 |
| Archbishop Luigi Bonazzi |
The date for his official installation as Apostolic Nuncio to Canada has not yet been announced.
Dec 18, 2013
New Apostolic Nuncio for Canada - Pope Names New Ambassador to Canada
His Holiness Pope Francis today, December 18, 2013, appointed the
Most Reverend Luigi Bonazzi Apostolic Nuncio to Canada. At the time of
his appointment, Archbishop Bonazzi was Apostolic Nuncio to Lithuania,
Estonia and Latvia. The previous Apostolic Nuncio, the Most Reverend
Pedro López Quintana, ended his mission in Canada at the end of September 2013 in order to receive a new assignment from the Holy Father.
Archbishop Bonazzi was born in Gazzaniga, Italy, on June 19, 1948,
and ordained priest on June 30, 1973, for the Diocese of Bergamo. Having
obtained a Doctorate in Education, he entered the diplomatic service of
the Holy See on March 25, 1980. He previously served in the diplomatic
missions of the Holy See in Cameroon, Trinidad and Tobago, Malta,
Mozambique, Spain, the U.S.A., and Italy, as well in Canada. On June 19,
1999, Archbishop Bonazzi was appointed Apostolic Nuncio to Haiti,
following which he was named Apostolic Nuncio to Cuba on March 30, 2004,
and then Apostolic Nuncio to Lithuania and Estonia, as of March 14,
2009, and to Latvia, as of March 25, 2009.
The date for his official installation as Apostolic Nuncio to Canada has not yet been announced.
The date for his official installation as Apostolic Nuncio to Canada has not yet been announced.
Dec 17, 2013
Preparing a Generation of "Francis" Bishops - John Allen jr, NCR
Pope Francis is celebrating his 77th birthday in relatively quiet
fashion, which isn't stopping others from marking the occasion --
including, improbably enough, the pro-gay magazine The Advocate, which named him its Person of the Year.
In truth, however, Francis had already given himself a major birthday present 24 hours before by shaking up the membership of the Congregation for Bishops in order to lay the groundwork for a new generation of "Francis bishops."
In the United States, attention was understandably focused on the nomination of Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., and the effective removal of Cardinal Raymond Burke, president of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican's supreme court. Putting in the moderate Wuerl and taking the strongly conservative Burke off couldn't help but seem a signal of the kind of bishop Francis intends to elevate in the United States.
As pope, however, Francis is responsible not just for the 6 percent of the world's Catholic population that lives in the United States, but the whole shooting match, 1.2 billion faithful all over the planet.
In that regard, it's worth looking at the other appointments Francis made Monday to the Congregation for Bishops -- 30 in all, including 12 new members and confirmations for 18 prelates who already sat on the body.
For the sake of analysis, two assumptions need to be stipulated:
· The 12 new members best reflect Francis' personal touch, given that most of the 18 confirmations were for Vatican personnel whose jobs generally entitle them to a seat at the table;
· The kind of man Francis picks for the Congregation for Bishops is, in effect, a proxy for the kind of bishops he wants this panel to identify.
If those postulates are correct, we can draw some early conclusions about what a "Francis bishop" looks like -- ideological moderates with the broad support of their fellow bishops and a real commitment to the social Gospel.
From Mexico, Francis turned not to Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, generally seen as a John Paul II protégé and a champion of the church's conservative wing, but to Cardinal Francisco Robles Ortega of Guadalajara, who comes from a working-class family in Jalisco and, though he's never been part of the liberation theology movement, has good relationships with progressive sectors of the Mexican church.
Robles commands the respect of his brother bishops, having been elected in November 2012 to take over as president of the episcopal conference. He's also drawn good marks for his candor and lack of defensiveness, among other things offering an apology in a recent homily for "the scandals of those who lead the church."
From Colombia, Francis tapped Cardinal Rubén Salazar Gómez, who has occasionally come under fire for alleged waffling on the church's moral teachings.
In 2011, he drew criticism for voicing qualified support for the de-penalization of drugs, and in 2012, he was compelled by the Vatican's Secretariat of State to amend comments implying acceptance of the de-penalization of abortion in three cases anticipated by Colombian law, including rape, incest and threats to the life of the mother.
Despite those controversies, Salazar too has the support of his fellow bishops, having twice been elected president of the Colombian conference.
From Westminster in the United Kingdom, Francis elevated Archbishop Vincent Nichols, generally seen as a doctrinal and political moderate who has been criticized from the right in the U.K., among other things, for his allegedly lukewarm support for the old Latin Mass and for the new structure created under Benedict XVI to welcome former Anglicans into the Catholic church.
On the other hand, admirers say Nichols is a gifted administrator and builder of consensus who serves as the elected president of the bishop's conference in England and Wales.
In terms of new Vatican personnel named to the Congregation for Bishops, Francis added several of his own nominations, including his new secretary of state, Archbishop Pietro Parolin, and the new prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, Archbishop Beniamino Stella. Both are veteran Italian diplomats known for pragmatic and generally nonideological approaches.
Francis also tapped two Vatican officials he inherited from Benedict XVI, including one, Brazilian Cardinal João Braz de Aviz, prefect of the Congregation for Religious, who has occasionally come under fire for allegedly being too soft, including in the Vatican's ongoing examination of American nuns.
His efforts to promote reconciliation with religious women began even before he got to Rome in an interview he gave to NCR the day his Vatican appointment was announced.
"I want to learn from them and walk with them," he said of the sisters. "You have to see people up close, get to know them, what will help them overcome whatever problem there is."
Certainly no one can accuse Bráz de Aviz of having lived a sheltered life, disconnected from the sufferings of ordinary people in the developing world.
As a young priest, Bráz de Aviz was once on his way to a village to say Mass when he stumbled upon an armored car robbery. He was shot during the crossfire, with bullets perforating his lungs and intestines and one eye. Although he survived and surgeons were able to save his eye, he still carries fragments of those bullets in his body.
To be sure, Francis did not exactly flush out the more conservative elements from the congregation. For instance, he confirmed Cardinal George Pell of Australia, who's also a member of the pope's Council of Cardinals, as well as Spanish Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and known around Rome as the "little Ratzinger" -- not only because of his diminutive size, but also his affinity for Benedict's doctrinal views.
No doubt, Francis thinks it's important to maintain some balance, helping to ensure that bishops around the world are capable of understanding the concerns of all types of Catholics.
There's equally no doubt, however, that as of Monday, Francis shifted the center of the gravity inside the body responsible for selecting bishops towards the middle -- not just with the American members, as it turns out, but across the board.
In truth, however, Francis had already given himself a major birthday present 24 hours before by shaking up the membership of the Congregation for Bishops in order to lay the groundwork for a new generation of "Francis bishops."
In the United States, attention was understandably focused on the nomination of Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., and the effective removal of Cardinal Raymond Burke, president of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican's supreme court. Putting in the moderate Wuerl and taking the strongly conservative Burke off couldn't help but seem a signal of the kind of bishop Francis intends to elevate in the United States.
As pope, however, Francis is responsible not just for the 6 percent of the world's Catholic population that lives in the United States, but the whole shooting match, 1.2 billion faithful all over the planet.
In that regard, it's worth looking at the other appointments Francis made Monday to the Congregation for Bishops -- 30 in all, including 12 new members and confirmations for 18 prelates who already sat on the body.
For the sake of analysis, two assumptions need to be stipulated:
· The 12 new members best reflect Francis' personal touch, given that most of the 18 confirmations were for Vatican personnel whose jobs generally entitle them to a seat at the table;
· The kind of man Francis picks for the Congregation for Bishops is, in effect, a proxy for the kind of bishops he wants this panel to identify.
If those postulates are correct, we can draw some early conclusions about what a "Francis bishop" looks like -- ideological moderates with the broad support of their fellow bishops and a real commitment to the social Gospel.
From Mexico, Francis turned not to Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, generally seen as a John Paul II protégé and a champion of the church's conservative wing, but to Cardinal Francisco Robles Ortega of Guadalajara, who comes from a working-class family in Jalisco and, though he's never been part of the liberation theology movement, has good relationships with progressive sectors of the Mexican church.
Robles commands the respect of his brother bishops, having been elected in November 2012 to take over as president of the episcopal conference. He's also drawn good marks for his candor and lack of defensiveness, among other things offering an apology in a recent homily for "the scandals of those who lead the church."
From Colombia, Francis tapped Cardinal Rubén Salazar Gómez, who has occasionally come under fire for alleged waffling on the church's moral teachings.
In 2011, he drew criticism for voicing qualified support for the de-penalization of drugs, and in 2012, he was compelled by the Vatican's Secretariat of State to amend comments implying acceptance of the de-penalization of abortion in three cases anticipated by Colombian law, including rape, incest and threats to the life of the mother.
Despite those controversies, Salazar too has the support of his fellow bishops, having twice been elected president of the Colombian conference.
From Westminster in the United Kingdom, Francis elevated Archbishop Vincent Nichols, generally seen as a doctrinal and political moderate who has been criticized from the right in the U.K., among other things, for his allegedly lukewarm support for the old Latin Mass and for the new structure created under Benedict XVI to welcome former Anglicans into the Catholic church.
On the other hand, admirers say Nichols is a gifted administrator and builder of consensus who serves as the elected president of the bishop's conference in England and Wales.
In terms of new Vatican personnel named to the Congregation for Bishops, Francis added several of his own nominations, including his new secretary of state, Archbishop Pietro Parolin, and the new prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, Archbishop Beniamino Stella. Both are veteran Italian diplomats known for pragmatic and generally nonideological approaches.
Francis also tapped two Vatican officials he inherited from Benedict XVI, including one, Brazilian Cardinal João Braz de Aviz, prefect of the Congregation for Religious, who has occasionally come under fire for allegedly being too soft, including in the Vatican's ongoing examination of American nuns.
His efforts to promote reconciliation with religious women began even before he got to Rome in an interview he gave to NCR the day his Vatican appointment was announced.
"I want to learn from them and walk with them," he said of the sisters. "You have to see people up close, get to know them, what will help them overcome whatever problem there is."
Certainly no one can accuse Bráz de Aviz of having lived a sheltered life, disconnected from the sufferings of ordinary people in the developing world.
As a young priest, Bráz de Aviz was once on his way to a village to say Mass when he stumbled upon an armored car robbery. He was shot during the crossfire, with bullets perforating his lungs and intestines and one eye. Although he survived and surgeons were able to save his eye, he still carries fragments of those bullets in his body.
To be sure, Francis did not exactly flush out the more conservative elements from the congregation. For instance, he confirmed Cardinal George Pell of Australia, who's also a member of the pope's Council of Cardinals, as well as Spanish Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and known around Rome as the "little Ratzinger" -- not only because of his diminutive size, but also his affinity for Benedict's doctrinal views.
No doubt, Francis thinks it's important to maintain some balance, helping to ensure that bishops around the world are capable of understanding the concerns of all types of Catholics.
There's equally no doubt, however, that as of Monday, Francis shifted the center of the gravity inside the body responsible for selecting bishops towards the middle -- not just with the American members, as it turns out, but across the board.
