Veritas

29 AUGUST 2018. The specter of horrible truth has been upon the U.S. and worldwide Church for some days now: the horrible truth that some senior and well-regarded pastors used their ministries as a selfish means to fulfill their own sexual desires; the horrible truth that the Pennsylvania Church, over the last seventy some-odd years, regularly reassigned priests who were know abusers, regardless of the potential for fresh abuse and continued victimization of innocents; and the horrible truth that there has been or is a sexually disordered subculture in some seminaries and rectories that undermines the heart of Christ’s teaching of self-giving love that the Church has proclaimed since our Lord’s sacrifice on the cross. God bless the people in Chile, Ireland, and the multitude of other countries affected by their own abuse scandals.

Our bishops have failed us. They have not lived up to the life of holiness that each of us is called to live - that each of us is invited to strive for to live life-eternal with God, our Creator. They have failed us in their humanity. And, it is no surprise.

We are all human, and all of us are in need of conversion of heart. Why else did Christ enter the world to save us, but from the ravages of sin and death? Without conversion, we are doomed – literally and figuratively. Doomed to a life without hope in Christ, without Christ’s peace (conformity to the Divine Will), and doomed to a life without happiness and satisfaction, as St. Augustine says: “Our heart is restless, until it rests in You [O Lord].”

So, what should the response to this failure be? And, are we right to assign this failure to all bishops, including the Holy Father?

Our response should be one of action – prayer-centered action. Prayers of reparation have poured out of some, and more are needed. But, each of us faithful, including those ordained, should pray for wisdom and guidance in doing our own part, given our state of life, our abilities, and our capacity to effect positive change, in conformity with the Divine Will, to do what is needed or appropriate to bring about healing and build up the Kingdom of God on earth. A people centered on this cannot fail. The Holy Spirit will not permit the forces of evil to prevail against us. (Psalm 21:11)

If the laity seeks holiness, the Church will be transformed. If the laity exercises its priestly calling to be Christ to one another, the Church and the world cannot remain the same. If the laity acts, our shepherds will bring us further as the body of Christ.

This action, too, must have a practical sense about how to seek solidarity with the victims of abuse and prevent abuse from ever occurring again. Solidarity is the first practical objective, we must walk with the victims of abuse in their journeys, so that healing can begin.

Bishops – I beg you – throw open the dark recesses of these problems to the light of truth. Allow us all to grieve with abuse victims and seek reconciliation with them. And, truth will provide no quarter to abusers. 

Bishops, be vulnerable to your flocks in all failings and do not consider yourselves above any other. All are equally answerable to our Lord, all must be held to account for their actions, especially those actions that rob innocents of faith and trust in God and the Church.

No evil can stand the light of truth. We must truly seek it in every way.

So, are all bishops guilty of failure? Yes. Each of us is complicit in looking away when we see sinful failings, and we all sin. All sin affects the community. A bishop’s failure affects his flock, and the flock’s failure is the “stink” that the shepherd has to contend with in loving, as Christ taught. Let none think he is without blame.

However, this does not mean that our bishops should be condemned. On the contrary, they need the support of the faithful in fulfilling their ministry – to proclaim the Gospel and lead souls to Christ.

Any bishop who cannot, after an examination of conscience, rest comfortably that his first mission is to lead in holiness, so as to bring about the Kingdom of God, should resign. All other worldly, societal, humanistic, social, and cultural concerns should be swept aside, if truth is to reign in the heart of the Church.

I pray for our priests, bishops, religious, consecrated, and all souls who earnestly yearn for God.

Pray with me, and build up the Kingdom, set upon the foundation of Jesus Christ, the truth, the way, and the life. (John 14:6)

Quote Two (But, know the fullness of the Church's teaching):

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 10.
1 October 1986

Quote

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 10.
1 October 1986
 

Colorado Catholic School Controversy? No Divide of Catholic Education and Catholicism

15 MARCH 2010. A firestorm of controversy in the media has erupted form the Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic elementary school in Boulder, Colorado. Reportedly, the school has asked a lesbian "couple" to take the two girls they are raising out of the school. Thinking this is a highly sensitive pastoral and personal issue for the two women involved and, most importantly, the two children, I have not given this particular situation much, if any, attention. However, that changed this evening when I noted on Father Z's blog that the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) had run an extensive story on the two women and their situation with the children and the school. Having read the NCR article and other resources, including the statement of Archbishop Chaput, it appears that there are several points that others with thoughts on this, excluding Archbishop Chaput (I will explain his exclusion later in the post), have not thus far articulated.

