Jesus are perhaps best left to the academics."

It may be true that professional theologians have much work to do. But in raising the question of Jesus' orientation and linking it with his compassion, love, and forgiveness, Elton John may have accomplished two things: First, to raise serious theological questions with which we must now deal and, second, to point out to everyone that we must look upon LGBT people with greater compassion, acceptance and love.  

Taking Stock::- Some thoughts

I recently received a comment from a person who came into the Vatican II Church. It seems that anonymous was happy and found a "new family" in the Church until the display of power and authoritarianism came to the fore in the last few years. Listen to anonymous:

I being a convert to Catholicism lost family ties as well as friendship to become a Catholic and I have found myself suddenly abandoned on a sea of rules and regulations....I have only been around Vatican II theology.... and I now feel so betrayed, disappointed, and disgusted that I can no longer fight the systematic reversal of Vatican II.... and despite that I can no longer worship with people I love as much as my own family I cannot continue to call myself a Roman Catholic and still be true to my conscience...

Do you read frustration, anger, and, especially, deep hurt in this person. What touches me the most is the sense of hurt and betrayal; a sense that "the People of God," collegiality, and ecumenism, no longer characterize the community he was, by the grace of God, called into at a great price.

Yes, I too am frustrated and angry at the re-assertion of 19th century neo-scholastic theology as the guiding force for the "reform of the reform:" the results of which we see in recent liturgical changes, and the reorientation of "inter-religious dialogue" toward "inter-cultural dialogue." [Both are important and necessary]. We have seen the widespread use of the Tridentine Latin Mass encouraged and the Latinization of our English Liturgy as well as permitting conservative Anglican married clergy to join the Roman Catholic Church with little attention to many of our good priests who de facto were required to submit to a promise of celibacy. All of these changes were made without any real attempts to get input from the laity or even the "lower" clergy. At the very least, these changes have the odor power more than pastoral care. Sometimes it seems to me that the fear of secularization and modern culture and the rise of  "Evangelical Catholicism" simply result from a loss of Faith and Hope at the Vatican and among many bishops.

Yes, secularization and our modern culture, especially our rank individualism, present challenges to us as Catholic Christians and to the whole People of God. But my trust and Faith in God and my sense of Hope (probably the least preached on virtue), will not allow me to find solace in returning to the rigid, authoritarian institutional structures of the 19th and first half of the 20th Centuries.

Some say that Vatican II has been the cause of a weakened Church, the reason for an increase in "non-practicing Catholics," the lack of converts, and on and on. I would only ask those who feel this way to consider for a moment, "Might it not be the case that the Church and the world would be much, much worse off had it not been for Vatican II?"

I will, and I encourage Anonymous and everyone else who loves the People of God to re-affirm their own commitment to to the Holy Spirit guided words of  Vatican II. At a practical level this will mean finding support through small faith groups who live from Vatican II and more recent progressive theology. Remain close to the Scripture and seek out Vatican II oriented priests for Liturgy. If possible, read good Church history (E.g. McBrien's, The Church) and remember we stand in continuity with a People who go back to Jesus; that our history did not begin with the Council of Trent and the Counter Reformation. Those who value Vatican II will find common ground with of the institutional Church's social justice principles. Hopefully, we can exert influence to apply those principles within the Church (E.g. for women, LGBT persons, ordination of both genders with attention to married as well as single clergy, significant roles for laity within the Church, not "just" in "Catholic Action" in the larger society, etc.).

In the end there must be compassion for ourselves, for those who are so regularly hurt by actions on the part of the powerful in the Church, and even toward those who understand the Church so differently from the authentic understanding of Vatican II. Conservatives often say, with regard to gays, "Hate the sin but love the sinner." [I believe that statement continues to be a put-down of  gay, lesbian and bi-sexual people, just as those who insult women with regard to ordination when they say, "You lack only one thing, a penis."]. But maye we could say, " 'Hate' revisionist theology and practice, but love the revisionists."

Pax vobis et oremus pro invicem!!

Reforming the Reform..... Part Two

Emphasis on adoration is the central theme in Mgsr. Guido Marini's entire speech, to which he turns in detail in point 3 of the speech. Then in point 4, he covers "Active Participation" which is explained in terms of adoration, and finally, "Sacred or Liturgical Music."

