259. There are extreme circumstances in which not even the continuous rite can be celebrated. These occur when the danger of death from injury or illness is sudden and unexpected or when the priest is not called to exercise his ministry until the person is at the point of death.
The introduction to the Rite for Emergencies begins.
Some people still delay making the call to the parish for a priest or other minister. Many do wait until the moment of death–or even afterward. This is a relic of poor pre-conciliar catechesis–I wonder how the SSPX-ers handle it these days.
Trust my advice from the inside of the parish office and in many years of working with clergy: clue us in on a serious illness from the beginning. It’s not a bother or imposition; it’s our ministry.
260. In such a situation of emergency the priest should offer every possible ministry of the Church as reverently and expeditiously as he can. He may be able to provide only the barest minimum of sacramental rites and forms of prayer, but even then he should add other appropriate prayers to help the dying person and those who may be present.
Roman sensible shoes: do what can be done, when it can be done.
Coming as it is, heels of the seminary study, there may be a bit of an unfortunate connection to the undercurrent of that visitation. It’s interesting that communities of contemplatives won’t be part of this visitation, only communities with apostolates in the secular world.
The web site (already nicely put together) presents the mission clearly and without the undercurrents. Three aims:
• look into the quality of the life of apostolic women religious in the United States,
• learn more about the varied and unique ways in which women religious contribute to the welfare of the Church and society, and
• assist the Church to strengthen, enhance and support the growth of the more than 400 congregations to which the approximately 59,000 women religious in the United States belong.
There’s lots of chatter about the decline in numbers of women religious. One aim seems to be concerned with “quality” above quantity. Do large numbers of women religious have a particular advantage over smaller ones? In history, religious life accorded women freedoms unknown in most all cultures. They were free to pursue interests and abilities that would not have been supported in roles as wives and mothers. In most of the West, women now have that freedom. They can serve in any number of careers, with or without a spouse and family, and take it to the limit that the sexism of the culture allows–which has significantly expanded in the last forty to fifty years.
What would be of interest to me would be a timeline of women religious and their orders over the scope of US history. Which is the unusual circumstance: greater than usual numbers post-WWII or fewer post-Vatican II?
The rest of the continuous rite treats anointing, then viaticum. We’ve covered a lot of this territory before, and the rite itself refers back to previous rituals almost exclusively.
PCS 247-250 covers sacramental anointing. The first section instructs the priest to lay hands on the sick person in silence. The prayer over the oil is next, either a thanksgiving over blessed oil (see PCS 123) or the priest may bless the oil he has brought (see PCS 21). The anointing takes place as described in PCS 124. There is a brief prayer after anointing, which is to be omitted if viaticum takes place immediately.
The following four sections (251-254) lay out the brief viaticum liturgy. The Lord’s Prayer is prayed by all present. Loved ones may receive communion, as we read:
252. The sick person and all present may receive communion under both kinds. When the priest gives communion to the sick person, the form for viaticum is used, as described in (PCS) 193.
The priest cleanses the vessel, then may facilitate a period of silence before leading the concluding prayer (PCS 209 option A or C).
PCS 255-258 gives the concluding rites. The priest blesses all present. He also has the option of blessing the sick person silently with any of the Blessed Sacrament that remains. The text referenced for the former blessing is PCS 91, option A or C. PCS 256 provides for an optional sign of peace–the same location as we’ve seen before. It employs the peace as a gesture of leave-taking rather than as a reconciliation before approaching the altar.
The continuous rite concludes with these instructions:
257. If the person recovers somewhat, the priest or other minister may continue to give further pastoral care, bringing viaticum frequently, and using other prayers and blessings from the rite of visiting the sick.
258. When death has occurred, prayers may be offered for the dead person and for the family and friends. These are given (in PCS 221-222). This may be done in any suitable place, including a hospital chapel or prayer room.
PCS 221 contains prayers for the dead. Do clergy usually offer these prayers in the presence of the deceased’s body? It probably depends on the circumstances, and the timing in the hospital, home, or hospice facility. In the next few posts,we’ll look at the “Rite for Emergencies.” Meanwhile, any comments?
Imagine the Republican Party having to work like heck to build up from a couple dozen electoral votes in 2012. Clearly the liberal media is much slower to react to the changing fortunes of the GOP. Though, to be fair, maybe they consider their talking media heads enough of a balance. Ha. With one or two exceptions, I wouldn’t.