First, the older of the women's children (each of the women is the mother of one of the two children) was seeking enrollment into Kindergarten from the Pre-K program. Pre-K at Catholic schools is a wonderful curriculum where the basics of the faith are introduced, but the real educational work of Catholic formation begins in Kindergarten. Knowing that, it is not a surprise that this issue for these two women has manifested at this time. (Incidentally, the school knows this too, and should have forewarned these women that this would happen. If the administrators at the school did not anticipate this problem, I would be shocked and quite saddened.)

Second, the two women are leading a life that is in direct opposition to Catholic teaching on a number of fronts. The two women identify themselves as a lesbian couple, so there is no doubt that they are engaged in a conjugal relationship that is against the teachings of the Church and the natural law. It is also reported that the two women were impregnated through artificial insemination, which is also against the natural law and the teachings of the Church; as well, by that medical practice the two women were at least knowingly complicit in a procedure that systematically destroys innocent human life. And, the two women are raising their daughters in a household that is contributing to the peril of their souls by the example set for the children by each of their mother's lifestyles, which is, in itself, scandalous.

Third, the purpose of Catholic teaching is to instill a deep love for Christ in the students and a deep love for the teachings of the Church, the bride of Christ. All other priorities aside, this is the point of Catholic education. Academics, sports, standardized test scores, scholarship opportunities, and further educational placement are all secondary to this primary purpose. As such, Catholic education is necessarily a partnership between the school and the parents. ( I would venture that there have no doubt been situations in other schools where a heterosexual parent's lifestyle or actions were so manifestly contrary to Catholic teaching that the school requested the children be removed to avoid scandal and harm.) There are certainly those everyday regretable situations where parents do not live the faith in their own homes, so the teachings of the faith are not further emphasized and modeled for children outside of the classroom. This, however, should be the exception. Even non-Catholic and non-Christian, parents who send their children to a Catholic school must be willing to partner with the school to live and emphasize the teachings of the Church communicated through religious education in the school.

So, fourth, a parent or guardian that obstinately lives a life that cannot be reconciled to the teachings of Christ and His Church cannot be a faithful partner with the school. The entire purpose of Catholic education is undermined, and not just for the particular child of the obstinate parent(s). Indeed, as all sin is a defacement of the community, the obstinate parent(s) present a grave danger of scandal for the other children and parents at the school. Rooted in the Word of God and the teachings of the Church, Catholic education, as an outgrowth of the Church's ministry in the world, must not promote scandal nor permit scandal to be promoted within it walls.

No matter how our hearts go out to the two little girls involved in the Boulder, Colorado situation, the decision there to not permit the children to continue to Kindergarten is the right one.

Of course, I am only a lay person who can express an opinion as a member of the faithful. I do not have, nor does NCR or any person that is not ordained a bishop, the teaching authority of the Church and the grave and serious duty to exercise that teaching authority in fidelity with the Word. For Boulder, Colorado, that teaching authority resides in Archbishop Chaput, who has spoken eloquently and pastorally on this matter:

The Church never looks for reasons to turn anyone away from a Catholic education.  But the Church can’t change her moral beliefs without undermining her mission and failing to serve the many families who believe in that mission.  If Catholics take their faith seriously, they naturally follow the teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals; otherwise they take themselves outside the believing community.

The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are “bad,” or that their children are less loved by God.  Quite the opposite.  But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman.  These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society.  The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The policies of our Catholic school system exist to protect all parties involved, including the children of homosexual couples and the couples themselves.  Our schools are meant to be “partners in faith” with parents.  If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible.  It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.

Most parents who send their children to Catholic schools want an environment where the Catholic faith is fully taught and practiced.  That simply can’t be done if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents.  That isn’t fair to anyone—including the wider school community.  Persons who have an understanding of marriage and family life sharply different from Catholic belief are often people of sincerity and good will.  They have other, excellent options for education and should see in them the better course for their children.

What the two women in this situation have done is taken themselves outside of the community of believers by their many actions and their lifestyle that is manifestly contrary to the teachings of Christ and the Church. But, in their obstinance, they want themselves and their actions to be accepted as a part of the faith community, despite their outward opposition to that same community. Indeed, the women call themselves "practicing Catholics" and they claim: "Our kids go to Sunday school." (This quote, however, raises a question in my mind of how engaged in the Church community the two women actually are. Have you ever seen a Catholic Church that offers "Sunday school?") But, a practicing Catholic is one that, despite sin, tries to live a Christian life in obedience to the Church and actively participates in the Sacraments. Given the manifest opposition of the women's lifestyle to Christ and the Church's teaching, it seems apparent that the two do not truly understand Catholic teaching, or they have chosen to ignore it.