Background: It all depends on how you view "church."
There is no question that adoration is an essential element in the Eucharistic celebration. The questions are: What do we mean by adoration? How is adoration expressed in words, gestures, postures, and actions during the Eucharistic celebration? Finally, What is the relationship between the Eucharistic action of the Mass and the nature of the Church itself?

When Marini speaks of reforming the reforms made by Vatican II, he speaks of changing peoples' attitudes (especially about the Mass as adoration) and behavior during the Liturgy. Fr. Richard McBrien makes the observation that most of the "two-culture liturgical battles" since Vatican II really spring from two different views of the Church. Although there are many ways to understand the Church (ecclesiologies), McBrien focuses on two with regard to the post-Vatican II "liturgy wars." As he says in his recent book, The Church: the Evolution of Catholicism:

Those who have accepted...the liturgical changes [e.g. vernacular, hand-shake of peace, Communion in the hand standing, audibly responding to the prayers of the priest, and ministry as lectors and Eucharistic ministers, etc.] Those who have opposed... these liturgical reforms have remained attached... to the neo-scholastic ecclesiology of the preconciliar period, which tended to identify the Church with the hierarchy and to regard the laity as essentially passive beneficiaries [clients, customers] of the clergy's sacramental ministrations and teachings. According to this preconciliar ecclesiology, there was a clear line of distinction between the teaching Church... and the learning Church... as well as a clear line of distinction, represented by the Communion rail, separating the laity from the sanctuary and hence the clergy.

Accordingly, the council's insistence to the contrary that the Church consists of the whole People of God has had its most immediate and practical impact on the Church's liturgical and ministerial life, and that is the main reason why the Mass has become the flash point of so much conflict within the Roman Catholic Church. The "liturgy wars" are at root ecclesiology wars." Pages 168-169).

The purpose of the "reform of the reform" and a return to a particular understanding of adoration, is really an attempt to return to the institutional, organizational, clergy-dominated form of the pre-Vatican II church and to downgrade the Vatican II affirmation of the Church as "the People of God," a sacramental reality embracing all of the Baptized.

Adoration, and how we express it.
According to Marini, "Adoration is... the recognition of the infinite might of God... and of His omnipotent and provident Lordship." He continues, "Consequently adoration leads to... the abandonment of the state of separation, of apparent autonomy, to loss of self.... there is nothing left for us but to be left in adoration."

In spite of the softer language he uses in some places, his tone remains hard and he focuses only on the transcendent aspect of the liturgy. There is really no place in his argument for the whole People of God. He explains that, "...everything in the liturgical act, through the nobility, beauty, and harmony of the exterior sign, must be conducive to adoration."  Recent examples of liturgical changes coming from Rome illustrate this: the requirement that gold or other precious metals be used for sacred vessels and that use of glass, pottery,wood, and vessels of other insubstantial materials be discontinued. Another example would be the new requirement to clearly distinguish the sanctuary from the nave so that even Eucharistic Ministers remain outside the "sacred space" until it is time to receive and distribute communion (sacred species). Msgr. Marini supports changes along all of these lines because of,

...the decision of his Holiness, Benedict XVI...who, starting from the feast of Corpus Christi last year, has begun to distribute holy Communion to the kneeling faithful directly on the tongue. By the example of this action, the Holy Father invites us to render the proper attitude of adoration before the greatness of the mystery of the Eucharistic presence of our Lord. (Emphasis added).

The difficulty here is not that we are to adore God in and through Christ in the Eucharistic celebration; it is the manner in which Msgr. Marini and the Vatican suggest (require?) that we adore. As was argued and settled [at least,we thought] at Vatican II, there is much more to the Mass than adoration, especially as expressed in ways so foreign to contemporary Americans and others. Perhaps an instructive observation is that President Obama does not express the respect due heads of state in medieval forms, but is very respectful of them in his words and gestures. The theme of adoration remains the author's central thrust even when he speaks of "Active Participation" in the liturgy. 

Active Participation.
Msgr. Marini rightly says that the Vatican Council linked the call to holiness and active participation in the liturgy. However, the author claims that even when people fulfill their proper roles, increase their understanding of the Word and prayers, and even when they sing, this is not truly participation if it is not accompanied by an attitude of adoration.

