A Call To Come Home To The Church--Sort Of

Catholic dioceses plan TV ad blitz aimed at inactive members
By Duke Helfand Los Angeles Times / September 13, 2009

LOS ANGELES - The Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento is home to nearly 1 million Catholics. On a typical Sunday, less than 137,000 can be found in church.

Now, using a strategy straight from the secular playbook, its leaders hope to lure back those who have drifted. (It's the strategy of one particular secular playbook.)

The diocese and nearly a dozen others are preparing to air several thousand primetime TV commercials in English and Spanish, inviting inactive Catholics to return to their religious roots.
In addition to Sacramento, dioceses in Chicago, Omaha, Providence, and four other cities will launch the “Catholics Come Home’’ advertising blitz during Advent, the period before Christmas.
Four more dioceses will follow during Lent next spring.

“I’m hoping that a significant number of people will give us another look,’’ Sacramento Bishop Jaime Soto said of the campaign. “Many Catholics have a sense of believing but not always a sense of belonging.’’(Maybe that's because our fellow conservative Catholics are fond of telling us to leave 'their' Church.

The potential audience is huge. About one-quarter of US Catholics say they attend Mass every week, and a majority go to religious services a few times a year or less, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, which conducts social science research about the Catholic church. (This huge audience is also appealing to another particular political group.)

Researchers there also found that two-thirds of Catholics believe they can be good members of their faith without attending Mass regularly.

Inactive Catholics cite a number of reasons for their absence. Many do not believe that missing Mass is a sin, the center reported. Others say they are too busy with family or work, or, as other analysts point out, are more interested in material happiness than spiritual fulfillment.

“There is a strange pattern of people who aren’t practicing but still have beliefs and pick up parts of the faith,’’ said Mark Gray, a research associate with the center. “They may give up meat on Fridays during Lent or attend Ash Wednesday services.’’

Most people raised Catholic remain so in adulthood, according to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, which released a study on religious affiliation in April. Pew researchers found that those who leave typically join Protestant churches or abandon religion altogether, with most saying they simply drifted away from their faith or stopped believing in its teachings.

Many who have given up their religion also said they felt unhappy with Catholicism’s firm positions on abortion, birth control, and homosexuality. The movement of some Catholics into the ranks of the unaffiliated, a trend also evident among other religious groups, is occurring even as the Catholic Church in the United States grows steadily, due largely to an influx of Catholic immigrants, primarily from Latin America and Asia.

The new arrivals have helped push the US Catholic population to more than 65 million, making it the nation’s largest religious group. Catholics account for nearly 1 of every 4 Americans.

(And non practicing Catholics account for nearly 1 of every 10 Americans.)

***************************************************

The Bishop of Sacramento is Jaimie Soto. I suppose it's just a coincidence that Bishop Soto is on the board of directors of Catholics Come Home. Other members on the board of Catholics Come Home have ties to EWTN, St. Francis of Stuebenville OH, The Legionares, Opus Dei, and Tom Monaghan's Legatus. One of the comments associated with the above article asked a very pertinent question, "What Church are we being asked to come home to?" Apparently it's the one that's trying to kick us out and/or make us vote Republican.)

When I first saw the headline to this article I actually thought some bishop was taking the exodus of Catholics out of the Church seriously, actively trying to welcome home disenfranchised Catholics. I no longer think that. The commercials are slick, I'll give them credit for that. They site statistics which show a 12% increase in Mass attendance in the Diocese of Phoenix AZ after the commercials were run last year. Did I mention that Bishop Ohlmstead of Phoenix is also on their board of directors?

Here's some of their reasoning for the importance of this effort:

The number of Americans identifying themselves as non-religious/secular increased 110% from 1990 to 2000. It is now 13.2% of the total population. Comparing this statistic with the previous one, non-religious-secular individuals outnumber active, Mass attending Catholics by 58% (13.2% vs. 7.59%). Imagine the negative impact these individuals have on culture and public policy. Have I mentioned that FOX news is featured prominently in their video clips?

As many as 100,000 baptized Catholics in the U.S. drift away from Church each year.

One-third to one-half of Catholic marriages now ends in divorce.

72% of Catholics have not tried to win a convert to Christ. Have I mentioned that a significant number of their contributors are converts from Evangelical protestantism?

For every four Protestants, there is one convert. For Catholics, the numbers were 250 to one. That is about one convert for every 807 Catholics. (Maybe there's a message here.)

If every Catholic brought one person into the Church each year, it would only take only three years to be a totally Catholic society. And the purpose of this would be what, to form a de facto Catholic theocracy a long lines dictated by the Republican party?

Should you care to look over their site, you will find that on their shopping page are the products of a number of the men who have made of themselves a cottage industry due to their association with EWTN and Regent Radio. The best thing that ever happened for these guys is Mother Angelica's stroke. They don't have to compete with her anymore.

This is not a call to come home to the Vatican II church most of us called home. This is a call to come home to the Church of the American theo con right. Thanks but no thanks.

Archaeological photograph of a mosaic in the Church of St Praxedis in Rome. It shows Mary in blue as the archetype of the female religious leader. She is seated with St. Prudentiana and St. Praxedis who were both leaders of house churches. Episcopa Theodora is depicted on the far left.

Teacher ousted for support of nun
By Dan Horn • dhorn@enquirer.com • September 14, 2009

A volunteer religious education teacher was dismissed this weekend for publicly voicing support for Sister Louise Akers, who has been ordered by Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk to stop teaching because her backing of women priests contradicts Catholic doctrine.

Dr. Carol Egner, a life-long Catholic and gynecologist, got into trouble when she wrote a letter to the Enquirer supporting Akers.

When Egner’s pastor read her letter, he asked her to write another that either renounced her position or made clear that she “yields to the wisdom of the church.”When she refused, she was told she could no longer teach her Old Testament class for sixth-graders at Our Lady of Lourdes parish in Westwood.

“This is frightening,” Egner said Monday. “I think it’s a step backward.”

Her pastor, Rev. David Sunberg, said his decision is not part of a broader crackdown on dissent and he is not following a new, get-tough edict from Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk, who recently ordered Akers to stop teaching in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati because of her public support for the ordination of women.

Spokesman Dan Andriacco also said the archbishop had nothing to do with Egner’s dismissal.“We have an obligation to teach what Christ and His church teaches,” Sunberg said. “If she can’t do that, it wouldn’t be in our interest to have her teach.”

In her letter, Egner said she could find no biblical reference barring women from the priesthood and that allowing women priests could help ease the priest shortage that now afflicts the church. “Some self-reflection on the part of church officials may be beneficial,” she wrote.

She also suggested that the clergy abuse crisis might have been avoided if the church had been more open to the ordination of women.

Egner, who has been a volunteer teacher for two years, said she never discussed her views on women priests in her religion class and she told Sunberg she never would bring it up. Her letter does not identify her as a teacher and does not name her parish.“I feel the punishment is disproportionate,” Egner said. “Priests have abused boys and their punishment was disproportionate the other way. I feel the church really hasn’t taken responsibility and addressed that, and yet I can’t write a letter to the editor.

“I don’t get that.”

The reasons for Egner’s dismissal are similar to those Pilarczyk gave when he told Akers, a teacher for 40 years, that she no longer could teach in archdiocesan schools and institutions. He said the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear when it states that “the ordination of women is not possible” because Christ chose only male apostles.

Pilarczyk gave Akers an ultimatum after her name appeared on the Web site of the Women’s Ordination Conference, which advocates for the ordination of women.

