St. Paul's Catholic Student Center at Boise State

Homily for Sr. Monserrat's Memorial Mass

2011-06-28T14:06:00.002-06:00

Here is the homily from the memorial Mass celebrated in Jerome in honor of Sr. Monserrat, who cared for our kids at St. Joseph's Home for Children in Tijuana. She was killed in a car wreck on Friday June 24.

Homily: Memorial Service for Sr. Monserrat

Before I took my first tip to Tijuana Ralph May sat me down and taught me the most important thing I needed to know about our mission:

We are not the heroes in this story. We drive down for a short visit, do a couple of good deeds, and go home to the comfort of our middle-class American lives. We give a little bit of our time and money. The real heroes are those people – most of them nuns – who give everything. They give their whole lives, all their attachments, all their dreams, all their hopes for the future, to God in the service of the orphans and the poor. They do God’s work. We just make sure their toilets flush and their roofs don’t leak.

Sr. Monserrat was one of those heroes. With her whole heart she devoted herself to ceaseless work. Try being a single mom with only one or two children. She had thirteen, some of them not in good health. In addition to the work itself, she faced very difficult circumstances. We learned only later that during several of the years that she worked at St. Joseph’s another nun she worked with was going through a personal crisis and melt-down that eventually had her setting aside her vows and leaving. I remember vividly how different things became after the troubled sister left. Most of us had never seen Sr. Monserrat smile, but now there was a lightness and smiling all around St. Joseph’s. We had never realized the pressure she was under.

My favorite memory of St. Moserrat is a glimpse through window of the tiny chapel at St. Joseph’s. There she was, having knelt down before the tabernacle to pray. She had leaned over just a bit to rest against the wall for a second and had fallen fast asleep. She worked so hard and rested so little!

The gift of one person’s life to God may seem like a small thing in the whole scheme of things. But God used her gift to bring all of us to St. Joseph’s, to bring all of us into touch with her and those beautiful children and with God. The outpouring of goodness that flowed from her gift still astounds me. I work hard to encourage the students at St. Paul’s to make the trip to Tijuana at least in part so they can be around people like you – holy and heroic people disguised as regular folks. But I’m convinced that your holiness would never have shone as brightly if Sr. Monserrat’s holiness hadn’t sparked the fire.

Some say that everything that happens is God’s will, that there are no accidents, that everything has a purpose. I love and respect people who hold that opinion, but they couldn’t be more wrong. It was not God’s will that Sr. Monserrat should die bloody and broken with a whole house full of kids needing her so badly. It is not God’s will that the children she gave her life to should be in the kind of peril they are in now.

But God is loving and powerful. God can bring good out of tragedy. In fact, that is God’s specialty. How else could we bear to have a cross as our Christian symbol? How can we stand to display everywhere the instrument of torture and death that claimed Jesus’ life? The reason is that Jesus, with his incredible love, with his incredible faith, with his incredible hope for us, made the cross holy, made the cross a symbol of the triumph of love over hate, of life over death.

We need to move ahead full of faith even though it is very hard to see where we are going right now. We need to start rebuilding a future for the children we love so much. We need to look forward with hope to a day when we can say: “You know, that was a really hard time when Sr. Monserrat died. We didn’t know where to go or what to do. But look at all the good that has come from that time.”

We need to join our prayers with the now much more powerful prayers of Sr. Monserrat.

Chuck Skoro

Salt of the Earth, Light of the World

2011-02-03T09:47:00.000-07:00

We are the salt of the earth. We give flavor to the life on this planet We are the light of the world. We make bright a world that tends toward dullness and darkness. That’s what this Sunday’s Gospel reading tells us. Someone was saying the other day that while many religions call us to have faith in God, Christianity is unique in that it is a religion that believes God also has faith in us. Sometimes I don’t feel much like the salt of the earth or the light of the world, but God has put me in this place and in this time and has confidence that I can do the job I am called to do. That is true for you as well. We can make a big difference in our world. God wouldn’t call us to do something that we are incapable of. (After all, who knows our capabilities better than God?)

Our best is good enough. God can work with it. God can do miracles with it.

Issues in the Catholic Church, 1910-2010

2010-03-08T14:20:00.001-07:00

Hi. These are notes for the firsts three talks that Father Hugh gave at our Wednesday evening dinners/lectures/discussions. Really good stuff. Hope you enjoy it.

Chuck

Issues in the Catholic Church, 1910-2010

St. Paul's, February 2010
Fr. Hugh Feiss, OSB

This sketch of issues that have been discussed in the Church since Vatican II, and their historical background, was developed as a preliminary introduction to discussing some of them at more length. We will take up a few in the March and April that you indicated interested you: (1) Faith, Questioning, Disagreement and Communion; (2) Church Teaching on Sexuality and How to Represent It in the Political Sphere; (3) Interpreting the Bible; (4) Mary and the Saints.

We are making "Faith, Questioning, Disagreement and Communion" the first topic in order to make clearer than these pages did the scope for questioning and disagreement in the church and the different kinds of doctrines and disciplines in the church which range from solemnly declared truths (Christ is true God and true Man, Mary's Assumption), to serious teaching (Ordination of Women), to considered opinions (immigration law reform), required observances (no meat on Ash Wednesday), and even strategic options (how to try to limit the number of abortions). How is one to deal with questions that arise in regard to all these; what do you do when you find yourself in disagreement with what the church teaches, how does one defend the church's teaching against critics or explain it to confused Catholics?

PART ONE: THE CHURCH INTERNALLY: ROLES IN THE CHURCH

Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church took more work than any other and was arguably the most important. It chose to begin with a chapter on "the mystery of the Church," in which it employed biblical metaphors to evoke rather than define what the Church is, since as a community constituted by the Holy Spirit, which is both an institution and a communion, holy and sinful, it cannot be fully described, especially in constitutional terms. The metaphors most emphasized were body of Christ, bride of Christ, and people of God. It was the latter that was the topic of chapter 2. A people is a visible and historical reality, and so the term was less mystical than the other two just mentioned. By beginning with it, the Council chose to start from what all Christians have in common, the baptism by which they are made members of God's people. The image of "people of God" also affirmed the Church's Jewish roots. Then in the next three chapters the Council discussed specific roles or states with the Church: clergy, laity and-after a section on the universal call to holiness--religious.

This approach was an invitation to start thinking of the church as the whole people of God, not just the bishops. It may also have helped shift emphasis toward intra-church quarrels about governance; in any case, since then the Spirit-inspired, invisible mystery of the church seems not to be emphasized as much as it might be

I. THE PAPACY

History

Back in the 11th and 12th centuries, the popes had worked hard to make the church independent of secular control, by insisting on the right of the pope to appoint bishops and of bishops the right to appoint parish priests. One dimension of that effort was to insist of clerical celibacy, so that clergy would be free of economic and political entanglements and family ambitions.

After the residence of the popes in Avignon (1309-1378), the papal schism during which there were two claimants to the papacy (1378-1417), and the Protestant Reformation (1517-1550), the church's independence was eroded. During the Enlightenment Period (1600-1800) nation states sought to establish internal control and to jockey for position on the world stage in various wars and alliances. In England, the king or queen was the head of the church; in Catholic countries like France, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and elsewhere, the state tried to control the church by insisting on the right to appoint or approve bishops, abbots and other church officials, and to control if not confiscate church finances.

The French Revolution accentuated the power of the state. Its ethos was to subordinate the church even more, if not to eliminate it altogether. Clergy, if allowed, were to be employees of the state and they had to swear agreement to the new constitution for the clergy. Napoleon kept several popes in prison, when they wouldn't agree to the claims of the revolutionary government to control religion tightly. Thousands of priests were killed. The manhandling of the pope aroused considerable public sympathy for the papal office.

Pius IX (1846-1878) came into office with a reputation for sympathy for liberal political policies. He was still ruler of the central part of Italy. However, radical events turned him into a political reactionary; in 1870 the Papal States were lost forever. He called the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) that was hastily suspended when Roman was invaded during the last months of the Papal States. Before Vatican I closed, it taught about the relations of faith and reason in coming to know the existence of God and declared the infallibility of papal teaching, under certain specified conditions, regarding revealed truths on faith and morals. Pius IX was a likeable person and that counter-balanced the reactionary attitudes of his later years.

Subsequent Popes--Leo XIII (1878-1903) Pius X (1903-1914), Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII (1939-1958) John XXIII (1958-1963), Paul VI, John-Paul I, John-Paul II, and Benedict XVI-had high respect for the most part. Deprived of the Papal States, their authority was moral and spiritual rather than political. They maintained diplomatic ties with most nations, but tried to remain politically neutral. In 1929 a concordant was signed with Italy, which gave the Vatican a small amount of territory and some financial compensation to guarantee its independence from Italy.

Issues

During the 20th century the high prestige of the papacy tended to foster centralization of church government. The central government of the church is usually referred to as "The Vatican" after the name of the territory where it is located. This has created some tension about the respective roles of local bishops and bishops' conferences and the papacy. Some argue that the church has become too centralized, so that it violates its own principle of "subsidiarity," which says that decisions should be left at the lower levels unless there is an evident need to move them to a higher level. Less centralized Protestant and Orthodox churches (the latter tend to be organized as national churches) are prodding the papacy to rethink its role as part of the movement toward ecumenical convergence and reunion. That is, how should we imagine the role of the papacy in, let's say, a reunion of the Eastern Rite Catholic and Orthodox churches in the Ukraine, or a union of the Roman Catholic and Coptic churches, or the Roman Catholic and Swedish Lutheran Churches.

Some specific issues currently have to do with approving liturgical books and the biblical translations used in them, appointing bishops, and oversight of theological teaching. One of the Vatican Congregations, the CDF, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, oversees theological teaching. Pope Benedict was head of it for many years; now it is an American, Cardinal Levada. From time to time, they ask a theologian to explain and/or correct something he has written. Some say that the CDF is too heavy-handed.

II. CLERGY, RELIGIOUS …

History

Holy Orders is a sacrament which can be received in three steps or orders: deacon, priest and bishop. The pope has to be a bishop (since he is bishop of Rome); cardinals could be anyone, though according to current church practice they must be a bishop, with a few elderly--and so non-voting--exceptions who are priests. Deacons had continued to exist in the Orthodox, Oriental and Eastern Catholic churches. Vatican II decided to make some changes: they wanted to state clearly that the three stages of the Holy Orders were all sacraments; they emphasized that the bishops together with the pope form a collegiate body or community which in virtue of episcopal ordination is collectively responsible for the whole church (beyond the individual bishop's appointment to responsibility for specific diocese) and they recognized that bishops of a nation or region could form a conference which worked together to minister to that country or region (e.g., in preparing catechisms or setting up seminaries or whatever). These conferences have subsequently pretty much rendered obsolete the old system of bishops forming provinces under the direction of an archbishop, although in large nations like the US the bishops are divided into regions that have some shared activities and often contains several archbishops.
.
In the Western church the presence of permanent deacons had pretty well died out by the 20th century and had been on the decline for some centuries before that. There were various reasons, but one surely was that in much of the Middle Ages there were priests who could do everything, so there was less need for deacons. However, Vatican II decided to restore the deaconate. At first, the restoration was fairly ragged, but gradually programs and procedures have become more established. Over what is usually a four-year, but part-time formation period, Deacons are trained to preach, officiate at baptisms and marriages, take part as ministers in the Eucharist, and so forth. Traditionally, they had big responsibilities for the church's charitable activities. At the time of his ordination, a deacon can be either married or unmarried, but after he is ordained he cannot marry.

Issues

At the time of Vatican II, the number of priests and sisters was generally adequate in Europe and North America, which also supplied missionary priests and religious to Africa, China and the rest of South-East Asia. Vatican II coincided with profound cultural changes, which in ways that are not well understood caused a sharp decline in religious practice in Europe and to a precipitous fall in vocations to the priesthood and religious life in Europe and North America. Those who dislike the changes brought by Vatican II blame them, but this seems unfounded. The change in the opportunities open to women certainly affected vocations to women's religious orders; the rapid changes in society blurred the role of priest and religious and diminished awareness of the transcendent; new attitudes and permissiveness in regard to sexuality made celibacy seem less desirable or even impossible. One possible contribution of Vatican II to the decline in religious vocations after the Council was that it insisted that lay life is also a road to holiness. One could ask, if that is so, why go the "bother" of being a priest or religious?

A host of issues swirls around priesthood and religious life. Why are there not more men and women joining religious orders or going to the seminary? Do we need a new form of religious life? Should celibacy be made optional for priests? Can and should women be ordained deacons, priests, bishops, and if the latter, popes? Why are more conservative orders-e.g., women's orders that continue to wear very distinct garb-attracting more vocations. Are they are niche phenomenon appealing to a conservative minority, or do they have something others have lost?

Incontestably, the pedophilia scandals among Catholic clergy have hurt the reputation of the Catholic priesthood in the United States and Ireland particularly. The actual abuse is awful, but the hypocrisy of those who did it, and the misjudgment of the bishops who didn't remove them from ministry, thinking that pedophilia was a moral lapse, not a deep-seated perversion, or fearing the damage to the church's reputation, have added to the backlash. Having read a great deal about the scandal while it was occurring and having talked with an outspoken psychiatrist about it at length, I think that it is probably true that professions which deal with children or adolescents attract pedophiles-the incidence of pedophilia among ministers of other faiths is probably about the same as among Catholic priests. Statistically, 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children. Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases. Most child sexual abuse is committed by men; studies show that women commit 14% to 40% of offenses reported against boys and 6% of offenses reported against girls. Most offenders who abuse prepubescent children are pedophiles; however, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia.