Happy Birthday Francis - Pope Celebrates 77th Birthday as only He could
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- As part of a
low-key celebration of his 77th birthday, Pope Francis had breakfast
with three people who live on the streets near the Vatican. A small dog,
belonging to one of the homeless men, was also on the guest list.
The pope started the day with his usual morning Mass held in the chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae residence where he lives.
However, he requested that the Mass be attended by the residence staff "in order to create a particularly family atmosphere for the celebration," the Vatican press office said in a written statement Dec. 17. Cardinal Angelo Sodano, dean of the College of Cardinals, represented the world's cardinals at the Mass, and Archbishop Pietro Parolin, Vatican secretary of state, attended.
After the Mass, all those present sang "Happy Birthday" to the pope, the Vatican statement said. The pope then met with everyone, including three homeless men who were brought there by Archbishop Konrad Krajewski, the papal almoner.
The archbishop invited the first group of men he had found early that morning sleeping under the large portico in front of the Vatican press hall on the main boulevard in front of St. Peter's Square, according to the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.
"Would you like to come Pope Francis' birthday party," he asked them, reported the paper.
The men, in their forties, were from Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic. They loaded all their belongings in the archbishop's car; the dog rode in the middle.
When they got to the residence, they waited for the Mass to end, then greeted the pope. Together with Archbishop Krajewski, they gave the pope a bouquet of sunflowers, because they always turn toward the sun like the church turns toward its sun, Christ, the archbishop explained.
The pope invited the men to have breakfast with him in the residence dining room, where they talked and shared a few laughs.
One of the men told the pope, "It's worthwhile being a vagrant because you get to meet the pope," the paper said.
The pope was scheduled to carry out a normal workday, the Vatican said.
Some Vatican offices paid homage to the pope in different ways: the Vatican television center created a special video of visual highlights of Pope Francis' nine-month-long pontificate; the Vatican internet office posted on the vatican.va website an e-album of images and quotes by the pope; the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, rolled out a newly designed website at www.osservatoreromano.va that lets readers easily share stories on social media.
A group representing the pope's favorite soccer squad -- San Lorenzo de Almagro -- had wanted to celebrate the pope's birthday by showing him the Argentine league championship trophy they won Dec. 16.
However, Passionist Father Ciro Benedettini, vice director of the Vatican press office, said it was expected the group would meet the pope Dec. 18.
A group of children receiving assistance from the Vatican's St. Martha Dispensary, a maternal and pediatric clinic, had given the pope a surprise birthday party Dec. 14 marked with singing, a real cake with candles and a sweater as a gift.
When presented with the cake, the pope blew out the candles with the children and joked, "I'll tell you later if it's good or not."
Pilgrims gathered for the Angelus prayer in St. Peter's Square Dec. 15 also sang "Happy Birthday" as they waited for the pope to appear at the window of the apostolic palace.
The pope started the day with his usual morning Mass held in the chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae residence where he lives.
However, he requested that the Mass be attended by the residence staff "in order to create a particularly family atmosphere for the celebration," the Vatican press office said in a written statement Dec. 17. Cardinal Angelo Sodano, dean of the College of Cardinals, represented the world's cardinals at the Mass, and Archbishop Pietro Parolin, Vatican secretary of state, attended.
After the Mass, all those present sang "Happy Birthday" to the pope, the Vatican statement said. The pope then met with everyone, including three homeless men who were brought there by Archbishop Konrad Krajewski, the papal almoner.
The archbishop invited the first group of men he had found early that morning sleeping under the large portico in front of the Vatican press hall on the main boulevard in front of St. Peter's Square, according to the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.
"Would you like to come Pope Francis' birthday party," he asked them, reported the paper.
The men, in their forties, were from Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic. They loaded all their belongings in the archbishop's car; the dog rode in the middle.
When they got to the residence, they waited for the Mass to end, then greeted the pope. Together with Archbishop Krajewski, they gave the pope a bouquet of sunflowers, because they always turn toward the sun like the church turns toward its sun, Christ, the archbishop explained.
The pope invited the men to have breakfast with him in the residence dining room, where they talked and shared a few laughs.
One of the men told the pope, "It's worthwhile being a vagrant because you get to meet the pope," the paper said.
The pope was scheduled to carry out a normal workday, the Vatican said.
Some Vatican offices paid homage to the pope in different ways: the Vatican television center created a special video of visual highlights of Pope Francis' nine-month-long pontificate; the Vatican internet office posted on the vatican.va website an e-album of images and quotes by the pope; the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, rolled out a newly designed website at www.osservatoreromano.va that lets readers easily share stories on social media.
A group representing the pope's favorite soccer squad -- San Lorenzo de Almagro -- had wanted to celebrate the pope's birthday by showing him the Argentine league championship trophy they won Dec. 16.
However, Passionist Father Ciro Benedettini, vice director of the Vatican press office, said it was expected the group would meet the pope Dec. 18.
A group of children receiving assistance from the Vatican's St. Martha Dispensary, a maternal and pediatric clinic, had given the pope a surprise birthday party Dec. 14 marked with singing, a real cake with candles and a sweater as a gift.
When presented with the cake, the pope blew out the candles with the children and joked, "I'll tell you later if it's good or not."
Pilgrims gathered for the Angelus prayer in St. Peter's Square Dec. 15 also sang "Happy Birthday" as they waited for the pope to appear at the window of the apostolic palace.
Dec 2, 2013
Church Reform, Divorced Catholics and more - Commentary by Fr. Hans Kung - Special to the National Catholic Reporter
Church reform is forging ahead. In his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium,
Pope Francis not only intensifies his criticism of capitalism and the
fact that money rules the world, but speaks out clearly in favor of
church reform “at all levels.” He specifically advocates structural
reforms -- namely, decentralization toward local dioceses and
communities, reform of the papal office, upgrading the laity and against
excessive clericalism, in favor of a more effective presence of women
in the church, above all in the decision-making bodies. And he comes out
equally clearly in favor of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue,
especially with Judaism and Islam.
All this will meet with wide approval far beyond the Catholic church. His undifferentiated rejection of abortion and women’s ordination will, however, probably provoke criticism. This is where the dogmatic limits of this pope become apparent. Or is he perhaps under pressure from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and its Prefect, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller?
In a long guest contribution [1] in Osservatore Romano (Oct. 23), Müller demonstrated his ultra-conservative stance by corroborating the exclusion of remarried divorcees from the sacraments who, unless they live together as brother and sister (!), are ostensibly in a state of mortal sin on account of the sexual character of their relationship.
As Bishop of Regensburg, Müller, as a clerical hard-liner who provoked numerous conflicts with parish priests and theologians, lay bodies and the Central Committee of German Catholics, was as controversial and unpopular as his brother bishop at Limburg. That Müller, as a loyal supporter and publisher of his collected works, was nevertheless appointed CDF prefect by Papa Ratzinger, surprised people less than the fact that Francis confirmed him in office quite so soon.
And worried observers are already asking whether Pope Emeritus Ratzinger is in fact operating as a kind of “shadow Pope” behind the scenes through Müller and Georg Gänswein, [Benedict’s] secretary and Prefect of the Papal Household, whom he also promoted to archbishop. One remembers how in 1993 Ratzinger as cardinal whistled back the then-bishops of Freiburg (Oskar Saier), Rottenburg-Stuttgart (Walter Kasper) and Mainz (Karl Lehmann) when they suggested a pragmatic solution for the problem of remarried divorcees. It is revealing that the present debate 20 years later was again triggered by the Archbishop of Freiburg, namely Robert Zollitsch, the president of the German bishops’ conference. It was Zollitsch who ventured a fresh attempt to rethink pastoral practice as far as remarried divorcees are concerned. And Francis?
For many the situation is self-contradictory: on the one side, church reform, and on the other, remarried divorcees.
The pope wants to move forward -- the CDF prefect puts on the brakes.
The pope has actual people in mind -- the prefect above all has traditional Catholic doctrine in mind.
The pope wants to practice mercy -- the prefect appeals to God’s holiness and justice.
The pope wants the coming bishops’ synod on family matters in October 2014 to find practical solutions based on feedback from the laity -- the prefect draws on traditionalist dogmatic arguments in order to be able to maintain the unmerciful status quo.
The pope wants the bishops’ synod to make new attempts at reform -- the prefect, a former neoscholastic professor of dogmatics, thinks his statements can nip any such attempts in the bud.
Is the pope still in control of his Guardian of the Faith?
As to the subject itself, one must point out the following: Jesus came out quite clearly against divorce: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:9). But he said that above all for the benefit of women, who were legally and socially disadvantaged in comparison to men in society at the time, because in Judaism only husbands could have letters of divorce made out. And thus in following Jesus, the Catholic church, even in a completely different social situation, will emphatically champion the indissolubility of marriage which guarantees the partners and their children a stable and lasting relationship.
But Müller obviously ignores the fact that Jesus pronounced a commandment based on an aim. As with other commandments, this one does not exclude failure and forgiveness. Can one really imagine Jesus sanctioning the present way we treat remarried divorcees? This Jesus who protected the adulteress particularly against the scribes and Pharisees (John 8:1-11), who especially devoted himself to sinners and those who had failed in life, and even dared to declare that they were forgiven? The pope rightly says “Jesus must be freed from the boring templates in which we have wrapped him [translation from the Küng’s German].”
The Christians of the New Testament did not understand Jesus’ words on divorce as a law but as an ethical directive. The failure of a marriage obviously did not correspond to what men and women were created for. Only dogmatic rigidity, however, cannot take seriously that already in the days of the Apostles, Jesus’ words on divorce were applied with a certain flexibility, namely in cases of “porneia/unchastity” (cf. Matthew 5:32; 19:9) and when a Christian and a nonbeliever separated (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:12-15). Already in the early church, one was obviously aware that there were situations when a further life together was unacceptable. However, to assume that remarried divorcees in general just casually and light-heartedly gave up their first marriages for trivial reasons is malicious. There is no more bitter experience than the failure of a love relationship on which one has set the hopes of a lifetime. In view of the millions of Catholics the world over nowadays who, although they are members of the church, cannot take part in its sacramental life, it is of little help to keep quoting one Vatican document after the other without convincingly answering the decisive question as to why there should be no forgiveness just for this particular failure. Hasn’t the magisterium already failed miserably as far as contraception is concerned and thus been unable to assert itself in the church? A similar failure in the question of divorce should be avoided at all costs.
It is at any rate no solution if one calls for fresh “pastoral efforts” and wants to see annulments handled more generously, as the archbishop has suggested. For many Catholics, divorce and remarriage are not the real scandal but the shameless hypocrisy of many annulments, even when the couple whose marriage is annulled have several children.