The archbishop told her to remove her name from the site and publicly renounce her support for women priests. Akers agreed to the first demand but refused the second.

Sunberg said he was disappointed Egner also refused to publicly retract her comments.“It kind of surprised me, and it saddened me, too,” he said. “Carol is a nice person.”

Egner, 53, said the decision stunned her. She described herself as “very Catholic” and as someone who still urges her patients to pray for saintly intervention.

She said she’s now likely to leave Our Lady of Lourdes parish.“This just smacks of, this is the way it is and if you don’t like it there may be repercussions,” Egner said. “Catholics have a very long tradition of various beliefs and the ability to talk about them, and sometimes things change.”

***********************************************

If this wasn't so pathetic it would be funny. This is not about a theologian writing a book with questionable conclusions. This is about a volunteer teacher who wrote a letter to a newspaper.

It's amazing to me that years of faithful service can be tossed over board for having a positive opinion on the notion of women priests. But then I'm not vested in the mythos of the Catholic priesthood.

The story of Dr. Egner is, at least to me, a much bigger issue than what happened to Sr. Akers. Akers was a vowed religious advocating for a female priesthood. She was a paid employee of the Cincinnati Diocese. Dr. Egner is a volunteer teacher who merely wrote a letter to the editor in support of Sr. Akers. One wonders if it was her comment about pedophile priests that really irked her pastor. Unfortunately Dr. Egner is correct. The Church has treated it's pedophile priests with more compassion than it has treated it's priests who support women's ordination.

The level of fear being demonstrated here borders on the pathological. There's a whole lot more pressing issues facing the Church than this one. There's a whole lot more pressing issues facing the priesthood than this one. I have to wonder if the reason women's ordination is receiving such attention is because it actually does represent a legitimate and logical answer for most of the issues surrounding the priesthood. Unfortunately, when it comes to mythos, logic has no validity.

The arguments against the ordination of women are themselves illogical and unbelievable. In the final analysis the argument boils down to Pope John Paul II said women can't be ordained. JPII has spoken, end of discussion. Maybe that's how JPII's family worked when he was a child. It didn't work that way in my family. It just brought on more debate and discussion, large amounts of eye rolling, and a frustrated and angry insincere compliance. Which is essentially what is being requested of the laity in Cincinnati. An angry and insincere compliance is better than open dissent or questioning. (It maybe better for the Institutional church but it's destructive for individual believers.)

The issue of women priests goes to the heart of the myth vs secular thinking. There are many people for whom Catholicism is primarily a mythos religion. When the external appearance of a sacrament or ritual is changed, it will give them a very unpleasant jolt. They have a view of the priesthood which is similar to how we all have an unexamined understanding of an intact human body. When we are confronted with a body which no longer fits that picture, we experience a jolt to our system which bypasses the higher reasoning centers. We experience this as being fundamentally wrong. It looks wrong, there for it must be wrong. Logic doesn't apply when the mythos is inaccurately presented.

By the way, I am not implying that a Catholicism grounded in the mythos is bad. A lot of my own Catholicism is grounded in aspects of the mythos which I refuse to examine logically. In some of the work I do, belief in that unexamined mythos is what keeps me sane and reconnects me with this reality.

Almost all of the issues which are core to traditional or conservative Catholics are primarily issues which involve the external presentation of some aspect of the Catholic mythos. Since the defense of the mythos frequently does not stand up to modern logical scrutiny, in the end they all boil down to issues of obedience.

John Paul lived his Catholicism in the world of Catholic mythos. Where he could be acutely logical and forward thinking in secular areas, he was not the least bit forward thinking or logical when it came to aspects of the Catholic mythos--especially the priesthood. I suspect this is why he maintained dead silence on the pedophile issue but was so vocal on the women's ordination issue. Both stances protected the mythos of the priesthood and therefor had a sort of internal logic.

The argument about women's ordination is being played out by two distinctly different world views. That could be said about all of the arguments surrounding the priesthood. All the logic and analysis and pointing to historically documented ordained women clergy will have no effect on Catholics whose Catholicism is grounded in the current Catholic mythos. Women can not be 'in persona Christi' because it's fundamentally visually obvious. Women are not men. Jesus was not a woman, end of discussion.

The early historic church did not have the same understanding of the mythos of the priesthood. The early mythos was not based in gender, it was based in service. That's the description of servant leaders which flows all through Paul's letters. Unfortunately we are a long ways removed from the time of Paul. The mythos of the servant leader has been thoroughly replaced by the mythos of the Council of Trent.

I've often wondered if the ordination of women would be better received if it was grounded in it's own mythos. In this fantasy of mine, the Mass would be identical but the Eucharistic Canon would be altered to reflect Mary's participation in the Incarnation and her offering of herself and her son in the mission of Redemption. Without the Incarnation there is no Redemption.

Ultimately Christianity exists because of the choice of Mary to accept her role in bringing forth the human body of Christ. Maybe it's time the Church accepted women are perfectly ordained 'in persona mary' to sacramentally bring forth the Eucharistic human body of Christ. This would also serve to bring some 'complimentary' balance to the entire priesthood, and is probably why my fantasy will stay a fantasy.

Returning To The Mythology Of The Past Is No Way To Address The Crisis In The Present

Appealing to the ghost of St. John Vianney will not address the questions Fr. McBrien asks concerning the current priesthood.

Fr. Richard McBrien has probably stirred up a hornets nest again. His last article on Eucharistic Adoration certainly stirred up passions. This week his article is far more important because he is dealing with the fundamental issue confronting Catholicism, and it's not Eucharistic Adoration. It's the priesthood.

In this Pontifical Year of the priest Fr. McBrien is issuing a call for real discernment about issues which are of critical importance to the future of the Church and the priesthood. These issues are not about a priest's faith formation or his pastoral duties to his flock per se, but all of these additional concerns certainly impact priestly formation and service. Here are Fr. McBrien's ten issues.

1. The shortage of diocesan priests cannot be addressed by band-aid solutions, like inviting priests from foreign countries to engage in sacramental ministry in dioceses with sharply declining numbers of domestic vocations. There needs to be a public discussion, involving priests themselves, concerning obligatory celibacy and its pastoral ramifications.

2. Many priests do not perceive themselves to be close collaborators with their bishops, as Vatican II envisioned them to be (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, n. 7). Too few bishops reach out to their priests to ask for their honest opinions about anything that seriously affects the life of the church and the priesthood. (In too many dioceses this lack of collaboration actually masks outright but silent hostility.)

3. Many diocesan priests still feel betrayed by their bishops with the passage in 2002 of the Dallas Charter. Priests who have been accused by anyone of any sexual impropriety whatever with minors have been summarily removed from the active ministry. At the same time, no bishop, other than one cardinal-archbishop, has been forced to resign because of his mishandling of the sexual-abuse scandal. (Or, other than Rembert Weakland, has any bishop been forced to resign because of their active participation in sexual impropriety.)

4. There is a growing rift between so-called "Vatican II priests" and so-called "John Paul II priests," which is painfully evident in some dioceses when priests gather for the Eucharist at retreats and other diocesan events.

5. There is a concomitant return to clericalism in the priesthood, involving not only a fascination with cassocks and birettas and a preference for antiquated vestments and devotions, but also a negative, censorious tone to preaching and a cavalier dismissal of consultative structures that are supposed to be in place in every parish. (This is the worst of the consequences of the fascination with the pre Vatican II Church.)