Two good things have come out of the scandal. Our society, and especially our church, is much more aware of the danger and the church especially has taken extensive measures to guard against it. In our diocese one measure is "safe environment training." Another is to invite anyone who knows of any sexual abuse or who claims to have suffered from it to let the bishop know. The other good outcome is that the tendency toward tolerance of pedophilia, and even to see it as cutting edge behavior, has been squelched-witness the reaction of Roman Polanski's arrest in Switzerland to answer charges of sexual abuse of a young girl. The American press was almost universally condemnatory.

III . . . AND LAITY

HISTORY

Relations between laity and clergy have varied throughout the ages. In medieval times there was nothing like democracy as we know it. Lay lords, kings, and emperors exercised considerable control over the church in regard to the appointment of clergy. The popes of the 11th and 12th centuries struggled hard to get the church free of such lay control. They also said that as the spiritual representatives of God they had power over lay rulers to insist on upright behavior, respect for the church and so forth, and at times the popes claimed the right to depose unjust rulers. However, there was nothing like democracy as we know it, either in secular life or in the church. In places in the Middle Ages, and in some specific places today, the clergy of a diocese or part of them, have the right to nominate candidates for bishops, who then are approved by the papacy. According to the Rule of St. Benedict, monks elected their abbot, but once elected he had the final say, though he was supposed to consult the community on all major decisions. (Now he would have to have majority approval for a major decision, like admitting a new member, building a church, and so forth.)

In a hierarchical society lords ruled over peasants and bishops over priests. Priests themselves had a great deal of authority in their parishes; they were often the most educated person there and had great deal of respect. In my youth, a parish was run by the priest, but lay volunteers did many things: from teaching and administering religious education programs, boy and girl scouts, sports leagues, Knights of Columbus (and many other societies), parish dinners, soup kitchens and other services to the poor, taking census, working on fund drives, helping keep up the parish buildings and so forth. Often there was a parish school; the principal was usually a sister, but the ultimate authority was the pastor.

This picture has altered radically in 40 years. The pastor now has a parish counsel and a finance counsel and a pastoral counsel. The school may be closed; if it is not, it probably has all or almost all lay teachers. The percentage of working mothers has risen dramatically, so women are not able to volunteer the way they used to. The number of lay employees is way up; there is probably a deacon working in the parish, most often as a volunteer or close to it. Some of the traditional organizations have died or have only older members, since older people are the only ones with time to donate. A paid catechist probably runs the catechetical program. Tens of thousands of lay people have enrolled in theology and ministry programs, some in hopes of finding full time employment in the church; others in order to enrich their faith and volunteer.

Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church taught that the specific calling of the laity is to bring gospel values to life in the secular sphere. In other words, all this involvement of the laity in the parish is not the primary and distinctive apostolic work of the laity. As lawyers, they are to make the justice system more just and equitable; as car mechanics they are to make cars run better and pollute less; as teachers they are to try to improve the education and formation of the young. In their professions they are to speak out on moral issues and to give good example.

Issues

Granted the rapid changes just discussed, there are plenty of issues left. Should there be more democracy in the church: e.g., Should lay people have more or quasi-complete control of churches' physical assets? Should lay people have more say in the appointment of bishops and priests? How much should lay input be determinative of church teaching? What is the place of public opinion and lobbying in the church? How can the laity be supported and mobilized to bring gospel values to the various segments of secular society? How can lay people-children, teenagers, young adults, adults-be formed in the doctrines, traditions and practice of their faith.

4. POLARITY

History

Our nation has become polarized: Fox news vs. the New York Times or the New Yorker. Republicans vs. Democrats in Congress where votes are on party lines. The same is true at least to some extent in the US Catholic church: e.g., National Catholic Register vs National Catholic Reporter. In these two newspapers and in much of the media the line between news and editorializing has blurred. People hug labels like "orthodox" and "liberal" like blankets or wield them like swords. This makes it hard to have intelligent conversations or debates. I think that the polarization may be a special sin of my generation; perhaps it will lessen with time. I think you are too smart and too good to fall into it.
.
One way of thinking about the polarization in the Catholic Church is to ask what people think about the 1950s. Conservatives look at the 50s through rose-colored glasses; liberals see them through dark, gloomy ones. Probably both views are distorted.

Issues

One of the dangers is that liberal Catholics will drift off into other churches which are very vague about doctrine and morals, whereas conservative ones will convert to Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, or they will hook up with schismatic Catholics like the Society of Pius X. The latter make the Mass as renewed at Vatican II a benchmark; they insist on saying Mass according to the old way. Such leakage is probably inevitable though.

Meanwhile, Pope Benedict XVI is trying to heal the schism with the society of Pius X. He has extended the possibility of using the pre-Vatican II mass. The code words are "Tridentine" (i.e., the Mass prayers and rubrics as set by Pius V) for the pre-Vatican II Mass, and "Novus Ordo" (Mass texts and rubrics revised after Vatican II) for the post-Vatican II Mass. As we saw earlier the difference is not in substance but in the level and kind of participation. The schismatic conservatives, though, object that the New Mass is not even valid. Their arguments seem very convoluted to me. It seems that much of the energy on this issue comes from using the Mass form as a symbol for their anger at the changes that have been introduced. The danger there is that they will become a fifth column within the church, because they more or less completely reject Vatican II. The last few popes' efforts to restore unity with the Eastern Orthodox churches will certainly not pull the church in a liberal direction on most issues. More of that when we get to Ecumenism.

Can we agree to disagree on non-essential and even on non-defined matters, but live together peacefully if our view does not prevail?

Spirituality might be another issue. Vatican II, I think, tried to focus spirituality on the most essential things: the death and rising of Christ, the sacraments and the Bible. A typical 1970s church highlighted altar, pulpit and cross (sometimes showing a risen Christ), and otherwise was fairly plain. It would seem that such an austere focus on the center-the Paschal Mystery--doesn't work for everyone. At least there is growing interest in devotions like Benediction, the Rosary, Divine Mercy, and so forth. Probably need to know how to have these in a theologically responsible form without losing sight of the center.

The coming of the world wide church puts many of these arguments in perspective. A Chinese Catholic or an African Catholic is not likely to be enamored of the Tridentine Mass.

PART TWO: LIVING TRADITION IN THE CHURCH

1. THE BIBLE

History

The understanding and interpretation of the Bible began to change fairly radically in the 19th century, especially in Germany, when scholars began applying to it the newly refined methods of textual and historical analysis. At first, Catholics were very suspicious of these new trends. For example, early in the 20th century, Pope Pius X issued some rather heavy-handed criticisms of new theories about the writing of the book of Genesis. In 1909 he provided for the founding of the Biblical Institute in Rome, which has been administered by the Jesuit Order and is now one of the leading institutes of biblical studies in the world. A second Biblical Institute, the Ecole Biblique, administered by the Dominican Order, is located in Israel.

In 1943, Pope Pius XII, issued an encyclical, that is, a general letter, on biblical studies, called Divino afflante spiritu, which was a judicious endorsement of modern biblical studies: i.e., the study of ancient languages, the effort of interpreters to understand the mind of the author, a more supple understanding of how the Holy Spirit inspires the biblical authors, the importance of figuring out what sort of writing a biblical book is: short story, folk history, law code, and so forth.

What Pope Pius XII began with this encyclical was endorsed and furthered by Vatican II's document On Divine Revelation, and by other documents of the council, e.g., the ones on liturgy and the church, which sought to bring out the biblical basis and richness of Catholic teaching and practice. Moreover, the contemporary Pontifical Biblical Commission has offered solid guidance for biblical studies.

Vatican II deepened and to some extent altered the Catholic understanding of the relation of Scripture and Tradition. In a nutshell, it said Scripture and Tradition form one interlocking whole. There was Catholic life and thought being handed on before any NT book was written; the NT books express what was the tradition up to the time they were written. At the same time, once written the NT books were recognized as divinely inspired and collected into an official list ("canon") that is our Bible today. What the Bible says is normative for the faith of the Church ever after. This recognition of how the Bible came to be written provides a challenge to the Protestant understanding of "Scripture alone," as does the recognition that no one reads the Bible (or the newspaper) in a vacuum, but as someone shaped by the tradition(s) in which he lives.

Since Vatican II, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish scholars have been able to work closely together on biblical studies, when they all approach the biblical writings as historians and detached observers trying to figure out what the biblical text means. This is called the historical-critical study of the Bible. For instance, for the last 150 years or more there have been repeated efforts to get at the "historical Jesus," that is, to figure out what historical research-archeological and literary-can tell us about who Jesus was.

Issues

There are obvious limitations to the historical-critical approach-the authors of the gospel did not write like modern historians, but as believers writing for other believers. If we try to separate out their faith in Jesus in order to see what we can know using ordinary historical methods, we get a distorted and partial picture of what they tell us about Jesus. Also, historical research alone will never show us that Jesus was who the church believes him to be-fully God and fully man. So, recently, there have been an increasing number of voices arguing that, without abandoning the strengths and accomplishments of the historical-critical method, we need to explore new ways to interpret the bible that give more scope to faith and devotion.

One very positive outcome of all this has been a growing acquaintance of Catholics with the Bible. There have been new, more readable and accurate translations, a much richer selection of biblical readings at Mass, and various bible study programs. Oddly, while Catholics who have been touched with these efforts, now know much more about the Bible than say Catholics of 100 years ago, overall knowledge of the bible has declined sharply in our society. That was evident in Mike Huckabee's campaign for the Presidency. He is a minister and his speeches were full of biblical allusions that most of his listeners didn't get, but that people like me just took for granted. English literature professors notice the same thing decline in biblical knowledge. So how should the Bible function in the lives of Catholics, and how can the come to know the Bible better?

A final issue concerns bible translations, and derivatively translations of the liturgical books. The issue boils down to how literal to be; the alternative to "literal" is dynamic equivalent. Here, for example, is the wonderful Masai Creed worked out by people of that culture in collaboration with the Holy Ghost Fathers. It doesn't claim to be a translation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed we say at Sunday Mass, but such a paraphrase illustrates what "dynamic equivalence" could be if carried to extreme.

We believe in the one High God, who out of love created the beautiful world and everything good in it. He created Man and wanted Man to be happy in the world. God loves the world and every nation and tribe on the Earth. We have known this High God in darkness, and now we know Him in the light. God promised in the book of His word, the Bible, that He would save the world and all the nations and tribes.
We believe that God made good His promise by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, a man in the flesh, a Jew by tribe, born poor in a little village, who left His home and was always on safari doing good, curing people by the power of God, teaching about God and man, showing the meaning of religion is love. He was rejected by his people, tortured and nailed hands and feet to a cross, and died. He lay buried in the grave, but the hyenas did not touch him, and on the third day, He rose from the grave. He ascended to the skies. He is the Lord.
We believe that all our sins are forgiven through Him. All who have faith in Him must be sorry for their sins, be baptised in the Holy Spirit of God, live the rules of love and share the bread together in love, to announce the Good News to others until Jesus comes again. We are waiting for Him. He is alive. He lives. This we believe. Amen.
Another issue that involves the Bible, the Liturgy and the Catechism, is gender language. Take this phrase: "The salvation promised to Abraham and his descendants forever." Should this be changed to "Abraham, Sarah and their descendants forever"? Or when Paul in his epistles addresses his readers as "adelphoi" which literally means brothers, but could mean "brothers and sisters" how do we translate. In translating the Catechism of the Catholic Church into English-for all the English speaking people in the world, not just for the US--it was decided not to use inclusive language, but to use "man" to stand for both men and women. Or consider "homo factus est," "and he became man/a human being." Homo means human being not man, but in earlier English (and to some degree in Latin," "he became man" meant not just that Jesus became a human being, but they he identified with humankind (one of the meanings of "man") and we lose that when we translate "a human being." Would it be better to translate "he became flesh," which of course is not exactly what "homo factus est" means. The liturgical books we have were translated from the Latin forty years ago. An upcoming revision, mainly at the insistence of the Vatican, will be more literal. So, there is lots to argue about-but the argument is over more than translation theory; it ferocity derives from feminist issues, who calls the shots, and how far should we go toward adapting to current ways of thinking and speaking.
2. LITURGY

History

Liturgy in itself is a conservative activity. On February 3, St. Blaise's feastday, we have the blessing of throats It is a medieval customs that lasted all this time. It amazing to look at the oldest descriptions of the Eucharist from the second - fourth century; most of them are very similar to the way we do the Eucharist today. The Council of Trent (1545-1563), which was convened to make a thorough reform of the church and respond to Protestant criticisms and theology, called for a new missal (i.e., sacramentary and lectionary) to be used throughout the whole church. That way they hoped to avoid abuses and the development of odd practices. The Protestant insistence on the vernacular seems to have caused the Catholic Church to reaffirm the validity of Latin. The new missal was published under St. Pius V (1550). It was revised a number of times after that. It was supposed to be used everywhere. But in the 18th c. in France, especially, some bishops with Gallican (nationalistc) or Jansenist (rigorist) leanings published their own missals.

In the 19th century these local variants were eliminated at the urging of pioneers in what came to be known as the "liturgical movement." That movement wanted people to be more involved in the liturgy, and so promoted the use of bilingual or vernacular missals so people could follow along in their vernacular language. An enormous amount of historical scholarship led to a far better understanding of how the liturgy had developed over time. This led to some commonly held conclusions: some parts of the post-Council of Trent way of celebrating the Eucharist were probably extraneous and unnecessary; there were too many saints days; the biblical readings should be expanded and enriched; the whole Mass should be in the vernacular; music in the vernaculars should be developed; people should more actively participate; the liturgy is something quite distinct from private prayer; that sermons should expound the Scriptures; communion should be with both the bread and the cup. All of this was widely held among scholars and liturgical reformers by 1960, although the appreciation of these ideas among clergy and laity was spotty.

