Show Me The Right To Pray

My former fellow-Missourians have a special election tomorrow to send Christians home from their long road trip.

Rev. Terry Hodges of First Baptist Church in Odessa, said that if Amendment 2 passes, it will “level the playing field.”

Hodges said Christians “enjoyed home-field advantage” for the country’s first 150 years. “That’s changed, and now there’s a hostility toward Christians,” he said.

I think what’s changed is that Protestants miss having unchallenged supremacy. Interesting that they managed to get Missouri’s four Catholic bishops to sign on. But my experience in Iowa has told me they will be far from likely to get their public school students to lead other Christians in the Rosary.

I don’t know that this will be a “jobs bill for lawyers.” But it sure seems like a solution in search of a problem to me. As a parent of a public school student, I’m relieved that high school faculty and staff aren’t coercing my daughter with evangelical Christian prayers of the squinty eyed concentration sort. A right-to-pray law will have to provide some sort of equal access, I would think. How many evangelicals would welcome the Prayer of St Michael every tenth prayer? Or something Wiccan their way coming every so often.

Let the voting begin. Then the legal challenges. Then the lawyer fees. Then the Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, and whatnot prayers to follow.

 

Deportation For Peace and Good Order

Amidst this summer’s flock of worthy women, it should be noted that clergy, too, are persecuted for making a couerageous stand. Father Viateur Banyangandora was deported from Zambia for a peace and justice homily. The official line:

Father Banyangandora’s conduct was found to be a danger to peace and good order in Zambia.

Of course it was. The good order of the rich and powerful are always bothered by preaching on behalf of the poor.

 

Marriage, American Style

Just noting a few adventures in marriage.

First, the black couple who, despite being members of Crystal Springs First Baptist Church, were married in another church when their pastor bowed to pressure from a supposed minority of white members. Under the withering disapproval of the world (pretty much) the mayor, the community relations director, and much of the town held a “hands-together” public event to demonstrate unity, solidarity, and such.

It’s in the nature of politics that a vocal insurgent minority can take over a community, demanding it hold to the values of that minority. (For Catholics, consider MR3.) The big mouths in any group often cast big shadows over the rest and color all perceptions. Fortunately, Charles and Te’Andrea Wilson seem open to reconciliation in that church. Church members have reached out, those who were ignorant of the machinations behind their backs.

The Rev. Stan Weatherford, who has been at the epicenter of criticism and controversy for his decision to appease a small group of congregation members by marrying the Wilsons at a nearby church rather than his own, stood before Crystal Springs community members as they joined hands, bowed their heads and prayed in silence.

Weatherford then joined members of his church as part of a community prayer walk around Crystal Springs’ downtown area.

Don’t know Rev Weatherford, and I wonder what his lobbyists are thinking and saying by his defection to the other side.

This other couple reunited and remarried after forty-eight years of divorced separation. Nice.

Some say marriage is under unprecedented attack, but it seems pretty resilient in these two stories.

 

LCWR Response Coming Soon

Laurie Goodstein at the NYT has a feature up this weekend on the upcoming LCWR meeting and the response to come from a summer of discernment. I guess my own summer has been roaring by; I didn’t realize the moment of truth was so near.

Looking back, I have to say that I admire Bishop Blair for going on NPR’s Fresh Air to state the bishops’ view. That interview could have gone much worse for him and the bishops than it did. As it happens, I don’t think he carried himself well at all. If he’s any indication, the bishops see this as an issue of obedience to Church teaching. For the sisters, I don’t think the Church teaching is a matter of dispute, at least not in any great numbers. They see it as a twofold problem.

First, the matter is one of what’s fair game for discussion. This report is more about imposing a gag order on disputed topics. Not aligning oneself against faith and morals. Secondarily, it seems the sisters have a serious case to say that the views cited in the report are taken out of context, or even blatantly misunderstood.

If the CDF is intentionally misreading their reports, then that would be a matter of grave sin, a participation in gossip and defamation.