6. At the same time, the Vatican and the bishops have failed to address concerns raised by the disproportionate number of gays in seminaries and the priesthood, including also the hierarchy. It is the elephant in the living room, as pointed out almost 10 years ago in Fr. Donald Cozzens's The Changing Face of the Priesthood. Yet how many priests' retreats and clergy conferences have used that book as a basis for discussion? (This issue can never be meaningfully addressed in the current climate of gay scapegoating.)

7. There has been a substantial attrition of Catholics -- women, gays and lesbians, divorced people, critics of official teachings on sexuality and reproduction -- from active membership in the church, to the point where fully one-tenth of the U.S. population now consists of ex-Catholics. What is being done about it? (Virtually nothing except to ask more of us to leave.)

8. Resigned priests are treated like traitors. To be sure, some bishops welcome them back at clergy reunions, but others boycott such gatherings as a sign of their contempt.

9. Appointments to the hierarchy since the pontificate of Paul VI have been of a certain type. Those who do not fit the official profile are excluded from consideration or are harassed by Vatican officials if they are already bishops.

10. So many senior priests say to their friends, "I can't wait for retirement." Why this sense of discouragement over the present state of the Church, bordering sometimes on hopelessness? (See previous nine statements.)

************************************************

I don't suppose Fr. McBrien and the other priests for whom he writes are going to have any of these issues addressed. The Year of the Priest was not called to deal with the practical issues of the priesthood, but to reinforce the mythology of the priesthood. In using the term mythology I am referring to the archetypal aspects of the priesthood which speak to the unconcsious mind. Fr. McBrien is addressing issues which speak to the rational conscious mind. While each can effect the other, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a solely archetypal approach to have any meaningful impact on the rational aspects. What usually happens when a mythological mind set attempts to reform or address practical problems is a worsening of the problem.

Personally, I think Pope John Paul II leaned far to heavily on a mythological approach in reforming the priesthood and this can be seen in the divide between JPII priests and those who were not products of JPII seminaries. Not only are they apart and separate from their brother priests, but they also have a vision of their priesthood which separates them from those laity whose minds do not work in the same fashion.

A conservative mythological mindset seeks the Kingdom of God in a return to a mythical golden past when everything was consonant with God's plan for man. They filter out anything which contradicts that belief. On the other hand, the typical rational Western mind is enculturated in a world view that looks to a brighter future. They see the Kingdom of God as still coming to fruition as a product of a process of maturation and they work to further and deepen their understanding of revealed Divine truth. A traditional mythological mind set easily sees this as secular relativism. A progressive liberal will often see the return to external trappings of the past as an act of escapism propelled by fear of the unknown future and the ever changing present.

Somewhere a long the line we have lost the truth that mankind needs both a mythological world view in order to deal with the underlying questions secularism can't answer, and a reasoned world view which keeps the individual anchored in and responsive to the current reality. That's a hard balance to achieve.

The Vatican seems to be leaning heavily towards the traditional mythological aspect of the priesthood while willfully ignoring the current and future practical aspects. The upshot of this will only result in more Catholics being denied access to the Sacraments. This is really ironic since the Sacramental system is the core of Catholic mythology. It is the aspect of the Church that responds to the unanswerable questions and fulfills our need to ritually enact our relationship with God. This strategy is a disaster in the making for millions and millions of Catholics.

It may be that in last week's article on Eucharistic Adoration Fr. McBrien was underlining this problem between those who see the truth in a mythical past and those who see a bleak future for a Church which over emphasizes myth and ritual at the expense of practical reality. The truth is the past does not impact the present and future in any meaningful way unless it is changed. What changes is not the past itself, but the lessons we take from it.

It's time we took a look at the history of the Church and the development of the current priestly mythology. That mythology has developed and changed when it needed to in order to respond to needs in the Church. It can do so again, and it can be firmly rooted in the Scriptures and Tradition. But that can't be accomplished unless the Hierarchy is first willing to admit that maintenance of the current mythology is counter productive. The Holy Spirit is waiting.

Distorting The Facts Of A Tragedy For The Sake Of The Cause

Yesterday in Michigan a pro life protester, Jim Pouillon, was gunned down while protesting in front of a high school. The shooter, Harlan Drake, was a truck driver with a grudge against three men, two of whom he murdered before being arrested by police at his home.

The following is from CNA and is full of distortions making the pro life protester and this situation out to be something it isn't. My quotes with in the article are taken from the Detroit Free Press. -- a real news agency. One that doesn't have an agenda.

Michigan gunman was offended by victim’s pro-life message (This is the first distortion.)
Owosso, Mich., Sep 11, 2009 / 06:33 pm (CNA).-

Harlan Drake, the 33-year old man arrested in connection with the murder of the Christian pro-life activist James “Jim” Pouillon as well as business owner Mike Fuoss told detectives that he targeted Pouillon because he was “offended” by his pro-life message. Drake also revealed that he planned to target a third man, but was arrested before he could carry out his plan. (This is not true. The true statement from police: "Colbry said Drake gave a motive for only the attack on Pouillon, saying Drake thought the protester's display of graphic abortion photos outside the school was inappropriate." Drake was opposed to the method, not the message. No one knows what Drake's views are on abortion.)

This morning around 7:20 a.m., Drake drove to Owosso High School where he shot and killed Pouillon as he held a poster of a baby with the word, “Life,” written across the front. (That was one side of his sign, the other side "a photo of an aborted fetus with the word "ABORTION" on the other.")

A press release from Citizens for a Pro-Life Society spoke about the dedication Pouillon had to protecting the unborn. “The victim, dependent on an oxygen tank and who wore leg braces, was a committed pro-life activist who for many years stood outside of Flint area abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood offices in the hope of turning women away from their abortion decision.”
Following the shooting, Pouillon’s sign and oxygen tank could be seen in the grass near the street.

CNA spoke with Cal Zastrow, a close friend of Pouillon’s for 18 years who described him as a “wonderful, Christian, peaceful man.”

“Jim was ready for this,” Zastrow said as he recalled a time when they were both protesting outside of an abortion clinic in Saginaw, Mich. and were threatened by someone in a car driving by. (Jim was not always so peaceful. That was a learned behavior brought on by the courts:

"He had an especially contentious relationship with an Owosso car dealership, now called Young Chevrolet, and some of its employees, according to court records. Pouillon was sued by the dealership and several employees for harassment and intimidation.
The clash began in the early 1990s, when the dealership displayed campaign signs for a candidate whom Pouillon believed to be pro-choice. He began staging demonstrations at the dealership.
One employee, a young woman, said he verbally accused her of various offenses, including killing babies.
In 2000, Pouillon was convicted of stalking the woman, a conviction he unsuccessfully appealed.")

Though some news reports have painted Pouillon as confrontational, Zastrow pointed out that abortion supporters consider “little old ladies with a handful of rosary beads on the corner” confrontational too. (Jim Pouillon may have been a committed activist, but he was not a "little old lady, with a handful of rosary beads on the corner". He was in the Terry Randall mode of protester.)

Poullion, a born-again Christian was “a very peaceful man,” his friend stated. “Very non-violent, he never approved of violence and he never threatened anybody.” )See previous quote on conviction for stalking.)

This morning, Drake also drove to Fuoss Gravel where he shot and killed company president Mike Fuoss. According to ConnectMidMichigan.com, NBC25, Drake’s mother used to work for Fuoss.