Given the actual number of divorces at the moment, which in Germany alone in 2012 was about 46 percent in proportion to the number of weddings in the same year, and if one adds to that the increasing number of Catholic couples who only married in a registry office or are cohabiting, then in all probability, in Germany alone, roughly 50 percent of Catholics are excluded from the sacraments. And we should not forget the many children who are affected and suffer under their parents’ disturbed relationship with the Church. We are thus concerned with pastoral problems which have far-reaching consequences and which today call the official church’s – but also the pope’s – credibility into question. That is why, in the light of generally available findings in the fields of the social sciences, sexology, the history of theology, ethics, dogmatics and exegesis, bishops have repeatedly cautioned that it is absolutely imperative to undertake a reappraisal of pastoral practice.
It was precisely the reactionary strategy of the CDF which led to the present church crisis and triggered the exit of millions of Catholics from the church, particularly the remarried divorcees as they were excluded from the sacraments. It would hugely damage the Catholic church if, 50 years after the Second Vatican Council, a new “Cardinal Ottaviani”, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – or rather of the Holy Office or Inquisition, were able to establish himself in the Vatican, and who feels called to impose his conservative beliefs on the pope, the Council and indeed on the whole church.
And it would immensely damage the credibility of Pope Francis if the reactionaries in the Vatican were to prevent him from translating his words and gestures, which are so permeated by mercy and a sense for pastoral work, into action as soon as possible. The enormous capital of credibility that the pope has accumulated in the first months of his papacy must not be squandered by the curia. Innumerable Catholics hope:
All this will meet with wide approval far beyond the Catholic church. His undifferentiated rejection of abortion and women’s ordination will, however, probably provoke criticism. This is where the dogmatic limits of this pope become apparent. Or is he perhaps under pressure from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and its Prefect, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller?
In a long guest contribution [1] in Osservatore Romano (Oct. 23), Müller demonstrated his ultra-conservative stance by corroborating the exclusion of remarried divorcees from the sacraments who, unless they live together as brother and sister (!), are ostensibly in a state of mortal sin on account of the sexual character of their relationship.
As Bishop of Regensburg, Müller, as a clerical hard-liner who provoked numerous conflicts with parish priests and theologians, lay bodies and the Central Committee of German Catholics, was as controversial and unpopular as his brother bishop at Limburg. That Müller, as a loyal supporter and publisher of his collected works, was nevertheless appointed CDF prefect by Papa Ratzinger, surprised people less than the fact that Francis confirmed him in office quite so soon.
And worried observers are already asking whether Pope Emeritus Ratzinger is in fact operating as a kind of “shadow Pope” behind the scenes through Müller and Georg Gänswein, [Benedict’s] secretary and Prefect of the Papal Household, whom he also promoted to archbishop. One remembers how in 1993 Ratzinger as cardinal whistled back the then-bishops of Freiburg (Oskar Saier), Rottenburg-Stuttgart (Walter Kasper) and Mainz (Karl Lehmann) when they suggested a pragmatic solution for the problem of remarried divorcees. It is revealing that the present debate 20 years later was again triggered by the Archbishop of Freiburg, namely Robert Zollitsch, the president of the German bishops’ conference. It was Zollitsch who ventured a fresh attempt to rethink pastoral practice as far as remarried divorcees are concerned. And Francis?
For many the situation is self-contradictory: on the one side, church reform, and on the other, remarried divorcees.
The pope wants to move forward -- the CDF prefect puts on the brakes.
The pope has actual people in mind -- the prefect above all has traditional Catholic doctrine in mind.
The pope wants to practice mercy -- the prefect appeals to God’s holiness and justice.
The pope wants the coming bishops’ synod on family matters in October 2014 to find practical solutions based on feedback from the laity -- the prefect draws on traditionalist dogmatic arguments in order to be able to maintain the unmerciful status quo.
The pope wants the bishops’ synod to make new attempts at reform -- the prefect, a former neoscholastic professor of dogmatics, thinks his statements can nip any such attempts in the bud.
Is the pope still in control of his Guardian of the Faith?
As to the subject itself, one must point out the following: Jesus came out quite clearly against divorce: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:9). But he said that above all for the benefit of women, who were legally and socially disadvantaged in comparison to men in society at the time, because in Judaism only husbands could have letters of divorce made out. And thus in following Jesus, the Catholic church, even in a completely different social situation, will emphatically champion the indissolubility of marriage which guarantees the partners and their children a stable and lasting relationship.
But Müller obviously ignores the fact that Jesus pronounced a commandment based on an aim. As with other commandments, this one does not exclude failure and forgiveness. Can one really imagine Jesus sanctioning the present way we treat remarried divorcees? This Jesus who protected the adulteress particularly against the scribes and Pharisees (John 8:1-11), who especially devoted himself to sinners and those who had failed in life, and even dared to declare that they were forgiven? The pope rightly says “Jesus must be freed from the boring templates in which we have wrapped him [translation from the Küng’s German].”
The Christians of the New Testament did not understand Jesus’ words on divorce as a law but as an ethical directive. The failure of a marriage obviously did not correspond to what men and women were created for. Only dogmatic rigidity, however, cannot take seriously that already in the days of the Apostles, Jesus’ words on divorce were applied with a certain flexibility, namely in cases of “porneia/unchastity” (cf. Matthew 5:32; 19:9) and when a Christian and a nonbeliever separated (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:12-15). Already in the early church, one was obviously aware that there were situations when a further life together was unacceptable. However, to assume that remarried divorcees in general just casually and light-heartedly gave up their first marriages for trivial reasons is malicious. There is no more bitter experience than the failure of a love relationship on which one has set the hopes of a lifetime. In view of the millions of Catholics the world over nowadays who, although they are members of the church, cannot take part in its sacramental life, it is of little help to keep quoting one Vatican document after the other without convincingly answering the decisive question as to why there should be no forgiveness just for this particular failure. Hasn’t the magisterium already failed miserably as far as contraception is concerned and thus been unable to assert itself in the church? A similar failure in the question of divorce should be avoided at all costs.
It is at any rate no solution if one calls for fresh “pastoral efforts” and wants to see annulments handled more generously, as the archbishop has suggested. For many Catholics, divorce and remarriage are not the real scandal but the shameless hypocrisy of many annulments, even when the couple whose marriage is annulled have several children.
Given the actual number of divorces at the moment, which in Germany alone in 2012 was about 46 percent in proportion to the number of weddings in the same year, and if one adds to that the increasing number of Catholic couples who only married in a registry office or are cohabiting, then in all probability, in Germany alone, roughly 50 percent of Catholics are excluded from the sacraments. And we should not forget the many children who are affected and suffer under their parents’ disturbed relationship with the Church. We are thus concerned with pastoral problems which have far-reaching consequences and which today call the official church’s – but also the pope’s – credibility into question. That is why, in the light of generally available findings in the fields of the social sciences, sexology, the history of theology, ethics, dogmatics and exegesis, bishops have repeatedly cautioned that it is absolutely imperative to undertake a reappraisal of pastoral practice.
It was precisely the reactionary strategy of the CDF which led to the present church crisis and triggered the exit of millions of Catholics from the church, particularly the remarried divorcees as they were excluded from the sacraments. It would hugely damage the Catholic church if, 50 years after the Second Vatican Council, a new “Cardinal Ottaviani”, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – or rather of the Holy Office or Inquisition, were able to establish himself in the Vatican, and who feels called to impose his conservative beliefs on the pope, the Council and indeed on the whole church.
And it would immensely damage the credibility of Pope Francis if the reactionaries in the Vatican were to prevent him from translating his words and gestures, which are so permeated by mercy and a sense for pastoral work, into action as soon as possible. The enormous capital of credibility that the pope has accumulated in the first months of his papacy must not be squandered by the curia. Innumerable Catholics hope:
- That the pope will see through the Guardian of the Faith’s – that is Müller’s – questionable theological and pastoral stance;
- That he will put the CDF in its place and make his theologically based pastoral line obligatory;
- That the praiseworthy questioning of bishops and laity with regard to the coming Family Synod will lead to clear, biblically-founded and realistic decisions.
First Sunday of Advent Homily
The First Sunday of Advent has arrived. It is forever a time of joyful anticipation and we are called, as Church, to make it so.
Unlike Lent, Advent's focus is on preparing for Christ not only at Christmas time, but also preparing to welcome Our Lord when he comes to fulfill his Kingdom on earth.
We are challenged in this First Sunday of Lent to find the grace necessary to see those things in our lives which we may be blind too that can inhibit our being able to fully be ready for when Our Lord comes. We have no idea when this may be and so we remain watchful and vigilant.
Here is my homily for the First Sunday of Advent:
New Year - New Hope - New Beginnings
Good day, Church
It has been since April since I last posted. I regret that. Life has taken it's own share of twists and turns and I dropped off the digital map with my blog for too long. Many have emailed and asked to have these pages up and running again and so I have decided to make this Season of Advent, the Church's New Year, to make a resolution to try.
It has been some wonderful months here at St. Ann's Parish and in Snow Lake and Cranberry Portage, MB. Many experiences and many opportunities to see God's love and mercy reflected in many people's lives.
Like many of you, I have fallen in love with our Holy Father, Pope Francis. I have not seen a witness to the Gospel as charismatic in my life as a Catholic. Like many priests, I find myself confessing that, he makes me want to be a better priest.
I will attempt to post my homilies for this season as they become available.
For now....join me in opening our hearts to the coming of Christ, not just at Christmas, but at His second coming among us.
Blessings,
Fr. Paul
It has been since April since I last posted. I regret that. Life has taken it's own share of twists and turns and I dropped off the digital map with my blog for too long. Many have emailed and asked to have these pages up and running again and so I have decided to make this Season of Advent, the Church's New Year, to make a resolution to try.
It has been some wonderful months here at St. Ann's Parish and in Snow Lake and Cranberry Portage, MB. Many experiences and many opportunities to see God's love and mercy reflected in many people's lives.
Like many of you, I have fallen in love with our Holy Father, Pope Francis. I have not seen a witness to the Gospel as charismatic in my life as a Catholic. Like many priests, I find myself confessing that, he makes me want to be a better priest.
I will attempt to post my homilies for this season as they become available.
For now....join me in opening our hearts to the coming of Christ, not just at Christmas, but at His second coming among us.
Blessings,
Fr. Paul
Apr 16, 2013
Christianity Undermined By Pastors & Faithful Who Preach One Thing & Do Another: Pope
ROME (CNS) -- The credibility of Christianity is undermined by pastors and faithful who preach one thing and do another, Pope Francis said.
"One cannot proclaim the Gospel of Jesus without the tangible witness of one's life," the pope said April 14 during a homily at Rome's Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls.
Before beginning the evening Mass, Pope Francis walked down to St. Paul's tomb under the main altar. He blessed the area with incense, and then bowed deeply in prayer for several minutes.
He was welcomed to the basilica by U.S. Cardinal James M. Harvey, the archpriest, who spoke of the importance of Rome's two patron saints -- Peter and Paul -- and how their martyrdom in Rome should be a lesson to all believers that the "renewal of the church" requires that all Christians live their faith in their daily lives.
In his homily, Pope Francis said people outside the church "must be able to see in our actions what they hear from our lips."
