Culture Wars in Perspective.

As part of another article, John Allen provides a long quote from the February 21st "encyclical" of Bartholomew, the Patriarch of Constantinople. In the Patriarchal document there is a positive, but careful, view of the modern world. He speaks often about the need for Orthodoxy to encounter the "modern world" and dialogue with other religious communities and other forces existing at this time in the world.

In a sense, Bartholomew's view and words are similar to those of Pope John XXIII who wanted to open the windows of the Church to dialogue with the modern world for the benefit of the Church and the world. Although aware of the defects and, yes, evil in contemporary culture, the Holy Father looked upon culture, at the very least, as a "glass half-full." The Holy Father then called the Vatican II Council which, by-and-large, succeeded.

The election of Pope John Paul II signaled a change in papal views of the Church and the World and their interrelationship. Under John Paul II, modern culture was seen more negatively. He viewed modern culture as primarily antagonistic to the Church. The Holy Father, in fact, called modern culture a "culture of death." He did not apply that phrase only to abortion, but to all of culture, so to speak, seeing modern culture as a "glass half-empty." What began with John Paul, is being implemented by Pope Benedict. This can be seen in the current emphasis on "the reform of the reform" in Liturgy, the reassertion of papal authority/control, and the almost extreme emphasis on "Secularism" and need to "re-Christianize" Europe.

Another view of modernization and modernity.

Some time ago a sociologist, Peter Berger and his colleagues wrote,  Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness (1974). Some points they made, I believe, are relevant to the apparent impasse we face today:

1. Technological change and concomitant economic development are the primary (though not sole) engines that account for changes in other aspects of society. For example, it was the development of the factory system that brought about the existence and spread of modern cities and the modern nuclear family (While we focus on our values, technology creates the parameters which constrain and limit our choice of values).
2. The secondary "carriers" of modernization and modern consciousness are the mass media and modern mass education (Not the family and the church)
3. In modern societies there is no longer an over-arching "meaning system" (E.g. Religion) that acts as a "glue" to hold society together.  (Religion loses it's "sacred" character).
4. The fundamental institutions of society (E.g. Economy, Politics, Religion, and Family) become separate and compete with each other; they create their own institutional "meaning systems and each competes for our loyalty."  We begin to wear "different hats;" We love our neighbor on Sunday. On Monday we follow the "dog eat dog" norms of business. At home we struggle to develop and maintain our "own" private family meaning systems.
5. Increasingly, individuals are free to create private meaning systems in the spaces, or interstices, not dominated by one or another institution. This, becomes what we call the private sphere.
6. All of these sociocultural changes create and foster "modern consciousness," an approach to understanding and acting in the world that sees reality as composed of inter-changeable parts among other things drawn from the economic system and human relationships based on the impersonal pigeon holes of political bureaucracy.

Modernization is an ambiguous process.

Modernization is a blessing because it has given humans greater freedom from the "vagaries" of nature. It has also give us "freedom" in the sense of greater options.

Modernization has been a curse because it has led to high levels of alienation ( a feeling of powerlessness and feeling separated from others and from the social fabric) and anomie (a sense of "normlessnes,"  loss of meaning, and aloneness, confusion and impermanence.

Most people have become disenchanted with modernity, if not with all of modernization. Creating the "private sphere" to deal with the ambiguities of the modern situation has not worked.

Berger, et. al. suggest that there have been three responses to this disenchantment:

1. To work ever harder and harder to increase modernization and modernity, carrying it to its logical conclusion (the conservative approach).
2. To actually accept that modernization and modernity are here to stay and to selectively accept, reject or modify those aspects of them that will prove most helpful to ensure continued existence of human social and cultural life with a greater development of peace, justice and community. (The moderate and liberal approach).
3. To retreat from modernity as much as possible through new nationalisms, cult-like movements and communities, or, at the extreme, to sabotage and destroy existing social arrangements and material resources (The retreatist, nativest, approach).

Many observers and commentators  claim that we already exist in a "Post-Industrial," or "Post-Modern" world and society. I disagree. Certainly the creation of the computer, many new digital devices, sophisticated software and rapid and instantaneous communication, and the rapid transfer of goods and services across the globe are inevitably pushing us further and further in the direction of a post industrial / modern society, sometimes called the "Digital Society." But we are not there yet; we are still in the process of transitioning. We must continue to construct the Post-Modern society and culture, especially in a humane form. Personally, I hope that whatever form of society that we construct will be in harmony with Christian principles.

The culture wars that we constantly hear about in the Catholic community are a prime example of the transitional state of the world and the Church. How things will settle down if they ever do, is still open. So many of the currently discussed "conflicts" in the Church are symptoms of a much deeper divide among Catholics based on fundamentally different views of the world, society and the Church. Notice how many of these issues are cast into "us verses them" terms. Or "either-or" rather than "both-and" terms. All of the differences arise from the transition period within which we live. If we place what is happening in the Church within the context of the larger world, it should highlight the importance of the process and whether the "battles" can be resolved through common dialogue or if this is a zero-sum game.

So do you think modern culture is a glass half-full or a glass half-empty?

Do you think we are already in a post-modern society or still in transition?

If these ideas resonate with you, what's next?

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 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?

The environment, Religion (and gays again?)

Although Christians have been given a bad rap because of the translation of  "subdue the earth" in Genesis, they might more accurately be criticized for accepting and reinforcing exploitative Capitalism. Be that as it may, there are many examples of Christians caring for our world, (E.g. St. Francis of Assisi). These days even Evangelical Protestants are very involved in "stewardship of the earth" (E.g. Sojourners, Jim Wallace).