Drake told detectives that there was third man he was planning to target, a realtor named James Howe. Before tracking him down, Drake decided to stop at his own house, where police were waiting to arrest him.

Shiawassee County Prosecutor Randy Colbry has noted that “The indication is that he had ill will ... a grudge against these three individuals."

Colbry went on to say that Drake “was offended by the manner of Mr. Pouillon's message."

(Notice how the truth is buried at the end of this article.)

Director of Citizens for a Pro-life Society Monica Migliorino Miller defended Pouillon in a statement saying, “Jim died while giving a peaceful witness to the sacredness of human life. He stood outside of the local high school on many occasions holding a sign of a baby to send a message to the students that abortion is the taking of innocent life. Now his life has been taken as he stood in witness against the injustice of abortion.” (The truth is school officials were very concerned about the graphic nature of his signs:

Owosso Schools Interim Superintendent Susan Wooden said Pouillon had picketed near the school for years. Wooden said school officials were concerned it could be upsetting for some students.
"We had spoken to the gentleman before and insisted that he be off the school property with his message," Wooden said."

“Jim Pouillon is a hero—he died for the cause of life,” Miller said.

The organization, Missionaries to the Preborn, also spoke highly of Pouillon, “Jim was a selfless, soft-spoken, kind-hearted man. All who knew him, knew this. Please pray for Jim's family.”

The Catholic Diocese of Lansing, Mich. released a statement saying that while they don’t know the specifics of what happened, the shooting is a “tragedy, since violence is never a justifiable way to solve problems.” (At last a reasoned truthful statement.)

********************************************************

My intention in this posting this is not to justify Harlan Drake. Nothing will justify Harlan Drake. My point is that sanity can not return to the abortion debate if the loudest voices print willful distortions as in this NCA article.

The murder of Jim Pouillon is not about his pro life message, it's about the method he chose to convey it. It's about Harlan Drake who had personal grudges and chose to act on them. It has as much to do with abortion as it does gravel yards or real estate. Purposefully confusing these issues to the benefit of the pro life crusade is just plain wrong and hurts the cause.

Thank God the Lansing Diocese got it right.

This Silent Catholic Center Is Beginning To Growl

The Diocese of Maine may have some surprises in these this week end.

This has been an interesting and uplifting Friday for me. I wrote a friend the other day that the uber right had over stepped themselves, and in that over stepping had started to engulf the center right and centrist positions. The uber right was forcing people who had previously felt no compulsion, to really look at their positions and the people who voiced those positions. In many cases those previously complacent people were turning to the left center in order not to be engulfed in the anger and hate of the right. Many were adopting positions which they had not previously looked at nor considered.

Today in the National Catholic Reporter both John Allen and Michael Sean Winters gave voice to the phenomenon and how destructive it is to the pro life cause. But it isn't just the pro life cause this righteous anger, reflexive condemnation, and bankrupt logic has impacted. It's also the gay marriage issue. In Maine, some faithful Catholics are finally saying, "No the bishop does not speak for all of us." They are actively fighting the Maine diocese and its campaign to rescind the right of gay marriage in Maine and they are doing it in their parish churches.

Catholics for Marriage Equality Issues Statement in Response to Diocesan Fundraising for Campaign to Repeal Maine's Marriage Equality Law
Portland, Maine (Friday, September 11, 2009)---

Catholics for Marriage Equality (C4ME), an organization urging Catholics and all Mainers to vote no on Question 1 on the November 3rd ballot, today issued the following statement in response to the Diocese of Portland's fundraising for the campaign to repeal Maine's marriage equality law:

"Catholics for Marriage Equality calls on its members and all Catholics who share our support for marriage equality to take two peaceful but effective actions in our parishes this Sunday so that the diocese will know it is not speaking for all faithful Catholics.

"First, instead of money, we urge parishioners who support marriage equality to place a note in the special collection envelope stating that they do not support the bishop's stance to deprive same-sex couples of the right to civil marriage and will instead donate funds to NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality, which opposes Question 1, or to a charity that is inclusive of all families.
"Second, we ask supportive Catholics to sign our petition affirming that the Church can define marriage as it wishes for its members but that marriage as a civil right is the prerogative of the state to define.

Our petition is available at: religiouscoalition.org.

"C4ME exists to give hope to those who are hurt and angry because of our bishop's determination to overturn the legislature's passage of marriage equality. We will disseminate information that is truthful and respectful stating why marriage equality is a matter of civil rights and social justice that Catholics are free to support-indeed, may feel compelled to support as a matter of social conscience and responsible citizenship."

Contact: Anne Underwood, Catholics for Marriage Equality, (207)650-1588

*************************************************

For way too long gay Catholics have sat in the same pews with other faithful Catholics wondering how those fellow Catholics could sit there and listen to bishops and clergy scape goat and vilify gays. How could these Catholics deal with hearing these things about their children, or their brothers, or sisters, or an aunt or an uncle--or in many cases their parents. When would the deafening and cowed silence start to become a disgruntled growl. It's starting in Maine. It's starting in the pro life movement. It's starting in the health care debate.

When that growl reaches the crescendo of a roar, the squeaky wheels will not only not be heard, they will have been left by the side of the road.

Update On Honduras And The US Response

Here's a quick update on the Honduras situation and the US response.

U.S. cuts aid to Honduran government
by Thomas C. Fox on Sep. 10, 2009 NCR Today

The Obama administration on Thursday cut off all aid to the Honduran government over the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya, making permanent a temporary suspension of U.S. assistance put in place after he was deposed in June, according to the Associate Press.

The report states that the State Department made the announcement as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was meeting with Zelaya. The action cuts more than $31 million in non-humanitarian assistance, including $11 million remaining in a more than a $200 million five-year assistance program run by the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

"The secretary of state has made the decision, consistent with U.S. legislation, recognizing the need for strong measures in light of the continued resistance to the adoption of the San Jose Accord by the de facto regime and continuing failure to restore democratic, constitutional rule to Honduras," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said.

After meeting with Clinton, Zelaya welcomed the move.
"It is gratifying that the United States has taken a strong position against the coup," he told The Associated Press in a brief interview. Zelaya said more pressure may be necessary.

Honduras' interim government sent a letter to Clinton vowing it would withstand any price to defend democracy in the Central American country. (This is a statement worth a cynical laugh.)

"Whether you wish us well or not, we will pay any price, we will bear any burden, we will take on any difficulty, we will support any friend and oppose any enemy to ensure the survival and the success of liberty and democracy in our country," interim Interior Minister Oscar Raul Matute said in the letter, echoing President John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address. (This is worth another one.)

Zelaya was deposed and exiled on June 28 amid suspicions among his opponents that he wanted to overturn a constitutional provision limiting Honduran presidents to a single term. He has denied that was his goal.

**********************************************************

Kudos to President Obama and the State Department and to the bloggers and media outlets that kept the pressure on to do this very thing.

Forget Health Care, It's About Eucharistic Adoration

If this looks a little squashed it's because in it's original form it was way too vertical to fit in this blog.

Fr. Richard McBrien has written a column this week in which he discusses the Eucharist and Eucharistic Adoration. It started out as a kindly defense of a non Catholic reporter of the Boston Globe who was reporting on the increase in Eucharistic adoration in Boston. However, this particular reporter, Michael Paulson, was instrumental in the Globe's 2002 expose of clergy sexual abuse in Boston. In certain Catholic circles Mr. Paulson is considered very anti Catholic precisely because his expose was seen as an attack on the Church, rather than an objective reporting of the truth. Paulson's current Globe article generated more commentary along the same lines.