Honestly, these people are more hilarious that the political pro-life movement. The only thing that saved nbc’s bacon on this event is that they lined up advertisers months ago before the smoke blew away and the morrors broke. I wonder how cbs will fare with next year’s game. Do they try to lock in corporations now, or do they cross their fingers and hope for an economic miracle by summertime?
I would like to see the Cards win if for no other reason than seeing the post-game dialogue:
“Kurt Warner, you’ve just won the Super Bowl. What do you have to say for yourself?”
Not only is FOCA nowhere to be found, but any face-to-face effort with the president is missing. From the comments, this piece of wisdom from Deacon Eric, a frequent commenter:
Case in point: President Obama has offered a middle road, saying he would like to work with people to reduce the number of abortions. Who is the bishop that the USCCB has assigned to meet with him (to take him) up on this offer? What delegation from the pro-life movement has followed up on this and offered to help draft an action plan?
Of course, the answer is no one in the pro-life movement has done this, because they have no interest in reducing the number of abortions, they only want to see Roe overturned. And we have no guarantee that Roe will eliminate abortions altogether, or even reduce them significantly.
Of course, it takes a movement of millions to get no movement at all on Roe. It takes a movement of millions to focus so single-mindedly on one aspect that eveything else gets lost. It takes a movement of millions to insulate a vital justice issue from political consideration.
It’s supremely easy for a bishop to send his notes to a secretary and make a press release. And even though it gets cold in Washington some Januaries, it’s easier to herd like geese rather than enter the lion’s den.
Political pro-lifers should look on the bright side: even if their meeting isn’t productive, they might get a few quotes they can ridicule on the internet. That’ll save a few babies, right? Just keep repeating the mantra: it’s not about incrementalism. (Subtitle: save all the babies or save none.)
An increasing number of people believe Galileo to be the father, Darwin (whose Origin of the Species is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year) the son, and Albert Einstein the holy spirit of a new materialistic religion. This will be a banner year for proponents of the triune god of science.
In the eyes of its worshippers, this deification of science has freed it of moral responsibility or accountability, which necessarily results in tensions with the Church. The devotees of the god of science often view Christians as superstitious simpletons at best, and, at worst, virulent heretics to be stamped out.
Trinity? Galileo was a long time ago. Darwin, too. It’s a long time for organized religion to hold a grudge.
For the record, most scientists have been more or less pleased to stay in the realm of academics. While it’s true that such science eventually trickles down to adolescents and children, rarely do you find scientists, especially their textbooks, prognosticating on religion. The reverse has not been true. Religion of many brands has intruded into the realm of science and attempt to pass theology through as authentic natural science.
From the beginning Galileo was seen by some as a threat to faith, even though he was mostly cooperative with church officials and was more concerned with the aspect of discovery. Bottom line: people looked through his telescope and they saw four moons in Jupiter orbit. Clearly not everything revolves around the Earth. Or even the sun.
The thought that looking through the telescope could be a Deception is irrelevant. A deceptive situation can happen just as easily without a tube full of glass lenses. History has shown that human beings conjure up sufficient evil in their own minds. Blaming telescopes or Galapagos animals or relativity is just a convenient scapegoat.
I don’t think this is about a deification of science as it is two things: a conflict between heroes and the trespass of religion into affairs it refuses to understand.
Scientists will acclaim Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein. But they generally will withhold the mantle of infallibility from their heroes. These scientists all had flaws in their science and their approach to science. Einstein fudged his equations; Galileo overreached on interpretation, as did Darwin. Successors in astronomy, biology, and physics have built on the foundations of Lev’s “trinity” and expanded a good bit beyond the original “canon.”
In science, heroes are as heroes do. But in the Western culture, it has become the fashion to attack the heroes of one’s adversaries. Take the SSPX situation for example. The SSPX’ers are wrong not because their leaders make foolish statements, but because they lack a grasp on Catholic theology as articulated by Vatican II. Darwin and Galileo are convenient targets for the Religious Right. But it’s just taking potshots at “saints,” hardly a religious effort.
In attempting to place non-scientific ideas into science education, scientists and teachers have every right to be upset. If creationists wish to propose their ideas in a philosophy or history or religion class, that would be appropriate. But it is true that a simpleton might mistake religion for science, math for history, social studies for music.