"Inconsistency on the part of the pastors and the faithful between what they say and what they do, between word and manner of life, is undermining the church's credibility," the pope said.
Pope Francis said St. Paul teaches Christians that following Christ requires a combination of three things: proclaiming the Gospel; bearing witness to the faith in one's life, even to the point of martyrdom; and worshipping God with all one's heart.
The proclamation of the faith made by the apostles, he said, was not merely or primarily in words. Their lives were changed by their encounter with Christ, and it was through their actions and their words that Christianity spread.
In the day's Gospel reading, Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep.
"These words are addressed first and foremost to those of us who are pastors: We cannot feed God's flock unless we let ourselves be carried by God's will even where we would rather not go, unless we are prepared to bear witness to Christ with the gift of ourselves, unreservedly, not in a calculating way, sometimes even at the cost of our lives," Pope Francis said.
"The testimony of faith comes in very many forms," the pope said. "In God's great plan, every detail is important even yours, even my humble little witness, even the hidden witness of those who live their faith with simplicity in everyday family relationships, work relationships, friendships."
While most Christians are called to the "middle class of holiness" of fidelity and witness in the normal business of everyday life, Pope Francis noted how in some parts of the world even average Christians suffer, are persecuted and even die for their faith in Christ.
Looking at what it means to worship God with all one's heart, the pope said it, too, has a very practical, concrete expression. Worshipping God is not simply a matter of prayer -- although that is a big part of it -- but rather it means demonstrating in one's life that God alone is God.
"This has a consequence in our lives: We have to empty ourselves of the many small or great idols that we have and in which we take refuge, on which we often seek to base our security," he said.
"They are idols that we sometimes keep well hidden," like ambition, careerism or a drive to dominate others, he said. "This evening I would like a question to resound in the heart of each one of you, and I would like you to answer it honestly: Have I considered which idol lies hidden in my life that prevents me from worshipping the Lord?"
At the end of the Mass, the Jesuit Pope Francis went into the basilica's Chapel of the Crucifix where a 13th-century icon of the Madonna and Child hangs. St. Ignatius of Loyola and his first Jesuit companions made their vows as religious before the image in 1541.
Earlier in the day, the pope recited the "Regina Coeli" prayer with tens of thousands of people gathered in St. Peter's Square. In brief remarks, he commented on the same Scripture readings used at Mass that evening.
Talking about the apostles' courage in the face of persecution, Pope Francis told the crowd, "We cannot forget that the apostles were simple people; they weren't Scribes or doctors of the law and they did not belong to the priestly class."
Yet, he said, their faith was based on "such a strong and personal experience of Christ, who died and was risen, that they feared no one and nothing; in fact, they saw persecution as an honor that allowed them to follow in the footsteps of Jesus."
Mar 8, 2013
Lenten Retreat Part II
Dear Friends,
Here is the link to the second installment of a Lenten Retreat for this year.
Please follow the first part (also posted on an earlier post) in order to enter into the spirit of these talks.
I continue to pray for all of you during this Holy Season.
Blessings,
FP
Here is the link to the second installment of a Lenten Retreat for this year.
Please follow the first part (also posted on an earlier post) in order to enter into the spirit of these talks.
I continue to pray for all of you during this Holy Season.
Blessings,
FP
Mar 7, 2013
Cardinals, Conclave & The New Evangelization: John Allen, Jr
So far, when cardinals have been asked what they want in the next pope – back in that brief moment, that is, before yesterday's clampdown on talking to the press – they typically mention all sorts of things, including global vision and a capacity to govern.
Quite often, however, they also refer to wanting a pope for the "New Evangelization." While that phrase may mean something to insiders, it typically leaves normal people, including the vast majority of the 5,000 journalists now accredited to cover this election, scratching their heads.
Herewith, a primer on the "New Evangelization."
Let's start with the official Catholic argot, where "evangelization" is synonymous with missionary efforts – meaning the effort to convert people, get them into church, and draw them deeper into the life of faith.
Croatian Archbishop Nikola Eterović, who organized a synod of bishops on the New Evangelization last fall, has defined New Evangelization by distinguishing three different kinds of missionary effort:
Now, let's translate all that into language that non-theologians can understand.
In a nutshell, the "New Evangelization" is about salesmanship. The idea is to move the Catholic product in the crowded lifestyle marketplace of the post-modern world.
When cardinals say the next pope has to be committed to the New Evangelization, therefore, what they mean is that he should be a pitchman, someone who can attract people to the faith.
Just as in other markets, there are different ways of doing that – some salespeople are brash and in-your-face, some much kinder and gentler. Some work the street, others work the high-end markets. The key, however, is to be always be closing.
This may be the first time reporters have heard about the New Evangelization, but in recent years it's become the buzzword par excellence in Catholic circles. Books are being published, lectures given, conferences organized, diocesan offices created, and whole courses of study put together, all devoted to the ways and means of the New Evangelization.
In March 2011, for instance, St. John's Seminary in the Boston archdiocese announced the launch of a "Theological Institute for the New Evangelization," which will offer a Master's of Theological Studies for the New Evangelization. The institute brings together the seminary's formation programs aimed at laity, deacons, and professed religious, meaning everybody not training for the priesthood.
(You can tell it was a quintessentially American initiative, if for no other reason than this: An Open House to promote the new institute promised not only an overview of the theological content, but also "ample parking.")
Whether the New Evangelization will work remains to be seen, but at least it seems to have the church's finger on a real problem.
In the United States, there are now 22 million ex-Catholics, big enough to be the largest religious denomination in the country. The church drops four members for every one member it gains, and if it were not for Hispanic immigration, it would have been declining for decades. Yet the Catholic church in America also holds on to almost 70 percent of its members into adulthood, a higher retention rate than any other Christian denomination.
Those statistics suggest the problem for Catholicism isn't so much what happens once people are actually in the church, but getting them through the door in the first place. To return to the marketing metaphors, the problem isn't customer service but new sales.
That's where the New Evangelization enters the picture.
Quite often, however, they also refer to wanting a pope for the "New Evangelization." While that phrase may mean something to insiders, it typically leaves normal people, including the vast majority of the 5,000 journalists now accredited to cover this election, scratching their heads.
Herewith, a primer on the "New Evangelization."
Let's start with the official Catholic argot, where "evangelization" is synonymous with missionary efforts – meaning the effort to convert people, get them into church, and draw them deeper into the life of faith.
Croatian Archbishop Nikola Eterović, who organized a synod of bishops on the New Evangelization last fall, has defined New Evangelization by distinguishing three different kinds of missionary effort:
- Evangelization as a regular activity of the church, a lifelong process directed at practicing Catholics;
- The mission ad gentes, meaning the first proclamation of Christ to non-Christian persons and peoples;
- "New Evangelization," meaning outreach to baptized Catholics who have become distant from the faith.
Now, let's translate all that into language that non-theologians can understand.
In a nutshell, the "New Evangelization" is about salesmanship. The idea is to move the Catholic product in the crowded lifestyle marketplace of the post-modern world.
When cardinals say the next pope has to be committed to the New Evangelization, therefore, what they mean is that he should be a pitchman, someone who can attract people to the faith.
Just as in other markets, there are different ways of doing that – some salespeople are brash and in-your-face, some much kinder and gentler. Some work the street, others work the high-end markets. The key, however, is to be always be closing.
This may be the first time reporters have heard about the New Evangelization, but in recent years it's become the buzzword par excellence in Catholic circles. Books are being published, lectures given, conferences organized, diocesan offices created, and whole courses of study put together, all devoted to the ways and means of the New Evangelization.
In March 2011, for instance, St. John's Seminary in the Boston archdiocese announced the launch of a "Theological Institute for the New Evangelization," which will offer a Master's of Theological Studies for the New Evangelization. The institute brings together the seminary's formation programs aimed at laity, deacons, and professed religious, meaning everybody not training for the priesthood.
(You can tell it was a quintessentially American initiative, if for no other reason than this: An Open House to promote the new institute promised not only an overview of the theological content, but also "ample parking.")
Whether the New Evangelization will work remains to be seen, but at least it seems to have the church's finger on a real problem.
In the United States, there are now 22 million ex-Catholics, big enough to be the largest religious denomination in the country. The church drops four members for every one member it gains, and if it were not for Hispanic immigration, it would have been declining for decades. Yet the Catholic church in America also holds on to almost 70 percent of its members into adulthood, a higher retention rate than any other Christian denomination.
Those statistics suggest the problem for Catholicism isn't so much what happens once people are actually in the church, but getting them through the door in the first place. To return to the marketing metaphors, the problem isn't customer service but new sales.
That's where the New Evangelization enters the picture.
Musings on Rome: Prayer for New Pope
The movements in Rome are quite ordered these days.
The Cardinals who will be voting in the Conclave have declared a media blackout. This is not unusual and they followed the same protocol for Pope Benedict's election.
There is much being speculated about for the new Pontiff to face. I join my prayer with many others that this is a time for deep and personal prayer.
I celebrated mass last evening for the election of a new Pope. I invite other priests to do the same. Now, more than ever, we need the Holy Spirit's guidance and Hope.
Let us strive to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God.
The Cardinals who will be voting in the Conclave have declared a media blackout. This is not unusual and they followed the same protocol for Pope Benedict's election.
There is much being speculated about for the new Pontiff to face. I join my prayer with many others that this is a time for deep and personal prayer.
I celebrated mass last evening for the election of a new Pope. I invite other priests to do the same. Now, more than ever, we need the Holy Spirit's guidance and Hope.
Let us strive to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God.
Lord Jesus Christ,
You are the Good Shepherd,
And you never leave your flock untended.
You gave your life that we may live,
And you appoint shepherds after your own heart
To lead your people by word and example
To likewise give themselves away in love.
We thank you for the ministry of Pope Benedict XVI,
And for his service to the Church and the world.
We ask that you now give him a fruitful period
Of rest and prayer, of gratitude and praise.
We ask you, Lord Jesus, with the Father,
To send the Holy Spirit on the Church once again.
In particular, guide the Cardinals who will shortly exercise
The obligation and privilege of electing a new Pope.
Guide their deliberations and decisions
With divine wisdom and insight.
Even now, Lord Jesus, give to the new Pope,
Whom you have already chosen,
An abundance of holiness and strength,
To carry out the mission you have entrusted to him.
May your Word reign supreme in his life,
And may his every word and action point the Church to You,
The supreme and eternal Shepherd,
And the only mediator between God and humanity,
For you live and reign forever and ever. Amen.
Lenten Retreat Part I
Dear Friends,
I am offering today, Part I of a 3 Part Series on Redemptive Suffering.
It follows a traditional path through the Season of Lent as a means to help each of us deepen our relationship with Our Lord through His Passion, Death and Ressurection.
I hope you can use the following audio file for your own personal retreat. Parts 2 & 3 will be available on Friday and Saturday.
Be assured of my blessing during these Holy Days.
Father Paul (FP)
I am offering today, Part I of a 3 Part Series on Redemptive Suffering.