When Vatican II was called the first document to be ready for discussion was the document on the Liturgy. It called for a thorough revision of all the liturgical rites, including sacraments and the Liturgy of the Hours. Doing all of that took about 10 years after the council.

Issues

Since the liturgy touches the whole person-it is not primarily a matter of words-it has served as a central symbol of the changes Vatican II introduced. Those who opposed those changes tended to make Eucharistic liturgy their rallying cry. The most radical said that Pius V had decreed that the liturgical books should never be changed, which of course was not what he meant. A group of priests and people, led by Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991), a Frenchman who was an missionary archbishop in Africa, opposed the changes introduced by Vatican II and insisted that only Mass celebrated according to Pius V's missal was valid (although they accepted the last official version of that, from 1962, which had the accumulated changes since 1575). They called themselves the Society of Pius X and are still around in various places. Pope Benedict is trying to get them to return to the church. As a gesture of good will he allowed use of the 1962 version of the Tridentine Missal and lifted some excommunications of the illegally ordained Society of Pius X bishops, but so far they have not shown much enthusiasm for entering into full communion with the church. Pope Benedict has been criticized for yielding too much ground to these dissenters, in part because he is thought to be sympathetic with their more conservative theological inclinations.

Compared to that issue, others concerning liturgy are minor. What sort of music is best to sing in church will always be an issue. Is singability or musical quality most important? What are the roles of choir and congregation? Should there be liturgical dance? How much local adaptation should there be (the word used for this is "inculturalization")? And currently there is the debate about changes in the new translations that are supposed to come out in 2011, which in the big scheme of things are actually fairly minor.

3. MARY AND THE SAINTS

History

Devotion to the saints and to Mary developed slowly in the early church. In a church where martyrdom was a possibility, martyrs were heroes, models of fidelity. They were also dead, and Christians venerated their burial places and honored the anniversaries of their death (which they referred to as their "birthdays."). Then other saintly Christians-confessors, virgins, monks, pastors, teachers, were also honored. At the Reformation Luther and other critics claimed that the veneration of the saints had become rife with abuse and superstition. Influenced by humanism's criticism of medieval culture, they rejected legendary accounts and pilgrimages to shrines that claimed to have miracle working relics and so forth. It became common among a certain kind of fundamentalist Protestant to accuse Catholics of worshipping the saints, which today is an absurd idea.

At Vatican II, the main issue was how much emphasis to give to Mary; e.g., a special document just on her. Some devout bishops seem to have felt (and still do) that one cannot give too much veneration to Mary. Others felt that it was important to put things in perspective. The latter won out: Mary was included in the document on the church, as the final chapter (8). The previous chapter, called "the pilgrim church" paved the way, by pointing to the communion of saints which unites all the baptized who are faithful, whether they are still alive or already dead. Mary, then, is seen as a member of the communion of saints, even if a uniquely privileged one.

Issues

Some Marian devotions are controversial: e.g., promises associated with making the nine first Fridays or five first Saturdays, or Medjugorje. Overall, though, there is little in Marian devotions that is required of any of us, and the church tries to keep abuses from creeping in, although generally people are given the benefit of the doubt, because of their sincerity.

The more Catholic-leaning Anglicans and Lutherans are open to devotion to Mary, but Marian doctrine and devotion remains an abrasive issue with many Protestants.

A few theologians go so far as to question such doctrines as the virginity of Mary, arguing that the Virgin birth was a symbol rather than a fact or that Mary had other children after Jesus, even if he was virginally conceived. On the other hand, there are some people, very devoted to Mary, who want Mary declared the "Mediatrix" (feminine of "mediator") or "Co-Redemptrix." Their explanation of these titles is usually orthodox, but if so, then the question is why use them if they are misleading and ecumenically harmful by seeming to undercut the unique role of Christ as the one Mediator between God and humankind.

As far as the saints go, there is not a great deal of controversy. Some people are offended by the legends about the saints: e.g., about Santiago de Compostela who body was supposed to have miraculously washed ashore. I find that if in such matters one can't really separate out the hard facts from the bigger story it doesn't matter much. These are stories; their point is not really historical, but theological or inspirational. However, there is something a little disconcerting about praying to a saint who may well have never lived-e.g., St. Christopher or St. Philomena, but I suppose there are enough "Christ-bearers" and "Beloveds" or "Lovers" in heaven that someone there will hear our prayers.

PART THREE: THE CHURCH IN THE WORLD

1. THE GLOBAL PICTURE: A WORLD CHURCH

History

The changing demographics of the worldwide church are probably the most significant change in the church is the last 100 years. Lamin Sanneh, a lay Catholic from Ghana who is professor at the Yale Divinity School has written some striking books about this. Here are some of the statistics he cites for Africa and China:

Africa

1900: 8.7mm Christians = 9% of 107.86mm. Majority of Christians were Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox. There were 34.5 mm Muslims = 32%

1962: 60mm Christians (23 mm Prot, 27mm Catholics, 10 mm Orthodox), 145mm Muslims.

In 1970, 120 mm. Christians

1985. By then pessimism about collapse of post independence states and waning confidence in church in Europe. Churches were only viable structures remaining and had to shoulder burden of societies' problems. Most Christians there are poor. 16,500 conversions a day = 6mm/year. By contrast, between 1970 and 1985, 4,300 people were leaving the church in Europe and America each day. In 2008, there were 100,000 converts to Catholicism in the US. Converts to Christianity in Africa came almost exclusively from societies whose people had preserved the indigenous name for God. Christian expansion accelerated after colonialism.

In 1998 330mm
In 2000: 350mm
In 2023 600mm Christians. Africa then would have more Christians than any other continent except South America.

China

o Official counts indicate that there are 7.5mm Catholics in mainline China. If one takes into account the underground churches, there are between 30 and 90mm Christians in the country. oChinese economic expansion is likely to bring it into conflict with Catholic Social Teaching, oThe loosening of family and community bonds and support has left students disenchanted, dislocated and stressed and depressed about their uncertain futures. The one-child per family policy has nurtured a culture of individualism.
o In the midst of such ferment, sympathy for religion seems to run deep, and so does official unease. oOfficial Chinese bureaucracy can't do much about unorganized Pentecostal Christianity, which is spreading very rapidly. By 2025, 90mm people may be involved in that movement.

Christianity will certainly grow in China. The question is what role it will play, if the following likely scenario occurs. In a few decades Christians will make up 20/30% of the Chinese population. It will have the largest group of Protestants of any country in the world. If Christians shape Chinese mentality, it will be marked by international responsibility, restraint, justice, stability and choice. Christianity then could give China a moral center, which it needs. Chinese expatriates will play an important role also.

Issues

I'm not sure what all the issues are with globalization, but they will be the result of the fact that today 2/3rds of the Catholics in the world live in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and that percentage is likely to rise. This will mean most popes and cardinals will probably come from those areas. As these peoples have a greater voice in the church, they will probably push Western Christians to think about economic and other disparities differently.

What were mission countries 25 years ago are now sending missionary clergy to the US and Europe. This is not just a Catholic phenomenon; several Anglican bishops in England are immigrants. How to adapt to this and make the most of it? Language and cultural differences; more traditional outlook of most of the missionaries coming to America.

Aging population in many Western countries means that church's ministry will need new emphases: ministry to the elderly and to immigrants who are once again a very significant part of the general population of the US and of the Catholic population especially.

Another issue is the extreme pressure on and fragility of most of the Christian populations in the Near East: Iraq, Palestine, Syria and even Egypt. Their demise would mean the loss of a very rich tradition. Perhaps the new places where Christianity is on the rise will eventually more than compensate.

2. ECUMENISM AND INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE

There are about 2.2 billion Christians in the world and half of them are Catholics. There are 500 million Protestants 225 million Eastern Orthodox. There are 1.5 billion Muslims, 1.4 billion Hindus, and perhaps 300,000 million Buddhists, and 18 million Jews (5mm in Israel; 5mm in the US). The percentage of Pentecostals Christians has grown from 5% to 20% in last quarter century

HISTORY

World Council of Churches. Although not fully constituted until 1948, the predecessor bodies to the World Council of Church began to form already in 1910. Two of them, Faith and Order and Life and Work, are now divisions of the WCC. The organization defines itself as follows:
"The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is a community of churches on the way to visible unity in one faith and one Eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and in common life in Christ. It seeks to advance towards this unity, as Jesus prayed for his followers, "so that the world may believe." (John 17:21)."
"The goal of the World Council of Churches is not to build a global 'super-church', nor to standardize styles of worship, but rather to deepen the fellowship of Christian churches and communities so they may see in one another authentic expressions of the 'one holy, catholic and apostolic church'."
The WCC members then profess that Christ is God and Savior and that Christians have a common calling to the glory of one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. WCC member churches today include nearly all the world's Orthodox churches, scores of denominations from such historic traditions of the Protestant Reformation as Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist and Reformed, and a broad representation of united and independent churches. The Catholic Church is not a member, in part because it does it has had hesitations about what membership would signify, but also because it is so large that it might swamp the other churches and be resented by them. However, it works closely with the WWC and has representatives on all its committees.
In many ways, Vatican II was a kind of highpoint in the ecumenical movement. By then the Catholic Church was deeply involved in ecumenical dialog, and Protestant and Orthodox observers wee invited to the council and were listened to although they were not voting members. Vatican II issued short decrees On Ecumenism and On the Relations of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. These praised what had been achieved and were encouraging toward continued ecumenical effort
Dialogue occurs within the WCC, but there are also multi-lateral dialogues, and bi-lateral dialogues between the Catholic Church and another religious community. Two of the most important bi-lateral dialogues have been those with the Lutherans (an agreement was reached on Justification, which Luther said was the key issue) and substantial agree was attained with the Anglicans (ARCIC: Anglican Roman-Catholic International Commission) on the Eucharist (1971/79) and by 1981 some agreement was reached on ministry and authority. In subsequent phases progress was made on topics such as salvation, communion, and teaching authority. ARCIC has continued to dialogue, but the ordination of women and more especially the ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson, who was living in a homosexual relationship, have chilled its hopes. Some Anglican congregations want to join the Catholic Church, and Pope Benedict has offered them corporate membership in which they can keep many of their traditions-with a status analogous to that of one of Eastern Catholic Churches. This notion of corporate reunion has long been thought a viable road toward church unity, but because this involves only a small minority of Anglicans, it has been controversial.
Dialogue with between Roman Catholics and Jews seems to occur mainly in America. The question of whether the Pope did enough to save the Jews during WWII bedevils it. However, one result has been that Catholic theologians generally call into question the idea of supercessionism-that with the New Covenant with Christ the Older Covenant with the Jews was ended. One facet of dialog with Buddhists is inter-monastic retreats and discussions. For example, there have been three such dialogs at Gethsemane Abbey. The first was published as a book; the second is on line; and the third is supposed to come out anytime. I don't know anything about dialogue with Muslims, but I know there are efforts being made.
Issues
In late 2007, Cardinal Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, addressed the Pope and the Cardinals and soon-to-be cardinals on the topic of Ecumenism. He made five points: (1) Ecumenism is a Christian obligation, because Jesus willed that his church be one. Genuine ecumenism is a process of conversion and of commitment to the truth, not relativism. The most important outcome of ecumenism thus far is that we have rediscovered ourselves as brothers and sisters and sought unity together. Three fields, quite different: with Churches of the first millennium; with Reformation churches; and with the Pentecostal movement that is growing so rapidly. (2) Eastern Churches: (a) Christological agreements with patriarchs of the pre-Chalcedonian ("Oriental"=Iraq, Syria, Egypt etc.) churches achieved in 1980s. Now discussion of nature of the church. (b) Orthodox churches. We are very close to these and are in process of mutual reconciliation. New problems after end of Soviet Empire, because the Eastern Catholic Churches were legal again and seen as a threat by the Orthodox ("Uniatism", a problem especially acute in the Ukraine, where Latin Catholics, Eastern Catholics and Orthodox all need to coexist). Russian Orthodox unhappy when four Roman Catholic dioceses established in Russia in 2002. But dialogue has been restarted and primacy of the Bishop of Rome is being discussed. (3) Agreement on justification; collaboration in humanitarian sphere. Growing confidence and desire for unity. But big transformation is occurring: (a) Eucharistic communion, which for Catholics presupposes ecclesial communion, but does not for others; also families of mixed faith; (b) new problems in ethical sphere, where we are less able to give common witness and the Protestant churches are experiencing grave internal conflicts; (c) resurgence of liberal theology among Protestants, which tend to dilute some key doctrinal bases of agreement; sometimes in seems our common "patrimony has begun to melt away here and there like the glaciers in the Alps." (d) Splintering of Christian groups in places like Africa. (e) Positive developments: (i) growth of evangelical groups whose Christology and ethics agree with ours, though they have very different ecclesiologies, sacramental theology, Biblical exegesis and understanding of tradition. (ii) High Church Anglican and Lutherans who are close to Catholics of many questions. (iii) Growth of monasticism in Protestant groups. (iv) Groups like Taize and Bose, where grass roots ecumenism occurs. Thus new and promising forms of dialogue are emerging alongside the official ones that have often become difficult. (4) 400 million Pentecostals worldwide, growing. Little organization, so hard to dialogue. Some very aggressive in their missionary methods. We need to ask ourselves why they are growing and drawing people from our church. How can we respond? (5) How to travel the path of ecumenism in immediate future? (a) We must begin from the common patrimony of faith and remain faithful to that which, with the help of God, we have been able to accomplish ecumenically. As far as possible we must bear common witness to this faith in a world that is increasingly secularized. (b) On this basis, dialogue in a clear but non-polemical way regarding what separates us. (c) Need ecumenism of prayer and conversion. "Without a true spirituality of communion, which gives room to the other without the renunciation of our own identity, all of our projects would become arid and empty activism."