Now, given all that, I do think that science fails to provide a context for the application of knowledge in the realm of morality and the common good. Many scientists would suggest such applications are beyond their expertise. I might suggest this is where a diplomacy between science and religion may help. As individual human beings, scientists are only as good or bad as their own moral formation. Some scientists, like some people, are highly principled.
I would also suggest that the application of science for the common good is something that must involve people not only of science and of religion, but other representatives of human disciplines.
Science without conscience is certainly a problem, but it’s one more often caused by those in real power: political leaders. It has always been so, from way before the time of gunpowder to way past the atomic bomb. The god involved here is not one of science, but of human pride and greed. And the worshippers are not so much the scientists but the idolaters outside the discipline.
M100 from the Hubble Space Telescope at the top, by the way.
Chris’s own efforts in the pro-life sphere are eminently laudable. His insights are an important part of the discussion, whether that leads to practical cooperation or not.
As he concedes, there’s a wide range of pro-lifers out there who are not extremists, who do not live, breathe, and eat the movement 24/7. I don’t know it’s accurate to describe them as “moderates.” I wonder how he would peg me, for example. I’ve been very critical in the blogosphere of the faults of the political arm of the pro-life movement. Am I a moderate for wading into hostile territory and making suggestions people don’t want to hear? Sounds a lot like people hanging on PP sidewalks to me.
My own pro-life convictions were strengthened by my exposure to and attempt to adopt pacifism as a personal philosophy in the 80′s. I tend to be a very harsh judge on my own violence and see my position against abortion standing alongside some positions that mainstream society (and much of the Church) would consider extreme. I’m not sure I’m a moderate there.
One problem I see in the pro-life/moderate discussions is that too many people, it seems, are accustomed to thinking one-dimensionally. There’s a rope. On one end of the rope are pro-lifers. On the other end are abortion advocates. People line up on the rope closer to one end or the other. If you’re not at or near our end of the rope, you’re not helping, and we have theology on our side to marginalize you. End of story.
It’s a very simple story, but a totally false approach–despite the (mis)use of theology. Who hardcore pro-lifers seem to tolerate are those whose positions are congruent to their own. They are more uniformists–and sometimes the peripherals seem more important than the children they try to save. When that happens the crazy-thinking of addiction is the best way I can characterize what I hear.
Let’s face it: the abortion system and its detractors are behaving an awful lot like alcoholics and co-dependents. Logic, reason, and truth have largely gone out the window on points of contact. One side laments women dying from hidden abortions when the truth is that death rates from abortion fell to almost nil by the early seventies. Another side pumps up FOCA as an imminent threat–a bill that will never see the light of day, most likely. Neither side is open to constructive feedback from within, let alone from the other side. Each extreme is convinced it alone holds the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. Politicians are content to marginalize the extremes because they are unmoving, and therefore irrelevant to the candidate. So other issues take center stage and get action.
So by writing this, am I a realist or a moderate?
There are two reasons why a renewal of a grassroots effort is essential. First, it gets real people who are non-uniform in their approach to abortion working together for a common good. And second, it is true ministry to serve people in anguish over an unplanned pregnancy.
Lobbying is not ministry. Neither are the compositions of press releases from chanceries. Nor are pronouncements of excommunication. Some of these efforts are necessary. Some may even help an occasional person. They serve more as pep rallies, outlets for personal anger, and a tendency to over-think a problem.
Why isn’t there more dialogue on abortion? For the same reason why the families of addicts don’t talk. It’s hard to have a conversation with someone who seems to be screaming all the time.
It’s an early post, in part because this artist deserves to have her music in the full light of day. I enjoyed Maria Schneider’s compositions at the Eastman School of Music in the 80′s. Her ability to get wonderful color from the jazz big band makes me drool. I wish I could arrange and compose like that.
Her web site is well worth exploring–lots of music in many formats is available there. She was awarded a well-deserved Grammy for her latest release, Sky Blue. I also like the tune above from her 2000 release Allegresse. Enjoy the genius.
The new quarter commemorating the District of Columbia went into release this week. It’s good to see one of America’s most outstanding composers honored. In spite of the cut-off piano, I like this design.
