Religion Test

You scored as Catholic. Catholic 100% Christian 80% Jewish 80% Cult 50% Anarchist 50% Buddhist 20% Religion created with QuizFarm.com

The Passing of the Pope on TV

St. Peter's Cathedral at Sunset

Pope John Paul II has passed. The cable news networks have had continuous coverage, when he fell ill and even now as pilgrims pay final respects to the Vicar of Christ. For the most part, this coverage has been surprisingly positive. If I have any real criticism it is that the anchors so often get basic facts wrong. Even some of their experts could not get things right. The anchors talked about the Pope getting the Anointing of the Sick and then repeatedly referred to it as Last Rites. Actually, this sacrament was once commonly called Extreme Unction. The Last Rites are indeed "last" if the person dies, and they include Penance and Absolution, the reception of Holy Communion, and the Anointing of the Sick. Other absurdities were also voiced, like the reference to "beanies" on the heads of bishops and Cardinals. They talked about the "throne" of Peter or the Pope while it is actually his "chair". Commentators termed his ministry as the "reign" of the Pope instead of as his "pontificate". The list of errors and mistakes goes on and on, and seem to plague all the networks.

It has been my contention for some time that the newsmedia (television, radio and paper) would do well to hire full-time religion editors. Given the endless mistakes made regarding Catholic matters all year long that I know about, I suspect that they are no better regarding the other churches and synagogues, temples and faith movements. When basic mistakes are made, it weakens their credibility in the eyes of patrons. Further, some of the issues that they report from religious circles are quite complex and require more than a quick thirty second overview. Note how often they interview the religious anchor from the Catholic EWTN network. Some of them are recognizing that they are so clueless that they have to go to a competitor television station to make sense of what is going on.

Fallen TV Priests

As I reflect upon the scandal caused by the Bud Macfarlane divorce, I am forced to face as well the legacy of disgrace that has been inflicted by famous priests.

I recall as a teenager picking up an IMAGE paperback in the back of the church one Sunday entitled Playboy to Priest by Rev. Kenneth Roberts. The work impressed me and along with several other books about priests, real and fictionalized, fueled my burning desire for a vocation. He would later become famous as the Medjugorie priest and he had several programs televised on EWTN on the Blessed Mother and a youth series based on one of his books, You Better Believe It. It was a great program and young people were really moved by it to study about and to live their Catholic faith. Upon my desk are other books he wrote, The Rest of the Week, Mary - The Perfect Prayer Partner, Fr. Roberts' Guide to Personal Prayer, Pray It Again, Sam! and Nobody Calls It Sin Anymore. They were not particularly deep; but that was okay because they were popular works for the rank and file. He gave talks and conferences across the nation. His tapes and videos were bought and shared. He was loved. Then he disappeared and rumors spread.

A boyhood hero had fallen. When I had helped out in a Birmingham, Alabama parish in 1989, I actually met and had dinner with him. He was a regular on Mother Angelica's Catholic television network. Now it turned out that he was continuing to wear clerics, function in public as a priest, and even did television work after he had been censured. Retired from the Dallas diocese for "health reasons" he had been suspended for violating restrictions placed upon him in 1995. His bishop made it very clear that he had to stop distributing his books and tapes and that he had to take down his website and Internet presence.

Dallas Bishop Charles V. Graham signed the decree of suspension on November 13 after verification that Father Roberts had violated restrictions. The English-born Father Roberts, ordained in 1966 for the Dallas Diocese, retired from the diocese for medical reasons on Sept. 1, 1995, and his faculties were restricted, barring him from exercising his priestly duties, wearing clerical garb and presenting himself as a Roman Catholic priest in good standing. His retirement followed public accusations of sexual molestation, though no civil or criminal charges were filed against him at that time. Now in his 70's, civil charges were filed in 2004 where three are named in a lawsuit filed in November by John Doe. The suit alleges that the Rev. Kenneth Roberts, now retired, sexually abused Doe at St. Mary's Catholic School in Belleville in 1984. The St. Louis Archdiocese and the Dallas Diocese have responded by asserting that St. Clair County Court has no jurisdiction over them because they do not do business there. St. Louis also says Roberts was never assigned or employed here, although he was allowed to live in three parishes in Florissant and was permitted to conduct some religious services here.

What happened? Was this for real? Fr. Roberts seemed so genuine and faithful; was it all a lie? I have kept him in my prayers because of his importance in my life and in the lives of so many. But, I doubt that the wound caused by these revelations will heal any time soon. There is also a lot of meanness about what happened. One nasty blooger said something like, "What do you think his revised autobiography will be titled, "Playboy to Priest to Pervert"? If the allegations are true, then we pray for the victims and perpetrator. The posture of the Christian is always on our knees in prayer and in petition for mercy.

All of Fr. Robert's tapes and videos are off the market. His webpage is gone. His programs deleted from the EWTN schedule and some have said they have been destroyed. Is it right that a man's possible weakness and sin should utterly destroy his legacy?