3. CHURCH AND WORLD

History
Church and State. In the New Testament, there are different takes on the relationship of the church to the world. These reflect different situations and different emphases. When Paul urges Christians not to appear as subversives or libertines, but act as good citizens, he is primarily concerned about giving the right impression. When the Book of Revelation fiercely attacks the Roman Empire, it may be because the author experienced it as a persecutor. When 1 Peter says Christians are strangers in the world, whose true homeland is elsewhere, the author reminds his readers to keep before their eyes the big picture, which includes a temporal existence on earth and eternal life in heaven.
Many people today would say that the close intertwining of church and state stemming from Constantine's support of the church was a big mistake, which had bad effects on both. However, during the Enlightenment (17-18th centuries), when people who opposed the monarchies and promoted democratic causes were usually anti-clerical, it was hard for believers to see how secularization of politics, education and health care, and other dimensions of human life, could be beneficial
The French Revolution and its aftermath presented Christians with the stark choice: accept a secularized and often-anti Christian political order and try to change it from within, or withdraw from active involvement, or pine for the Christendom of the past. E.g., when Rome was conquered in 1870 and made part of Papal States, the popes withdrew into the Vatican. Finally, in 1929, pope recognized Italy and Italy recognized the independence of Vatican City State.
At Vatican II, the Church tried to affirm all that was good in modern society and indicate its openness to dialogue and development. Its pastoral constitution, The Church and the Modern World, affirmed advances in science and technology, the recognition of political and religious freedom (there was separate Vatican II document on this, largely due to the work of the American Jesuit, John Courtney Murray). Generally speaking the document kept to a mediating position, there are many good things in modernity, but they also have their dangers.
Today, people in general are less optimistic about modernity than they were in the 1960s. To them modernity seems to have brought us to a number of impasses: environmental-we are living in a way that is going to have bad effects on future generations; economic-we have become accustomed to a debt-ridden lifestyle that seems unsustainable, and in America particularly to a polarization about the role of government; individualism has come to the point that communities at all levels are threatened; the foundations of human rights are being undercut; technology is running ahead of common sense and morality; empirical reason and logic don't seem to be enough to guide human life.
H. Richard Niebuhr, an American Lutheran theologian wrote books on the theme of Christ and Culture in which he analyzed different ways in which the Christian church can relate to culture: as its spiritual arm; as its critic; in dialectical tension (yes, but); as leaven from within. This last way has generally been the predominant Catholic outlook.
Issues

We will have to think about how the church interfaces with NGOs and multinational corporations; how it is to develop its social teaching (both as a body of doctrine and as an activity) in the new globalized world, and to a world in which environmental issues are becoming very serious? What is the role of Catholic charitable activities the welfare state?

We will need to think about how we can influence society. It seems like we mainly are trying to do it through lobbying and public policy statements from the bishops. How can the laity be mobilized to be leaven-their primary apostolate?

Is anti-Catholicism a problem and if so what can we do about it?

Dorothy Day would probably fit most easily into the Christ against culture model, even though she much admired St. Thomas' theology. Her standpoint was that of the unemployed street people of the depression era, and of an absolute respect for life and detestation of war, which made her a pacifist even during WWII. Perhaps standing at the side of the poor gives a very different perspective than if one looks at things from the suburbs or the university.

Vatican II coincided with the end of the Catholic ghetto. Catholics achieved economic and educational parity and moved to the suburbs and the professions. In many ways they assimilated: considering all baptized Catholics (of whom a minority are regular in the practice of their faith [when polled some 40% of people in US say they went to church the previous week; the actual number may be under 30%]) there are no strong differences between Catholics and the rest of Americans on abortion, at least according to many sociological studies. Divorce is about as high among people identifying themselves as Catholics as among the general population. Artificial contraception is almost as widely accepted among Catholics as among Protestants. In some ways, this shows that cultural mores, especially in a society drenched with secular media, have enormous impact. Can we do anything to change that?

PART FOUR: ETHICAL ISSUES

1. CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING; SOCIAL OR STRUCTURAL SIN
Social Teaching. Beginning with Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerun novarum (1891), which drew on some pioneering work by nineteenth-century Catholic thinkers, the papacy has spearheaded the development of what is called modern Catholic Social Teaching, which tries to apply the teaching of the gospel, natural law, and the Catholic moral tradition, to the social, political and ethical issues of our time. There have been several dozen subsequent social justice encyclicals, and there is now a recognized but constantly evolving body of Catholic social teaching. The church doesn't aim to tell the secular spheres what to do or give solutions, but it does highlight relevant ethical standards and Christian teachings; e.g., special concern for the poor.
One concept that emerges from considering social justice from the standpoint of Christian faith is the idea of social or structural sin: not just individual attitudes, choices and actions are sinful; there can also be sinful structures embedded in law and cultural mores (e.g., the Mafia culture, or the culture of fraternity houses at some colleges, or the consumerist values of our society). Christians have a duty to try to change these, because like the devil, these cultural influences and institutional forms lead people into sin and deprive people of their dignity.
Much more could be said on this, but perhaps this familiar, seven-point, summary prepared by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will give an idea of the content of Catholic Social Teaching will do for this context:
Life and Dignity of the Human Person
The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching. In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia. The value of human life is being threatened by cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and the use of the death penalty. The intentional targeting of civilians in war or terrorist attacks is always wrong. Catholic teaching also calls on us to work to avoid war. Nations must protect the right to life by finding increasingly effective ways to prevent conflicts and resolve them by peaceful means. We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person.
Call to Family, Community, and Participation
The person is not only sacred but also social. How we organize our society-in economics and politics, in law and policy-directly affects human dignity and the capacity of individuals to grow in community. Marriage and the family are the central social institutions that must be supported and strengthened, not undermined. We believe people have a right and a duty to participate in society, seeking together the common good and well-being of all, especially the poor and vulnerable.
Rights and Responsibilities
The Catholic tradition teaches that human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. Therefore, every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities--to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.
Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
A basic moral test is how our most vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.
The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God's creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected--the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative.
Solidarity
We are one human family whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. We are our brothers' and sisters' keepers, wherever they may be. Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world. At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace. Pope Paul VI taught that "if you want peace, work for justice."1 The Gospel calls us to be peacemakers. Our love for all our sisters and brothers demands that we promote peace in a world surrounded by violence and conflict.
Care for God's Creation
We show our respect for the Creator by our stewardship of creation. Care for the earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement of our faith. We are called to protect people and the planet, living our faith in relationship with all of God's creation. This environmental challenge has fundamental moral and ethical dimensions that cannot be ignored.
2.MARRIAGE, SEXUALITY AND MEDICAL ETHICS

One hundred years ago almost all Christian churches in the United States and Europe would have rejected as immoral all forms of artificial contraception, divorce, cohabiting of unmarried couples, homosexual sex, and sex outside of marriage generally. The changes that have come about are sweeping. The causes are multiple: a general acceptance of technological solutions to human problems, Freudian and other psychological theories about sexuality, the women's movement, improvements in infant survival rates, the shift from rural life where children were an economic asset and space was not such a priority, an emphasis on personal fulfillment, a reaction to what was considered prudery, hypocrisy and repression of sexuality, a dissolving of the double standard not by encouraging men to be more chaste but by freeing women from expectations of chastity, a loss of transcendence and a disinclination to defer gratification, a growing emphasis on the need of sexual pleasure for human well-being.
One can trace the stages of this revolutionary change in the Lambeth Congresses, meetings of various churches associated with the Church of England, whose primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury calls them, but who has know authority over the independent national, "Anglican" or "Episcopalian" churches stemming from the Church of England.
The 1930 Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion allowed for contraception in limited circumstances. In a partial reaction, Pope Pius XI wrote the encyclical Casti connubii (On Christian Marriage) in 1930, reaffirming the Catholic Church's belief in various traditional Christian teachings on marriage and sexuality, including the prohibition of artificial birth control even within marriage. Casti Connubii was supportive of natural family planning.
One can trace the evolution of Protestant thinking through the decisions of subsequent Lambeth Conferences. One landmark moment was the 1958 Lambeth Conference of Anglican Church that called for respect for the "consciences" of married couples who use birth control. Another Landmark was the 1998 Lambeth Conference debated homosexuality: a vote of 526-70 passed a resolution calling for a listening process, but a section passed by a smaller majority said that homosexual practice is "incompatible" with scripture. At the 2008 Conference In 2008, four Anglican primates announced that they intended to boycott the Lambeth conference because of their opposition to the actions of the Episcopal Church in America (the American branch of the Anglican church) allowing homosexual clergy and same-sex unions. The Episcopal Church in America is more liberal on sexual issues than Anglicans generally (its decisions are made by an assembly in which lay people have a big voice); a large percentage of Anglicans are in Africa, and among them there is little acceptance of homosexual behavior.
The most significant event in the Catholic Church regarding sexuality occurred in 1968. The Vatican Council dealt with marriage and sexuality in general terms in the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, but left consideration of birth control to the pope. The issue was of renewed interest because of the appearance of the first oral contraceptives in 1960. The pope appointed an international committee of theologians, clergy, physicians and laity. It came to number 72 members. They presented the pope with two reports: the majority report recommended modifying the church's opposition to artificial contraception, the minority report argued that the teaching against artificial contraception should not be changed. Pope Paul VI accepted the position of the minority report in his encyclical Humanae vitae (1968).
Issues of Sexuality and Marriage
The issues that emerge from all this are many and complex. Many of you have watched the Theology of the Body presentations by Christopher West. In it he gives a coherent and uncompromising presentation of Catholic teaching as that was expressed by Pope John-Paul II, who worked out a very positive understanding of human sexuality and its place within marriage.
The key issue concerns the very nature of marriage: is the traditional view of the church-as expounded for example in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in need of alteration? The tenor of recent secular debate regarding gay marriage is that marriage is a malleable human construct that can be redefined in various directions. The key question seems to be: how should sexual activity, procreation and rearing of children, commitment and fidelity, and gender be related? Is sacramental marriage something different from secular marriage? How much should the church care about the legal definition of marriage and how should it contribute to the public debate?
Birth regulation. The Catholic Church does not promote having as many children as possible. Rather, it promotes responsible parenthood, both in conceiving and raising children. In the background, but seldom addressed in church documents, is the question of world population. There are several versions of Natural Family Planning (the "rhythm method" it used to be called) that plan and limit births by confining sexual intercourse to the woman's infertile periods, which are determined by several methods. Not every couple can make NFP work because of various medical reasons, but many people are very happy with it. It requires self-discipline and communication that they find helps their marriage.
The Gospels are pretty clear that Jesus rejected divorce and remarriage after divorce. That presents the church with a dilemma in a society where one-half of the marriages end in divorce. The dilemma becomes most wrenching when one of the parties, through little or no fault of their own, is abandoned by the other spouse whom then marries someone else. The church's effort to help such people, and those who jointly ended their marital relationship, is to see if an annulment is possible-was there anything in the first marriage that would make it not a valid, sacramental marriage. The process can be healing or it can be slow and frustrating and sometimes inconclusive. Pope Benedict XVI addressed this in a recent talk. Some theologians, I think Cardinal Walter Kasper is one, have suggested that maybe the church should say, yes, divorce is wrong, but if someone is divorced and in new marriage, maybe they should have the possibility of absolution from their earlier fault and a blessing for the marriage they are now in.
Homosexuality has been much debated of late. The liberal position is that it is an innate inclination (and they seem to be right on that), and therefore natural (which doesn't necessarily follow) and therefore rightfully exercised or indulged. Put it the argument another way: The homosexual is born with a sexual attraction to members of his or her own sex, and so he or she has the same right as a heterosexual person to sexual intimacy, pleasure, financial rights accruing to spouses, the right of adoption and so forth. (Notice how often the word "right" occurs these discussions.) The church's response is that innate is not the same as natural, and intimacy is attainable without genital activity. In England, the church has had to shut down its adoption agencies, because the state insists that children must be given for adoption to homosexual couples. Quite apart from the moral question, homosexuals have the same rights to happiness and respect as everyone else and the church needs to minister to them. That is not always easy, because the dominant view among homosexual activists is that the church's moral teaching is wrong and discriminatory.
Premarital sexual activity and cohabitation have become very common in the last decades, and they are now becoming culturally accepted or at least expected behavior. The same might be said of masturbation. None of these is considered morally good by the Catholic Church, because of its central teaching that genital activity belongs in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship open to the procreation and rearing of children.
Medical Issues
Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago spoke of a seamless doctrine of the sacredness of human life from conception to death. The deliberate taking of another human life except in cases of deadly aggression is murder. Hence, abortion and euthanasia are wrong. There are not many arguments regarding this moral doctrine among Catholics, though the rate of abortions among people who call themselves Catholics is alarmingly high. Some, though, would question whether the law of the land needs to mirror this moral teaching, which half the citizens or so don't accept. Such arguments have to do with the function of law, especially its educative role. Some would argue a human being is not present until sometime after conception, but this is not a particular easy position to defend. A more position is that a human being only exists when there is personal consciousness and/or the possibility of growing to it-which leads some people-not Catholics as far as I know-to advocate infanticide of badly deformed infants or senile elderly.
Other newly developing medical issues. These issues don't have much of a history, and of all the things in this survey they are the ones I am least acquainted with. For theological rationales and some applications see the document of the International Theological Commission: "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God" (ca. 2003).
Fertility. In a general way, one can say that the church regards as morally wrong in vitro fertilization and other ways of bringing about new human life apart from the context of marital love expressed in sexual intercourse. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when a third party's sperm or ovum or surrogate uterus is used that is gravely immoral. Artificial insemination not involving a third party is, the CCC says, perhaps less reprehensible but still morally unacceptable. Such techniques dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. "Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the human person." On the other hand, the CCC encourages research aimed at reducing human sterility. A child is a gift not a right (CCC 2373-2379).
Stem Cell Research. There is no problem with stem cell research as such. In a document issued by American Bishops: "There is no moral objection to research and therapy of this kind, when it involves no harm to human beings at any stage of development and is conducted with appropriate informed consent," However, to kill or "harvest" human embryos is gravely immoral and seemingly unnecessary. The insistence on using embryonic stem cells seems to be more ideological than anything else; there are other ways to obtain stem cells.
The American bishops made a very good point in a document they issued on the subject is to refute the argument that an embryo is too undeveloped to have human rights:
If fundamental rights such as the right to life are based on abilities or qualities that can appear or disappear, grow or diminish, and be greater or lesser in different human beings, then there are no inherent human rights, no true human equality, only privileges for the strong.
Cloning: A statement made by Bishop Gregory when the Congress was debating a bill to ban human cloning, a bill that I think was passed: "The Catholic Church encourages efforts to find new ways to reduce human suffering and treat life-threatening illness. However, human cloning violates fundamental ethical and moral norms, and is to be condemned unequivocally. Human cloning does not treat any disease but turns human reproduction into a manufacturing process, by which human beings are mass-produced to preset specifications. The cloning procedure is so dehumanizing that some scientists want to treat the resulting human beings as subhuman, creating them solely so they can destroy them for their cells and tissues." (Cf. Communion and Stewardship, #89)
Genetic modification of human beings. The statements I read are very cautious; there are different degrees of modification and therapy involved, but one that introduces modifications that will be passed down from generation to generation are liable to have some very bad unforeseen consequences.