He then goes on to say that the real action (actio) of the Mass is not what we do as participants; rather it is the action, (actio) of Christ. He, then quotes Benedict XVI from a book he wrote while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger:

What does this active participation come down to? ... Unfortunately the word was very quickly misunderstood to mean something external, entailing a need for general activity, as if as many people as possible, as often as possible, should be visibly engaged in action. However, the word 'participation' refers to a principal action in which everyone has a 'part'...By the actio of the liturgy the sources mean the Eucharistic Prayer. The real liturgical action... is the oratio... this oratio -- the Eucharistic Prayer, the 'Canon' -- is really more than speech; it is actio in the highest sense of the word. (The Spirit of the Liturgy, Pp. 171-172, as quoted in Marini's speech).

Certainly in the Eucharistic celebration we are made present to and participate in the Paschal Mystery through the action of Christ as prayed in the entire liturgy, but especially in the Eucharistic Prayer, the Canon. Other than the priest celebrant's recitation of the Canon and our attentiveness in an attitude of adoration, Marini says that all other external actions are secondary, although he admits that they may be important during the Liturgy of the Word.

It seems to me that the good monsignor makes an "either/or" dichotomy out of what should be a "both/and" perspective. Does he (and the pope?) truly believe that most contemporary Catholics do not adore (worship) God at Mass. Does he think that we believe ourselves to be play-acting when we "actively participate?" Remember, that in the old days, the only thing required of the laity was to "hear" Mass, be physically  present for the three principle parts of the Mass and that one "somehow advert" to the action during the consecration. Many, if not most did not go to Communion frequently, and some of those who did snuck out of church immediately after receiving Communion. During Mass in Latin, those who were not well educated, or heroically motivated to "follow along" in a Daily Missal, read from prayer books and/or prayed the Rosary. They were wonderful devout people but they seldom participated in the liturgy the way Msg. Manini suggests we should;  if not all, most Catholics are more  centered and focused on the "sacred action today than before Vatican II.

I do not want to suggest that there have been no "abuses" in the celebration of the liturgy. But what some call abuses may actually be development and growth inspired by the Holy Spirit. What we need is a balance between the views expressed by the Vatican and the actual lived experience of the Catholic faithful (clergy and laity) who walk the streets of the world. And, yes, I believe that the tone of the article could be more pastoral and express confidence in the People of God, so as to foster trust and dialogue.

Sacred or Liturgical Music.
It is interesting, and to me, very positive, that there is no single "official" Catholic hymnal for the Church in the United States. In this way the many musical forms from traditional, folk and other idioms can be inculturated into our liturgy. However this does not mean that the Church has no interest in what music is used during the Mass.

The monsignor demonstrates the Church's interest in music by telling us that the Council of Trent required that liturgical music conform to the sacred text (recently reaffirmed by the Vatican) and limited the type and use of instruments to make a distinction between "sacred" and "profane" music. He continues, saying,

Pope Saint Pius the X, intervened... to remove operatic singing from the liturgy and selecting chant and polyphony from the time of the Catholic Reformation [Counter Reformation in the 16th Century] as the standard for the liturgy.

Again stressing his theme that everything in the Mass must foster "adoration" as he and Pope Benedict XVI understand it, Marini says that the reason the Church places such a strong emphasis on what music is used and how it is rendered, is to foster adoration and this is best done by chant and traditional polyphony because they are holy, good and universal. The implication here is that this special type of music (as distinguished from secular and general religious music) helps us realize, as Benedict says, that "[t]he true liturgy... is cosmic, not made for a group."

The speech concludes with a strong affirmation of  "...a reform of the reform" [of the Vatican II liturgical norms]. In this new reform [i.e, back to 16th-19th  century norms and practices?], "...it is we  priests who are to recover a decisive role.


My Reflections.
I believe that the whole tone of the speech is negative, especially in terms of its view of lay members of the Church; it is as if we are superficial, see the liturgy as some kind of game or show, do not adore God "correctly," and do not appreciate what  the liturgy is.

The speech assumes, although it doesn't mention it directly, that the "Church" is the clergy, especially the Vatican bureaucracy; it recommends a return to liturgical practices that indicate a broad separation between the priest celebrant and the laity (who Vatican II said  also are celebrants. Remember, the priest presides, we all celebrate).