Representative Mike Castle of Delaware has sponsored follow-up legislation that will keep special quarters rolling out of Philadelphia, Denver, and San Francisco for the next twelve years.
National Park Quarters will keep the new designs coming to complement the first president on our 25-cent pieces.
While I like many of these designs, and I applaud the State Quarter program, I do think these efforts dodge the need to redesign coinage. I’d rather have all the circulating coins redesigned and save the special series for collectors’ items. It’s time to give the special series a rest.
As it is part of the Viaticum liturgy (PCS 190-191), the baptismal profession of faith and litany follow the Liturgy of Penance. If, that is, “the condition of the sick person permits.” A sprinkling rite may take place after the profession of faith.
PCS 245 suggests that “the litany may be adapted.” Option A reads:
You bore our weakness and carried our sorrows: Lord, have mercy.
R. Lord, have mercy.
You felt compassion for the crowd, and went about doing good and healing the sick: Christ, have mercy.
R. Christ, have mercy.
You commanded your apostles to lay their hands on the sick in your name: Lord, have mercy.
R. Lord, have mercy.
Option B reads:
Let us pray, dear friends, for our brother/sister N., whom the Lord at this hour is refreshing with the sacraments.
That the Lord may look on our brother/sister and see in him/her the face of his own suffering Son, we pray:
R. Lord, hear our prayer.
That the Lord may help N. in this moment of trial, we pray:
R. Lord, hear our prayer.
That the Lord may watch over N., and keep him/her ever in his love, we pray:
R. Lord, hear our prayer.
That the Lord may give N. strength and peace, we pray:
R. Lord, hear our prayer.
246. It is highly appropriate that the initiation of every baptized by the sacraments of confirmation and the eucharist. If the sacrament of confirmation is celebrated in the same rite, the priest continues as indicated in “Christian Initiation for the Dying,” (PCS)290. In such a case, the laying on of hands which belongs to the anointing of the sick (see (PCS) 247) is omitted.
The Roman approach is eminently pragmatic. In the scope of a three-sacrament celebration with a dying person, what is important in a celebration of viaticum alone–the baptismal profession of faith–is less vital in light of the highlight moments: the active encounter with the sacramental Christ.
It brings to mind a challenge I’ve found common in the parishes I’ve served. Lots of churches have extra vestments, old liturgical items, and other things that might be in decent shape. Or not so decent shape. Sit in the purple chair and do some early Spring cleaning. How would you dispose of these extra items? How do you handle gifts no longer used? Are you aware of various organizations that collect church things and distribute them to parishes in need.
I remember we had a horrific set of polyester chasubles at one parish I served. Maybe a dozen of them. Made my skin crawl just to look at them. (I’m allergic to polyester.) One school teacher took a few to use as costuming for school plays and musicals. My art/environment team didn’t want to cannibalize them for table covers or things like that. I shipped them off to a mission in the northern plains, but I felt badly about what we were sending.
If anybody reading has suggestions for a donation chain on unused liturgical objects, let us know in the combox, ok? If you can’t add links, just send them to my e-mail and I’ll update this post accordingly.
In the Liturgy of Penance (241-243) one of two options is provided. The priest may lead the sick person in either the sacrament of penance or a penitential rite:
241. If the sick person so wishes, the sacrament of penance is celebrated; in case of necessity, the confession may be generic.
We’ve encountered this “generic” confession earlier in the pastoral care rites. We’re probably talking about the confiteor or some similar formula.
The priest extends his hands over the penitent’s head (or at least extends his right hand) and says:
God, the Father of mercies, through the death and reconciliation of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
242. If there is no celebration of the sacrament of penance, the penitential rite takes place as usual. The priest invites the sick person and all present to join in the penitential rite using these or similar words:
243. At the conclusion of the sacrament of penance or the penitential rite, the priest may give the apostolic pardon for the dying, as described in (PCS) 201.
Commentary:
I find the placement of the penitential rite after the celebration of the word/instruction to be a little curious. In essence, it means the framers of this rite have conceded the Word is not essential to the continuous three-sacrament rite.
A bit more on the generic confession. The Church is clearly not concerned about scrupulosity with the “death-bed confession.” That said, many Catholics will want to confess in an ordinary way. It will take some judgment on the part of the priest to steer the penitent one way or the other as circumstances suggest.