Fr. McBrien attempted to come to his defense. After that I'm not quite sure what Fr. McBrien was thinking, as he ended his article with quite the statement. The following is an excerpt from the NCR article:

"However, as time went on, eucharistic devotions, including adoration, drifted further and further away from their liturgical grounding in the Mass itself.

Notwithstanding Pope Benedict XVI's personal endorsement of eucharistic adoration and the sporadic restoration of the practice in the archdiocese of Boston and elsewhere, it is difficult to speak favorably about the devotion today.

Now that most Catholics are literate and even well-educated, the Mass is in the language of the people (i.e, the vernacular), and its rituals are relatively easy to understand and follow, there is little or no need for extraneous eucharistic devotions. The Mass itself provides all that a Catholic needs sacramentally and spiritually.

Eucharistic adoration, perpetual or not, is a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward." (Not too many people remembered the rest of his commentary after reading this sentence.)

****************************************************

When I read this last sentence, I thought "Oh, my. This zinger needs more explanation, because as it stands, it's going to cause quite the stir." It has. There are references to this article all over the blogosphere and the article itself has generated an enormous number of comments, virtually all of which call Fr. McBrien to task, and quite a number of them not too gently.

One comment pretty much summed up my own view:

Dear Fr. O'Brien, While I appreciate your columns very much, I disagree with your final sentence in this piece, as would contemplatives everywhere. The Real Presence in the Mass does "provide all" that is needed, but the Mystery is inexhaustible and some in the Body of Christ feel compelled to extend worship beyond the actual time of the Eucharistic celebration. To say that there is "no need for extraneous eucharistic devotions" seems similar to debunking intimate friendship, being in love, the time "wasted" by lovers for whom simply communing is a value in itself. Moreover, we will never know till we get to the other side, how much blessing has come to the world in those hours of communion before the Blessed Sacrament that some are called -- even today -- to offer. "Taste and see how good the Lord is..."

Personally I wish the terminology surrounding this practice would be modified from Eucharistic Adoration, to Eucharistic Contemplation. Not because I'm some sort of intellectual elitist, but because most people who practice this form of devotion will find themselves spending more time contemplating things, mentally talking things over, and relaxing in the environment, than actively adoring Jesus. These are the very things we do with our own flesh and blood friends, lovers, and family. That I believe is the point. If Jesus is present as flesh and blood, incarnate as we are, then the relationship should be a relationship, and not an exercise in adoration.

Jesus Himself said that adoration was reserved for His Father. His role in the Trinity is that of friend and teacher. The mystery of the Eucharist is in this timeless presence of friendship, compassion, mercy and love, and the connection this represents along the whole history of the Church. To me it's an incredible notion that I experience the same invitation from the same Jesus that Catholics have had for millenia. That is unity. Unity doesn't mean that my particular relationship has to be expressed the same way as a sainted predecessor experienced their relationship. After all, none of my friends relate to me in the exact same way. (It might be a lot easier on me if they did, but it would get boring in the long run.)

I suspect Fr. McBrien was alluding to some of the trappings that have traditionally been associated with Eucharistic Adoration or Benediction. The kind of trappings that emphasize an up there, out there, and vertical conceptualization of Jesus. The strain of Christology that is centered on raising Jesus above and beyond us mere mortals and tends to define Him by His job--savior of a fallen mankind--rather than His personhood--human like us in all things save sin. As fully human, like all of us, He needs personal relationships to fulfill his humanness, and the best are loving relationships.

The other thing humans need are symbols and signs. It's how our brains work, especially our right hemisphere. While I can pray and meditate in my own home and connect with His presence, I am also personally aware of the fact that my other relationships aren't based on everyone always coming to my house. I too go to their house. It's an act of honoring them and respecting them.

Symbolically, the physical Church is a sign of Jesus's own home. It has a certain feel and presence that says here I am, this is My home. Although I'm also aware of the fact that this is in part an enculturated experience, I also know that doesn't negate the reality of the feeling or detract from it's meaning. Churches, like Native Holy sights, have a different energy and create a distinct visceral feeling that certainly distinguishes them from say, McDonald's. They should, the character of these places has been laid down by the specific human intent to relate with the transcendent. I have zero problem with people desiring to meet with Jesus in His own home. The sad thing is so many of them are locked up like Fort Knox.

In any event, Fr. McBrien's column has certainly stirred up discussion about this devotion. As with any number of other Catholic issues, one's understanding is based on one's Christology. That seems to be an area of misunderstanding and hard feelings which has a very long tradition with in the Church. In that respect, Fr. McBrien is in good Catholic company, no matter his opinion on the backwardness of Eucharistic Adoration.

Montana's Mad Max Is Showing His True Colors

Senator Max Baucus and other members of the Senate Finance Committee have chosen For Profit over For People health care reform.

The Trouble With Max Baucus: It's Not The Plan, It's The Planning
First Posted: 09- 8-09 04:55 PM Updated: 09- 8-09 06:41 PM Huffington Post

Matt Yglesias takes an analytic look at the health care reform plan proffered by Max Baucus today, and while he beseeches his readers to remember his bona fides as a Max Baucus detractor, he nevertheless concludes that "a lot of the blog response to this proposal is overblown" and that there's "no reason to think that the system envisioned by Baucus would be either a political or a substantive disaster"

Instead, it would create something comparable to the situation that currently prevails in Switzerland or Massachusetts. Is that great? No, it's not. Health care in Massachusetts is substantialy worse than health care in any number of foreign countries. That said, the Massachusetts health care system is better than the health care system that exists in any other American state. Similarly, if it were up to me Switzerland is about the last country I would choose to emulate. In terms of excessive costs--spending that lines the pockets of medical providers with little real medical benefit--it's worse that everyone except . . . the United States of America.

In short, the status quo is bad, Baucus' plan would make it better by the slimmest of incremental degrees, and at the end of the day, a net gain is a net gain. What I think Matt is eliding over is the fact that Max Baucus' plan doesn't go any further than it does for a reason. That reason? Max Baucus' plan has been bought and paid for by industry lobbyists.

From the Sunlight Foundation, June 22, 2009:
Lobbying disclosure filings for the first quarter of 2009 reveal that five of Baucus' former staffers currently work for a total of twenty-seven different organizations that are either in the health care or insurance sector or have a noted interest in the outcome. The organizations represented include some of the top lobbying organizations in the health sector: Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Researchers of America (PhRMA), America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Amgen, and GE Health Care.

The overall health and insurance sectors haven't just been kind to Baucus' staffers, but they've also aided his campaigns handsomely over the years, especially in his barely contested 2008 reelection campaign. In 2008, Baucus received $1,148,775 from the health sector and $285,850 from the insurance sector. For his career he has received $2,797,381 from the health sector and $1,170,313 from the insurance sector.

And this is precisely why Baucus' plan is such weak tea. Any ambition to craft a more effective policy or even shift in a larger incremental direction is entirely offset by millions of dollars of war chest money. And when one compares the money Baucus has taken in from his constituents versus the money he's raised from outside interests, it's hard to make the case that Baucus is authentically driven in his decisions to represent the citizens who have elected him. NPR's Andrea Seabrook breaks this down:

When Baucus ran for his sixth term last year, his campaign raised $11.6 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Nearly half of the funds came from out-of-state donors, including millions from health care and other industries overseen by Finance and Baucus' other committees.