It follows a traditional path through the Season of Lent as a means to help each of us deepen our relationship with Our Lord through His Passion, Death and Ressurection.
I hope you can use the following audio file for your own personal retreat. Parts 2 & 3 will be available on Friday and Saturday.
Be assured of my blessing during these Holy Days.
Father Paul (FP)
Feb 28, 2013
Vacant See
This afternoon at 1 pm, Manitoba time, the See of St. Peter, was vacated by the now, Holy Father "Emeritus", Benedict XVI.
There will be much by way of ritual in the next days. Tomorrow, the College of Cardinals, will decide on the day to convene the Conclave to elect Benedict's successor.
There is much on my mind these days concerning the Church. I suspect that for the North American church there will be little to no change in our day to day lives as Catholics. I doubt that Cardinal Marc Ouellett, from Quebec will be elected for any number of reasons. I acknowledge that he does have a following of sorts but he lacks the charisma and leadership skills necessary to guide a church that is emerging throughout the world. A traditionalist to be sure, but unlikely to be able to effectively listen to the pulse of the world.
No, my friends, the time to listen, rather than speak, is here. I pray that the 115 men who will choose our next Pope will be attentive to the Holy Spirit.
For this I pray.
There will be much by way of ritual in the next days. Tomorrow, the College of Cardinals, will decide on the day to convene the Conclave to elect Benedict's successor.
There is much on my mind these days concerning the Church. I suspect that for the North American church there will be little to no change in our day to day lives as Catholics. I doubt that Cardinal Marc Ouellett, from Quebec will be elected for any number of reasons. I acknowledge that he does have a following of sorts but he lacks the charisma and leadership skills necessary to guide a church that is emerging throughout the world. A traditionalist to be sure, but unlikely to be able to effectively listen to the pulse of the world.
No, my friends, the time to listen, rather than speak, is here. I pray that the 115 men who will choose our next Pope will be attentive to the Holy Spirit.
For this I pray.
Feb 15, 2013
Cardinal Reflects on Future Pope
As fate would have it, 82-year-old Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was in Rome on Monday, the day Benedict XVI made his historic abdication announcement, having arrived from a wedding in Malta. He actually planned to attend that morning's consistory of cardinals, having no idea what was to come, but arrived late enough he didn't make it.
Obviously, he now wishes there had been an earlier flight.
Despite his age, McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, keeps up a hectic travel schedule and has a wide network of friends among senior churchmen on every continent, giving him a firsthand sense of the thinking in various corners of the world. Although he won't vote in this conclave, he took part in the election of Benedict XVI in 2005, giving him a unique perspective on the differences this time around. He'll also participate in the daily General Congregation meetings of cardinals before the conclave begins.
In terms of the politics of the American church, McCarrick is sometimes seen as a leader of the more liberal wing of the American bishops, though he generally likes to talk about the importance of the "center."
McCarrick sat down for an interview with NCR on Feb. 14 at the North American College, the residence for American seminarians on Rome, to discuss Benedict's resignation and the dynamics of the looming papal election. The following is a transcript, edited for style.
Now that we're three days after the shock, what's your reaction to Benedict's decision?
I have a great double feeling for the Holy Father. No. 1, though I don't know him as well as I did his predecessor, if you know him at all you can see his struggle of wanting to do the right thing. He loves the church and is very anxious to do what the Lord would want him to do. There's obviously a feeling of deep humility that he's no longer able to do this.
At the same time, there's also great courage. He must have thought that this is not going to be easy, but this is what God wants me to do. That's also part of the deep humility of the man, because he's thinking, "It doesn't matter what I think. It's what's best for the church." He's a servant of the church in every way. We all could do things differently, but he's a very good man. He decided in his heart that this is the right thing to do, I'm sure after much prayer -- more prayers than I could ever make. He's just an extraordinary man.
Yesterday, as I saw him at the beginning of the celebration, he looked very old. For the first time, for me, he seemed that way. I'm only three years younger than he is, and I've always admired him, wondering if I could do what he does. My heart broke for him, because as a pope you've got to be somebody special, and it's obviously incredibly hard to do at that age. We've already had the witness of strength in sickness of his predecessor, so he didn't have to reproduce that.
Some have suggested that having a former pope still alive may risk dividing the church. You have the experience of resigning as archbishop of Washington and giving way to someone else. Do you share that concern?
No, not at all. In my case, I did what one should do, which is I disappeared for a couple of years until everybody knew who their archbishop was. Now I can take a Mass from time to time, but I was out of sight for the first two years. I'm sure this man will do even more than that, because he'll get older and weaker.
What about the criticism that he shouldn't stay in the Vatican for fear of casting a shadow over the new pope?
At first I thought it's not good for him to be in Rome. Now I think it's for the best, because it prevents anyone who doesn't like the new man from saying, "I'll go up to Regensburg [Germany] and talk to [Benedict]." Now you can't do that. You can't get to him unless he wants to be gotten to. I suspect he'll do a lot of writing. He's such a brilliant theologian he could write for the next hundred years and never exhaust his interests.
Assuming that's right, do you think it would be better for his writing not to be published until after he's dead?
I don't see that. He'll write as a theologian. That's what he did with that fantastic trilogy about the life of Christ. He said, "I'm not writing this as pope, I'm writing this as a Catholic theologian." People have had some concerns about one or two positions he took, and with all deep respect, he said he's not writing as the Holy Father. As a theologian, he can put things any way he wants. He's not imposing it on the church. Anyway, this man is too humble to do that.
Let's talk about what comes next. You participated in the conclave of 2005. Aside from the obvious, what's different this time around?
The most important difference is that for the last seven and a half years, we've had a different pope. He has a different point of view in a number of areas, and a different style. He's got a certain reserve, a deep humility, and a great love for the church, but he's very different from his predecessor. John Paul had the same love for the church, but he really didn't have the same reserve, to put it mildly.
Benedict was someone who would basically follow the line of John Paul II, perhaps a bit more conservative on a number of things. He's probably a better theologian than John Paul II, though not a better philosopher. John Paul II was a philosopher and a poet; this man is a theologian and a teacher. You would often read the encyclicals of John Paul II and think, "I've got to read that again." The encyclicals of Benedict are very clear; they're really teaching documents. We've had that kind of a Holy Father for eight years. For almost 27 years before that, we had another kind of Holy Father. They taught the same things, they believed the same things, they loved in the same way, but they were different people. The ones who would have surrounded John Paul II might not have been the same ones who surrounded Benedict XVI because of his personality, his own vision.
That really is the big difference. Aside from that, we have some new cardinals, including some from the Third World, though some of us would have liked to see more. Still, it's the same church.
Is there any difference because it's not happening after the pope died?
I personally don't think that's going to be the major difference. It's the same sede vacante.
You remember the atmosphere of 2005 -- the 5 million people in Rome, the round-the-clock tributes in the global media, this tsunami of appreciation for John Paul II. The overwhelming impression was that this papacy was a massive success, which perhaps made it hard to take stock of the papacy's shortcomings. Is it easier this time to arrive at a more balanced assessment?
That definitely could be. In 2005, we were lost in the grief of the death of a great man. Now, we feel sad in the departure of a very good man, but it's not the same.
What effect will that have? I don't think it will be immediate, but it may have an effect on what the new pope can do. He's now freer than Ratzinger was. He's freer to do things that are new, he's freer to move -- more to the right, maybe, though I would say hopefully more to the center. Presumably it won't be to the left. He's freer to take a new direction, though of course not to change the theology of the church.
In terms of interior things, he could take a new approach to church discipline and the areas of his teaching. He may be more Gaudium et Spes, for instance, than Lumen Gentium. Benedict would have been more Lumen Gentium.
Externally, he needs to deal with the Islamic world. He needs to deal with Israel and what that means for the church. He needs to deal with the Third World. One of the things Benedict said in the early days [of his papacy] was that he chose the name Benedict because he was the patron of Europe, and he felt he needed to help rebuild the church in Europe. He's tried to do that, and probably the success or failure will be revealed years from now. You can't make snap judgments on these overwhelming historical movements. I think there are many in the Third World, however, who would like the new Holy Father to be very conscious of them. I think that's especially true, maybe, in Latin America.
Is the church ready for a pope from outside the West?
I think there's no question, yes. Where is the church today? The church is already outside the First World. That's where most of the church is today. The church is the same wherever it is, but it's also not the same wherever it is.
I've spent a lot of my life with Hispanics and in Latin America. As a young priest, I was in Latin America even before I began working in the United States. I really do love that part of the world, and I see it as a life spring for the church. I worry about it, because in many of the countries of Latin America, we're losing people. I think it would be so great for the focus to be on areas like Latin America. If we could have a Latin American [pope], that would be great too.
I asked if the church is ready for a non-Western pope. Is the College of Cardinals ready?
That's a different question. Not being a voting member this time, I can't answer that. I don't know. There will be conversations that will go on. I may be part of some of them, God only knows. I'll be going to the General Congregations, and it will be interesting to hear what they're saying. Were they ready for a Latin American last time? Well, apparently not.
You're talking about Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, (who was widely reported to have finished second to Benedict in 2005)?
I can't talk to that, as you know. But I can say that from the conversations beforehand, which we can speak about, it was certainly plausible that we could have a non-European. When you just look at the statistics, two-thirds of the church is outside the West. That's a movement we must become aware of, whether we pay attention to it at the highest level of electing a pope or whether the pope who's elected pays attention to it by making sure his cardinals and his congregations have many people from those areas. That may be another way to do it. However it's done, it has to happen.
In 2005, there was some criticism about Cardinal Bernard Law playing a public role in the transition because it resurrected memories of the sexual abuse crisis. This time, some have voiced similar complaints about Cardinal Roger Mahony. How do you respond?
In the case of Cardinal Mahony, he's been an extraordinary leader for the church in our country in so many ways -- for the rights of immigrants, for justice and peace, and on other fronts, whatever one might say about his failures. I'm sure he felt he was handling things in the right way at the time, but now in retrospect it seems inadequate. This is a very fine man, and I don't think we have to be embarrassed by any of our fellows.
As a matter of protocol, aren't cardinals expected to take part in these events unless serious health problems prevent them? In other words, Mahony isn't injecting himself artificially?
That's exactly right. He would have to eject himself!
Overall, how do you feel heading into this transition?
It's a fascinating time for the church. In it, there is a way to make this a special moment of grace for all of us. We can try to do that by how we preach and how we handle it. This is a teaching moment not just about the papacy, but about the faith, about the church, about the presence of Lord Jesus in the church, all these things. It's a special moment, and we've got to seize it. It's a moment to set the world on fire again.
Feb 14, 2013
Thursday after Ash Wednesday Reflection
Jesus said to his disciples:The Gospel this morning reminds us that this Lent, indeed the Christian Life as a whole, will demand a certain measure of sacrifice.
“The Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected
by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes,
and be killed and on the third day be raised.”
Then he said to all,
“If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself
and take up his cross daily and follow me.
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.