As a young priest, the pastor and I subscribed to monthly videos of a Paulist production called SHARE THE WORD. The Sunday readings were explained and many useful ideas were given for preaching. The host was an articulate and dynamic priest by the name of Rev. Laurence Brett. We were so impressed that he accepted our invitation to do three weeks of Friday talks and to lead the Stations of the Cross during Lent. He smoked constantly and affected a strong Irish brogue for effect during the Stations. I found the later a bit disconcerting. Why would he purport to be Irish when he usually had no such accent? It seemed like posturing and bothered me. However, his words were good and he proved himself knowledgable about the Scriptures and our faith.

I was transferred and the program, which was also on cable, eventually disappeared. For awhile the paulists were toying with taking the tapes and re-editing a Sunday commentary series out of it. But, nothing happened. Later, I found out why.

Years before, Frank Martinelli was a 14-year-old altar boy attracted to Rev. Laurence Brett as a role model at St. Cecilia's in Stamford, Conn. Martinelli claimed that Father Brett fondled him in a bathroom and that the priest urged the boy to give him oral sex in his car, blessing it as a way to receive Holy Communion. Thirty years passed before he and other young people spoke out. When the priest was finally censured, he became a fugitive. Church officials in Bridgeport and Baltimore called Brett a criminal and an "evil man." Even the FBI had trouble finding him. He changed the spelling of his name to conceil his identity and settled in 1996 on the island of Anguilla, a short boat ride from St. Maarten.

These men were notable evangelizers through the modern communications medium. They reached out to millions. Little or nothing has been said to explain what happened or to heal the harm caused to believers. The Pharisees had no monopoly on hypocrisy. Hopefully people will remember the message and not so much the messenger.

Ecumenism & Dialogue

The following is a response to a courteous post from Tom about ecumenical dialogue. I am afraid though, that the constant debate with anti-Catholics drove him to look elsewhere for the sharing of views. Bigots see ecumenism as subterfuge for Catholic infiltration and domination. People who are afraid are quick to distrust and always ready to hate.

Dear Tom,

The roadblocks to full reintegration of the Christian community are many all too real. Today, this problem also includes the divergence of belief and behavior among the members within the various denominations themselves, including Catholicism.

My library is temporarily in great disarray, making it difficult to cite examples, but I would suggest that this has already been happening. The joint Lutheran-Catholic consensus agreement on justification will be a highlight of inter-confessional dialogue. It is still waiting final approbation from the Holy See. Earlier drafts seemed to indicate that much of what was condemned were Catholic exaggerations of the Lutheran stance or that which was promoted by Protestants lacking theologically astuteness or clarity. Defining terms and finding agreement based upon the Scriptural and traditional testimony has been a long and grueling enterprise.

We find some elements of this hard work in the new universal catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC #1991 - Justification is at the same time THE ACCEPTANCE OF GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

CCC #1992 - Justification has been MERITED FOR US BY THE PASSION OF CHRIST who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life.

CCC #1993 - Justification establishes COOPERATION BETWEEN GOD'S GRACE AND MAN'S FREEDOM. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent.

No anathemas accompany the text. Outside the polemics of the reformation and counter-reformation, we see the fruit of mutual understanding here. Admittedly, there has been a movement or at least a clarification in the Lutheran view from a simple juridical imputation of righteousness to the addition of an accompanying ontological transformation. We are deemed as righteous because we are literally changed into a new creation. Yes, we are clothed in Christ, but instead of a mask it is a window to our new identity as sons and daughters of the Father. The Catholic and Lutheran views need not be seen as incompatible. A number of Lutherans, seeing this as the principal cause for the "reform movement" have suggested that other problems should be resolved within a reintegrated Church. Others, including many traditional Catholics, suggest it would be too hasty a move. Several individuals, nonetheless, have formally been received into the Catholic Church. They feel that most of that for which Martin Luther fought has been resolved or accepted within Catholicism. The trouble is that there is a large element of Lutheranism that Luther himself would not recognize today. This speaks to the formal divisions between the various Lutheran synods. I am afraid I am not well versed in this regard.

What is the major attraction to Catholicism? To be honest, while the Church is growing in some places, there are other spots in the world where the fires of faith seem to burn dimly. Thinking people are drawn to the great intellectual inheritance of the Church. Here we do quite well with converts. While we do not actively proselytize, it is also here that we attract impressive Protestants. Two Methodist professors I knew at Wesley Seminary (in Washington, D.C.) are now both Catholics and teaching at Church institutions. An Episcopal priest I know just resigned his pastorship and is seeking entry into the Catholic Church. He is a married man with a small family. He hopes that he will be granted ordination. In any case, he tells me that this is something he feels he "must" do. The Catholic arguments are very credible and history supports it. Fr. Neuhaus was a Lutheran minister who is now a Catholic priest and editor of FIRST THINGS. Malcolm Muggeridge became a Catholic at the end of his life because of the heroic and sincere Catholicism of Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa. The apologist Scott Hahn came in from the Presbyterian Church (by way of Scripture study). Walter Hooper, the last personal secretary to C. S. Lewis, became a Catholic priest. He insists that had Lewis lived long enough, he would have done the same. Lewis is important here. The same intellectual route that brought him back to Christianity is the road for many such people today toward Catholicism. He wrote that most people do not take this route. Again, I would have to agree regarding the road to Rome. The intellectual elite (like Cardinal Newman) is small in number by anyone's standard.