I’m more inclined to think that this is something of a dialogue of the deaf, as one cardinal put it. I’d say a certain intellectual curiosity is a danger signal to modern bishops, who, it seems, lack the general theological aptitude of their forebears of the post-conciliar years. Uniformity is routinely confused with unity. Talking and listening equates with accepting. This is just not logical.

If the LCWR as a canonical entity can’t get past the blockade of ignorance, then I don’t see its purpose. Religious sisters seem well-able to convene in conference in any sort of way. It continues to happen among communities. No doubt it will continue outside the approval of the bishops–there are simply too many women who will talk about minsitry and theology and way too few bishops to have a prayer of stopping them. All that has been accomplished is the weakening of the institution. And maybe that’s not a bad thing.

 

RNS on Ross

Ross Douthat’s takedown of liberal Christianity is itself given a brisk one-two in the gut by Mark Silk and Daniel Burke at RNS.

Mr Douthat is smarter than this:

As a result, today the Episcopal Church looks roughly how Roman Catholicism would look if Pope Benedict XVI suddenly adopted every reform ever urged on the Vatican by liberal pundits and theologians.

Too many conservatives are too smug about decline. The truth is that conservatives have been deeply compromised by immorality from papal hangers-on to tv preachers. The real thing missing from Christianity is not ties to tradition or thoughtless reform, but a refusal to demand much of believers. Traditionalists are coddled by an indult.  Suburban progressives have their religious needs serviced by degreed professionals. Christianity prospers when it roots itself in tradition, but tears full speed ahead into the challenges of the day. Many liberals and conservatives miss this. It’s not about them.

 

Beef and Chicken

Anthony Stevens-Arroyo’s WaPo commentary on nuns, bus, bishops, and gas didn’t quite hit the spot for me. Granted, like him and the sisters, I’m concerned about religious freedom, even as my supervisors frame it. I think the bishops were the wrong guys to be the front line on F4F. I understand that they were the leaders and all.  But except for their own dioceses, the average non-New York City Catholic doesn’t know Tim Dolan from her or his own diocesan social justice person. The latter is probably a bit more politically savvy than your average bishop, too. And the bishops are fighting against the perception that their leadership has been weak on protecting children.

Comparing apples and oranges beef and chicken:

In a sense, these two events that started in June and conclude on the nation’s birthday maximize the choices behind Catholic freedom. Paired together, they exhibit the full spectrum of Catholic commitments. Much like patrons of a cafeteria can choose either beef or chicken for lunch, Catholics have a varied menu this summer when engaged in social justice ministry. But if one chooses beef for oneself, that doesn’t mean that other Catholics in line are denied the choice of chicken.

This is not to deny a climate in which different sides try to make their definition of Catholicism the only one. The current cohort of bishops seems to be following the top-down non-accommodating model of Pope John Paul II when he was cardinal archbishop in Poland: keep all Catholics unified under the direct leadership of the hierarchy so that when these prelates negotiate with government they have the full power of an obedient and militant laity. I would not deny the bishops’ pastoral charge to preserve the unity of the church. However, that unity is not the same as uniformity with a bishop’s political preferences.

Don’t misunderstand my first paragraph. As citizens and members of the faithful, the US bishops have every right, if not the responsibility, to follow their consciences and speak out, as they see fit. My assessment is that the bishops were more effective as a unitive voice in the 1980′s–a similar situation in which some of the flock and some outside of it interpreted their teaching and actions as political and others walked in lockstep behind it. Of course, the 80′s bishops had the advantage of having consulted with the laity in advance. I remember participating in open forum sessions in my own diocese on peace, the economy, and on women. And today, of course, if the bishops consulted with us about the Fortnight, rather than just their staffs and lawyers and insurers, it would likely be after the 2012 election that we’d have a unitive voice on religious freedom issues.

If the bishops are okay going their way and expecting the faithful to line up behind them, they have the right, and as they see it, the duty to do so.