Marini's use of "continuity" refers back only to the period of the 16th to 19th centuries and nothing is mentioned of earlier liturgical disagreements in the Church and how they were settled with attention to the cultures, lives and participation of the people involved (E.g. the Council of Jerusalem); as a result, the type of continuity or "universality" offered is based on the belief that the norms and practices of the Catholic Reformation should hold today. This seems more like external uniformity to some idealized past than an affirmation of unity today.

When Pope John XXIII called for Vatican II, he exuded a sense of confidence and hope for the future of the Catholic Church and the World. Otherwise he would not have opened the windows to let the air in. Today there is afoot the notion that modern culture is only a "culture of death," that liturgy is devoid of a sense of transcendence, and that most of us live a profligate life of rank individualism and materialism; this feeling comes through in Msgr. Marini's speech, as does the belief that the Vatican knows the "right" corrections to make, if only the laity (and some of the lower clergy) would become docile again.

Social psychologists have tried to demonstrate that attitudes cause behavior and that changing attitudes causes a change in behavior. They have been somewhat successful and their theories and explanations are quite complex. Social scientists also know that changing one's behavior can change one's attitudes and future behavior. That is why the changes suggested by Marini, or already implemented by the Vatican and most bishops, are significant.

If the Holy Father's practice of distributing communion only on the tongue to those kneeling becomes the norm, children will grow up and wonder why they needed to show respect and adoration through a Medieval, monarchical form of behavior that seems irrelevant to their lives. Already many wonder about other recent changes such as Eucharistic ministers not entering the sanctuary after the kiss of peace and during the Agnus Dei but  having to wait until the priest celebrant has drunk from the chalice. Or the rule that the priest, or sometimes the deacon, must do (at least) the initial purification of the vessels at Mass. Or the new norm to re-establish a very clear separation between priest and people by making a very visible separation between the sanctuary (where the clergy are) and the nave (where the laity are). In each case the Church claims merely to be reemphasizing the way to adore God by doing the liturgy "correctly," and to make sure that vagueness in the role of the laity be clarified lest they pretend they are clergy.

However, changes like these can just as easily be interpreted as signs, symbols, and a means to re-assert an older theology; one that claims that through ordination the priest not only gets a special charism and role in the Church, but that he also assumes a new, higher level of "ontological" existence. This approach can also be interpreted as reducing the meaning of Baptism. At an even more cynical level, these changes might be taken as a re-exertion of power and dominance of the clergy.

What I am really trying to say is that there are multiple reasons for and interpretations of changes coming out of Rome. It would have been helpful had there been dialogue with the laity over these issues. Or don't the perspectives of the laity count? At least in modern societies where people are well-educated, and some even better educated in theology than the clergy, there will never be a return to the old "pray, pay, and obey" Catholic Laity. The laity do not want to take over the Church or usurp the roles of the clergy. The laity insist on being acknowledged as full members of the People of God and to work collegially with the clergy to hasten the coming of the Reign of God.  That's all.

Additional Indicators of the "Reform of the Reform."
Listed here are just a sample of recent events:
Okla Bishop No Longer Faces People During Mass  (Short version with out pictures)
Okla Bishop No Longer Faces People During Mass  (PDF version with pictures -Somewhat slower to load)
Latin Mass Appeal  (Conservative / Traditionalist perspective)
Papal Liturgist Endorses "Reform" of the "Reform."  (Short summary of the speech from the NCR)

Reforming the Reform: It's out and growing- Part One.

Another clear and "official" indication that the Vatican is disassembling much of Vatican II, appears in a speech given by Msgr. Guido Marini, the pope's Master of Ceremonies, in Rome 6 January 2010. (Click hereand page down for full text. )

General Observations.

For some time now we have seen changes in worship and theology that  indicate a restoration of "pre-Vatican II" forms. Now Msgr. Marini says that we are, in fact, in the midst of a "reform of the reform." [see my post "Retreat from Vatican II", dated 10-18-09 for a few examples].

In tone, the speech is generally harsh in discussing "abuses" and those who engage in them. He says, for example, "...some individuals have managed to upset the liturgy... under the pretext of a wrongly devised creativity, thus appropriating the right to remove from, add to or modify the liturgical rite in pursuit of subjective and emotional ends." [Emphasis added]. Marini, also builds and destroys many "straw men," described, in vague extremist terms. He provides no specific examples.