Just 13 percent of Baucus' re-election funds came from Montana donors.
The "substantive disaster" here lies not in Baucus' sausage, but in the process by which it was cooked up, and if you swallow the former, you risk choking on the latter.

************************************************

I'll have some more on the above article after this one. It seems Max didn't write his plan. He had Liz Fowler write his plan. She who used to be the VP for Public Policy and External Affairs at WellPoint. Are we shocked yet fellow progressives and liberals?

The Max Baucus WellPoint/Liz Fowler Plan

By: emptywheel Tuesday September 8, 2009 12:32 pm

All this time I've been calling Max Tax health care Max Baucus' health care plan.
But, as William Ockham points out, it's actually Liz Fowler's health care plan (if you open the document and look under document properties, it lists her as author). At one level, it's not surprising that Bad Max's Senior Counsel would have authored the Max Tax plan. Here's how Politico described her role in Bad Max's health care plan earlier this year:

If you drew an organizational chart of major players in the Senate health care negotiations, Fowler would be the chief operating officer.

As a senior aide to Baucus, she directs the Finance Committee health care staff, enforces deadlines on drafting bill language and coordinates with the White House and other lawmakers. She also troubleshoots, identifying policy and political problems before they ripen.
“My job is to get from point A to point B,” said Fowler, who’s training for four triathlons this summer in between her long days on Capitol Hill.

Fowler learned as a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania that the United States was the only industrialized country without universal health care, and she decided then to dedicate her professional life to the work.

She first worked for Baucus from 2001 through 2005, playing a key role in negotiating the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. Feeling burned out, she left for the private sector but rejoined Baucus in 2008, sensing that a Democratic-controlled Congress would make progress on overhauling the health care system.

Baucus and Fowler spent a year putting the senator in a position to pursue reform, including holding hearings last summer and issuing a white paper in November. They deliberately avoided releasing legislation in order to send a signal of openness and avoid early attacks.

“People know when Liz is speaking, she is speaking for Baucus,” said Dean Rosen, the health policy adviser to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).

What neither Politico nor Bad Max himself want you to know, though, is that in the two years before she came back to the Senate to help Max craft the Max Tax plan, she worked as VP for Public Policy and External Affairs at WellPoint.

So to the extent that Liz Fowler is the Author of this document, we might as well consider WellPoint its author as well.

*****************************************************

I have no clue as to how Max Baucus spent 11.5 million dollars on his recent re election campaign in Montana. I was so baffled by this, that before I left for New Mexico I did an unscientific poll at a local convenience store. I asked 23 random pop and coffee buyers when was the last time Max ran for the senate. Not one person knew the answer to that question and they all stated they voted in 2008. Max ran in 2008. That 11.5 million dollar campaign sure resonated with Montana voters.

Having been one of those Montana voters, I couldn't for the life of me remember who ran against Max. I had to look it up and this is what I found:

Newser Summary) – Montana senator Max Baucus looks certain to win reelection this November, writes the New York Times, but his Republican challenger is gaining some attention for his unorthodox proposals.

Bob Kelleher, 85, wants to nationalize oil companies, end the Iraq war to fund cancer research—and, most shockingly, eliminate the separation of powers and introduce a British-style parliament. "How did he win?" a Baucus spokesman wondered. (I wonder that myself. How did he win the Republican nomination to run against Max?)

Kelleher has been a perennial candidate for decades in Montana, on GOP, Democratic, and Green tickets. But clinching the senatorial nomination surprised everyone—the state Republican chairman didn't even let him speak at their convention. And though he has only a $10,000 campaign budget and seemingly no chance, Kelleher is taking the race seriously: "I’m not going to have the quiet summer I thought I would."

I believe Kelleher did run a few commercials, but I couldn't locate his actual campaign financial statement. Max claims he spent over 9.3 million on his 2008 campaign. I wonder where he spent that, or why he spent that, or why he needed 11.5 million to run against a man whose own party wouldn't let him speak at their state convention.

For those of you who live elsewhere, I wouldn't be too quick to blame Montanans entirely. It's the Republicans who refused to run a viable candidate and gave up on this race before it began. No wonder Max is such a good friends with all his Republican counterparts on the Finance committee.

So now the whole nation gets Max 'the bought and paid for' and a potential health plan written by the very industry we're trying to reform. Don't you just love American democracy?

Should you care, you can get an idea of the major parts of the policy here. The part I don't like is that Max calls for hefty fees on all components of the health care industry, but no provisions which will prevent them from passing those fees on to us. Additionally he calls for mandatory coverage from for profit insurers, or maybe co ops. There are fines involved if people don't pay for insurance. Plus granny could wind up paying upwards of 6 times the amount for her insurance that her 20 year old grandson would. Max's plan may demand coverage for everybody, but somebodies are going to have to pay a whole lot more than others. This is not health care reform, period.

Systemic Rot Which Starts At The Top---Thoughts From Richard Sipe

Richard Sipe maintains the rot feeding the abuses in the Church are fed from the top even though we mostly only hear about the bottom.

I don't think the Maciel and Legion scandal can be brushed aside as just one deviant human being who managed to snow a whole bunch of people about his truth. He was allowed to live as he did and do what he did by a system which allows a lot of 'celibate' men to do what Maciel did and live as he did.

I still firmly believe that so much of what should be uncovered in the Legion scandal is directly related to money and for two reasons. First, men who have secrets which need to be kept are open to blackmail. Secondly, in men like Maciel where power and sex are directly linked, money and it's influence is how you keep score of your power, just like multiple and continual sexual conquests is how you keep your sexual score--and the need to score in both always keeps escalating.

Maciel and the Legion are the perfect symbol for what's endemically wrong with the Roman Catholic clerical system. Too many inmates run the system and the good guys have no where to turn.

Now for the thoughts of Richard Sipe whose website is the best when it comes to celibacy, sexual abuse, and the enabling behavior of the clerical system.

The Cardinal McCarrick Syndrome

In 1990 when I published my book A Secret World: Sexuality and the Search for Celibacy a good part of the clerical world rejected the claim that a large proportion of the clerical community was not practicing celibacy and that 6 percent of priests had sexual contact with minors. Some bishops wrote to tell me that my conclusions were similar to their experience “but I should not have said it.” I was criticized as being disloyal; my research method also came under criticism.
But in spite of it all, the conclusions have been tested and found reliable. It is now an accepted fact that many priests in the United States at any one time are not practicing celibacy. This was Step One to the beginning of understanding the problem of clerical celibacy in general and the crisis of sexual abuse specifically. (Cf. Squabbling About Numbers) Specifically it was the beginning of spelling out the systemic construct of the celibate/sexual dynamic in the Catholic Church. (This is the fact that gets missed. The abuse of celibacy and the victims it leaves behind is NOT an exclusively homosexual issue. It is a priesthood issue.)

Step Two: With the hospitalization of priests in the proliferation of mental hospitals established since 1946 for sexual acting out clergy another insight became obvious: bishops and superiors knew what was going on. In fact, as the crisis of abuse took shape it became increasingly apparent that bishops not only knew what priests were doing to minors, but they were covering up what they knew and participating in the abuse by transferring the abusers from one parish or locale to another without informing or warning anyone of the previous assaults. They blamed psychiatrists and lawyers for giving them bad advice. (Pope Benedict XVI recently still used this excuse.) But no bishop needed to be told that the behavior under question was not celibate. And oversight of priests’ celibacy is the job of the bishop. This basic neglect and undervaluation of celibacy is a major factor in allowing the abuse of minors. Bishops dismissed the criminal behavior as being within their province because it is a “sin.” (Bishops must not have seen this as a very serious sin in and of itself. The potential damage to the myth of the celibate priesthood was their real issue-- which goes to Richard Sipe's point about how 'undervalued' actual celibacy really is by the hierarchy.)