For my part, I can choose to identify the problems with this stance, and engage with the F4F as I see fit, which in my case, has been to offer a broader perspective on religious freedom and suggest that the institutional Church may not be the vox clara needed at this time.

 

Pope Benedict, Stalker?

I like the UCANews site for its coverage of Catholic matters across the continent of Asia. Their commentary is often thoughtful and occasionally tart, like this essay by Fr William Grimm, who suggests that schismatic Catholics aren’t the only ones in need of “pastoral solicitude.”

Obsessively pressing one’s attentions on a person who does not want them is called stalking. In many places and cases, it is a criminal offense.

Archbishop Di Nioa’s appointment even after the latest rejection of the pope’s repeatedly rejected and repeatedly renewed approaches to the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) certainly looks like stalking of the SSPX by the Vatican.

By now it should be clear that despite concessions on the liturgy, offers to play down aspects of Vatican II and repeated attempts at wooing in spite of being spurned, the SSPX and the ultra-traditionalists they represent are just not interested in a relationship with the Vatican and will not be until Rome comes to them in abject and total surrender.

I think that’s about the measure of it. Bishop Fellay and company believe they are the one true church, and the whole world of Christendom has fallen away. We are the leaves, they are the trunk, and winter is here. It’s worth discussing what Fr Grimm is suggesting, because it’s not really so different from what the SSPX is demanding. And while most of the rest of us “leafy” Catholics aren’t going to go into schism over it, we’re still on the Barque of Peter, aren’t we?

Four final points from Fr Grimm:

• (A) referendum on the translations that have recently been imposed throughout the world, often to the consternation of clergy and laity alike.
• The Vatican should really listen to the voices of those whose concerns and ways of living their faith arise out of their encounters with the modern world, especially those outside of a European ambit.
• Rome must admit that the old ways so beloved by many traditionalists failed in the face of a changing world and our leaders must be humble enough to learn from places where the Church is growing in Africa, Asia and the Americas.
• (S)imply express some gratitude and admiration to all those Christians who in spite of scandals, confusion and a sense of being ignored and abused continue to engage in the journey of faith as part of the Catholic Church?

Holding that referendum would be a huge loss of face for ICEL and Vox Clara. It’s easier to blame the stupidity and limited vocabulary of the laity. I don’t see it happening. It would require a change in pope and the liturgical heads in the curia.

Points two and three should be obvious. Fr Grimm is generous about “European ambit.” The Vatican is still stuck in a pre-1790 monarchical European ambit. It’s likely a miracle that two centuries-plus of disconnect from the ordinary laity haven’t caused more of a hemorrhage from the faith. They could take a clue from the democratic substrate in the states: a lack of governing aristocracy, minimal corruption–a seemingly ripe climate for religion, and particularly Catholicism.

As for point four, the bishops are too busy calling people stupid to get a clue on that one. But they should know that many of us have taken the high road instead of the traditionalist one. We’re staying Catholics no matter how dense the leadership is.

 

ACA

A few quick things about the SCOTUS ruling.

Some, but not all opponents of health care insurance have had a field day with innuendo, caricature, and outright lies, I’m going to suspend my opposition to ACA (for being too conservative and wussy) for just a day and enjoy watching the ideologues twist in the wind on this one.

Now that we’ve got the judiciary stage of legislation out of the way, it’s time to get back to work on the real issues of health care and how to pay for a fair system, especially when catastrophe strikes. The point is to make American society better for all, not just score a point for the complainers.

I can only accept ACA as a stepping stone to something better. If Republicans have better ideas, it’s time to pony them up. If not, it’s time for them to cede their side of the discussion entirely.

 

Shots, Fair or Foul

Charles took me to task for refering to this widely circulated quote attributed to Cardinal George, the archbishop of Chicago, when the state of Illinois expanded LBGT rights:

I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.