Missionaries are averaging 7,000 converts a day in Africa to the Catholic faith. Our greatest competitor there is Islam. The Church in her charity operations is shown to be a family that cares. The hunger to join the worldwide family is also satisfied with entry. They want something greater than tribal divisions. At home, the loving witness can not be underestimated as well. The sacraments provide a sense of belonging to the family of faith and to God. We are not abandoned. The former abortionist, Dr. Nathanson, remarked that he became a Catholic because he wanted his sins forgiven-- and he wanted to know that he was forgiven.

What is the greatest reason? It is still probably the nurturing of mothers and fathers, baptizing and raising their children in the faith.

There are ecumenical celebrations being planned for Jubilee 2000. But, in my own mind have I thought of it that way? Honestly, I think not. We are planning a Eucharistic Congress in Washington for the event that will probably be mostly Catholic. Certainly the "mea culpas" of the Pope shows that he wants to start the next millenium off with a clean slate for the Church.

What about "EX CORDE ECCLESIAE" I have given it little study. However, I would support anything that would preserve the Catholic identity of our institutions. I would suspect that many "traditional" Protestant groups might support the move today. Why? It is because campuses are becoming increasingly hostile to religion and particularly to Christianity. The true battles at home are not between Catholics and Protestants and Jews; rather, it is between the Judeo-Christian inheritance (values) and a secular, relativistic, and narcissistic worldview. When religion is promoted, the Eastern is given preference over the West, and a contradictory New Age (hodge-podge) philosophy is embraced.

A case in point is that Cardinal Hickey had to intervene with Georgetown University because they resisted crosses and crucifixes in the classrooms. The debates regard both ideas and fundamental symbols of Christian faith.

Sorry, Tom, for the rushed reply. I hope it is a fair beginning in this dialogue.

Peace

Is Abortion Okay for Christians?

The following is a post in reference to a link left on the message board to a pro-abortion site. The site claimed that one could be a true Christian and pro-abortion. I recount and respond to some of their arguments below.

I recall hearing such pro-abortion arguments from a so-called Catholic feminist back in 1978 on a Catholic College campus. I was still a teenager, but with ready resolve gave the woman a difficult time regarding her interpretation of the facts. As I get older, I must admit to becoming increasingly disheartened. Not only are many Catholics pro-abortion, but they politic for their cause without shame. The Holy Father has reminded us in EVANGELIUM VITAE that abortion and the pro-death mentality are directly opposed to the Gospel and the incarnation of Christ.

Turning to the link you offered, the author contends that from 100 AD to 600 AD most "theologians" discounted any homicide in abortion, but instead stressed the sins of fornication and adultery. Nothing is said here about the fact that such a person would no longer be welcome in the Church, a most terrible punishment for sure. Further, while I question her dates, she denotes as "theologians" those who may only have been canonists or others charged with leveling juridical penalties. The death sentence rendered for homicide might not have been imposed; however, this did not in itself mean that murder had not been committed.

The Church has always and everywhere opposed abortion and infanticide. Such was an issue that quickly distinguished the early Christian community from its pagan neighbors. The universal catechism quotes from ancient documents that show the Catholic Church's disdain toward abortion: "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish" (DIDACHE 2,2 [140 AD]; cf. Epistle of Barnabas 19,5 [70/79 or 117/132 AD]; Ad Dionetum 5,6 [125/200 AD]; Tertullian, Apology 9 [197 AD].

Illustrating their dishonesty, pro-abortion Catholics will mention the matter of hominization or delayed ensoulment. Thomas Aquinas is mentioned by name as holding that it occurred 40 days after conception for males and 80 days after for females. However, no mention is made that St. Thomas also inherited a faulty view of biology, believing that the whole person in potency was locked in the man's seed. Further, St. Thomas still considered the destruction of this person in potency to be a serious moral wrong. He did not accept abortion as a legitimate response to pregnancy. Modern biology supports the view of immediate hominization.

In any case, since we cannot empirically observe ensoulment, all believers must logically opt for the alternative that causes least harm, giving the unborn the benefit of the doubt. Catholics have as an added inducement the dogma of the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. Things cannot be preserved or cleansed from sin, only persons. Thus, one could argue that like Mary, all are persons at the very first moment of conception. All human persons, from the womb to the tomb, are deemed as possessing a precious and irreplaceable dignity. All human life is incommensurate and beyond any utilitarian value.

Catholic principles that emerge from the Gospel of Life are universal and absolute. Past application was sometimes questionable because the data from the other sciences was imperfect. The universal condemnation of abortion throughout all Christianity and its history is unassailable. The pro-abortion proponents (who claim to be Catholic) are seeking to confuse this truth behind extraneous details.

Notice that the so-called ADULT! CHRISTIANITY site professes to be defending the rights of the "un-bornagain". Some of the material and links strikes me as lewd and I was embarrassed to visit it at all. They not only support abortion but other perverse matters as well.

What about the article entitled, "Abortion is Not a Sin"? As they do with so much else, they trivialize the dignity of the human person and assault the Gospel of Life.