Conclusion: Doing THEOLOGY

Everything we have discussed so far concerns theology, but we might end by noting a couple of things about theology itself.

History

Catholic theology seems not to have been very creative or vibrant in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It tended to be defensive and to meet critics on their own ground (e.g., "natural theology"). In the early 19th century there was a revival in German Catholic theology (especially at the University of Tübingen) inspired in part by ideas derived from Romanticism. In the last half of the 19th century there was big revival of interest in the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. Pope Leo XIII endorsed this in an encyclical (Aeterni Patris, 1879). Thereafter, for 75 years or so, most Catholic theology was done with reference to St. Thomas' theology and perhaps more importantly, his philosophy. His philosophy was developed in dialogue with the works of Aristotle, which came into the Latin West during Aquinas' lifetime. Aristotle's emphasis on the close connection between body and soul, sensation and rational knowledge fit well with Catholic emphasis on sacramentality and the Incarnation. However, Aristotle did not think there was God that was either personal or the Creator, and his understanding of the soul was inadequate. So St. Thomas had to work out a whole new philosophy meshing some of Aristotle's ideas with the Christian Platonism of St. Augustine and Boethius. That stream of philosophy is referred to as the philosophia perennis, and St. Thomas enriched it immensely.

As philosophers and historians studied St. Thomas' works and ideas, they were led to study his sources. There was a great flowering of research into earlier writers-Augustine and the other Fathers of the Church. Meanwhile, there was also a big biblical revival, as we saw earlier. All of which gradually undercut the focus on St. Thomas alone. This was not all bad, because St. Thomas' philosophy and theology had their limitations (e.g., in relation to history and science). However, it meant, that from Vatican II on, Catholic theology has been very pluralistic and eclectic, using various philosophies or none at all.

Issues

One issue facing Catholic theology is precisely the place of philosophy. How important is philosophy today? How important is it for theology? If by philosophy one means the effort to use human reason to deal with the basic questions of human existence, knowledge, and destiny, and the nature of reality itself, then it would seem to be very important. In fact, most of us have taken positions on these basic questions, sometimes almost without being aware of it. One would think that it is important to think them through explicitly and systematically. How exactly should philosophy and faith interacting in theological reflection?

Scientists today are making incredible discoveries. But there are many questions which science cannot answer: e.g., how far should we use those discoveries to alter plants, animals and humans by genetic modification? What is the nature of truth? How do discoveries in science correlate with our beliefs about creation and human nature? For such questions we need believers who are scientists but who can also think deeply in philosophical and theological matters.

In the United States, theology has been eliminated from most university settings. Some schools have added departments of religion, which study religion(s) from neutral standpoints of history, sociology, anthropology or philosophy. Theology, on the other hand, considers religious tradition from the inside, from the standpoint of faith. In Catholic colleges theology is often taught from a fairly neutral position, sometimes by professors whose faith commitment is limited and to students many of whom are not Catholic or marginally Catholic. This presents some dilemmas about academic freedom, the role of a Catholic university, and the proper setting for theology, which needs to be a work of faith but also needs dialogue with other disciplines.

Another question is what is the place of Christ is theology and in human history? If Christ is who we believe he is, what is the place of other world religions? In theology Christ will obviously be central, but how is that centrality to be expressed? Who is exactly is Christ-how can we imagine him, or how do the data of the New Testament coalesce to give a rounded picture of Christ?

Ethical considerations of vaccines

2009-10-21T09:57:00.007-06:00

Link to, "MORAL REFLECTIONS ON VACCINES PREPARED FROM CELLS DERIVED FROM ABORTED HUMAN FOETUSES"

Someone sent in this article concerning the moral implications of using vaccines that were developed via unethical methods, such as using a vaccine that used aborted fetuses in some manner.

The article is about rubella (German measles) and the vaccine developed for it in 1964 and 1970. These were developed using fetal tissues obtained from abortions, and Rubella vaccines today are still based off of the vaccine from those early projects. The problem is cooperation in evil. Since abortion is evil, then profiting from an abortion, even one occurring forty years ago, is evil. Discovering who holds the full weight of sin in the issue is complicated, but the article does a good job of laying out the various issues that need to be considered and applying classical moral philosophy to those issues.

Rubella has caused, as recently as the year 2000, spontaneous abortions, neonatal deaths, deafness, blindness, and mental retardation in children born of mothers exposed to rubella. A person can be obviously concerned about preventing rubella, especially if said person is pregnant. Such a person would not be considered as one intending to sin while seeking a vaccine, no? The injustice of forcing a person to make a decision against their conscience is what helps us determine who is committing some evil and to what extent.

To sum up the article, and for the sake of brevity, the medical company developing a vaccine from aborted fetus tissue is intending to profit from abortion, and is cooperating in evil and fully guilty for their actions. However, a pregnant mother, seeking a vaccine to save the life of the baby, a person who has no other options, is cooperating in evil, however, the weight of sin is on the people who developed the vaccine, those who mass produced said vaccine, and doctors who order and administer the vaccine-despite knowing the origins of the vaccine. Every person has a grave duty to demand and develop vaccines that do not use aborted fetal tissue because forcing someone to choose against their conscience is incredibly unjust, especially in the case of expecting mothers.

As for today's relevance, I do not believe that the seasonal or H1N1 flu shots are developed by any morally illicit means, so you don't have to worry about cooperating in evil, as evident in these articles:
(Cornell) Scientists Hurry to Create H1N1 Vaccine
Inside China's H1N1 vaccine laboratories

Peace to you!

Wonderful Quotation from David Foster Wallace

2009-08-24T15:46:00.003-06:00

Hi. This is the quotation Father Hugh read in his homily Sunday evening August 23, 2009. Lots of people were interested in getting a copy of it.

David Foster Wallace, Except from Commencement Speech at Kenyon
College, 2005 (He committed suicide in mid-August, 2009).

“In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshiping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or spiritual-type thing to worship … is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things -- if they are where you tap real meaning in life -- then you will never have enough. Never
feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you. On one level, we all know this stuff already -- it's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, bromides, epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping the truth up- front in daily consciousness. Worship power -- you will feel weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart -- you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on.

“Look, the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they're evil or sinful; it is that they are unconscious. They are default-settings. They're the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that's what you're doing. And the world will not discourage you from operating on your default-settings, because the world of men and money and power hums along quite nicely on the fuel of fear and contempt and frustration and craving and the worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom to
be lords of our own tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the center of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not hear much talked about in the great outside
world of winning and achieving and displaying. The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day. That is real freedom. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default-setting, the "rat race" -- the constant gnawing sense of having had and lost some infinite thing.”

Welcome to another school year.

Chuck

Homosexuality and Catholic Teaching

2009-06-29T16:54:00.001-06:00

In thinking about homosexuality and Catholic teaching it is critical to make the distinction between a person’s sexual orientation and a set of activities that two persons of the same sex might engage in.

Sexual orientation refers to which sex one is most strongly sexually attracted to. To the extent that sexual orientation is beyond someone’s control, sexual orientation by itself cannot be sinful. A person can be powerfully attracted to others of the same sex, and still be a good Christian, a thoroughly holy human being.

With respect to activities, marriage is the only context in which any kind of genital sexual relations between individuals can be morally appropriate. To engage in such relations outside of marriage is to commit a grave sin. As such, it endangers one’s relationship with other human beings and with God.

It amazes me how many people resist making the distinction between orientation and activities, but I have been in several conversations in which people have fought hard to ignore or blur it. They insist that to judge acts wrong is to judge other people or even that to call acts sinful is to engage in hate speech. To say that excessive drinking is wrong is not hate speech against alcoholics. To say that speeding through school zones is wrong is not hate speech against distracted people in a hurry. To uphold biblical and traditional Catholic teaching on sexual morality is not judging anyone or hate speech against anyone.

A person who has a homosexual orientation, has a particular kind of temptation toward a particular kind of sin. A part of their Christian walk is to deal with that temptation among the many others that everyone faces. We all pray for God’s help in dealing with temptation, and we all beg for God’s forgiveness should we succumb. We are all called to carry our particular crosses and to unite our sacrifices with that of Jesus.

Under no circumstances is it right to discriminate against someone with a homosexual orientation. Nor does it help to hang labels on people. You could label me "male," "overweight," workaholic," or many other things, but I hope you don’t. I don’t want to be a category. I want to be a person. Everybody has a right to be treated as a person, not a category, not a thing.

I know a number of Catholic people who have a homosexual orientation. Each of the people I know works hard to be a good Christian, struggles with issues of right and wrong, has a life filled with happiness and sorrow, pain and joy. Each deserves to be treated like every other Catholic.

A Priest's "Powers"

2009-06-25T11:58:00.001-06:00

A week or two ago I received an e-mail from someone seeking to debunk the idea that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist. It started out by explaining that Catholics believe priests have the "power" to turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.

Such a statement hints at a quite basic misunderstanding of sacraments and of the role of the priest in the Catholic faith. But it's a misunderstanding that some Catholics may share, so it's really worth thinking about carefully.

In Matthew 18:20 Jesus is quoted as saying, "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." Does that mean that any two or three of us has the power to force Jesus to be present in a particular place at a particular time? Well, in a sense it does, but that doesn't mean we have power over Jesus. It means that Jesus is faithful, and we can depend on him to do what he has promised. In the sense that we serve a powerful God and have been sent a powerful savior, it might be useful at times to think of ourselves as powerful. Our love can be powerful. Even our suffering can be powerful when we join it with Jesus’ suffering. But it would be a terrible misconception to think of priests or any Christians as having occult powers – powers to do magic, to direct God, etc.

When a priest speaks for us the words of consecration, "This is my body" and "This is my blood," Jesus, who asked us to "do this in memory of me," (Luke 22:19) makes the priest's words true. It is the priest speaking the words, but it is Jesus acting. It is the faithfulness of Jesus, even the power of Jesus, not any "power" the priest has that changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord.

The ordination of a priest makes him special more in the sense of being given special responsibilities – for example, it is the priest and only the priest who will serve the community by celebrating the Mass and by extending God’s forgiveness for sins in the Sacrament of Reconciliation – than in the sense of being given "powers."

Faith that Jesus is really present in the consecrated bread and wine is one of the oldest and most fundamental of Christian beliefs. It is amazing that Jesus gives himself so completely for us and gives himself so completely to us. It is amazing that Jesus gives to the Church, with all our imperfections, the "power" to make him present in the world, but he does just that. In that sense, we are incredibly powerful, but only because we have a God who is so faithful and so wonderful.

Reflection on Manhood for National Man Day

2009-06-15T16:58:00.002-06:00

Today has been designated by a group on Facebook, National Man Day. The effort is a bit tongue-in-cheek, and in addition to some intended silliness about blowing things up and slugging each other for no reason, there is some mention about living up to your responsibilities and being a good father. Good job as far as it goes, but it needs to go a lot farther.

The biggest mistake people make when they think about what it means to be a man is to contrast manhood with womanhood. To be a man, one says from this perspective, is not to be a woman.

This whole approach is misguided. To be a man is not to be a boy, especially an adolescent boy. To be a man is to say what you mean, to make commitments and live up to them, to do what is right even when it is inconvenient. To be a man is to have your hormones well enough under control that you can see women as human beings and not as objects. Thus, to be a man is to be beyond pornography, beyond sexism, and beyond exploitation of women because you’ve outgrown immature attitudes and behaviors.