What profit is there for one to gain the whole world
yet lose or forfeit himself?” (Lk 9.22-25)
Last night, I encourage the faithful to not just make this Lent a season of sacrifice and self-denial, but to also make it a season of sacrifice for a purpose. This is to say that we can use our period of self-denial to lead us more gently into service of others.
Jesus makes this clear in the gospel today when he asks us to deny ourselves but also to "take up our cross" and follow.
There is a course; a direction; a purpose. Please take time to make this Lenten Season, a time of action; of service.
Lent is a kind of spiritual pruning time. In pruning a tree, the aim is not to inflict damage on the tree, but to help it to produce more and better fruit.
Lord, show us what we need to prune ourselves of this Lent, so that we may become more fruitful branches of you, the true Vine.
Feb 13, 2013
Week of Surprise
I believe my Monday morning was similar to most people's this week. I awoke to hear that Pope Benedict XVI had resigned as Pope.
There has been much talk and speculation surrounding this move and I will not take this week as an opportunity to forcast or comment on what lays next. There are weeks ahead for that.
Instead, I would like to invite us to do what some have suggested: pray.
We pray for Pope Benedict; for his life and ministry. As turbulent as his papacy was it was nevertheless founded upon the Apostles and the work of the Holy Spirit. Clearly, his human weakness shone through these last years of Church history but, likewise, so did his deep love for Christ.
I consider the work of this pope similar to what I would of an aging parent. We are all limited in our perspective of what is needed and what is not. Our life experience shapes us and allows us to be the men and women we are today. I believe that many, myself included, who had hoped for change within the church, were patiently waiting for a new epiphany. As with all change in the church, it takes generations. I never have felt that this would have been a pontiff who would have embraced change.
There was much, by way of fidelity to Christ, that was illustrated through his life. The trilogy on the life of Jesus is spectacular and touching. The encyclicals which he wrote are inspiring. Pope Benedict will leave these as a legacy.
We pray for him these days and the time will come, shortly, when we will pray for his successor. Let us put aside names for now. Let us let the past be the past. Let us pray for him who exercised obedience to God which ultimately led him to this reality of retirement.
Tomorrow....is indeed, another day.
There has been much talk and speculation surrounding this move and I will not take this week as an opportunity to forcast or comment on what lays next. There are weeks ahead for that.
Instead, I would like to invite us to do what some have suggested: pray.
We pray for Pope Benedict; for his life and ministry. As turbulent as his papacy was it was nevertheless founded upon the Apostles and the work of the Holy Spirit. Clearly, his human weakness shone through these last years of Church history but, likewise, so did his deep love for Christ.
I consider the work of this pope similar to what I would of an aging parent. We are all limited in our perspective of what is needed and what is not. Our life experience shapes us and allows us to be the men and women we are today. I believe that many, myself included, who had hoped for change within the church, were patiently waiting for a new epiphany. As with all change in the church, it takes generations. I never have felt that this would have been a pontiff who would have embraced change.
There was much, by way of fidelity to Christ, that was illustrated through his life. The trilogy on the life of Jesus is spectacular and touching. The encyclicals which he wrote are inspiring. Pope Benedict will leave these as a legacy.
We pray for him these days and the time will come, shortly, when we will pray for his successor. Let us put aside names for now. Let us let the past be the past. Let us pray for him who exercised obedience to God which ultimately led him to this reality of retirement.
Tomorrow....is indeed, another day.
Homily 5th Sunday in Ordinary Time: Going Deep
While the crowd was pressing in on Jesus and listening
to the word of God,
he was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret.
He saw two boats there alongside the lake;
the fishermen had disembarked and were washing their nets.
Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon,
he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore.
Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat.
After he had finished speaking, he said to Simon,
“Put out into deep water and lower your nets for a catch.”
Simon said in reply,
“Master, we have worked hard all night and have caught nothing,
but at your command I will lower the nets.”
When they had done this, they caught a great number of fish
and their nets were tearing.
They signaled to their partners in the other boat
to come to help them.
They came and filled both boats
so that the boats were in danger of sinking.
When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at the knees of Jesus and said,
“Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.”
For astonishment at the catch of fish they had made seized him
and all those with him,
and likewise James and John, the sons of Zebedee,
who were partners of Simon.
Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid;
from now on you will be catching men.”
When they brought their boats to the shore,
they left everything and followed him. (Lk 5.1-11)
Here is the link for Sunday's Homily:
Feb 5, 2013
In Los Angeles a Victory for Truth: NCR Editorial
For those of you aware of the unfolding scandal, which has rocked yet another US Archdiocese, the National Catholic Reporter has written an editorial mapping some insight into the, apparently increasing lack of accountability of US bishops. It further develops to explain the absence of a response from the Institutional Church as a whole in these matters.
As a pastor I continue to fail to see how theological dialogue is considered a capital crime in our Church while those who offend, in the very gravest of matters against the vulnerable, are allowed to continue to enjoy the privileges of office.
The credibilty of our bishops is shattered. What are we as People of God to do in examining our complacency with allowing our Church to continue to do this?
The following is well worth your time to read:
To those familiar with the protocols of the Catholic hierarchy, the news was stunning. The archbishop of Los Angeles publically rebuked his predecessor, a cardinal, for his failures in dealing with the priest sex abuse scandal.
The action by Archbishop Jose Gomez, relieving Cardinal Roger Mahony of "any administrative or public duties," was remarkable on two levels.
First, it broke with the unspoken but nearly ironclad rule of the culture of Catholic hierarchy that bishops do not publicly criticize other bishops. That courtesy extended even to the most egregious examples of ecclesial malfeasance -- the deliberate and persistent hiding of criminal activities by priests. No one to this point had uttered a word against a predecessor, not in New York or Connecticut, not in Philadelphia or Milwaukee, not in Seattle or Santa Fe. There were "mistakes made," they would say, and offer vacuous apologies. For whatever reasons yet unknown, Gomez broke the code.
Second, the language Gomez used was blunt and unqualified. The behavior he found in the files, he said, was "evil." The acts themselves and the handling of these matters, as the files revealed, showed more than mistakes made, they showed a "terrible failure."
"I find these files to be brutal and painful reading. The behavior described in these files is terribly sad and evil. There is no excuse, no explaining away what happened to these children. The priests involved had the duty to be their spiritual fathers and they failed," wrote Gomez, who also referred to Mahony's sorrow "for his failure to fully protect young people entrusted to his care."
Gomez's words are a direct contradiction of the weak defense that Mahony has advanced for years, all the while spending untold sums in attempts to keep the truth hidden. It is the same list of explanations that he repeated in a lengthy and testy response to Gomez's statement. "Nothing in my own background or education equipped me to deal with this grave problem," Mahony wrote. In studying for his master's degree in social work, he said, no lecture or textbook ever referred to the sexual abuse of children.
There is, of course, some truth to the "we didn't know" defense. Few knew, years ago, the seriousness of the disease borne by those who molest children. Much of it remains a mystery today.
But the "we didn't know" defense quickly wears thin against the details contained in the 12,000 pages of documents recently released by the court in Los Angeles, just as it wore thin against the truth revealed when documents were released in other places like Philadelphia and Boston.
That's why Mahony spent so much time and money over nearly a decade attempting to keep the documents sealed. It's why, even after agreeing to release documents as part of a 2007 settlement with 508 victims costing $660 million, he continued to fight tooth and nail to keep the documents secret. It is why he and the diocese's lawyers tried a last-ditch and ultimately failed attempt to get the courts to redact the names of church officials from the documents so it would be difficult to tell who did what. The documents put the lie to the "we didn't know" defense.
What they demonstrate -- and we have yet to read through all the thousands of pages -- is that diocesan officials, while they may not have understood the intricacies of the sex abuser's mind and motivation, did know laws were being broken, children were being raped and otherwise abused. They knew they had to take extraordinary lengths -- sending priests to counselors who were also lawyers so they could claim their conversations were privileged, sending some priests out of the country and others from parish to parish and diocese to diocese -- to avoid detection by the law and by the very Catholic community the officials were charged to serve. They knew enough to understand they had to hide the crimes and the behavior if they didn't want to besmirch the good name of the clergy culture.
Consideration of what was happening to the abused children and their families was incidental, at best.
What Mahony and others -- Cardinals Bernard Law, Justin Rigali, Edward Egan, Anthony Bevilacqua, and a host of archbishops and bishops -- really didn't understand was the degree to which their moral compasses had been distorted by the strong magnetic pull of the clergy culture. In their fierce allegiance to that exclusive club at all costs, in their willingness to preserve the façade of holiness and the faithful's high notion of ordination, they lost sight of simple human decency and the most fundamental demands of the Gospel.
It doesn't take a master's or a doctorate to understand that the first obligation of adults is to protect the children. When the first instinct became protection of the clergy and the institution, our leaders became disfigured at some deep and essential level. The Catholic community is still waiting for them to deal honestly with that reality, with what happens to them when their robes turn to purple.
Meanwhile, there are no heroes in any of this. Gomez may have broken with normal behaviors, but as many have already pointed out, he had access to the documents for two years and said nothing. And it is reasonable to expect that if Mahony and the lawyers had succeeded in keeping the documents sealed, nothing would have been said. The "evil" would have remained festering on some chancery shelf.
If Gomez really wants to do a service to the people of God in Los Angeles, he will reveal how much of the archdiocese's treasury was spent during the last decade on trying to hide that truth. By its own admission, the Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo., diocese spent $1.39 million in a failed 18-month attempt to defend Bishop Robert Finn from charges of failing to report a child pornographer, and the Milwaukee archdiocese has spent $9 million in a two-year-long, far-from-settled bankruptcy case precipitated by sex abuse law suits. The amount of money the Los Angeles archdiocese has spent hiding these documents must be mind-boggling. That is evil, as well.
There are no heroes among the many other chancery officials and public relations advisers and lawyers who knew, some for many years, what crimes and sins had been committed against children.
There are no heroes in the Vatican structures, on up to the pope, among those who years ago could have demanded a review of the documents, come to the same conclusions as Gomez and removed Mahony long ago. It would have saved the church of Los Angeles years of suspense and enormous amounts of money. We say we believe the truth will set us free. In too many dioceses today, the truth remains hidden and the church remains in chains fashioned by its bishops.
Endless speculation will swirl now about why Gomez did what he did and what precisely it means. None of that really matters. What matters is the truth that will outlast reporters, commentators, perpetrators, cardinals, bishops, victims and the rest. The revelation and preservation of that truth in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles just received a boost with the release of the documents.
As a pastor I continue to fail to see how theological dialogue is considered a capital crime in our Church while those who offend, in the very gravest of matters against the vulnerable, are allowed to continue to enjoy the privileges of office.
The credibilty of our bishops is shattered. What are we as People of God to do in examining our complacency with allowing our Church to continue to do this?
The following is well worth your time to read:
The action by Archbishop Jose Gomez, relieving Cardinal Roger Mahony of "any administrative or public duties," was remarkable on two levels.