Psalm 139:13-16 is reduced to a mere blueprint for human life, and not as an indicator of the human life of the unborn. This contention contradicts the text. "Truly you have formed MY INMOST BEING; you knit ME in my mother's womb. I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made; wonderful are your works. MY SOUL also you knew full well; nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret, when I was fashioned in the depths of the earth (figurative language for womb)" (Psalm 139:13-15). The infusion of the soul is, in Christian terms, the beginning of human life. The context here would allow us to contend that it occurs at the very first moment of conception. The reference to "my inmost being" would also refer to that which makes us human. The pronouns are all personal, "I" and "me". We would not speak so about a tumor or a mere plan for our construction. It even seems that on some mysterious and intuitive level the soul of the unborn child in the womb is already in relationship with the Creator. Other Scriptures as with the visitation of Elizabeth by Mary reaffirm the Christian contention that human life and personhood begins in the womb. The unborn John the Baptist leaps joyfully in the womb when in the presence of the unborn Christ secluded in the flesh of Mary. The Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is another support to the pro-life cause. Mary is preserved from Original Sin at the very first moment of her existence in the womb of St. Ann. Things cannot be delivered from sin, only persons.

The attempt is made to contrast the message from the psalm citation with the creation stories in Genesis. However, the unique creation of man and woman in the primordial garden is a narrative quite different from the usual experience of human generation. Further, while none of these passages were intended to teach biology, the understanding was clear among God's people that the unborn child is one of the human family. Otherwise, it would be hard to understand the happiness of mothers who feel their babies move within them or their sadness when they miscarry.

The author writes, "It is nothing less than idolatry, elevating the status of mere man, his sperm and his ejaculation above the power of God to give life." Such a separatist understanding falsely images the human being as trapped in a robotic body of flesh and blood. Rather than seeing our biology in conflict with God, we see it as an element of our human identity that is in partnership with divine creation. When men and women engage in the marital act, they are to do so responsibly, open to the gift of new life that comes from God. The mentality subscribed to by the article would ultimately allow for homosexuality and contraception. It drives a wall between the Almighty and us.

Citations are made from Hosea 9:14,16 in attempt to show that God approves of abortions. This is ludicrous. God is the author of life and death. Just because some babies die naturally in the womb does not give us the authority to terminate their lives. Indeed, the usurpation of God's authority as the article promotes would be true blasphemy and idolatry. The curse from the prophet's lips against their enemies is in reference to that which they consider most sacred. "Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts . . . yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." Motherhood and family life was the measure of success in the Jewish world. Thus, these words illustrate not that the life of the unborn is cheap, but most precious. Such a blow would be hard to recover.

The ignorance of the author is compounded regarding Mary. She is portrayed as a pro-choice feminist who just happened to say yes to God. Anything else, we are told would be the unthinkable "rape [by God of] an unwed, teenaged virgin." First, the providence of God assured her positive response. Second, we belong to God and thus whatever God does for us must be measured as gift. Third, Mary was lawfully married to Joseph in the first of a two-tier ritual). The pro-abortionist is wrong on all accounts. Given that basic Scriptural facts can be misconstrued, it is hard to give this article any serious consideration. It is simply a revisionist attempt to excuse a self-indulgent lifestyle and a disregard for the true dignity of human life. I suppose the good Pope might rightly consider it propaganda for the pervasive culture of death.

The article from this point quickly becomes incoherent. We are told that those who seek the enact laws to protect human life or who participate in peaceful protest "lead innocent believers down a road to murder and depravity." Four thousand dead babies a day, one and a half million abortions a year (including thousands of partial birth infanticides), and the author has the audacity to call pro-life advocates guilty of "murder and depravity". Note that the web site in question would countenance all sorts of alternative sexual lifestyles. Many lesbians promote abortion because it allows them to insure female offspring, killing the males before they see the light of day.

It makes one very sick. Do not be fooled by them. The real victims are the dead children.

Letter to Senator Currie on Prayer in State Senate

Friday, January 23, 2004

State Senator Ulysses Currie
3 West Miller Senate Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Senator Currie,

First order of business, please note that Rev. Pollard has not been at Holy Spirit Church for many years and I have been pastor since replacing Rev. Michael Murray four years ago. Please have the mailing list corrected.

Second, I received and read with great interest your letter of January 23 about the “Freedom of Worship in the Senate of Maryland.” I can well understand the desire to preserve a “comfort level for the entire Senate membership,” but would submit that such a task is probably next to impossible.

As a Catholic priest, ecumenism is a hallmark of our approach to other religions; however, joint services usually consist of each religious group offering the prayer that is consistent with their doctrinal beliefs. Ecumenical prayer, as you suggest, which is really generic prayer, may be inconsistent with the theology of many religions. Christianity presents a particular problem because all prayer and saving importance is placed in a particular person, Jesus Christ. A Jew might avoid calling God Yahweh and a Moslem might be reserved in speaking of Allah, but Christian prayer loses all its punch when the saving name is omitted. Given that the Incarnation is denied, Judaism and even Islam might fare better under the stated policy than a Christianity forced by reductionism to deny the saving history of the New Testament. Further, while Catholics and many Protestant groups feel that Islam’s Allah is the same one God as revealed in the Scriptures, a number of Fundamentalists believe that it is a demon in disguise. Some religions are polytheists (multiple gods), like the Mormons and Hindus. Others do not believe in a personal God or even deny his existence all together. There is no way to make everyone happy, so why make everyone unhappy?