Step Three: As the documentation from civil and criminal cases erupted from every corner of the States a further element in the dynamic of celibate violation and sexual abuse revealed itself. That is: The pattern and practice of superiors, confessors, spiritual directors, novice masters, and faculty members having sexual exchanges and friendships with seminarians and young priests. Its prevalence in the United States is unquestionable. The legal cases that have been filed against priests who have abused minors are but one source of reliable documentation. Mental health records are another. Most of all the testimony of the abused is substantial, painful, pitiful, and disheartening. (I strongly suspect this is one of the reasons that Maciel's behavior was never curbed. This 'grooming' issue isn't just an American issue, it's endemic to the entire clerical system, it emanates from Rome, and is traditional in the historic sense of that word.)

A great deal about this element in the system is well known and also undeniable. The trouble is that it is sealed within the system. Few of the seminarian/priest victims will talk on record. They have everything to loose. Sexually active priests who have no intention of being celibate do everything to cover their tracks.

But the reality goes to the top. And the pattern is not exclusively homosexual. Bishops and even cardinals who have more or less long term relationships with women are known about and there is as-of-yet unpublished documentation. (This practice used to be called concubinage, was most common and quasi tolerated. Most the time now these relationships are carried on under some more dignified word.) (There is now quite a bit of published information about this form of concubinage coming from Latin America, Africa, and Germany.)

More ominous are the relationships of sexual sponsorship in which an older priest or superior takes an attractive and responsive younger priest into his affectionate embrace. Yes, some of these associations do become sexual. As the senior man rises in stature, position, and power he brings his protégé along with him up the scale of the organization. Sometimes the younger man eventually equals his mentor’s stature; he too can repeat the pattern so well learned and practiced. This pattern is well exercised in Rome.

There are scores of reliable documents that demonstrate this practice and people involved.

The main point is that the dynamic is in operation and affects even good, observant clergy who cannot speak openly because the secret system will not tolerate them. Where are they to go?

The press will not touch malfeasance on this level of the power system without impossible vetting that will expose the whistler blower to potential or certain destruction. Who of the many-in-the-know within the secret clerical system have that kind of courage? (The kind that are retired and have nothing substantial to lose and who may want to face their Maker with a clean conscience.)

What I have written to Pope Benedict is but a simple example of the systemic dynamic of celibate violation within the priesthood and some of the dire consequences for the church, the clergy, and our youth.

I have expressed my awareness of how difficult it is even for him to address this dimension of the problem that I have named the Cardinal McCarrick Syndrome. Great Saints like Pope Gregory I, Peter Damian, the patron of church reform, and the other saints illustrated in C. Colt Anderson’s Great Catholic Reformers have tried, some with more success than others. (Cf. Books of Note) There is a need for such saints today. The problem is present, operative, and of major magnitude. (Maybe it's difficult for Benedict to address this problem of patronage because he is guilty of it--see Georg Ganswein.)

Now Read "Statement for Pope Benedict XVI"

**************************************************

Richard Sipe is most likely a lone wolf howling in an empty desert for all the good his research and analysis will do the Church. The reason is quite simple. As long as the Church hangs on to the teaching that all sex outside of marriage is evil, celibacy is a necessary prop to uphold that teaching. That this teaching is completely counter to how real people live their real lives and always have lived them, doesn't matter---even if those real people who can't live the fantasy are ordained clergy.

But of course, Maciel is about more than failed celibacy. He was also about the non transparent and unaccountable abusive use of power. That's the other reason the Church won't listen to Richard Sipe. Change the sexual teachings and the Church admits it has been wrong about the inherent evil of sexuality. This would seriously dent it's authoritative power, based as it is on the fantasy of infallibility. Can't be having that one at all. Better to let the sins, abuses, and hypocrisy continue. After all the end justifies any means.

Bishop Morlino Calls For Mercy From The Rabid Faithful, And Also Suggests They Are Engaging In Sin

Once a dog is rabid, it's a little too late to suggest they settle down. Bishop Morlino is a little too late.

When catching up on some blogs yesterday I ran across a comment which castigated Bishop Morlino as well as Cardinal O'Malley for scandalizing the Church with their approach to the Kennedy funeral. This piqued my curiosity and so I found Bishop Morlino's offensive opinion in an article he wrote for the Diocese of Madison Catholic Herald. I suspect Bishop Morlino hit too close to home for some letter of the law Catholics.

God’s mercy and Senator Edward Kennedy
Bishop Robert C. Morlino Thursday, 03 September 2009 00:00
Diocese of Madison Catholic Herald

Dear Friends,
As I complete my time of rest and recuperation, I found myself unpredictably (at least had I been able to predict six months ago) with time available to me to watch on the television most of the events surrounding the funeral and burial of Senator Edward Moore Kennedy. For myself, the time was prayerful and well spent because I knew a lot about Senator Kennedy when he was still fairly young and, of course, I was younger still.

Senator Kennedy and I, many years ago, were, according to the common understanding, not quite ready to get in line to go and meet our Judge. There was plenty of time available, we presumed, to prepare ourselves to take our place in that line, and to welcome that part of our humanity which is experiencing the mystery of suffering and death.

As I watched Senator Kennedy’s funeral, it became very real to me that not only am I and so many of my friends very much a part of that line right now, getting ready to meet our maker, but we’re rather soberingly close to the front of that line. As I speak in this way, I don’t want anyone to think that I am indirectly referring to some medical crisis that brings me close to death — there is no such crisis. At the same time, realizing that one is much closer to the front of that line challenges me to intensify my efforts to grow in holiness and to be evermore alive through the mercy and forgiveness of God. And for that, I am grateful for the experience of last weekend. (There is a great deal of truth in this observation. When one is on the downward side of the mountain of life, mercy and forgiveness tend to take center stage in one's thinking.)

Remembering his accomplishments

There can be no doubt that Senator Kennedy’s accomplishments as the “Lion of the Senate” always were intended to help the most poor and downtrodden in our society, whether in terms of helping the developmentally handicapped, or young children with little or no strong educational opportunities, or taking leadership in providing healthcare for children, and on and on and on. Senator Kennedy certainly did live out the Gospel, in that the lifestyle of being a disciple of Jesus Christ means seeing the hungry and feeding them, seeing the naked and clothing them, seeing those who are sick or in prison and visiting them, and other like occurrences that are part of our everyday life. No one can take credit away from Senator Kennedy for his leadership in these very important areas.

And yet there was also a disconnect in his life between the strong exercise of pro-life leadership in the areas described above and his leadership against the pro-life cause relative to the abortion of our tiniest brothers and sisters, embryonic stem-cell research, same-sex marriage, and so on.
The challenge for us as Catholics in the United States — and it is a challenge both personally and as a community — is to bridge that disconnect and pull that whole seamless garment of the defense of life together, rather than rending that garment in twain and choosing one, while almost, or actually, excluding the other. The social teaching of the Church and her pro-life stance surely are interwoven as a seamless garment.