First, it broke with the unspoken but nearly ironclad rule of the culture of Catholic hierarchy that bishops do not publicly criticize other bishops. That courtesy extended even to the most egregious examples of ecclesial malfeasance -- the deliberate and persistent hiding of criminal activities by priests. No one to this point had uttered a word against a predecessor, not in New York or Connecticut, not in Philadelphia or Milwaukee, not in Seattle or Santa Fe. There were "mistakes made," they would say, and offer vacuous apologies. For whatever reasons yet unknown, Gomez broke the code.
Second, the language Gomez used was blunt and unqualified. The behavior he found in the files, he said, was "evil." The acts themselves and the handling of these matters, as the files revealed, showed more than mistakes made, they showed a "terrible failure."
"I find these files to be brutal and painful reading. The behavior described in these files is terribly sad and evil. There is no excuse, no explaining away what happened to these children. The priests involved had the duty to be their spiritual fathers and they failed," wrote Gomez, who also referred to Mahony's sorrow "for his failure to fully protect young people entrusted to his care."
Gomez's words are a direct contradiction of the weak defense that Mahony has advanced for years, all the while spending untold sums in attempts to keep the truth hidden. It is the same list of explanations that he repeated in a lengthy and testy response to Gomez's statement. "Nothing in my own background or education equipped me to deal with this grave problem," Mahony wrote. In studying for his master's degree in social work, he said, no lecture or textbook ever referred to the sexual abuse of children.
There is, of course, some truth to the "we didn't know" defense. Few knew, years ago, the seriousness of the disease borne by those who molest children. Much of it remains a mystery today.
But the "we didn't know" defense quickly wears thin against the details contained in the 12,000 pages of documents recently released by the court in Los Angeles, just as it wore thin against the truth revealed when documents were released in other places like Philadelphia and Boston.
That's why Mahony spent so much time and money over nearly a decade attempting to keep the documents sealed. It's why, even after agreeing to release documents as part of a 2007 settlement with 508 victims costing $660 million, he continued to fight tooth and nail to keep the documents secret. It is why he and the diocese's lawyers tried a last-ditch and ultimately failed attempt to get the courts to redact the names of church officials from the documents so it would be difficult to tell who did what. The documents put the lie to the "we didn't know" defense.
What they demonstrate -- and we have yet to read through all the thousands of pages -- is that diocesan officials, while they may not have understood the intricacies of the sex abuser's mind and motivation, did know laws were being broken, children were being raped and otherwise abused. They knew they had to take extraordinary lengths -- sending priests to counselors who were also lawyers so they could claim their conversations were privileged, sending some priests out of the country and others from parish to parish and diocese to diocese -- to avoid detection by the law and by the very Catholic community the officials were charged to serve. They knew enough to understand they had to hide the crimes and the behavior if they didn't want to besmirch the good name of the clergy culture.
Consideration of what was happening to the abused children and their families was incidental, at best.
What Mahony and others -- Cardinals Bernard Law, Justin Rigali, Edward Egan, Anthony Bevilacqua, and a host of archbishops and bishops -- really didn't understand was the degree to which their moral compasses had been distorted by the strong magnetic pull of the clergy culture. In their fierce allegiance to that exclusive club at all costs, in their willingness to preserve the façade of holiness and the faithful's high notion of ordination, they lost sight of simple human decency and the most fundamental demands of the Gospel.
It doesn't take a master's or a doctorate to understand that the first obligation of adults is to protect the children. When the first instinct became protection of the clergy and the institution, our leaders became disfigured at some deep and essential level. The Catholic community is still waiting for them to deal honestly with that reality, with what happens to them when their robes turn to purple.
Meanwhile, there are no heroes in any of this. Gomez may have broken with normal behaviors, but as many have already pointed out, he had access to the documents for two years and said nothing. And it is reasonable to expect that if Mahony and the lawyers had succeeded in keeping the documents sealed, nothing would have been said. The "evil" would have remained festering on some chancery shelf.
If Gomez really wants to do a service to the people of God in Los Angeles, he will reveal how much of the archdiocese's treasury was spent during the last decade on trying to hide that truth. By its own admission, the Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo., diocese spent $1.39 million in a failed 18-month attempt to defend Bishop Robert Finn from charges of failing to report a child pornographer, and the Milwaukee archdiocese has spent $9 million in a two-year-long, far-from-settled bankruptcy case precipitated by sex abuse law suits. The amount of money the Los Angeles archdiocese has spent hiding these documents must be mind-boggling. That is evil, as well.
There are no heroes among the many other chancery officials and public relations advisers and lawyers who knew, some for many years, what crimes and sins had been committed against children.
There are no heroes in the Vatican structures, on up to the pope, among those who years ago could have demanded a review of the documents, come to the same conclusions as Gomez and removed Mahony long ago. It would have saved the church of Los Angeles years of suspense and enormous amounts of money. We say we believe the truth will set us free. In too many dioceses today, the truth remains hidden and the church remains in chains fashioned by its bishops.
Endless speculation will swirl now about why Gomez did what he did and what precisely it means. None of that really matters. What matters is the truth that will outlast reporters, commentators, perpetrators, cardinals, bishops, victims and the rest. The revelation and preservation of that truth in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles just received a boost with the release of the documents.
Homily for The 4th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Luke 4:21-30
Jesus began speaking in the synagogue, saying:
“Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.”
And all spoke highly of him
and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth.
They also asked, “Isn’t this the son of Joseph?”
He said to them, “Surely you will quote me this proverb,
‘Physician, cure yourself,’ and say,
‘Do here in your native place
the things that we heard were done in Capernaum.’”
And he said, “Amen, I say to you,
no prophet is accepted in his own native place.
Indeed, I tell you,
there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah
when the sky was closed for three and a half years
and a severe famine spread over the entire land.
It was to none of these that Elijah was sent,
but only to a widow in Zarephath in the land of Sidon.
Again, there were many lepers in Israel
during the time of Elisha the prophet;
yet not one of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.”
When the people in the synagogue heard this,
they were all filled with fury.
They rose up, drove him out of the town,
and led him to the brow of the hill
on which their town had been built,
to hurl him down headlong.
But Jesus passed through the midst of them and went away.
Jan 21, 2013
Week of Prayer For Christian Unity
This week is a special period in the Christian world to mark our common need for unity among churches of Christian faith.
It was with joy I celebrated mass this past weekend to initiate our parish of St.Ann in the community celebrations that mark this sacred time. The Eucharist, at its core, promotes unity and there is no better way to capture that than by remembering that the gift of the Mass is for all people and not just for a select few. The grace, accomplished through the celebration of the Eucharist, benefits "all"people.
It was with sadness, last year, that the words of the mass changed (during the elevation of the cup) to say"for many" as opposed to "for all." Clearly this reflects the feelings of a minority of bishops who continue to oppose the challenges the Council Father's discerned in Vatican II.
Nevertheless, the Eucharist unites us and this week, the many faith filled people of Flin Flon, and throughout the world, are discovering that there is strength in binding ourselves together.
St. Paul's Letter to the Corinthians this past Sunnday ( 1 Cor 12: 4-11) reminds us that there is "one Lord" and that each of us has a unique "gift" to be shared for the building up of God's Kingdom on earth.
I encourage you to pray for unity this week among Christians, churches and all believers. We have need of each other. Let us start acting like that.
Not a single church, in this world, has a monopoly on salvation. I, for one,will not foster an attitude of exclusivity. I believe Christ willed us to work together and I prefer to follow His lead.
Lord, unite us together. Help us to reflect Your Will; Your Love; Your Peace.
It was with joy I celebrated mass this past weekend to initiate our parish of St.Ann in the community celebrations that mark this sacred time. The Eucharist, at its core, promotes unity and there is no better way to capture that than by remembering that the gift of the Mass is for all people and not just for a select few. The grace, accomplished through the celebration of the Eucharist, benefits "all"people.
It was with sadness, last year, that the words of the mass changed (during the elevation of the cup) to say"for many" as opposed to "for all." Clearly this reflects the feelings of a minority of bishops who continue to oppose the challenges the Council Father's discerned in Vatican II.
Nevertheless, the Eucharist unites us and this week, the many faith filled people of Flin Flon, and throughout the world, are discovering that there is strength in binding ourselves together.
St. Paul's Letter to the Corinthians this past Sunnday ( 1 Cor 12: 4-11) reminds us that there is "one Lord" and that each of us has a unique "gift" to be shared for the building up of God's Kingdom on earth.
I encourage you to pray for unity this week among Christians, churches and all believers. We have need of each other. Let us start acting like that.
Not a single church, in this world, has a monopoly on salvation. I, for one,will not foster an attitude of exclusivity. I believe Christ willed us to work together and I prefer to follow His lead.
Lord, unite us together. Help us to reflect Your Will; Your Love; Your Peace.
Jan 14, 2013
From Dundas...
Greetings from Dundas.
I have been here a little over a week for a family funeral. It has indeed been a blessed time but I have fallen behind on a few posts.
This is not to say that you have all not been remembered and prayed for. Far from it. I am just a little worn down, as are most priests this time of year, and needing some rest. I return to my parish on Friday night and will keep these pages running as best I can until then.
Thank you for all the prayers I have received and for all the many warm wishes. I am taking some good time to be with my family, whom I rarely see, especially my father who is mourning the loss of his younger brother.
I am so removed from my family due to the reality of where I live and so I celebrate whenever I can have some time with them.
Blessings to all.
Father Paul
I have been here a little over a week for a family funeral. It has indeed been a blessed time but I have fallen behind on a few posts.
This is not to say that you have all not been remembered and prayed for. Far from it. I am just a little worn down, as are most priests this time of year, and needing some rest. I return to my parish on Friday night and will keep these pages running as best I can until then.
Thank you for all the prayers I have received and for all the many warm wishes. I am taking some good time to be with my family, whom I rarely see, especially my father who is mourning the loss of his younger brother.
I am so removed from my family due to the reality of where I live and so I celebrate whenever I can have some time with them.
Blessings to all.
Father Paul
Jan 8, 2013
On Finding Enthusiasm In Life
One needs something to believe in, something for which one can have wholehearted enthusiasm.
--Hannah Senesh
Life offers little if we sit passively in the midst of activity. Involvement is a prerequisite if we are to grow. For our lives' purposes we need enthusiasm; we need enthusiasm in order to greet the day expectantly. When we look toward the day with anticipation, we are open to all the possibilities for action.
We must respond to our possibilities if we are to mature emotionally and spiritually. Idly observing life from the sidelines guarantees no development beyond our present level. We begin to change once we start living up to our commitments.
For ourselves, spiritually, it means getting behind God's will and purpose for me. Believing in it and acting on it. This brings passion to my life and allows others to find hope in their lives as well.
Our Faith gives us something to believe in. We are no longer the people we were. So much more have we become! Each day's worth of following God's will carries us closer to fulfilling our purpose in life.
Bishops; US Nuns; Transparency and a call for Action: NCR Report
The following is a lengthy reflection on the role of bishops (especially in the U.S.) who have and hold responsibility in the current sexual abuse crisis that is before us as North American Catholics. In my opinion, most people within our pews are grossly misinformed regarding the action and inaction our Church has taken to address these concerns.