A witness to this lack of understanding or ignorance comes at the end of the NCR article. The article reports that the two women are working on a press release, but wanted NCR to go ahead and report their closing sentence: "We will continue to raise our Children with strong Catholic values and hold faith that through our actions, we are doing our part to create a more loving, inclusive world." The problem here is clear. "[S]trong Catholic values" obviously means something to these women that differs from the teachings of the Church.

Not so! At the same time, however, it appears the women are saying they want to raise their children in the same cultural context in which they were raised (i.e., with an apparent veneer of Catholicism, throw in a few sacramentals and maybe the occasional formulaic prayer for good measure, there it is - strong Catholic values (which are opposed, incidentally, to the central teachings of the Church)), but they also want to be free to decide for themselves what is right and wrong - a part of the community, but outside the community all at once. (In fact, the sentence appears to have the audacity to condemn the teachings of the Church as failing in the contemporary all-important virtue of inclusiveness.) This single sentence is even more disparate from the teachings of the Church because the women go on to proclaim their faith in themselves, and their actions, to "create" a world that is more akin to their views. The Church's faith is in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That faith is rooted in Scripture and the teachings that come to us from more than two thousand years of tradition - undivided and apostolic in its proclamation of the truth. Faith in oneself, expressed alone, to "create" the world anew or remake the world is not the Truth of the Gospel. Such a relativistic view of right and wrong is exactly the tyranny of relativism that our Holy Father has repeatedly warned against. Obedience, humility, honesty, contriteness of spirit are the teachings of Christ.

Having said all of this, though, these two women are not struggling with anything that is different from the burden that each of the faithful also struggles with: that is, sin. All of us are sinners. That is the beauty and grandeur of the gift of salvation that we are each offered by Christ. None of us deserves the gift because of our own merit, but because we are the loved creation of God, and because God has been so generous to offer his own Son for our redemption, we are each given the path to live an eternal life in the splendor of the Truth.

I pray for these two women and for their children: may the light of the Holy Spirit dawn upon them and may they see a true path to faithfulness with the community of believers who will welcome them with an authentic love for Christ, as He loved us. May the Mother of God intercede for these poor souls. I commend to Her intercession the protection of the souls of the two children involved and ask that her assistance and protection will never leave them. I also pray for the school involved, the priests, the administrators, the school community and Archbishop Chaput: God bless them and strengthen each in their ministry and mission to promote the teachings of Christ in this age.

A Report from the Cultural Front Lines

17 DECEMBER 2009. In an interview yesterday with the New York Times, the Mayor of Vallejo, California made the statement that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful. The Catholic News Agency (CNA) article on this storycan be found here.

The outrage, as you might imagine for an elected official from the San Francisco Bay area, is palpable and many are demanding that Mayor Osby Davis resign. But, here is the part of the story that really flies in the face of truth--beyond the false criticism that has been already levied at Mayor Davis:

“I don’t believe that [the homosexual] lifestyle is correct but that’s a decision that they have to make. I don’t stop loving them because they’re gay. [Mayor Davis continues:] They have to make a decision on their own. If I present something to them and they don’t want to receive it, okay that’s well and good. That’s not going to stop me from loving them.”

The pro-family organization Capitol Resource Institute (CRI) reported that the mayor's city, Vallejo, is divided in its reaction to the statement.

“Some have called for the removal of the mayor, the appointment of an openly gay individual to the Vallejo Human Relations Commission, and official recognition of an LGBT Pride month,” CRI said.

The group reported that many of the demands charge that the mayor’s statements violate church-state separation.

“And much of the criticism begins with the accusation that the religious community in general is motivated by hate,” the CRI added.

CNA, Dec. 17, 2009, available at http://www.catholicnewsagency.com (emphasis added).

The accusation that Mayor Davis somehow violated the separation of church and state is preposterous. To hold the opinion that no elected official may ever speak on a matter of faith is to say that faith has no place whatsoever in the public sphere. Not true.

Faith is very much an important aspect of the political and cultural complexion of our country. Each of us, in our faith life, apathy to a faith life, or even hostility toward faith, whatever the case may be, is shaped by those views and beliefs. When we speak in the public sphere that formation of ourselves is a necessary part of what we bring to public dialogue.

It seems that the criticism being levied at Mayor Davis is that he should not share views which challenge the views of others on the basis of trying to discern truth. If our elected officials cannot speak of what they believe is truth, then we had better call off future elections. In that world devoid of truth or principled leaders of faith, all we would need are bureaucrats to run government by implementing the policy choices made by the people directly. And, in this world, those bureaucrats should be good at exercising self censorship to purge their speech of all hint of disagreement with the majority, or any vocal minority that bullies its agenda to the political fore.