Marini places emphasis on the past and present; nothing is said about the future. The speaker rationalizes the need for and type of changes he (the Vatican) supports  by appealing to, "...an urgent need to reaffirm the 'authentic' spirit of the liturgy.. in the uninterrupted tradition of the church, and attested, in continuity with the past..." Benedict, has, "made continuity the authoritative criterion whereby one can correctly interpret the life of the Church. Unfortunately, the "past" here seems only to go back to the 16th Century and the "Catholic Reformation."

"Church" here seems to refer to the Vatican; there is no positive mention of bishops or priests who allow or foster inauthentic changes. By the end of the speech, there is one "positive" statement that, "...in this new liturgical renewal...we priests ...are to recover a decisive role."
 
The substance of Monsignor's speech is divided into five sections. I will make a few comments on each of them and then draw some conclusions.

1. The Sacred Liturgy, God's great gift to the Church.

The emphasis in this section is that the liturgy is God's gift to the Church and this means that only the "Church" can determine what it is and whether and how to change it. Therefore the Church cannot allow changes by the "arbitrary will of man," or allow people, "to treat the liturgy as if it were an object open to manipulation...where liturgical groups stitch together the Sunday liturgy on their own authority."

2. The orientation of Liturgical prayer

Guido Mariani then turns to a discourse of the ancient tradition of facing east to pray. This was part of our early tradition based on the idea that Christ, the Son, would return from the East just as the Sun rises from the East. Admitting that church buildings, in fact, were not always oriented toward the east, "...the Church had recourse to the Crucifix [a Medieval innovation] placed upon the altar, on which everyone could focus." Marini quotes Benedict XVI who reaffirmed his earlier proposal, "...to place the Crucifix on the center of the altar, in order that all, during the celebration of the the Liturgy, may concretely face and look upon the Lord." On the other hand, it seems to me that the Lord is present to "look at" (experience?) all around us during the Liturgy: in the presider and the People, in the proclaimed Word and in his special presence, especially during the Canon of the Mass.  So, what is the need of a crucifix here?

There is another reason for looking at the Crucifix during Mass, as stated by the Holy Father, "The idea that the priest and people should stare at one another during prayer was born only in modern Christianity [emphasis added]... The priest and people most certainly do not pray to one another, but to the one Lord" [emphasis added]. Personally, I wonder what parish Mass the Holy Father celebrated when he and the People starred at each other or how often Catholics have said that they pray to the priest during Mass.

Perhaps there is  another reason for all the emphasis on facing East or a Crucifix and it might be related to the fact that, "...it is still possible to celebrate the Holy Mass upon the old altars, as the pope does in the, "Sistine Chapel on the feast of the baptism of the Lord" and as many cardinals and bishops do. Perhaps the "Church" wishes to turn the celebrant's back to the People so he can quietly address the prayers to God without distraction.

I wholeheartedly agree that "celebrating facing the people" is a modern innovation (adaptation?) in relationship to the"monastic" celebration of the liturgy as we knew it for over 400 years. But as Louis Bouyer, under whom I studied, has shown, in the earliest churches all present celebrated the Eucharistic Prayer "circumstantes" around the altar having moved there from the place in which the Liturgy of the Word was celebrated. I am also very willing to admit that there is great value and power in the presider and People facing the same direction during orations. However,there must be more creative ways to deal with these "issues" and with more forthrightness, as we attempt to conduct our worship inculturated into the great cultural traditions of the world in our own time. I always try to remember that, "the Sacraments were made for men (sic); men were not made for the Sacraments."

[NOTE: My next post will be an update on the situation in Uganda, followed by part 3, Adoration and union with God" of Masgr. Marini's speech.

Manna in a Modern Desert?

On their journey from Egypt to the Promised Land, God fed the Israelites with manna in the desert to sustain them. Beginning with John Paul II, and continuing with Benedict XVI, we are experiencing the appointment of a host of "conservative" bishops and the rise among them, some theologians and many lay people of what is becoming known as "Evangelical. Catholicism." What are Vatican II Progressive Catholics to do and how will they be sustained during the modern desert experience that is descending upon us?