From its palace in Vatican City, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith monitors compliance with Roman Catholic moral teaching and matters of dogma for the oldest church in Christendom.
These issues have little bearing on most of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics. Faith, for them, rests in parish life and the quality of their pastors. In the 1980s, for example, when the congregation punished theologians who dissented from the papal ban on artificial birth control, the majority of Catholics who believe contraception is morally acceptable did not change their opinion.
But as the congregation accelerates a disciplinary action against the main leadership group of American nuns, many sisters and priests are reacting to a climate of fear fostered by bishops and cardinals who have never been investigated for their role in the greatest moral crisis of modern Catholicism: the clergy sex abuse crisis.
A small but resonant chorus of critics is raising an issue of a hypocrisy that has grown too blatant to ignore. The same hierarchy that brought shame upon the Vatican for recycling clergy child molesters, a scandal that rocked the church in many countries, has assumed a moral high ground in punishing the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, a group whose members have put their lives on the line in taking the social justice agenda of the Second Vatican Council to some of the poorest areas in the world.
Many nuns from foreign countries wonder if the investigation is an exercise "in displaced anger," as one sister puts it, over the hierarchy's failure in child abuse scandals across the map of the global church.
Cardinals and bishops involved in the LCWR investigation have suffered no discipline for their blunders in handling clergy pedophiles, according to news reports and legal documents.
Cardinal Bernard Law was the prime mover behind the "apostolic visitation" of all American nun communities, other than monastic ones, and the subsequent doctrinal investigation of LCWR, according to sources in Rome, including Cardinal Franc Rodé, retired prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.
Law, who refused to comment for this article, has not spoken to the press in 10 years. He resigned as Boston archbishop in December 2002 and spent 18 months living at a convent of nuns in Maryland, with periodic trips to Rome. In 2004, the Vatican rewarded him with a position as prefect of Santa Maria Maggiore, a historic basilica; he took an active role in several Roman Curia boards, and became a fixture on the social circuit of embassies in Rome.
Boston was a staggering mess. Settlements and other expenditures related to abuse cases there have cost about $170 million. Mass attendance since 2002 has dropped to 16 percent. Declining financial support has caused a storm of church closings, from nearly 400 parishes in 2002 to 288 today (soon to be organized into 135 "parish collaboratives").
Six years after Law found redemption in Rome, clergy abuse cases exploded in Europe.
"You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry," Pope Benedict XVI wrote to Catholics of Ireland in a letter on March 19, 2010, as the Irish reeled from a government report on a history of bishops concealing clergy predators. "Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated," the pope continued.
"You find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel. At the same time, I ask you not to lose hope."
Despite the uncommon tone of contrition, the pope's letter offered no procedures to remove complicit bishops or genuine institutional reform.
On April 6, 2010, as cases of clergy abuse in other countries shook the European heartland, the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel criticized Benedict for "reluctance to take a firm stance" on the abuse a crisis, which "is now descending upon the Vatican with a vengeance and hitting its spiritual leader hard."
Almost three years later, the drumbeat of criticism has subsided, but the core problem is unchanged. Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, Mo., remains in his office despite his conviction in criminal court, where he drew a suspended sentence for failure to report suspected sexual abuse of children. Benedict has not punished any of the hierarchs who recycled so many sex offenders by sending them to other parishes.
Under the logic of apostolic succession, which sees each bishop as a descendant of Jesus' apostles, the power structure gives de facto immunity to cardinals and bishops for just about any wrongdoing that doesn't bring a prison sentence. The double standard in church governance -- with the men of the hierarchy immune from church justice -- has become a glaring issue to leaders of missionary orders in Rome as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith probes the U.S. Leadership Conference of Women Religious.
In 2005, shortly after Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger emerged from the conclave as Pope Benedict XVI, he appointed San Francisco Archbishop William Levada to succeed him as prefect of the doctrinal congregation. Levada became a cardinal soon after.
Levada was caught in a swamp in 2002 amid news reports on abuse cases under his watch in San Francisco. He formed an Independent Review Board of primarily laypeople to advise him and review personnel files on questionable priests. Psychologist James Jenkins chaired the board. Fr. Greg Ingels, a canon lawyer, helped set it up. Jenkins grew suspicious when Levada would not release the names of priests under scrutiny.
In May 2003, board members were stunned to read news reports that Ingels had been indicted for allegedly having oral sex with a 15-year-old boy at a local high school in the 1970s. Levada, the board learned, had known about the allegations since 1996, yet kept Ingels in ministry and as an adviser. Ingels helped fashion the church's 2002 zero-tolerance policy and wrote a bishops' guidebook on how to handle abuse cases. Ingels stepped down.
Jenkins quit his post, denouncing Levada for "an elaborate public relations scheme."
Levada was sued for defamation by a priest he pulled from a parish for blowing the whistle on another priest. In 1997, Fr. John Conley told police that the pastor with whom he served made advances on a teenage boy. Levada yanked Conley from ministry; Conley, a former assistant U.S. attorney, sued. After the accused priest owned up in a civil case, which paid the victim's family $750,000, the archdiocese paid Conley in 2002 a six-figure "pre-retirement" settlement before the suit went to trial.
Robert Mickens reported in The Tablet, a London-based Catholic weekly, in May 2012 that Baltimore Archbishop William Lori, a protégé of Law's, asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to investigate LCWR.
Lori established several communities of traditionalist nuns as bishop of Bridgeport, Conn., between 2001 and 2012.
As a canon lawyer, Lori helped write the U.S. bishops' 2002 Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. It has no oversight over bishops. In 2003, Lori approved a $21 million abuse victims' settlement involving several priests. The lay group Voice of the Faithful criticized him for allowing an accused monsignor to stay in his parish. In 2011 the priest resigned after a female church worker made sexual harassment allegations.
In a Jan. 12, 2011, Connecticut Post op-ed piece, Voice of the Faithful leader John Marshall Lee cited a priest who had been suspended for sex abuse yet appeared in clerical attire at public gatherings.
"Does this behavior contradict Bishop Lori's assumed supervisory orders suspending priestly public activities?" Lee asked. "How does a bishop enforce his instructions in this regard? Where does a whistleblower report this behavior, or determine if the priest in question was suspended in the first place?"
Lee cited another cleric who had been removed after "credible allegations of sexual abuse" but with no indication that he was defrocked.
"There is no current address for this man who might have been labeled 'sex offender' (had the church acted responsibly when leaders first heard of adult criminal behavior perpetrated on Catholic children) and who may continue to be a potential threat to children," Lee said. "Is the church saying that such men are no longer a public threat to children?"
Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, Ohio, who wrote the secret report on LCWR for Levada, has said he got most of his information from LCWR literature. Writing in his diocesan paper, Blair made the accurate point that several speakers at LCWR conferences have taken positions, such as ordaining women, that are contrary to church teaching.
Does this mean that the ordination of women is a new form of heresy? If the truth of the church is defined by men who have violated basic moral standards in disregarding the rights of children and their families, how does their behavior meet the sensus fidelium, or sense of the faithful, extolled by the Second Vatican Council?
Blair's own background spotlights a double standard that rewards bishops who scandalize laypeople.
In 2004, the priest who had headed the Toledo diocese's 2001-2002 $60 million capital campaign was accused by two men of having abused them as boys many years before. Blair kept Fr. Robert Yeager as the diocese's planned giving consultant, and until Yeager's retirement in July 2005, the priest continued to solicit donations while an attorney negotiated settlements for the victims. The bishop removed Yeager from ministry in 2006, before the settlements made news.
Blair forcibly retired a veteran pastor who criticized the bishop's parish closures as "high-handed decisions with almost no collaboration with anyone." In one parish Blair installed a priest who had had a long relationship with a woman. When the parishioners found out, Blair reassigned the priest. A spokesperson said the bishop had to keep quiet as the priest had told him in confession.
In 2005, parishioners in the farm belt town of Kansas, Ohio, filed a Vatican appeal when Blair closed St. James Parish. It failed. They filed suit to save the parish in county court, arguing that the bishop was only one trustee but parishioners owned the property. The state sided with the bishop. "We spent $100,000 in legal fees," said parishioner Virginia Hull. "Bishop Blair paid his lawyers with $77,957 from our parish account." Blair had the church demolished.
Blair, Lori and Levada became bishops with help from Law, whose influence at the Vatican as a member of Congregation for Bishops is pivotal in selecting new American priests for the hierarchy.
Along with Blair, the second member of the three-man committee now supervising LCWR is Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Ill. In a 2007 homily in Grand Rapids, Mich., for the Red Mass, an annual liturgy for lawyers and judges, Paprocki, who has degrees in civil and canon law, declared, "The law is being used as an instrument of attack on the church. This was true from the earliest times when the earliest Christians were, in effect, outlaws in the Roman Empire for refusing to worship the official state gods."
He saw clergy abuse lawsuits were undermining the church's religious freedom. "This attack is particularly directed against bishops and priests, since the most effective way to scatter the flock is to attack the shepherd," he insisted.
"The principal force behind these attacks is none other than the devil," he said.
Equating the devil with lawyers seeking financial compensation for victims of child sexual abuse drew heavy criticism.
In a 2010 homily, Paprocki took a rhetorical back step, saying, "Apparently I did not make myself clear that it is the sins of priests and bishops who succumbed to the temptations of the devil that have put their victims and the Catholic community in this horrible situation in the first place."
In a column for his diocesan newspaper before the November election, Paprocki attacked the Democratic Party platform for its support of legal abortion and same-sex marriage.
Without endorsing Mitt Romney outright, he wrote, "A vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your soul in serious jeopardy."
Did bishops who sent child molesters from parish to parish, on to fresh victims, without warning parishioners, promote "actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil"? Does apostolic succession absolve them of all wrongdoing?
Bishops gain stature in the estimation of cardinals and popes by proving their loyalty. A chief way to do that is by serving as an investigator of priests or nuns who run afoul of the hierarchy as threats to the moral teaching upheld by bishops, regardless of what the bishops have done.
Leading the Vatican's supervision of LCWR, the doctrinal congregation delegated Archbishop Peter Sartain of Seattle to ensure that the nuns' leadership group conforms to changes the Vatican wants.
Sartain was previously the bishop of Joliet, Ill., a diocese that was wracked with abuse cover-ups and lawsuits under his predecessor.
In spring of 2009, a Joliet seminarian, Alejandro Flores, was caught with pornographic pictures of youths, some of which appeared to be of underage boys. No criminal charges were filed.
Sartain ordained Flores three months later, in June 2009. Then in January 2010, Flores was arrested for molesting a boy. He pleaded guilty in September 2010, the same month that Benedict promoted Sartain to archbishop of Seattle.
[Jason Berry, author of Render Unto Rome: The Secret Life of Money in the Catholic Church, writes from New Orleans. Research for this series has been funded by a Knight Grant for Reporting on Religion and American Public Life at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism; the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting; and the Fund for Investigative Journalism.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