Aren’t you glad for those pastoral care books with the multiple ribbon bookmarks? It is really important for a pastoral care minister to be prepared with these rites that refer to other sections for the detailed rituals and ritual texts.
As a practical aside, I’ve also found it helpful to pull about ten or so slips from the smallest post-it note pad, and stick it to the inside back cover of the PCS handbook. When I need to scratch a note or apply an extra bookmark, I can use that mini-pad rather easily. Sometimes it’s that extra page marker, and sometimes a memory-challenged person like me can use the reminder of the names of spouse, the children, or other important people.
4.January 28th is his feast day. Why was that date chosen?
a.His date of birth
b.His date of death
c.The publication of the Summa Theologica
d.His “dogmatic” rehabilitation by Pope Pius IV
5.Thomas was a priest with the …
a.Jesuits
b.Dominicans
c.Benedictines
d.His home diocese
6.Thomas’s family opposed his vocation. How did he finally escape his mother?
a.Escaped through a window in the middle of the night
b.Disguised himself as a woman
c.Asked his brother to seal him in an empty wine casket
d.She died
7.Thomas was canonized in the year:
a.1324
b.1563
c.1609
d.1870
Bonus question: Name one of Thomas’s saintly contemporaries:
The staff at my home parish took a trivia test this morning to celebrate our patronal feast. How will you non-Thomists fare? Answers tomorrow morning, probably.
(This is Neil) John Allen’s December 8, 2006 “All Things Catholic” column asks seven different questions, including, most bluntly, “What gives?” Allen ends by noting, “If only Nixon could go to China, in other words, perhaps only Benedict could pray in the Blue Mosque … at least without explaining it to death.” Perhaps. But it might be worth trying to explain the Pope’s prayer in the Sultan Ahmed Mosque in Istanbul, especially if interreligious dialogue proves to be a continuing source of controversy and uncertainty. This post is indebted to an article in Studies in Interreligious Dialogue last year written by the Sri Lankan theologian, Vimal Tirimanna, CSSR.
Fr Tirimanna begins by reminding us of three things. First, God is omnipresent; He is the Father and Creator of all. For instance, Tirimanna notes that St Augustine wrote about his encounters with God before his conversion – “Where wert Thou, then, in relation to me at that time, and how far away? … Thou were deeper within me than my innermost depths and higher than my highest parts.” We can also encounter God in places that are not “Christian.” (We can even note here that Jesus answers the Samaritan woman’s question about where to worship with the answer “neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem” [Jn 4:22]: there is no necessary fixed place of worship.)
Second, although we shall see that we have to take care when we use seemingly obvious words such as “prayer,” we can say that “every religion,” in Pope Paul VI’s words, “raises us towards the transcendental Being, the sole ground of all existence and all thought, of all responsible action and all authentic hope.” Paul VI, in the same Easter message (1964), claimed, “Every religion contains a ray of light which we must neither despise nor extinguish, even though it is not sufficient to give man the truth he needs, or to realize the miracles of the Christian light in which truth and life coalesce.”
Thus, in 1986, Pope John Paul II held a religious meeting at Assisi because of these “‘traces’ or ‘seeds’ of the Word and the ‘rays’ of the truth” in other religions.” He recognized, “Religions are many and varied and they reflect the desire of men and women down through the ages to enter into relationship with the Absolute Being.”
The prayer at Assisi was not an “interreligious prayer” – the members of different religions did not pray together, but came together to pray separately, each according to his or her different religious tradition. The recognition that other religions involve “relationship with the Absolute Being” clearly does not mean that every religion has the same concept of God. And, without sharing the same concept of God, different people simply cannot pray in the same way. For what is prayer other than a drawing near to God? As the then-Cardinal Ratzinger noted, “‘Praying’ in the case of an impersonal understanding of God (often associated with polytheism) obviously means something quite different from praying in faith to the one personal God.”
But, still, even if “interreligious prayer” is discouraged (and events such as Assisi are somewhat irregular), there can still be interreligious dialogue based on different experiences of prayer. The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue’s Dialogue and Proclamation recognizes a “dialogue of religious experience,” alongside the dialogues of life, action, and theological exchange, “where persons, rooted in their own religious traditions, share their spiritual riches, for instance with regard to prayer and contemplation, faith and ways of searching for God or the Absolute.” Fr Tirimanna, who has worked with the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences, notes that the Asian bishops commended this sort of dialogue in 1978, believing that it “will reveal to us what the Holy Spirit has taught others to express in a marvelous variety of voices.”