The ‘two-conscience’ approach

Senator Kennedy, a good number of years ago, convened a meeting of priests and very high-level theologians to address the issue of Catholic political leaders and their votes with regard to abortion. Obviously, the very convening of this meeting showed that he took his Catholicism seriously and did not consider himself to be an accomplished theologian. Sadly, that meeting simply became another occasion for the development by theologians of the “two-conscience” approach to the faith for Catholic political leaders — that is the approach which says, “privately I’m opposed to abortion, but in the public arena there are other conflicting responsibilities which allow me to vote in favor of legal abortion.” (One of those concerns was wasting time on legislation which would have multiple constitutional challenges and most likely be overturned. This is not to say that Ted didn't truly believe in a woman's right to make choices about her own body.)

No matter how many theologians get together, the two-conscience theory is irreparably flawed and wrong, and no one can make it otherwise. But if Senator Kennedy was given this advice and this approach, this “catechesis” — false though it is — by prominent theologians, it could at least be said that there was some ground for confusion and ambiguity in his own practice about these matters. The priests and theologians who counseled Senator Kennedy are not free of blame for causing the confusion and the ambiguity through false catechesis.

God forbid that I be taken as making excuses for Teddy Kennedy’s behavior in certain areas, yet Senator Kennedy’s having written a personal letter to our Holy Father during his last days, a letter that was hand-delivered by President Obama, is also an indication that he believed that the pope alone was the Vicar of Christ, and he wanted to make absolutely sure that our Holy Father received his letter. And too, since priests were regularly present to him during his final year and final days, it would be more reasonable than not to believe that he had made a good confession. (Some people will think that you are making excuses for Ted Kennedy's behavior. Actually I'm one of them. Blaming Charles Curran and Robert Drinan for Kennedy's voting record is disingenuous at best.)

Celebrating the Rites of Christian Burial

All of this is leading me up to the expression of my contentment with how our Church, in a subdued fashion, celebrated the Rites of Christian Burial for Senator Kennedy — the proclamation of God’s Mercy was powerful, the prayer for forgiveness of his past sins was clearly offered, and all of this in a subdued way because of his long-standing and public holding of pro-abortion and other stances which have been a scandal in the literal sense.
The only aspects of the Funeral Rites which were not low key were those on the guest-list, where family preferences are generally granted.

I’m afraid, however, that for not a few Catholics, the funeral rites for Senator Kennedy were a source of scandal — that is, quite literally, led them into sin. From not a few corners has come the question, “how on earth could Teddy Kennedy be buried from the Church?” There have also been expressions from some, that “whatever happens in Church, Senator Kennedy will now face justice, which will lead him inside the gates of Hell.” (Oh, oh, the right isn't going to like this statement.)

From the earliest days of the Church it was defined as sinful to enjoy the thought that someone might be in Hell. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit worked powerfully through history so that Hell could be avoided by the proper exercise of human freedom, and to take delight in the perceived foiling of God’s plan is wrong.

Pope Benedict XVI has written very beautifully that on the Cross of Christ there was lived out a conflict between God’s justice, in that someone who was Himself equal to God had to die in reparation for man’s sinfulness, and God’s mercy: from the very beginning, the Church believed and taught that Jesus died precisely so that sins might be forgiven. His body was broken and His blood was shed so that sins might be forgiven, so that there might be mercy.

Remembering God’s mercy

The death of Senator Kennedy has called forth at least an apparent rejection of mercy on the part of not a few Catholics. On the cross of Christ, God’s justice came into conflict with God’s mercy. God’s justice was fully satisfied, but mercy triumphed in the conflict, according to the teaching of Pope Benedict. Without denying any misdeeds on the part of Senator Kennedy, the Church, seeking to reflect the face of Christ, proclaimed God’s mercy for the whole world to see in a subdued but unmistakable way. It was more than appropriate. (Just wait, you'll find out how wrong you are about this. Just ask Cardinal O'Malley.)

In the seminary I was taught to speak like a lion from the pulpit — certainly there are those in the diocese who believe that perhaps I do that all too well — but that in the confessional I should be a lamb, reflecting the face of the Lamb of God, who died so that there might be mercy. The funeral rites for Senator Kennedy challenge all of us to question ourselves as to whether we are less eager to grant mercy than God Himself is. (Some people might say that being a lion in the pulpit and a lamb in the confessional is a two conscience strategy and confusing to the faithful. Consistently acting as a lamb seems to work better--at least it did for Jesus.)

It is so important at this time that our Catholic homes and families re-emphasize their role as schools of mercy, not at the expense of justice, and not at the expense of Truth, but recognizing that Jesus Christ gave His body to be broken and His blood to be poured out, so that there might be mercy. This is the reason for our devotion, through the inspiration of Sister Faustina and its confirmation by Pope John Paul II, to the Divine Mercy prayers, which I hope are becoming more prominent and more frequently practiced in our homes and in our parishes.

So, let our witness to mercy, which in the end was victorious on the Cross, even while justice was satisfied, resound through this diocese. This resolution of the conflict between mercy and justice could be accomplished only in and through Jesus Christ. And in this hour of hope and challenge, as Church, to be the Body of Christ, let us proclaim in word and in deed this same mystery every single day! That is your mission and mine. Someday, you and I will be in desperate need of that triumph of mercy.

I hope that your summer days have been restful and blessed. Thank you for reading this. God bless you and yours. Praised be Jesus Christ!

**************************************************

In the main I thought this was Bishop Morlino writing from his lamb persona. He makes some cogent points about the nature of mercy and the appropriateness of a Church funeral for Senator Kennedy. He does this forcefully, without apologies or stridency.

His disparaging of unnamed theologians and priests (two of whom I named) is a red herring. Ted Kennedy was no dummy. He was a politician. If anything he purposely invited certain theologians and priests whose views he was already quite aware of, in order to legitimise his own political view. Standard politics. See George Bush and his crew of neo con priests and theologians who tripped all over themselves to justify pre emptive war.

Bishop Morlino brings up one other major point, which really surprised me. He acknowledges the Church is split along social justice teaching vs sexual morality teaching. Or to put it slightly differently, it is split between the sermon on the mount Catholics and the Magisterial morality Catholics---or as I like to say, it is split between those who give primary position to the spirit of the law, and those who give primary position to the letter of the law.

Ted Kennedy stood firmly in the camp of the spirit of the law folks, and Bishop Morlino and others who are outspoken on the "five non negotiables" were firmly planted in the letter of the law camp. Ted could see there were other ways to work to reduce abortion besides the legal path, and he had success in reducing the numbers of abortions--at least until GW was elected. Those who took the letter of the law approach seem to have gotten fixated on the legal approach, and have accomplished very little towards their goal of over turning Roe V Wade.

I think Bishop Morlino is beginning to see that there is in fact two distinct Roman Catholic churches in the US, operating out of two different views of Catholicism. His use of the torn seamless garment analogy speaks to that. For some reason the Ted Kennedy funeral situation and the health care debate have brought this fact home to more than one bishop. Santa Fe's Archbishop Sheehan may have been the first to allude to it. The fact that the usually law driven and very vocal Bishop Morlino is emphasising mercy over judgment speaks even louder.

Personally I think Bishop Morlino's appeal to mercy is way too late. The genie of judgmental condemnation over moral 'non negotiables' is not going back in the bottle. The Republican party has too much invested in this strategy to ever let that happen. The only thing that will come from Bishop Morlino's attempt to put some balance back in the equation is he'll find out that once you've helped create a dog, when it turns rabid, it will bite you as well.