I alluded to it in conjunction with a Mexican priest who has experienced intimidation to the point of death threats for his ministry to migrants from Central America. Charles believes I’ve been unjust:

“Cardinal George muses…” could be regarded as rather a cheap shot, Todd and to what benefit or expected outcome?

I don’t expect an immediate benefit, to be honest. This is a rather small corner of the Catholic blogosphere. And I have no delusions about being more widely-read or influential than with a relatively small (but certainly appreciated) group of friends and visitors. A few who disagree with me think I pound away at the bishops more than is seemly. And honestly, I take that into consideration. My criticism of certain heroes stings whether I do it once a week or once a day. In that sense, I’ve become part of the background hum of the hermeneutic of persecution: a sort of court jester who isn’t very funny or a Catholic Howard Stern for the neo-orthodox. You’d like to tune me out, and eventually you do. But I don’t bring you the sex and profanity like Mr Stern–just the annoying twitter of a critic. And you don’t seem to be keeping your fan club page up to date, either.

I am concerned the outcome is further polarization. Bishop critics cheer that someone else has taken a swat at a sacred cow of the Right. People on the Right simmer because most all of them would agree that Padre Solalinde is indeed an admirable figure to persist in service despite attacks from organized crime, the government, and business corporations.

Getting back to the quote, after about fifteen minutes of research in the libraries of the search engines, I could not find the original attribution. The fisheaters’ forum though it was Archbishop Chaput’s. But he told them it was his Chicago brother. I’ve seen it used on liberal LBGT sites to poke even more deeply at the Catholic hierarchy. I’ve seen it borne on Catholic sites, possibly with a tear stain or two in the posting. The original words might still be online somewhere. Just buried past the headlines.

I think it’s a silly quote. Especially in the context of the cover-up of sex crimes of the clergy. Could the United States be overrun by thugs? It’s within the realm of possibility. I suppose. Bad people have done bad things with government support, but usually justice won out in the end. Jim Crow laws were eventually deep-sixed. Japanese-Americans were returned to their homes. Corrupt politicians in eastern cities were eventually turned out. Gravely evil acts were committed in the name of law and order and safety and patriotism and the public good. Evil tends to have its arc and then spend itself. It always seems to pop up anew. If I believed in a devil, I’d say that being has a monster case of attention-deficit disorder.

It’s a silly quote because most Catholics, if told that a bishop was to go on trial in the United States, and if given a choice between something to do with paying for someone else’s abortion or endangering the child sex victims of a priest, would likely choose the latter. And they would be correct, as of 2011.

If Cardinal George’s successor were either naive as Bishop Robert Finn or as dodgy as Cardinal Bevilacqua, it’s very likely the man would go to jail. And if he were guilty of a serious crime, it would be a just solution most likely. The people who have died as martyrs in the US have been civil rights figures. Powerful figures like Kenneth Lay and Anthony Bevilacqua have died before the first mob even formed. But I suspect that it would, very unfortunately, be possible to drum up a lynch mob for either man, considering the public perception of damage they’ve done.

My favorite foils seem to think I’m advocating for the bishops to just shut up and go away. And no, I don’t agree with that either. I have no intention of shutting up and going away, and really, I don’t think they should either. I do think that a wider reading of the saints, and an introduction to the good work being done away from chanceries and the halls of politics would temper a lot of these episcopal statements with wisdom and prudence.

So in the long run, I’ve just annoyed a friend or two. I’ve gotten a few thumbs-up icons. Cardinal George isn’t retracting his words, nor is he taking a Mexican holiday to fill in for a brother priest in Oaxaca. The conservatives still think the country’s going to hell in a handbasket, and I still think it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, considering who’s driving the bus off the cliff. Meanwhile, I need to do more research on women of character who have been persecuted by the same institution that seemed, a month ago or so, to be touting religious freedom. Any suggestions?