I suspect if you look at the history of prayer in your chambers, you will find that Christian prayer has predominated going back to the colonial period. It is somewhat ironic that what was deemed appropriate by the founders is no longer considered acceptable in our revisionist interpretation of the clause regarding the separation of Church and State.

There is much talk these days about toleration, but when push comes to shove— its proponents can be quite intolerant. My personal feeling is that in a multicultural society, we should be generous enough to make room for our religious differences. While not going out of our way to be offensive, a proper prayer in Arabic where God is called Allah and “Mohammed is his prophet” should not trouble us. Jewish prayers, often based on the Psalms, and sometimes said in Hebrew are an important part of the Judeo-Christian inheritance. Jews and Moslems who argue for their own observances in dress and symbols, find no problem with crosses or Christians calling upon the name of Jesus. We may disagree about profound matters, but our love for one another should transcend such differences. The policy that you stated erases something of our religious variety and wealth, and ultimately denies by imposed silence something basic about our sense of identity and values.

Given that this matter involves clergy, did any ministers, rabbis, priests, Moslem leaders, and others have impute in how prayer might be handled in the State Senate? There might have been other alternatives. As the policy stands, some will still not be satisfied and many clergymen might have to wave the honor of presiding because it violates their religious conscience. Speaking for myself, when I have been the single clergyman to offer a prayer in a mixed setting, I often conclude my prayer in a softer voice, discernable only to myself and maybe a couple of people around me: “We offer this prayer in Jesus’ name.” And then for all to hear, I say, “Amen.” I am not happy with this compromise but it respects the audience and my own religious sensitivities. Obviously, the State Senate is not a place to belittle the faith (or lack thereof) of others; neither is it an occasion to proselytize. It is, however, a place to nurture freedom, not only of religion, but also of speech.

Know that you and Senator Miller will remain in my prayers. Your responsibilities are great and, as believers, I know that you always welcome divine assistance and guidance.

May the good Lord bless and keep you,
Father Joseph Jenkins
Pastor

Popes Opposed Slavery Against Dissenters

We often think that dissent from the Holy See and the teaching Church is a new phenomenon. However, just as the land of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" silences any reference to God in her schools and promotes the mass murder of the unborn in the womb, so too did our land, and even her Catholic citizens, dissent from Papal admonitions against slavery. Catholic churchmen held large parcels of land and like their Protestant fellows, maintained the institution of slavery. The Maryland coloney first founded as a haven for Catholics would later maintain in Baltimore Harbor a central commercial trade in slaves. People were bartered as nothing more than animals or property. Personhood was denied. Human rights were denied. The rights of landowners and the "choice" of European stock immigrants was made preferential over the needs and wants of people kidnapped from the African shores.

Ancient Greek or Roman slavery did not compare to it. Slaves were taken from conquered peoples and indentured servants would be used well into the colonial period of America. After a period of service, and even restitution, such slaves were freed. However, we are the ones (European colonialism) who invented perpetual racial slavery-- a foul business that could be passed on from generation to generation. Families could be separated. Torture and death could be implemented without any care or worry about censure. Great Britain would renounce slavery many years prior to the Civil War (ended 1865) when the issue would be forced in the United States. Here is the irony. If the Revolutionary War had gone the other way, blacks would have known freedom many generations earlier.

1778 - Slavery outlawed in Scotland.

1807 - British slave trade outlawed.

1833 - All British slaves freed.

Reserving ourselves to the Catholic community, it must be admitted that Catholics often catechized and had their slaves baptized. However, the churches would be segregated and later their schools. It is interesting that Cardinal O'Boyle in Washington, DC would order the desegregation of parochial schools in the 1950's prior to similar efforts by the federal government. But, past injustice must not be excused because of later enlightenment.

Today many of our people and liberal Catholic theologians and bishops argue for abortion, artificial contraception and active homosexuality. They are the spiritual heirs to the Catholic dissenters on the matter of slavery.

Pope Eugene IV ordered that black slaves be freed in the Canary Islands back in 1435. Columbus was not even born yet! He demanded that "these peoples are to be totally and perpetually free." Slaveholders who refused the order were excommunicated.

Indians from the New World would be brought to the Pope with the absurd question as to whether or not they were human beings. It was hoped that if the Holf Father deemed them subhuman or animals, that this would legitimate the slave trade and the confiscation of their lands. Pope Paul III (1537) condemned slavery in the New World, saying, "the Indians and all other peoples ... who shall hereafter come to the attention of Christians ... are not to be deprived of their liberty and their possessions." While in regard to the mistreatment of Native Americans, this condemnation of slavery was absolute. The later popes spoke with one voice. Pope Gregory XVI (1839) stipulated that no one should "dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or enslave Indians, Blacks, or other such peoples." He decried the traders for their "sordid gain" and the slave trade as an "inhuman traffic."

Nevertheless, the Catholic bishops met in Baltimore in 1840 an contended that the Pope was only condemning the slave trade, not domestic slavery in the U.S.

Is there a similarity between the position of the bishops (for which Bishop John England was a major spokesman) in 1840 and the position of the majority of U.S. bishops today on abortion?