Third, without neglecting the theological differences between Christianity and Islam, the Second Vatican Council recognized positive elements within Islam:
But the plan of salvation also includes those wh0 acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day (Lumen Gentium 3).
This means that Judaism, Christianity and Islam adore one and the same God. Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald notes that the three religions all have prominent liturgical expressions of this primary article of faith – the Jewish Shema, the Christian profession Credo in unum Deum, and the Muslim recitation of the shahada. Thus, when Christian and Muslims pray, even if they cannot pray together, they can recognize that their prayers are addressed to the same merciful God.
Fr Tirimanna’s point is that the Pope’s prayer in the Blue Mosque did not have to be “explained to death.” Catholic theology would certainly lead us to say that a Catholic could pray in a mosque. The Catholic could do so while recognizing and valuing the theological significance of the mosque. The Catholic could even pray alongside a Grand Mufti, recognizing that, although he could not fully share in the Mufti’s words, or the Muslim cleric in his, they were praying to the same God. (Of course, whether this sort of prayer should be a normal and frequent part of a bishop’s religious life is a somewhat different question.)
What happened, then, when the Holy Father entered the mosque with Mustafa Cagrici, the Grand Mufti of Istanbul and Emanullah Hatiboglu, the mosque’s imam? The Grand Mufti explained something of Muslim prayer to the Pope and began to pray facing the mirhab. The Pope then seemed to pray and the television cameras caught him moving his lips. Afterwards, he told the Grand Mufti, “Thanks for this moment of prayer!” The Grand Mufti himself told a reporter, “I experienced an atmosphere of great intensity when we were united in prayer.” The President of the Commission for Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue in the Italian Episcopal Conference, Bishop Vincenzo Paglia, said that “without falling into any type of confusion and relativism” the pope went forward in keeping with the “spirit of Assisi.” This implied that it was prayer. Others, however, seemed more hesitant to say that the Pope prayed in a mosque alongside Muslims.
As Allen suggests, the Pope seemed to settle confusion at a weekly Wednesday General Audience. Benedict said:
In the area of interreligious dialogue, divine Providence granted me, almost at the end of my Journey, an unscheduled Visit which proved rather important: my Visit to Istanbul’s famous Blue Mosque. Pausing for a few minutes of recollection in that place of prayer, I addressed the one Lord of Heaven and earth, the Merciful Father of all humanity. May all believers recognize that they are his creatures and witness to true brotherhood!
Tirimanna notes that the Pope claims to have been moved by “divine Providence.” Then, Benedict “addressed the one Lord,” obviously in prayer, conscious that he was in a “place of prayer,” and was moved to pray using language that would be recognizable by Muslims – that is, he prayed alongside the Grand Mufti and other Muslims. Tirimanna notes that after this papal statement, nobody has denied that the Pope prayed in the Blue Mosque.
Obviously, the Pope’s private, personal prayer was striking. As Cardinal Roger Etchegaray said, “It is a gesture that has the same force as that of John Paul II at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem when he slipped into a slot of the wall a small note with a prayer.” Etchegaray noted, “Neither of these acts was premeditated.”
The question, though, is why it was so hard to admit that the Pope had prayed. Perhaps, especially given even more recent controversy, we must consider whether one of the most difficult Christian teachings to receive is the very old teaching of the Schoolmen: Deus virtutem suam non alligavit sacramentis. “God has not tied his power to vivify and sanctify to the sacraments.”
A Roman Catholic lay person, married (since 1996), with one adopted child (since 2001). I serve in worship and spiritual growth in a midwestern university parish.
about Neil
Neil has been a blogging collaborator for the past several years on Catholic Sensibility. He brings his unique experiences from theology, spirituality, and the ecumenical sphere. Pay special attention to each one of his posts.
Let’s spread the good cheer around.
Of course, it takes a movement of millions to get no movement at all on Roe. It takes a movement of millions to focus so single-mindedly on one aspect that eveything else gets lost. It takes a movement of millions to insulate a vital justice issue from political consideration.
CNS reports on a theft at a Pakistani parish in Karachi