 

Lessons In Freedom

Have you caught Joseph Sorrentino’s Commonweal piece on Padre Alejandro Solalinde? From the priest who ministers to migrants from Central America through Mexico, and sometimes to the States:

I see them as sheep without a pastor. Nobody helps them, they’re assaulted, many things are done to them and no one is concerned about them. I said I have to concern myself about them. If other priests are dedicated to religious service, then at least I have to dedicate myself to helping them.

Apparently Padre Solalinde does enough to threaten the powers that be:

 We are always receiving threats. Not just me. There are more than fifty shelters for migrants…. We are like a collective and are damaging the interests of drug dealers, corrupt politicians, and corrupt corporations.

I was going to comment on dotCommonweal till I saw Bill Mazzella’s:

This is the disconnect. A fortnight for freedom for well heeled monarchs who have people serving their every need while the true captives have no advocates.

Indeed. Cardinal George muses about his successors dying in prison or at the hands of a mob. He doesn’t need to travel in time to find the Church persecuted; he only needs to hop one international border. There was a time when the red of a cardinal’s robes meant something.

 

Bishop Blair on LCWR

At the Bench, Greg linked this column from Toledo bishop Leonard Blair on the doctrinal investigation of the LCWR.

 (I)t is a great cross sometimes to know firsthand the actual facts of a situation and then have to listen to all the distortions and misrepresentation of the facts that are made in the public domain.

And yet it is undeniable that the CDF and the bishops made this a “public domain” issue by breaking the news of it. The secular world doesn’t understand the Church. Some people within and outside of the Church are deeply skeptical of the bishops and their moral conduct. Cardinal Rodé’s investigation was very poorly handled from the start and seemed to curl up quietly and die. One of the strongest objections to the CDF investigation is how the news was presented. It’s been a frequent CDF problem for decades now. The cross, in this instance, is a self-selected one.

Bishop Blair cites the four usual “causes for concern” we’ve seen elsewhere. I tend to skepticism when quotes are taken out of context. Dr Sandra Schneiders said

It can no longer be taken for granted that the members [of a given congregation] share the same faith.

That’s not good news, but it certainly may be true. I’m not deep enough into religious life to know for sure. I also don’t know if Dr Schneiders was speaking of people who have faith in someone other than Christ. Or if she was speaking about non-Catholic lay associates. Or if she was suggesting that people who share membership might have different styles of faith. If the CDF is concerned about people who have lost faith, then Dr Schneiders’ bearing when delivering this unwelcome news would be important: straight-faced lament, fist-pumping, or something else.

Another example:

The LCWR’s Systems Thinking Handbook describes a hypothetical case in which sisters differ over whether the Eucharist should be at the center of a special community celebration.  The problem is that some of the sisters object to “priest-led liturgies.” The scenario, it seems, is not simply fictitious, for some LCWR speakers also mention the difficulty of finding ways to worship together as a faith community.  According to the Systems Thinking Handbook this difficulty is rooted in differences at the level of belief, but also different mental models—the “Western mind” and the “Organic mental model.”  These, rather than Church doctrine, are offered as tools for the resolution of the case.

Given the context, I’m not sure I see the problem here. I had a friend in religious life a number of years ago who lived in a community in which a chaplain assigned to preside at Mass occasionally showed up inebriated or late. Women’s communities do not always have the access to priests who will collaborate on liturgy, as is often the case in parishes. In mission locations, there may be no clergy available. Lacking the ordination of women or married persons, there is no rejection of the Eucharist on the part of communities. The institution itself cannot provide for the sacramental needs of the faithful. Coming from a women’s ordination advocate, that might seem like a loaded criticism. But aren’t the words themselves true?

Four single speakers in fifteen years–I’m not sure I have a problem with these contrary examples. Maybe I’d have more of a concern if workshop attendees just swallowed everything they heard as gospel. The women religious I know have no problem sharing criticisms of convention speakers when we’ve gone to conferences.