Adolescent boys can be manipulated easily into spending money they don’t have to buy cars, beer, vacations, anything that will make them feel "like a man." Political leaders find it easy to sell war to adolescent boys. What could make you feel more "like a man" than making loud noises and engaging in combat?

Whole industries are at work seeking to keep boys from becoming real men. Anyone who has become a real man has fought to gain that status and has had a lot of help from good men giving manly, adult examples.

Thanks to the men’s groups at St. Mark’s, St. John’s, Our Lady of the Rosary, and others like them who are working so hard to become good, adult men and to provide good examples to others.

Lifting Bishop Williamson's Excommunication

2009-03-08T17:16:00.002-06:00

It is very difficult to get all the information one needs on religious matters in the secular press. This has been particularly true when it comes to the Pope's recent lifting of excommunication from a group of men illicitly ordained by a breakaway French Archbishop in 1988. Here's a letter to the editor that appeared in the Friday March 6, 2009 issue of the Idaho Catholic Register that does a good job of clarifying matters. I trust that neither the Register nor the author of the letter will mind my passing it along to you.

Two separate, distinct issues

Editor, the ICR:

I was dismayed to read in the Feb. 20 ICR, under the "From the Vatican" heading, a news report from Catholic News Service that traditionalist Bishop Richard Williamson has recently denied some aspects of the Holocaust within days of Pope Benedict XVI remission of Bishop Williamson's excommunication.

Unfortunately, the secular media has linked these two otherwise unrelated stories and the Catholic News Service article you reprinted did little to correct this misrepresentation. Bishop Williamson was identified as a "traditionalist," yet the article should have pointed out that he is a member of the Society of St. Pius X and one of the four bishops ordained without papal authority by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988. For this act of disobedience, Archbishop Lefebvre and his four bishops were excommunicated by the pope. As such, Bishop Williamson has not been in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, a situation that Pope Benedict XVI has recently strived to right by lifting the 1988 excommunication of the four bishops. He trusts this act of forgiveness will be the first step toward reconciliation with the society and facilitate the return of members to communion with Rome. The remission of Bishop Williamson's excommunication had nothing whatsoever to do with his errant views of the Holocaust. Such misreporting was painful to many of our Jewish friends and has caused apologies to be issued by the Pope and Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the society.

I just thought Idaho Catholics should be aware of this.

Richard Smith
Garden Valley

Some Thoughts on the Second Sunday of Lent: The Transfiguration

2009-03-08T17:14:00.001-06:00

The readings for this Sunday are dramatic to say the least, and they are many layered as well. There is so much meaning that I can’t hope to unpack very much that is in them. So I’ll just comment on a couple of points that I think are critical.

First, with respect to Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac: it is a strange story to say the least. Human sacrifice was common in the pagan religions of the Middle East. In fact, a book I read a few years ago asserted that the origins of our practice of capital punishment have little to do with deterrence of crime or punishment of criminals. The practice comes from the pagan notion of a spirit world that becomes seriously out of balance and can only be made right again by an extreme act like a human sacrifice. Our attachment to the practice is the residue of ancient pagan beliefs.

I think at least a part of the significance of this story about Abraham is that it begins as if the God who would establish the Abraham’s descendants as the chosen people, guide them out of Egypt, give them the Law, and establish them in the Promised Land were just the same as the imaginary, anthropomorphic gods that formed the center of pagan worship – bruised, needy, wounded, and sometimes hateful beings. But the story ends with a new kind of relationship between God and humanity, a relationship in which God steps forward and takes the initiative to make things right with us. God puts our world in order; we don’t put God’s world in order.
There is some dispute about where the mountain of Moriah referred to in the story actually was. Some say it was the mountain in Jerusalem where the temple would be built about 1,000 years after Abraham. Others maintain that it was the somewhat higher nearby mountain later called Golgotha. Just as Isaac, a totally innocent victim carried up the hill a heavy burden of wood, the wood on which he was to be sacrificed, Jesus carried up the hill a heavy burden of wood, the wood on which he would be sacrificed. But in Jesus’ case, it wasn’t a human sacrifice to appease an angry god, but God in the second person of the Holy Trinity sacrificing himself to guide us to eternal salvation, taking the initiative, reaching out, loving us more that we could ever imagine.
Walking up that mountain must have been the darkest time ever for Abraham. His son’s life meant more to him than his own. All his hopes and dreams were embodied in that boy. But his willingness to give everything to God led to a new life for him, for his descendants, and ultimately for all of us.

Peter, James, and John were in something like the same position. The events of tonight’s Gospel reading follow by six days Jesus’ first revelation to the Apostles that he would soon suffer and die. Not only that, he had warned his followers that each of them was called to pick up their own cross and follow him. Peter was so upset by Jesus’ words that he actually rebuked Jesus. Jesus had called Peter "Satan" and pushed him away.

We don’t know for sure what Peter and the other Apostles had in mind when they left everything behind to follow Jesus. Some of them apparently thought they would be important in a new a glorious earthly kingdom that they expected Jesus to establish. If they had any such fantasies, they were rudely destroyed now. They had left everything behind to follow Jesus. It turned out that following Jesus meant taking the path to the cross, to crucifixion and death. But they followed him anyway. And the day described in our reading, their sacrifice led to glimpse of the reality that underlay Jesus and his ministry. They saw Moses, their ancestor in faith who had brought the law down from Mount Sinai, and they saw Elijah, the prophet who never died, whom God carried off in a flaming chariot, the prophet whom Jewish legend said would return when God was ready to make everything right in our world. They saw Jesus, not merely as the human they had come to know, but as the shining Son of the Father. And they heard the voice of God.
None of this could have happened if they hadn’t made the sacrifices they had made. They wouldn’t have been there on that mountain. They would have given up and left Jesus long ago. They would still have had minds and hearts so attached to things of this world that they could not have been open to what God wanted to tell them, to what God wanted to do in their lives, to the work of the world’s salvation that God wanted them to take part in.

Lent is supposed to prepare us to experience God. We don’t give things up because we love discomfort or because we think that God wants to see us suffer. We give things up because we have to get them under control. They are blocking our vision. They are smothering our souls. We give things up because we want to go to the mountaintop, and all these bad habits and worldly attachments are weighing us down.

We’re just a week and a half into Lent. We have quite a ways to go, but a week and a half is plenty of time for our resolve to weaken. Let us renew our intention to use this time well, to establish right priorities, to make right what we need to make right in our lives, to be truly ready to greet our Risen Lord on Easter Morning.

The Catholic Church on the Internet

2009-02-05T09:11:00.005-07:00

Questions have been slow so far this new semester, but we want to advertise for two amazing resources available on the internet.

First, the Vatican's public television station, CTV, has started posting their news coverage on YouTube. If you can't get over to Vatican City, but want to see the Pope, this is the way to do it! The clips are even in English. http://www.youtube.com/vatican

For those who enjoy listening to podcasts or talk radio, there is a Catholic station that has several shows which are updated frequently. One of them, "Into the Deep," is produced locally, though the authors have been on hiatus. Check it out, http://www.sqpn.com/

Enjoy the new semester!

Newsweek Cover Story on Same-Sex Marriage

2008-12-10T15:51:00.005-07:00

Hi. Chuck here. The upcoming (December 15) issue of Newsweek has a cover story on the bible and same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, the article is very badly done and sheds more confusion than light on the issue. What follows are some comments on the article by Father Hugh Feiss. Here's a link to the article if you would like to read it first:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/output/print

Now here are Father Hugh's comments:

Chuck asked me to comment on the recent cover article in Newsweek on Homosexual Marriage. I am not a moral theologian and do not feel competent to lay out all that is involved on the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality (as an involuntary and therefore not sinful orientation) and homosexual actions and same-sex marriages. However, I can comment on the logic of this article and some of its arguments. Fr. Hugh

The question about the morality of homosexual acts and the (distinct) question about the advisability of granting the status of "marriage" to same-sex unions are complex issues. There are societal and ethical (not just religious) concerns which might lead one to either side of the debate on these two questions. The religious concerns involved are also complex. One would not know that from this article, which seeks to paint a stark contrast: either you agree that homosexual relations and same-sex marriage are acceptable or you are a doltish, prejudiced, Christian fundamentalist. The author blatantly opts for a very poor debating strategy: present your opponents' arguments in the weakest possible light then knock them to pieces, citing only those people who agree with you. Admittedly, some fundamentalist Christians use Scripture verses as blunt instruments to bludgeon opponents, and sometimes religious people (including Catholics) lobby more than they persuade, but this article counters with propaganda not even-handed reporting.

Here are some of its assertions, with my comments in parenthesis. Paul (and Jesus) condemned divorce, but half the Christians in America are divorced, therefore their teaching about marriage has no weight; admitting that homosexual acts are right and that gay marriage should be recognized is the same as recognizing that slavery is wrong and that slavery should be abolished (there are some distinct differences, such as slavery is imposed whereas homosexual acts, not homoerotic orientation, are chosen); apart from religious considerations and commitments, marriage is a civil contract (but she seems unwilling to let homosexual unions be defined simply as that); she found a New Testament scholar who says that Paul condemned really kinky homosexual activities, but not non-violent ones (this seems quite a stretch and is not the consensus of scholarly interpreters); Jesus preached a message of inclusion for all (but He told them to sin no more); the assumption throughout seems to be that only with genital activity can there be committed, nurturing relationships, otherwise people will be lonely and sad.

The Catholic Church has developed its teaching on marriage over 2000 years, based on Scripture, tradition and experience. It is not perfect and its has certainly changed across time and will change some more in the future. One facet of that teaching is that sexual activity should be the expression of committed, married love between a man and a woman. Admittedly such an understanding is out of step with Newsweek and much of contemporary thinking and practice. However, contrary to Newsweek, that does not make such teaching wrong. The author writes that Jesus’ spoke about leaving wife and family to follow him. She might have noticed that the Gospels of Matthew (19:4-6) and Mark (10:6-8) also report that he said: “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’” This doesn’t end the discussion, which now must deal with the findings of modern medicine about innate homosexual orientation, but it should be part of it. In the end, we may have to agree to disagree, but we can do so on the basis of reasoned and respectful discussion.

2008-12-01T13:51:00.002-07:00

Hi. Carol Brown of Capstone Missions recently sent me a link to a wonderful talk by Gianna Jessen, a woman who, as a fetus, survived an abortion. She has some good stuff to say, especially to men. Please give it a look and listen and tell us what you think. Here are the links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8B1nKGIAeg

As you know, Joe and I have been reflecting for some time on the issue of manhood and how in our culture it is too often confused with adolescent boyhood. We'd kind of like to reprise the retreat we offered last spring where we looked hard at gender issues and reflected on what it means to be real men and real women.

Chuck

Thirty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time

2008-11-17T16:29:00.004-07:00

One of the most vicious lies told about Christians, a lie we sometimes believe ourselves, is that to a be a good Christian we need to cover up who we really are. We need to paint on a little happy face and go through life pretending to be something we are not. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, St. John Chrysostom, who lived in the fourth century and may have been the greatest preacher Christianity has ever produced, taught that each Christian’s goal is to become the person we truly are.

St. Augustine teaches that to be really free is not to be running around and doing anything that comes to mind – that is just being foolish and irresponsible. To be free is to be able to see the difference between what is important and what is not and to be able to use that knowledge to become the kind of person God created you to be. That’s what we mean when we say that knowing Jesus makes you free.

As Jesus’ parable from tonight’s Gospel reading points out, the "master" entrusts each of us with gifts that we are supposed to use for the good of the community around us. We don’t all have the same gifts, but whatever we are given, we are called to use.
It’s not always easy to know what your gifts are. Sometimes it’s easier to figure out what they aren’t. I remember as a kid in grade school working and working to draw a horse. It always ended up looking something like a dog. We would do penmanship exercises where we were supposed to produce long beautiful circular coils. Mine always looked like someone had stomped on them. I took music lessons and came to love music deeply, but I could never really get the music to come out of an instrument the way it was in my heart.

But as I got older I found that I loved teaching. I loved studying something and then figuring out a way to help other people understand it. I loved being in a classroom and I loved helping students outside of class. And people told me that I did a pretty good job at it.

One of the most important signs that you are using a gift God has given you is that you feel close to God when you are using that gift, and the gift tends to make others more aware of God’s goodness. When I’m preparing a class or teaching, I am lifted up. I feel closer to God.

I serve on a board for a group that raises money to support an orphanage in Mexico. One of our board members is an accountant who keeps track of all our funds. As far as I know, he’s only been to the orphanage once. He’s not a carpenter or a plumber who can make the repairs we often need to make. He’s not an organizer or a speaker who can raise the $40,000 or $50,000 a year we have to raise to keep our kids safe, healthy, and well-cared for. But he is a tiger when it comes to protecting our income, expenditures, and accounts. He watches every penny. He knows where it came from and where it goes. He protects and loves those kids and our donors like you wouldn’t believe, but instead of doing it by wielding a hammer or wearing a badge, a way for which he is probably not very well suited, he does it by protecting our accounts. He is using the gifts God gave him to do God’s work, and he grows in his love for God and others as he does it.

Maybe you are lifted up by visiting with lonely or sick people. Maybe you are lifted up by writing or performing music. Maybe you are lifted up by drawing, making signs or posters, putting together a newsletter. Maybe you find yourself closer to God when you are repairing or building. I know a young woman who loves to organize things. She has a gift for administration, and everything works better when she is around. I know another young woman who has a gift for leadership. She walks into a situation and says, "Hey, let’s try this," and the whole group gets focused and heads off to do wonderful and loving things and have fun in the process. I know a woman who works in a high-pressure job processing huge amounts of mail. She’s good at it, but she is especially good at caring for the people she supervises on that job. She knows their needs, their joys, and their sorrows. And everyone who works with her is lifted up by her concern and attention.