Benedict's Action, not just words
Pope Benedict XVI has become extremely interested and active in environmental issues. On 26 November 2008  the Vatican began operation of a solar system (powered by 1,000 solar panels atop a major building in Vatican) for heat, lighting, air conditioning etc. Digital displays were installed  in the building so that visitors could visually see the energy savings.

Shortly after this project was in operation, The Vatican created a climate forest on a very large tract of land in Hungary. Enough trees  were planted to make up for all the carbon dioxide emitted in Vatican City State. The Vatican's aim is to make itself the first "carbon neutral" state in Europe. None of this could have been accomplished without the support and urging of Pope Benedict. "The [solar panel] project received the 2008 Euro Solar prize, awarded by by the European Association for Renewable Energy, a secular body." (See Allen, page 298).


Benedict's words support the cause of environmentalism
Although many religious leaders, especially popes are noted for using lots and lots of words, here is an example of action to be a good steward of creation and promote environmentalism. However, following upon JP II, Benedict has spoken and written much on protecting the environment. Without discussing each, I will merely list some of the "environmental issues" important to Benedict:

Climate change and global warming
Desertification
Degradation and loss of productivity in vast agricultural region
Pollution of rivers and aquifers
Loss of biodiversity
Increase in extreme weather
Deforestation of equatorial and tropical areas
Displacement of populations and "environmental refugees"
Conflict over natural resources
The global economic crisis (E.g. the selfish activities of the investment industry)
 
Benedict also proposed strategies to begin work toward protecting the environment:
1. A new mode of calculating the cost of economic activity that would factor in environmental impact
2. Greater investment in solar and other forms of energy with a  reduced environmental footprint
3. Strategies of rural development concentrated on small-scale farmers and their families
4. Progressive disarmament, including a world free of nuclear weapons


Praise and criticism of Benedict's position
A wide variety of environmentalists, whether religious or secular, have praised and supported Benedict's efforts. However, there are many who also disagree with his position. Some secularists are generally uncomfortable with Benedict's emphasis on the role he allows for a creator-god, natural law and the defense of human life (E.g. his anti-abortion stance and belief that population control is not acceptable).

Interestingly there are a large number of influential conservative Catholics who oppose the pope. Only two examples will be mentioned. An American deacon, Kieth Fournier, who fears that Benedict it too closely aligned with eco-centrists and bio-centrism is worried that the pope or Church may, "open the way to a new pantheism tinged with Neo-paganism, which would see the source of man's [sic] salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms." Tom Roeser, a Chicago "Catholic, recently wrote that Benedict's call for new government controls on the environment in his World Peace Day message 'reflects a Bismarkian view of the big state, versus appreciation of the value of entrepreneurism'." (See "Eco Skeptics)


Progressive Catholics can support Benedict, but how far?
It seems that Vatican II Progressive Catholics might find common ground to dialogue, support and work with Benedict on the environment. However, the greatest furor with the  most publicity related to Benedict's brand of "green environmentalism" relates to the way he expresses, uses, and exemplifies, the valid Catholic position that the human person is central to all life.

In the fourth paragraph of his speech to the diplomatic corps accredited to the  Holy See, Benedict says, "...this concern...for the environment should be situated within [a] larger framework...how can we separate, or even set at odds, the protection of the environment and the protection of human life, including the life of the unborn." This is the only mention of the right-to-life controversey.


Why bring up "the Gay Issue" here? Why bash Gays?
The tenth paragraph of the speech begins, "To carry our reflection further..." However what follows has no immediate and direct connection to the previous paragraphs. The pope goes on to say that,

"...the problem of the environment is complex....Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered in different ways....One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes. I am thinking, for example, of certain countries in Europe or North and South America. Saint Columban stated that: 'If you take away freedom, you take away dignity."....Yet freedom cannot be absolute, since man is not himself God....For man, the path to be taken cannot be determined by caprice or willfulness, but must rather correspond to the structure willed by the creator. (emphasis added).

My reading and my interpretation

Gay individuals, gay organizations, and heterosexual individuals who support human rights erupted in vocal opposition to these words and the message they send. A few immediate observations: Why use such a strong, aggressive word, as attack, here? Why is it necessary to fight  proposals designed to end discrimination? So is the attack necessary to fight against those who (in God's plan) are born homsexual? That can't be! Is Benedict implying that homosexuals take the path they do because of caprice or willfulness?

I think Benedict's statements in the tenth paragraph are a gratuitous, unnecessary insertions of the institutional Church's current understanding of homosexuals and homosexuality, primarily to make a point.These words were not necessary to make the argument about environmentalism.  It certainly makes one wonder whether the pope and "the Church" can even  comprehend that gay people are real individuals with the same needs and wants as every individual. (BTW, I don't think "the Church" appreciates that there are thousands and thousands of gays just in the U.S., who are or "were Catholic" and who could respond to the Church, as the People of God, if the People of God offered  an open hand of repentance, acceptance and love.


Conclusion: Where he's on target. Where he's off-base
In the end, Benedict XVI has made tremendous practical strides on environmental issues; all Catholics, at least moderate and progressive Catholics, can accept, support and further these changes. This is good. It may open a crack through  the door of collegial cooperation for the sake of the Gospel. A lot of work remains for us. We must nurture and support a love of the world and its culture as it is now. We must see the glass of modernity and post-modernity as, at least,  half full rather than half empty.

Finally, we must pry open a real, compassionate dialogue between LGBT people and the hierarchy (as well as well as in the local parish and neighborhood), lest the discrimination, harassment and unwillingness to support gays in their love and its human expressions........lead us become another Uganda and waste so many lives of God's children.


Another resource:
 "For Pope Benedict, a Different Shade of Green."

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.