No thanks. In our country, the separation of church and state is meant to keep the state from sponsoring religious expression to the exclusion of other differing religious expressions. We believe, in the United States, that the plurality of views in the marketplace of ideas will see those views honed and fashioned through the competition for ideas to be heard.

State sponsored censorship of all religious expression, then, is nothing less than a perversion of church and state separation. Such erasure of faith from the public sphere, in a country where faith plays as important cultural role as it does in the U.S., serves only to protect the views of the faithless few from challenge by the views of the many faithful. Such absolute censorship of all views that may be contrary to the sense of right or truth that a few adhere to--in effect turning the competition within the marketplace of ideas into a stifled  collective conversation where the majority's ideas are termed "dangerous" just because they may by the power of truth push contrary ideas from the marketplace--is, in itself, a dangerous attack on the freedom of religious expression that is the foundation of our country.

How, you might ask, is such a dangerous position touted? By the false characterization of religious belief as hate. "Hate" is the word in the American dialogue that all shy from. No one wants to be hateful. Hate is the opposite of love. While love is accepting, so goes the flawed logic, hate is judgmental. Therefore, religious belief that is used as the basis to judge the conduct of people is grounded in hatred. Pronouncement of any act as sin, then, is hateful.

NONSENSE!

Truth is truth. Truth is not hatred simply because it provides the measure against which untruth can be clearly seen.

The Church has the authority to teach on matters of moral truth, and her followers and others who are in some way in communion with the Church, and all people of faith, have a right to express themselves in the public sphere.

Pray for our country and all governments that this principle may be given real effect.

Relational Mysteries of the Rosary: Who is the god?

30 SEPTEMBER 2009. This post will stretch beyond the more usual examination of the Church's saints and travel through the liturgical calendar. I read a news piece that touched a sense of sadness in me today that I wanted to take a moment to share, for out of sadness can come joy--where the lessons learned are, indeed, learned well.

The news story (found here) reports that a homosexual activist group has designed, and may be in fact promoting, a variant of the Holy Rosary of Our Lady that is centered on what the group calls the "relational mysteries." The most troubling part of the Catholic News Agency (CNA) story is as follows:

According to the California Catholic Daily, [a doctoral student Eugene] McMullan and a Rev. Jim Mitulski taught a two-part class on “Praying the Queer Rosary” at an event for the New Spirit/MCC Church of Berkeley. The announcement for the class said it is “based on stories from the bible [sic] which depict Queer Families or Relationships.”

Another event was hosted at Berkeley’s Newman Hall – Holy Spirit Parish, which announced a Rosary “in solidarity with LGBT Catholics” facilitated by McMullan and Mike Campos, another doctoral student at the Graduate Theological Union.

The “Relational Mysteries” are listed as Fidelity - Ruth’s pledge to Naomi; Grief – The Parting of David and Jonathan; Intercession – Esther intercedes for her people; Restoration – the raising of Lazarus; and Discipleship – the two encounter Christ on the road to Emmaus.

It is scandalous that the Holy Rosary is being used by some to support, nominally through prayer (although the authentic intent of that prayer--true holiness--is questionable), a lifestyle that is at odds with the teachings of the Church. How terrible it is that this group has perverted a revered and ancient form of prayer--relied upon by millions through the centuries to devote themselves in humility to God, through the intercession of the Holy Virgin,--to celebrate themselves and their agenda. Who is the god that these people worship? If it is indeed the one, true, Holy God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, there is no need for such individuals to invent a perversion of the Rosary to make a heartfelt plea to Him.

Even those whose lives are mired in the context of sin can lift themselves to Christ--picking up their crosses each day--through prayer and authentically seek to love and honor God and follow Christ. No one among us is without sin. No one among us is without the need to cry to Christ for compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and love. No one among us does not long for salvation.

So, why has this group made a model for itself a perversion of prayer? Because they are, in my view (and not being any more educated on the matter than what I have read through CNA), praying not to God, but making themselves gods. Who is more important, Christ or the homosexual lifestyle (and its acceptance) to these people? Apparently their own agenda preempts authentic worship.

In my sadness I would ask that any who read this pray for the souls involved in this scandal. They must have at their core some good will and authentic intent. They are due the respect that each of us is due as creatures of our Loving Creator. I do not intend to attack anyone, nor will any comments be permitted that attack anyone, because as Christians we are called to live and love others in a way that recognizes that basic human dignity in all.

Please join your prayers with mine for these souls.