Bishop Blair’s conclusion:

This situation is now a source of controversy and misunderstanding, as well as misrepresentation. I am confident, however, that if the serious concerns of the CDF are accurately represented and discussed among all the sisters of our country, there will indeed be an opening to a new and positive relationship between women religious and the Church’s pastors in doctrinal matters, as there already is in so many other areas where mutual respect and cooperation abound.

Mutual respect and cooperation indeed. We sure need more of that. I’m not attacking the LCWR for saying these are good words. Not at all.

 

What’s Wrong With Alliances?

My conservative foils in the Catholic blogosphere will probably howl over this one, but I once worked with a fairly liberal priest who told me I had a credibility issue with the parish’s lesbian and gay parishioners. I shrugged and said I had no idea how the LGBT committee came up with that. “You set them straight,” I said. “Right?” He gave me a blank stare. I did not know, but I suspected he was the source of that rumor.

I don’t have a problem telling people I am an ally. What does that mean? It’s not about being a culturewar ally, like Catholic conservatives teaming up with evangelicals or warmongers. It’s about being able to sit down with other people and cultivate real friendships. The church should have no problem with that.

I was reading about this legal initiative in Ontario, and the Church’s opposition. There’s a few things about this that strike me as off.

First, you can’t legislate good relationships. I realize the Ontario law doesn’t require people to get along. It doesn’t require the independent installation of one group. It seems to say that if students, on their initiative, want to form an alliance, no adult can stop them. On the other hand, if people insist on behaving without good manners, no law can stop them.

Second, a group is just a group. Groups can exist and do little to nothing, like committees. Sometimes they can do crazy and inappropriate things. I don’t think there are many Catholic schools out there who have disbanded athletic teams because of the danger of hazing or unsporting conduct.

One would think that the Catholic Church would take the initiative to form alliances on its own. It’s just a good idea.

 

Another Day of Civic Duty

I wish I had known about being an election official years ago. I’d been waiting to get on jury duty forever. But at my older brother’s encouragement, I volunteered to work the 2008 elections after I moved back to Iowa. I never felt more of an American as on that day. I’ve gotten the call to do the party primaries June 5th. Not being a member of either major party, I can’t vote tomorrow. But I’m happy to facilitate the voting for others.

That being said, I’ll likely miss blogging for the first time this calendar year. As you see below, I’ve put up the other Faithful Four post.

Don’t forget about the transit of Venus tomorrow. I won’t be able to join the local astronomy club for it, but I’m bringing binoculars and a white sheet of paper to the polling place so I can look in on the last Sun-Venus-Earth alignment till 2117. 5pm Eastern time, if I remember right. Hope it’s sunny where you are.

 

Seeing Water Flow

World News Australia reports more Vatican leaks, even though the butler is detained. Maybe he’s masterminding the whole thing from his police holding cell.

Who else is named in webs of deceit? Cardinal Bertone. Monsignor Georg Gänswein, the pope’s personal secretary.

Cardinal Burke is mentioned, but not as a leaker. More as a complainer. About those Neo-Cat liturgies. Like that’s his department.

David Gibson suggests this is not so much a leak, but a pour.

I was thinking of the acclamation for the Sprinkling Rite:

I saw water flowing from the right side of the temple, alleluia …

Monsignor Gänswein has been very close to the pope for his whole papacy. People close to B16 are obvious targets. As obvious as planting evidence in the Vatican apartment of a personal assistant. It’s hard not to get the idea that the pope himself is the target of this campaign. I saw one or two rumbles over the weekend that he might make an example of himself and resign. If so, someone has spent a lot of energy and wielded a lot of power to make it happen. Not sure I want those people in charge of the Church.

 

Police Adventures

The downfall of the 1%: no gratitude.

This is like a Clue result: It was Butler Brown, in private chambers, with a cell phone camera. Actually, the dude’s name is Paolo Gabriele. Early news reports today declined to say where in the Vatican the suspect was being held. I wonder if the dungeons are down the hallway from the crypt.