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argues from natural law that the situation of slavery in America and abortion today are analogous-- both strip human beings of personhood, liberty and life.

Where is the prophetic voice? What will future generations, if a culture of life should supplant one of death, think of this generation and her leaders-- civil and religious?

EGYPT Encourages Muslims to KILL Christians

MURDER IS CONDONED

Back in February an Egyptian court acquitted most of those charged with massacring Christians in January of last year. Bishop Wissa of Balyana laments, “All the murderers were acquitted. That means Muslims are encouraged to kill Christians. They are being told ‘Go ahead. Kill Coptic Christians.’”

A court in the city of Sohag sentenced four Muslims to sentences between 1 and 10 years, while acquitting 92 others for the murder of 20 Christians and 1 Muslim in the nearby town of Kosheh. 38 of 58 Muslim defendents had faced the death penalty, the worst hostility in 20 years.

It is unbelievable that the murderers got off so lightly, given that the evidence was undeniable. “This verdict means that Christians cannot live in safety. It also means that there is no justice or law,” said the bishop. The bishop said that he “expected new massacres of Christians because this verdict means there is no justice or law.”

A year ago, Bishop Wissa accused government forces in Kosheh of either ignoring or authorizing Muslim attacks on Copts. He said that the Coptic community was still upset that no police were punished for torturing and abusing 1,000 Coptics in a murder investigation a couple of years before.

Bishop Bassanti of Helwan (Near Cairo) pleaded that the court reconsiders its decision so as to “preserve national unity” and to bring justice where a lenient outcome “makes light of human life.”

AFP News Service (Source)

Are the Coptic (not Catholic) bishops here asking for capital punishment?

What sort of verdict and sentencing would be just?

Why are so many radical Muslims seeking Christian blood?

Anti-Catholic MASS at CUA

The business about allowing the NAACP on campus, after an initial courageous stand against this pro-abortion organization, is indeed disappointing. However, I suppose we should get used to having our nation's so-called premier "Catholic" university let us down on important matters. I had to do a double-take last December when I read in THE CATHOLIC STANDARD that Leonard Bernstein's composition, MASS, was going to be offered at Catholic University in April 2004. While the STANDARD offered a glowing article about the work, some of us felt that the performance was nothing short of blasphemous.

The fact that CUA would sponsor it is ample evidence that our national Catholic institution for higher learning is still manipulated by modernists and dissenters. There is even a hint of this in the article when the dean of the music school, Murry Sidlin, (who has conducted MASS seven times himself), states: ""MASS is a great work of faith that encourages young people to question issues." Since the context is the sacred liturgy, can there be any doubt that the subject of contestation includes Church teaching and ministry?

Has everyone forgotten the controversy about it back in 1971? Later, in 1972, when the work was performed in Cincinnati, the Archbishop forbade Catholics to attend. It was viewed as a cause for serious scandal. When it premiered in Vienna in 1973, the Austrian bishops protested against it.

This new production in Washington, D.C. was preceeded by a week-long symposia where scholars discussed MASS against the backdrop of issues prevalent during the 1960's. Sorry, but the Eucharist is our most precious inheritance, it should not be manipulated or abused to further debates in cultural and social issues.

Granted, parts of the composition are beautiful; however, the drama is anti-Catholic, regardless of the fact that it was a tribute to the Kennedys and the JFK Center for Performing Arts. Bernstein, himself a Jew, did not really understand or believe in the mystery of the Mass or in the sacred calling of the priesthood. He projects his own prejudices into the character of the celebrant, creating a doubting husk of a man where there should be one of prayer and faith.

[The composer was a man with a restless spirit, haunted by demons that would propel him to leave his wife at the end of his life to cohabitate with his gay lover.] How could he possibly understand the Mass as a participation in the heavenly wedding banquet? Is it any wonder that he did not appreciate the analogy of marriage in the liturgy, with the priest in the role of Christ as groom and the Church as his bride?

A priest is set apart from other men in his obedient and celibate love, a love that focuses upon God and is expressed in sacrifice and in service of God's people. Bernstein's priest is simply out of touch and increasing distant from the people (chorus). A priest is an "alterchristus", another Christ, making our Lord and his saving activity present in the Eucharist and other sacraments. Bernstein's priest, on the other hand, has merely been given a God-like status by the Church establishment. A priest is a teacher of souls, sharing the faith given by Christ and passed down from the apostles and preserved in the living Church. Bernstein's desperate priest is a vehicle of dependence, controlling people with religious dogma and traditions, instead of helping others to find lasting meaning in these sources of revelation. The Catholic Mass places us in solidarity with Christ and with fellow believers around the world and in eternity. Bernstein's Mass is one of upheaval and division; a revolution ensues, first against the priest and then between the people in the chorus.

The celebrant tries to regain order by smashing the holy vessels. The faithless priest says:

"I mean, it's supposed to be blood...
"I mean, it is blood...His...
"It was...
"How easily things get broken...."

"Supposed to be blood"? Back in the 1960's, the anti-establishment message of the work was clear. Bernstein was no friend to Nixon or his republican administration or the Vietnam War. I have to wonder if the current production did not also seek to make a political statement against the Bush administration and the newest war in Iraq? In any case, religious dissenters would be just as quick to promote this production. It readily fuels anti-clericalism, particularly given recent scandals, and would win accolades from the proponents for women priests, married priests, and the like. Most importantly, the composition is a stunning disrespect to the real presence of Jesus in the blessed sacrament.