In my second Post here I mentioned a few of the events that signal the revisionist attitude, theology and liturgical practices that characterizes this retreat from Vatican II. As the institutional church moves evermore in this direction, well into the twenty-first century, it will become difficult for Progressive Catholics to be sustained. Below I suggest some things which we can do to  maintain and enhance the vision of  Vatican II and further our mission to help bring about the Reign of God.:

Be Mindful of and Act from a Conviction that "Jesus is Lord."

Hans Kung reminds us that our most fundamental and basic creed can be stated simply: "Jesus is Lord."That is, faith and confidence in the Jesus of the four Gospels is what counts. It is in Jesus that everything should take on meaning. Otherwise we will remain, at best, some kind of "Anonymous Christian."  The Nicene Creed, the Apostle's Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and other Christian creeds are to be honored and treasured, but what is absolutely primary is commitment to the person and mission of Jesus.

Understand and Act from a Well-Formed Conscience.
 .
Our personal responsibility for what we do does not come merely from what opinion polls,  our peers or authorities dictate, but from what our conscience guides us to do. Bishop Geoffrey Robinson reminds us that there are only two sources that are available to us in reaching decisions: Sacred Scripture (the Word of God)  and the world around and within us (creation). The "world around us" includes the Great Tradition of the Faith, the teachings of the hierarchy, science, history,. and all the other human disciplines. The "world within us" includes, most especially, our own experience and the experiences we share with others. One thing, Robinson warns us against, is falling prey to "creeping infallibility," that is, the tendency of the hierarchy to claim directly or by insinuation  that all important decisions they make must be obeyed exclusively or primarily on the basis of their authority.

With the spread of Evangelical Catholicism and the authoritarian attitude that accompanies it, it will become increasingly important that Vatican II Progressive Catholics form strong Catholic / Christian consciences. This will strengthen and support their resolve and innoculate them from creeping infallibility.

Form Communities and Support Groups.
 
There are many who existentially experience separateness, loneliness and alienation from others. Many others believe and attempt to live a type of "rugged," expressive  individualism in the belief that they can create or construct themselves and "their" world without the need for or influence others. But "no man [sic] is an island" and as ancient sages and modern science explain, human beings are constituted as "social animals."  Here, the point is that everyone needs support especially in difficult times when they and what they think, feel, and do is dis-valued.

Seeing the direction in which the institutional Church is moving, Vatican II Progressives are liable to find less and less support in parishes, dioceses and other standard church groups. There may well be fewer Church  resources available to them. Vatican II Catholics will need to support and join other forward-looking groups like Call to Action, Voice of the Faithful,  Dignity, and other existing progressive groups. Progressive Catholics will need to support each other in finding priests and parishes (or informal gatherings) where they can celebrate the Eucharist. Finally, it will be very important for us Catholics to form small faith and action groups

Own that Our Ministry and Mission is "ad extra."

From the 1920s to the 1950s there was a great emphasis on "Catholic Action." Oldsters may recall the YCS, YCW, CFM, the Jesuit sponsored Sodality of the Blessed Virgin, and even remember singing, "An army of Youth flying the standards of truth...We are fighting for Christ the Lord..." Catholic Action was a very important movement in the American and European Church. It was very successful in training, motivating, and guiding thousands of Catholics to take the Gospel to the world around them through their "Think, Judge, Act" discernment process (which incidently in a secular form has been adopted by the U.S. Military).

The difficulty with Catholic Action was that  it's foundation rested on the ministry of the priest who alone had the right and responsibility to engage in ministry. In other words the laity could only assist the priest in his ministry if and when he allowed it. This, in turn, was based on a theology which held that ordination constituted the priest as "ontologically" different from the lay person; the priest alone participated in the priestly, prophetic, and governing mission of Christ. Also, there was was no provision at all for any ministry (E.g. Lector) within the Church. The role of the laity remained "pray, pay, and obey" unless invited to assist the Church its ministry.

With Vatican II, the Council Fathers re-emphasized the role of Baptism in Christian life. The laity were now understood to participate, in their own way, in the three-fold ministry of Christ by virtue of their Baptism. Rather than being mere helpers or instruments, they were now seen as cooperators with the clergy. This provided a deeper understanding of both the Church, as the People of God, and the seriousness and value of lay ministry. This more sacramental understanding of the laity opened new avenues for liturgical, catechetical, and administrative ministry within the Church.  Immediately after Vatican II, and until recently, all forms of lay ministry expanded; people knew that they were now a real part of the Church and not merely "customers" or "objects" of the priests' ministry.