Sometimes all we have to bring to the table is our brokenness, our knowledge of what it feels like to be lost, or afraid, or betrayed. I’ve seen incredible things happen when someone just brings those gifts and offers them.

Every year my wife and I help with a healing retreat for people who have been harmed by abortions, either having had one themselves or been close to an abortion in some other way. The retreat helps people to truly accept the forgiveness and love that God offers and to begin to see themselves as lovable again. And I’ve seen these people use the powerful gift they’ve been given – the gift of really knowing what it means to be forgiven and loved – to make an incredible difference in their own lives and the lives of people around them.

We see in the reading from Proverbs the gift that this wonderful woman with the hard work of her "loving hands" is to her family and the whole community. It might not have seemed at first that the humble work she did could be holy. But it was powerful work in building up God’s kingdom.

Don’t be afraid to seek out the gifts that God has given you – you might even try to attend a "called and gifted" weekend. They’ll be having one at St. John’s Feb. 22 and 23. It is a retreat devoted to finding out what gifts God has given you. On our fall retreat at St. Paul’s, we worked through a similar process, and some people gained some real insights into the way that God is working in their lives.

And don’t ever think that God doesn’t have a contribution for you to make. Nobody else can love God in exactly the way that you can. Nor can God love and protect and nurture our poor suffering world through anyone else in exactly the way that God can work through you. My prayer for each of us is that we can come to realize more clearly that God loves and trusts us and calls each of to the joy and fulfillment of a life with a purpose. My prayer is that we will each hear the words, "Well done, good and faithful servant. Come, share your master’s joy."

[Prv 31:10-13, 19-20, 30-31; Ps 128:1-2, 3, 4-5; 1 Thes 5:1-6; Mt 25:14-30]

What's the deal with holy water?

2008-10-20T16:22:00.002-06:00

Hey everyone, someone recently asked, “What’s the deal with holy water and why are those holy water holders (fonts) at the entrance to the church?”

Catholics have signs of our faith, some of which are unique to Catholicism, called sacramentals: holy water, crucifix, prayer beads (rosaries), and palm branches for Palm Sunday. All of these are used to remind us of something greater, but they, “[do] not so fully express the nature of the Church and which, according to Catholic doctrine, [do] not carry the guarantee of grace associated with the seven sacraments.” (from Richard McBrian’s Catholicism). What does that mean as far as holy water is concerned?

Holy water is intended to remind us of our baptism, but holy water is not enough to constitute a baptism. For example, if you invite a non-Christian friend to Mass and there happens to a Rite of Aspersion (Sprinkling), that friend isn’t suddenly baptized against their will. For a Catholic, holy water is a reminder of incorporation into the body of Christ, reminding us that we are sons and daughters of God (Ephesians 4:25).

The purpose of the holy water font or baptismal font at the entrances of the church is for us to call to mind our baptism before Mass, especially that we are, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9). Holy water has more uses than that. For example, after Mass, one will have well in mind our unity with God, but the holy water can be used as physical sign praising God for our being blessed with, “every spiritual blessing in the heavens,” (Ephesians 1:3) which is something we always need to keep in mind.

Reflections on a Banquet (28th Sunday in Ordinary Time)

2008-10-14T14:39:00.002-06:00

I’m sure you’ve read reports in the newspaper or seen them on TV of suicide bombers in the Middle East. One of the reports I saw emphasized that Muslims believe that those who die in such a way will go directly to heaven, and according to the reports be "attended" by groups of virgins. The idea that one report put forward was that the Muslim idea of heaven is almost orgiastic. We’ll, a couple of years ago, I decided to read the Quran myself to see exactly what it said. What the Quran actually says is quite a bit different from what news reports say, which should be no surprise to anyone who has tried to follow religious matters in the popular press.

In the Quran heaven is pictured as a banquet with really good waiters and some wonderful guests. Among the guests are women who are of high moral character (that probably gets translated "virgins" in some places), who are very intelligent and excellent at conversation. It also says that these women have exceptionally large and beautiful eyes. So in the Muslim view, heaven is a great party with wonderful guests and terrific conversation.
It’s really no surprise that the Prophet Muhammad tended to see heaven as a banquet. That view came directly from the Hebrew prophets whom Muslims read and venerate. Isaiah, in looking forward to the day of the Lord, says that the banquet will happen right here on this mountain, the mountain on which Jerusalem sits. And on that day, God will "destroy the veil that veils all people," the veil that separates them from God and from each other.
In the city of Jerusalem about 500 years after Isaiah wrote, Jesus gathered a group of followers in an upper room and held that banquet, a banquet that has continued since then and will continue in heaven forever. Jesus lifted up the bread and the wine and gave thanks for them and said the words of consecration which made them his body and his blood for us. When we come together here at Mass we don’t start another banquet, we join into the very banquet that Jesus held in the upper room. We join into the very banquet that Jesus holds even now in heaven.

But in the story that Jesus tells in this evening’s Gospel reading, a lot of the people who are invited aren’t coming to the banquet. Why not? One of the reasons that so many of those originally invited didn’t come was that the real banquet looked so much different than they had imagined. The Jewish people worked hard for more than 1,000 years before Jesus to keep their faith separate from the worship of the pagan peoples around them. A large part of the story of the Hebrew people is their succumbing time and again to the temptation to adopt the pagan forms of worship, and time and again God sending prophets to purify the faith, to get the pagan practices out of their worship and pagan philosophies out of their thinking. So by the time of Jesus, the sense of separateness was so deep that it was impossible for some to recognize that in Jesus, the faith was now opened up to all the nations. This was very difficult issue for the early church, and it led to fractured communities all over the Mediterranean region. The issue was only settled when Peter, Paul, James, and others held a church council in Jerusalem where they made the decision to admit gentiles as full Christians -- recognize that in Jesus, God was bringing something absolutely new into the world.
But the story tacked on at the end of this evening’s Gospel reading hints at a different and bigger reason for people to refuse the invitation to the banquet. Recall that one of the guests was not properly dressed for a banquet and was forced to leave. What is that all about?
Accepting the invitation to God’s banquet requires a change in us. We need to take off our regular street clothes, the idea that what life is all about is getting and spending, the idea that we need position and power, the philosophy of "me first." We need to put on different clothing. We need to remember that each of us is God’s beloved child. We need to know that each of us is here for a purpose, and that purpose isn’t to accumulate the most toys. We are here to love and to accept love. To support and to heal and to nourish and to protect, to leave this world a better place than it was before we came. To come close to God in this life in anticipation of being close to God in eternal life.

Thank you so much for being here and accepting the invitation to God’s banquet. Here is the banquet table. And just look at all the intelligent women of high moral character with large and beautiful eyes. You must be in the right place. Thank you for letting Christ’s light shine through you so that it warms and brightens the whole world.

We answer questions!

2008-10-10T08:20:00.006-06:00

Hey everybody, I just wanted to tell you that we definitely answer questions around here. That wonderful little box we used at our recent Fall 2008 retreat is still available for questions! It is brown and small if you missed it at the retreat. If you are around St. Paul's, or in the SUB on Mondays, feel free to drop in a question and check back here for the answer.

EDIT: You now have the ability to send questions to us anonymously. Check it out: http://www.contactify.com/b9bc9

To the end of answering questions, a couple people noted on their evaluations that they wanted to know more about NFP (Natural Family Planning). A great place to check out is the Couple to Couple League's website. They "manage" the NFP training groups across the country and have a ton of resources on their website, including links to pro-life doctors who are open to discussing the Sympto-Thermal Method scientifically instead of politically. Studies have shown that couples practicing NFP, "have a dramatically low (0.2%) divorce rate", so it is definitely something worth checking out.

Have a great weekend!

Jesus on Fair Pay -- Twenty-Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time

2008-09-20T15:08:00.004-06:00

One of the reasons that Jesus was so disturbing to the people of his time was his tendency to hang out with the wrong crowd. He often ate with tax collectors and was seen talking to prostitutes. He associated with lepers and with crazy people. He seemed to have a special love for those in trouble. He even associated with foreigners and treated women as equals. To make matters worse, he spent very little time with those who were wealthy and highly placed. Recall that when Jesus was arrested and tried, the high priests had to seek witnesses to tell them what Jesus had been doing and saying. The king was anxious to meet Jesus because, while Jesus was quite familiar to the poor and outcasts, the king had never actually seen him.

The parable that Jesus relates in today’s Gospel is directed at those of us who think that we are better than or deserve more than someone else – which, according to surveys is just about all of us. Maybe we think we are more moral or harder working or better looking. It doesn’t matter what it is that makes us think we are above someone else. Jesus tells us that God sees us through different eyes. In God’s eyes we are all radically equal and we are all loved equally.

Sometimes that is hard to take. I know that when I read the parable Jesus tells today, I instantly identify with those who have been working since dawn. I’ve worked harder. I deserve more. But in this life I can’t know who has worked harder. Only God knows the efforts I and others have made. I don’t get to judge; only God get’s to judge. And when I compare myself not with others but with what God deserves from me, my own efforts look tiny compared to the total commitment that I owe. In fact, upon reflection, it doesn’t seem like a very good idea to get this whole judgment business under way. The truth is that I’m one of those who came toward the end of the day and instead of arguing, I’d better be grateful that a loving and forgiving vineyard owner is handing out the pay.

I’m reminded of a story told by evangelist Dave Roever. Roever was a soldier who served in the Vietnam War. He was burned very severely when a phosphorus grenade went off in his hand. Not only was his hand destroyed, but his face was terribly disfigured. His nose and one ear were burned off. His eyelids, lips, almost his whole face was either destroyed completely or badly burned. His wife was informed of his injuries, and he was evacuated to a hospital in the U.S. There were two beds in his hospital room. In the other bed was a soldier whose legs had been blown off. He was in pretty bad shape.

That evening, the soldier’s wife arrived. When she entered the room, she stood looking at her husband with no legs. Then she took off her wedding ring and threw it at him. She said, "You disgust me," and she turned and left. Through most of the night, Dave could hear the soldier in the next bed sobbing. The soldier died before morning.

The next morning Dave’s wife walked into the room. Dave could tell that she was pretty shocked by what she saw, and even though he couldn’t talk very well, with a lot effort he managed to say: "I know that I’m so ugly now, but do you think that somehow you can still love me?"

She walked over to the bed, found a spot on his face that was more or less intact, and planted a big, wet kiss. Then she said, "Honey, you were never that good-looking to begin with."

Like Dave’s wife, God never loved us because of our good looks, or our social status, our good intentions, or even our hard work. God loves us because God loves us. Knowing that we are loved in spite of our ugliness and failings is incredibly freeing. It frees us to love others in spite of their faults because we are loved in spite of our faults.

We can reach out to prisoners, we can reach out to the poor, we can reach out to immigrants, we can reach out to the sick because we know that we have done wrong, are impoverished, are strangers, need healing, and God loves us through it all.

Let us live like the forgiven and beloved people we truly are.

Being Careful When We Talk About God

2008-09-15T16:50:00.002-06:00

Several years ago late on a summer afternoon here at St. Paul’s, after we were already closed for the day, I was just gathering up some things in my office and getting ready to go home. I saw a young girl perhaps 15 or 16 come walking across the courtyard. I could tell she was upset so I rushed to open the door and find out what was going on. She stood there with tear streaks running down her face and asked me, "Does God kill babies?"

I invited her in and listened to her story. Her older sister had been pregnant for several months and each checkup showed that things were going well. But that day her sister had visited the doctor and the doctor couldn’t detect a fetal heartbeat. Further tests showed that the child had died. In an apparent effort to comfort this young girl, people had told her, "God must have wanted this little child in heaven, so God took it." Needless to say, she didn’t find that very comforting. Not only had her sister lost the child that the whole family already loved before even seeing it, but now people were telling her that God had killed it.

Of course, God doesn’t kill babies. Sometimes bad things happen because of our own sinfulness and bad choices. Sometimes bad things just happen, and we have no idea why. We do know that God loves us and even suffers with us through those difficult times. And we know for sure that the beloved little baby who died is wrapped in God’s loving embrace.

It is very important how we word the statements that we make about God, because if we aren’t careful, we can end up implying terrible things. This is particularly true when we confront the issue of Jesus’ death on the cross. A common thing to say is that Jesus died for our sins. That is true, of course, but without further elaboration and nuance it can be interpreted to say that God the Father, offended by our sins, insisted on a bloody human sacrifice to somehow make up for our transgressions. The vengeful, bloodthirsty God who demands a human sacrifice isn’t any more attractive than the God who kills babies, and the image of God that is presented is just an inaccurate. Yet I know several people who have left the Church and have even rejected Christianity because they think this is the Christian God.

Let’s think just a bit about who God really is and what Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross really mean. The creation stories make it abundantly clear that God created us and our world out of love. God created us as loving companions to each other and loving and beloved companions of God. But from the very beginning we have used God’s wonderful gift of free will to reject God’s love and the love of others. Like Adam and Eve, we choose to listen to the serpent.

So the history of humanity is a story of wars, exploitation, greed, and betrayal. With the birth of Jesus, God intervenes in human affairs, not to punish us for all our terrible deeds, but to offer us forgiveness and an even closer relationship. Jesus comes into our world not as a conqueror and avenger but as a helpless child completely dependent on the goodness of Mary and Joseph. And as an adult, Jesus announces the coming of the Kingdom of God as a kingdom where the care of the poor, the comfort of the sorrowing, companionship with the sick, the estranged, and the imprisoned will take precedence over the desires of the wealthy and the powerful.