Given the times, I was not surprised that many people slapped down $50 a piece to see this false caricature of the Mass with a counterfeit priest and a communion prop while failing to go to the real Sunday Mass at their parishes with a genuine priest and Eucharist. And, while donations of charity are always appreciated, tickets are not needed and the admission, like God's grace, is free.

NAACP at CUA: Capitulation to Pro-Abortionists

I read in THE CATHOLIC STANDARD that the president of CUA has reversed himself and will allow a college chapter of the NAACP. This is very disappointing. While there are little to no health and safety regulations in the abortion industry, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People recently announced its full endorsement of the "pro-choice" position. One press release stated that this was necessary because "women of color seek abortion at rates higher than their percentage in the population." What backward logic this is! This decision is utterly irresponsible. They do not seem to care that one in every three African American pregnancies ends in abortion. That constitutes a racial genocide of over 1,200 black children every day. They have placed themselves in the pocket of the abortion industry that has made a fortune from innocent blood. It is estimated that 70% of abortion providers are located in minority neighborhoods. Instead of seeking ways to support and build up African American families, they have opted to become part of the problem, perpetuating broken families and abusing and murdering their own children.

Do the officials at The Catholic University of America really believe that the NAACP is sincere about allowing the new college chapter to disassociate itself from the pro-abortion agenda advocated by the national organization? They are fooling themselves. Once they have a foothold, they will do what they want and if the university says anything, they will play the race card just as they have done all summer. They will spread their propaganda at a school where Catholic parents want their children to be formed wholly by the Gospel of Life. A great deal of pressure was placed against the president, Fr. David M. O'Connell, and many of us thought that he would stay the course. There were already two perfectly good minority organizations on campus that did not support abortion. This is simply a case of the NAACP trying to spread its liberal agenda that conflicts with Catholic teaching and interests, while wiping out any rival organizations. The NAACP held protest rallies and threatened litigation. I suspect this is a taste of how they will continue to function toward the university. Its president, Kweisi Mfume stated back in June that the school's refusal was "outright discrimination, bigotry, prejudice and intolerance all rolled into one. It is at the very least a double standard based on race and social philosophy." Of course, there was nothing racist about it; the problem was what he called "social philosophy," i.e. the Church's stand against abortion. If this "social philosophy" is constitutive of the NAACP's mission, can we really believe that any of its chapters will really disassociate themselves in practice? The answer is no, and just as some bishops (as in Lincoln Nebraska) have prohibited for Catholics (under pain of excommunication) any membership in organizations like NOW, Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights League; the same treatment should be given the NAACP for its toleration of abortion and homosexuality. What we need today is a new civil rights organization that will not compromise on the sanctity of life. The NAACP has betrayed its mandate and it is a scandal that any Catholic would maintain membership in it and certainly Catholic schools should prohibit it, under any guise, from their campuses.

Catholic University released a statement on October 12 where it was said that students assured Fr. O'Connel that the campus chapter "would adhere to the university's policies and procedures, including the university's presentations policy, under all circumstances." However, problems remain. Students come and go. Who is to say that members in the future will abide by such rules, particularly as the national NAACP plans accelerated efforts to promote its agenda among young people, under the auspices of its public health program? Further, the matter is more than mere bureacratic "policies and procedures". We are talking here about natural law and Church teaching. If the NAACP wants a chapter at CUA then it should reverse itself about abortion and take a pro-life stand. Any campus chapter should spell out in its founding principles, that it is pro-life and that abortion is the ultimate discrimination-- reducing a class of people to a commodity-- denying them their right to life. I suspect that they will not do this. Failing to do so, allowing them on campus is a serious mistake.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has drawn an analogy between the the institution of slavery and the toleration of abortion. In both cases, human beings are stripped of their personhood and inherent God-given dignity. By supporting abortion, the greatest social injustice of all, the NAACP has betrayed its mandate and has aligned itself with the slave traders and oppressors of yesterday.

Institution & Church

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS WAS WRITTEN OVER TEN YEARS AGO. MY VIEW HAS BECOME MORE NUANCED.

This reflection is in reaction to a phenomenon I have observed wherein critics immediately stereotype and associate the "institutional" with cruelty and sinful hypocrisy. It is not always the case that institutions victimize the "individual" or the "weak". If left uncontested, such a stance regarding corporations and governments might be hastily translated into a pessimism regarding relationships to the Church, too. Indeed, this already seems to be the case. We place our private agendas ahead of those truths taught and practices sustained in the institution that Christ founded.

When studying at Catholic University, I recall countless times during the liturgies when individuals would inflict injury upon orthodox sensibilities. Visitors and progressive seminarians would add petitions to the Prayer of the Faithful, like, "For women who are called to be ordained, that the oppressive male-dominated structures will be overturned and that all will hear their appeal for justice, we pray to the Lord," or "That the Church will discard its pompous wealth for the sake of the poor and needy, we pray to the Lord," or "That the Pope and bishops will be mindful of Christ's example in not making the terrible burden of celibacy mandatory, we pray to the Lord," etc. The presumptions in all these "so-called" intercessions are severe and they "victimize" the universal Church and those who render assent to her teachings. Notice in all these examples the authority of the "institutional" Church, as they might term it, is questioned. There is no sign of any critical eye turned to their own views. There is nothing of Christian humility in their stances.