Although it is not noticeable yet, there is a definite return to a pre-Vatican II theology of priesthood as exemplified in new liturgical regulations about how "ministers of Communion" are to participate in the Eucharist, who can purify sacred vessels, and the return to cassocks and other distinctive garb that separates the priest from the people. Rome and the U.S. Bishops have begun to curtail the activities of "liberal" or "leftest" groups thought to be "unorthodox," while welcoming back into the fold very right-wing religious orders and disgruntled conservative Anglicans. New restrictions are being placed on the use of or ability to speak in church-owned buildings. These moves seem to be motivated as much by the need to control as to protect the Church from heresy or schism.

Progressive Vatican II Catholics must work with theologians and receptive pastoral clergy to explain, defend and minister on the basis of their Baptism; hopefully, they can do this with the support, or at least the toleration of the institutional Church. If the Church cannot find a place and role for progressive thought and action, then we must work, not against the Church, but beyond the institution to fulfill our privileged responsibility as Baptized Catholics  to help bring about the Reign of God in the world.

This also means that  we should not get overly involved in or upset about internal debates within the Church about internal "reform." We have been defined out of that role today. We have the very important role of living the Gospel "in the world" working with the poor, abused, and neglected; with environmental issues like global warming; with other globalization issues, with immigration and peace concerns "where the rubber hits the road."

 Prayer and Meditation 

One of the most effective lay ministers "in the world" in the pre-Vatican II Church was Dorothy Day. She lived with and ministered to the most destitute people in New York City. She was a prophet for peace and justice; she was a pacifist and marched against war. She and Peter Maurin formed a local community which gave them support as they served the poor. They also founded the Catholic Worker Movement, a still-existing Christian "community-of-communities." Dorothy was open to dialogue with everyone. Although she may not have used these terms, she was a marvelous example of  "ministry ad extra" to help establish "the Reign of God." Dorothy had her difficulties with the Archbishops of New York and some other bishops, but without compromising her ministry, she was always able to work out a modus vivendi with the institutional Church.


Dorothy Day was also a woman of deep reflection, prayer, and meditation. She attended Mass and went to Holy Communion almost every day. She prayed the Rosary and expressed her faith in other devotions of her time. The point here is not that others should necessarily engage in prayer, meditation and Mass attendance in the particular ways that Dorothy did. What is important and absolutely necessary is that an inner life of prayer characterize us, especially Vatican II Progressive Catholics, who may not have frequent access to a supportive community. It is not my role to suggest that Catholics need a rigid schedule of "prayers" that must be said or a   particular form of meditation. Each person must sense the type of dialogue to which God calls her/him. Each must be aware of those in his/her community or support group to discern what is best for the group and be open to the connection between one's interior life and one's active ministry. 

The above "recommendations" can not be taken in  hand in a mechanistic fashion as five easy steps to success. Rather they might be taken as five pointers that could help individuals, communities and groups discern better how to be sustained in this contemporary desert. 

Retreat from Vatican II ?

Recent events in the Catholic Church seem to indicate that there is a retreat from the theology and practices of Vatican II. Some of these indications are:

1) The recent permission, gladly given, for the frequent celebration of the Liturgy in the Tredentine Rite.

2) Benedict XVI's minor revision of the invocation regarding the Jews in the Good Friday Liturgy for the Tredintine Rite.

3) The lifting of excommunication of 4 traditionalist bishops who reject a number of major teachings of Vatican II, one of whom is a Holocost Denier.

4) Liturgical changes in the Mass that reduce the roles of laypersons in liturgical ministries and re-ephasizes the separation of the priest-presider from the community.

5) A return to the Pre-Vatican II theology emphasizing that the priest is a different / higher level or kind of being than laypersons.

6) A retreat from emphasis on the Church as "the People of God" and the centrality of Baptism and a return to a model of the church as hierarchical institution.

Most of these changes seem innocuous in themselves and few people see larger implications in any one them , however together they pressage a return to a pre Vatican II Catholic Church of the 1950s or earlier.

Are there any others who have noticed these changes? Will the Church be better off as a result of this revision of Vatican II theology and practice?