Jesus told the truth about our sinfulness and it’s consequences. Jesus told the truth about God both with his words and with his actions. And he did it in a world that needs lies to keep the selfish in power and to justify lives devoted to acquiring things and excluding people. In such a world, the truth is very dangerous, far too dangerous to tolerate. So we betrayed him, and we beat him, and we nailed him to a cross, and we watched him die. And he forgave us again and again, and prayed for us until there was no more breath left with which to offer prayers.

Through it all, God the Father suffered as any father would suffer watching his son dying in agony. God the Father suffered as Mary suffered. God the Father suffered along with Jesus intending that this extraordinary act of love – the love of God for us – would convince us to change, to accept God’s loving embrace, to be the kind of people we are created to be.

Last Sunday was the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross. We lift up and honor the cross because it is the symbol of God’s amazing love for us. It is a symbol of how far God has gone and will go to save us from our own folly. It is a symbol of how much we are worth to God.
My prayer for all of us is that we will always see in the cross God’s gift of salvation and that we can always see whatever crosses we might bear as an opportunity to share in God’s redemptive love.

Getting Married in the Catholic Church: Part II

2008-09-02T15:13:00.004-06:00

In my last posting about marriage, I talked about how you make the arrangements. This time I want to talk about one of the complications that sometimes arises. Sometimes it turns out that one of the people who wants to get married is, at least in the eyes of the Catholic Church, already married! The Catholic Church has always figured that Jesus meant what he said in Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:9-12. Once a person is validly married, there is no possibility of divorce and remarriage, period. The only way that a person who is validly married can marry again is if their spouse dies.

An annulment is granted when what appeared to be a valid marriage turns out not to be a valid marriage. An annulment is not a divorce. It is a recognition that the conditions necessary for a valid marriage were not present at the time the apparent marriage took place. A marriage might be ruled invalid on procedural grounds -- as it would be if a baptized Catholic marries outside the church. Or, a marriage might be ruled invalid because the consent might be defective -- as it would be if the parties involved didn't understand the commitment they were making or didn't make the commitment freely.

When a marriage is annulled, it does NOT mean that the people have engaged in some sort of sinful union or that their children are considered illegitimate. They are two people who made a mistake and who took the actions they took in good faith. Once an annulment has been granted, a person can do anything that an unmarried person can do. That might mean marrying. That might even mean becoming a priest or a nun.

If you are thinking about marriage, and the person you wish to marry has been married before (or you have been married before), please come to see me or someone else who can help you determine whether an annulment might be granted. Please don't even contemplate the separation from the Holy Eucharist and all the other sacraments that a marriage outside the church would entail.

Getting Married in the Catholic Church: Part I

2008-08-20T15:20:00.003-06:00

There is so much confusion on marriage issues, that I thought it wise to spend a little time explaining some of the practices. Generally if people know how it all works, they can navigate the process quite easily, and there isn’t much reason for drama (or trauma). So here is the basic idea.

A person who is a baptized Catholic must be married in a Catholic ceremony (or be granted special permission for an alternative ceremony) if the marriage is to be considered valid by the Church. Marriages between two non-Catholics are generally considered valid as long as the couple is legally married even if one of the parties later becomes Catholic.

For a Catholic to decide to get married outside the Church is a much more drastic step than most people realize. To get married outside the Church is to step out of communion with the Church. A Catholic who is married outside the Church may not receive Holy Communion or any other sacraments and may not serve as a godparent or Eucharistic Minister until the situation is corrected. The most common way of correcting the situation is very simple – just have a Catholic ceremony. This is generally referred to as a marriage "validation" or "having your marriage blessed." In most cases, it can be arranged quite easily.

Catholic weddings come in two types: a wedding within Mass or a wedding outside of Mass. Either is equally valid. We generally recommend a marriage within Mass when both parties are Catholic. A wedding outside of Mass is generally better when one party is non-Catholic. In a wedding within Mass, the Catholic party will receive Holy Communion while the non-Catholic party (and about half the congregation) will not. That seems to most people to be a needless source of division. In some cases, even when both parties are Catholic but many of the guests will be non-Catholic, the couple opts for a wedding outside of Mass. Just fine. No problem.

In preparation for the marriage, couples being married in any of the Boise parishes are required to take a set of marriage preparation classes and attend an Engaged Encounter Weekend. Parishes outside Boise often require one or the other but not both. In addition, each party must

provide a copy of their baptism certificate (issued no more than six months before the wedding date for a Catholic),
sit with a deacon or a priest and fill out the required "Prenuptial Investigation" forms,
have a close relative or friend fill out a "Testimony of Freedom" form certifying that there is nothing that would prevent the person from entering a valid marriage
if one of the parties isn’t Catholic, the Catholic party must sign the following promises: "I reaffirm my faith in Jesus Christ and, with God’s help, intend to continue living that faith in the Catholic Church. At the same time, I acknowledge the respect I owe to the conscience of my partner in the marriage. I promise to do all that I can to share that faith which I have received with our children by having them baptized and reared as Catholics."
complete and review a pre-marriage attitude survey, either the FOCUS or the PMI which is designed to surface issues that the couple still needs to resolve.

Note that the issue of what faith the children will be raised in has already been decided if you marry in a Catholic ceremony. You agree that the children will be baptized and raised Catholic.

Since all of this takes time, we recommend that you get this process started at least four months before the proposed wedding date.

Enough for now. Next time I’ll talk a little about complications that sometimes arise.

The Best Campus Ministry

2008-08-11T15:16:00.002-06:00

Hi. In June I attended a workshop at Notre Dame on “Visionary Campus Ministry.” One of our activities at the workshop was to examine in great detail the path that led the Catholic campus ministry at Texas A&M from obscurity to being maybe the best campus ministry in the country right now.

The beginning of that path seems to have been a time in 1993 when they completely changed their thinking. Rather than focusing on their tiny amount of resources and trying to do the best they could with what they had, they asked, “What kind of campus ministry would serve the Kingdom of God best on this campus, and what can we do to make this ministry into that ministry?” The assumption was that if they had the vision, the resources would appear (and they have).

I’d like for us to start asking the same question they did: “What kind of campus ministry would serve the kingdom of God best on our campus?” Of course, we start with prayer. We probably don’t know right off the bat what the very best campus ministry would look like, but God does. After a period of reflection and prayer, would you hit the “comments” button below and share your thoughts on what that perfect campus ministry would look like? As suggestions come in, I’ll post them on this blog. Maybe reading others’ suggestions will help you to put into words some even better ideas.

Thanks for God's wisdom shared through you.

Love,

Chuck

The Core of Matthew's Gospel Message

2008-08-05T11:46:00.001-06:00

The Sunday readings for the middle of this summer have been from a special part of Matthew’s Gospel. As it turns out the whole Gospel of Matthew is organized around a core message, and the readings from three summer Sundays comprise that core.
At the center of Matthew’s Gospel is a set of parables that Jesus presents to his followers to teach them about the Kingdom of God. Remember that the Hebrew people had been looking forward to the Messiah who would bring to reality the Kingdom of God on earth for almost 2,000 years when Jesus was born. Many expected it to be a military kingdom. They expected the Messiah to raise a great army that would throw off the hated Roman occupiers and re-establish the Kingdom of Israel as a mighty world power.

Jesus needed to teach his followers that the reality of God’s kingdom was much different than that. That’s what these parables are about. Let’s review what Jesus has to say:
The first parable is about a sower planting seeds. Some seeds fall on good ground, but many do not. Many people God invites into the kingdom are so dried up and hard that the seeds of the kingdom can never even start to grow in them. Some accept the invitation with enthusiasm at first, but their soil is shallow. There is no staying power. The life that springs up in them withers and dies. But some people are persistent and let that life grow in them and yield a bountiful harvest.

The second parable is about a field planted with good seed, but weeds spring up among the valuable plants. Why doesn’t the farmer (God) pull up and destroy the weeds? Because the good crop could be harmed. In particular, some of us who are behaving like weeds may turn to God in time. The presence of weeds in the kingdom is not a sign of God’s weakness, nor does it mean that God is not ultimately just. The presence of evil in our world is a sign of God’s loving patience with us, giving us second and third and fourth chances to turn away from evil and become the good people we were meant to be when God planted the good seed.

The third and fourth parables come as a pair – one with special relevance for men, and one with special relevance for women. Men, who are the ones spending their days working out in the fields, know that a tiny mustard seed isn’t very impressive. But when you let it grow, it becomes a shrub big enough for birds to build their nests in. Women, who make bread for the family, know that the yeast that you put into a batch of bread doesn’t look like much, but it makes a huge difference. Without the yeast, the dough is just a lump. With the yeast, the dough rises and becomes beautiful, aromatic and tasty. The Kingdom of God is in this world, but won’t seem like much at this point unless you are wise enough to not be fooled by appearances. The Kingdom of God is at work. In the end, it will grow to dwarf everything else that appears important to the foolish.

The fifth and sixth parables also come as a pair. The Kingdom of God is like a treasure that someone finds buried in a field. The Kingdom of God is like a fabulous pearl that is worth selling everything you own to obtain. Once you understand what God is offering you as a follower of Jesus, as a citizen in God’s kingdom, you will put everything else aside. You will devote your life to what really matters and not be led astray by the silly or even evil things that the rest of the world may find valuable.

The seventh parable tells of a fishing net that has brought up a whole bunch of stuff from the ocean bottom. Some of the things are valuable, but many of them are not. The things that come up in the net must be sorted. The valuable things will be kept, but the other things will be tossed. Ultimately God’s judgment will prevail.

And finally, a word of wisdom. "[E]very scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old." In a way, the Kingdom of God has always been with us. Even the ancient people before God spoke to Moses, had a sense of good and bad, of truth and falseness. They sought God in whatever ways they were able to do so. There is much goodness in that. But Jesus has also brought something utterly new. A new relationship with God, a new way of relating to each other and a new way to think about ourselves. A new way of dealing with suffering and pain. A new meaning to life.

This teaching of Jesus is incredibly rich. I don’t have any idea how to sum it up adequately in just a few words, but Jesus telling us that the reality of God’s presence in our world is much different than most of us expect. It is easy to miss if we aren’t willing to pay attention. It is gentle and unassuming, yet it is ultimately the most powerful force in the history of our world. It provides us with great opportunity, but we choose some pretty scary outcomes if we refuse the invitation offered.

Good Source for Basic Information on the Catholic Church

2008-07-17T16:34:00.003-06:00

Hi. The other day I was searching for a document that came out of a Lutheran-Catholic dialogue on "justification by faith." It was a terrifically important dialogue because resulted in agreement between Lutherans and Catholics on the most important point at issue when Lutherans and Catholics split 500 years ago. I found the document in a couple of different places. One is http://archive.elca.org/ecumenical/ecumenicaldialogue/romancatholic/jddj/index.html
and another is http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/pccujnt4.htm.

But while poking around on its website I found that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has produced a wonderful video aimed at explaining to Lutherans what the Roman Catholic Church is all about. It is remarkably accurate and well-done. So if you would like to help a friend learn about the Catholic faith and would like an "unbiased" source of information, you've got it. It's at http://archive.elca.org/mosaic/RomanCatholic/index.html.

Welcome to Our Blog

2008-07-08T12:07:00.001-06:00

Hi. Welcome to our blog. We intend this to be a place where conversations can go on. Of course, all kinds of conversations are already going on at St. Paul’s. We have worship, meetings, classes, parties, meals, and many circumstances where we learn about and from each other. We also send and receive lots of e-mails and get lots of phone calls. And sometimes people come by just to talk and hang out. That’s all wonderful, and we wouldn’t want to change any of it.

This blog lets us have some of our conversations in a more public way and in a way that invites more people to participate. It lets people participate who might find it inconvenient or even impossible to come over to St. Paul’s and join in. So come on in. You’re welcome. Let’s talk about what’s important, what’s interesting, what’s fun.

Joe and Chuck

Is “organized religion” the cause of wars, hatred, and other evils?

2008-07-08T12:03:00.001-06:00

In his book Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis traces his journey from his early atheism to the Christian faith. One of the phenomena that influenced his thinking is the fact that all over the world, in every age, people have sought to make their behaviors consistent with some external measure of what is good, just, and true. Sometimes that means changing our actions to fit a higher standard. All to often that means seeking ways to amend or reinterpret the standard so our current actions can be justified. But Lewis reflected that in every place in every time, the need to be "right" with something transcendent is a core aspect of what it means to be human.

Lewis is not the only person to recognize this basic aspect of humanity. In fact, I have read reports of recent psychological research seeking to define and quantify this human quality.
In the context of this understanding of human nature, religious expressions of all sorts are seen to flow from the human need to be closer to and more in tune with God, however that concept is understood. Properly expressed by healthy people who are blessed with good leadership, this wonderful element of our humanity emerges in people like Mother Theresa, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King, and Saint Francis of Assisi and in movements like Habitat for Humanity and Oxfam. It shows up in good families, good friendships, and healthy churches. But like other powerful drives such as sex and the need for safety, the urge to faith can drive us in terrible directions. One sees "Christian" white supremacists and "Muslim" jihadists violating the most basic standards of human decency because they have let their urge to faith be turned in truly bizarre directions.

So to condemn "organized religion" misses the point entirely. There is a powerful drive within each human being to do what is right and to be right with God. When we allow this drive to become deformed, misdirected, and perverted we see terrible outcomes. The answer to the problem is not to ignore or suppress this aspect of our humanity – witness the result of trying to do that with our sexuality – but to understand and appreciate it in a way that allows it to blossom into the truth, holiness, and beauty that it calls us to.

Chuck