The stark and rugged individualism, in which Americans often take great pride, and which these revisionists would criticize as not adequately empowering the needs of struggling sub-communities, is at work, nevertheless, behind the scenes of their own prideful advocacy. My dilemma in their regard often has to do with their ill-founded sense of certitude. Without being elected or appointed, they draw to themselves a select sect of like-minded believers and posit their "infallibility" over that of the shepherds established by Christ and safe-guarded by the Holy Spirit. In other words, they deem to speak in the name of God against his universal Church. Unlike the Magisterium, which we believe is protected by the Holy Spirit in a formal way from falling into serious error; these men and women have no such safeguard. Even their particular holiness is no guarantee to fidelity in doctrine. Many Protestants, with whom the Church take exception regarding particular beliefs, have demonstrated sincere faith in Christ and signs of spiritual Christian perfection. Even canonized saints of the Church have not, in retrospect, been correct regarding every theological opinion or interpretation of private revelation. Having said this, a callous disregard for the shepherds of the Church or of her structures can put serious barriers between us and the Lord who deems to give us his grace and salvation. While many revisionists would seek to stamp the Church as "institution" with the stigma of sin; it may be that the purity of the Church reflects or mirrors back the unrepented sins of her critics. This is not to say that the Church is totally void of sin. Christ came to call sinners and we have been faithful in filling our churches with them. However, we attempt to preserve ourselves from the charge of hypocrisy by using the penitential rite at the beginning of every Mass: "Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy." The Church is holy because Christ is holy.

Recently, I read a book by Brian P. Hall entitled, Shepherds and Lovers. Although it had some good points, and indeed, is a good book overall, it too seemed to reflect the mentality that the "institutional" is somehow tainted. His references to theologians like Boff (outspoken proponent of liberation theology) and Kung (not so infallible questioner of papal infallibility) gave away his theological persuasion as revisionist and challenging of authority. He writes, ". . . each of us is caught between what our primary experience of institution demands of us and what individuals want from us" (p. 4). This introductory statement in itself makes some actual sense. In pastoral counseling, people often come with situations in which there is a struggle between "going by the book" and trying to help them come to some basic decisions of their own regarding their lives. However, Hall's tendency to put the mask of the villain on the institutional comes out in an earlier quote: "To succeed, 'to come out on top,' we need greater consciousness [whatever that means], more skills, and personal support systems that will enable us to oppose the very institutions that appear to support our day-to-day existence" (p. 1). He sees the tension between the "creative development of an institution" and the call to the "Shepherd Leader" as so terribly intense, that he identifies it with the Cross of Christ (p. 7).
Hall is ultimately in the same camp as the liberation theologians -- a different ilk, but still the same. Written in terms of spirituality and psychology, his work is keenly preoccupied with freeing people in their very selves and in raising their awareness of themselves and of God's plan for them. I find this very noble, even if I do claim differences of emphasis on some points. I am not sure that the demonic or sin can be explicitly identified with this tension he discusses. I am not claiming that the tension is neutral; indeed, what I propose might be quite frightening, that the tension is an opportunity for growth and blessing. The tendency for us to lump the Church with other "institutions" is unfair. We use the word by analogy with other organizations, not as one totally identical. Unlike a corporation, the parts and structures of the Church are not readily disassociated. Take away those aspects which are catalogued under the term "institution" and there is nothing left. From parishioner to Pope, from cathedral to missionary hut, from canon law to the commandment of love -- the Church is ONE. Even to speak of one part as distinct from another runs the danger of fracturing her organic unity, even if only on the theoretical level. However, a contemporary society which loves dualism, the thesis and antithesis, will always seek to separate for individual scrutiny, the body and soul, the Church's hierarchical structures and the charismatic Christian. What emerges in my mind as the pertinent question is whether any such inquiry would reflect the reality of the Church in which we all share. The Church is as she must be, the way Christ intended from the first seed of her foundation.

If there appears a tension between our obligations as members of a larger community, the friction and struggle needs to be interpreted as an opportunity to be weaned away from sin and to grow in holiness. The Church, not merely as an institution, but in all her constitutive parts, by definition must be in tension with the world. This is not to create another extreme dualism in which the Church is always seen as good and the world as evil; this would be an exaggeration. Prior to the foundation of the Church, there were many societies in which good pagans lived out their lives. However, the Church, as the beginning of God's kingdom breaking into the world, calls us not only to abandon sin but from an inadequate humanism as well. It calls us to fulfillment and to go beyond the natural into the supernatural realm. Both can be good, but one is better. Indeed, the one can be so much more wonderful that the good of the natural order might seem drab by comparison. For this reason, there will sometimes be a tension discerned; when actual evil intervenes, this tension hardens and becomes more fully actualized. However, to locate this evil or demonic in the institution seems too general a hypothesis.

The Christian tradition speaks of many kinds of evil. The Lord's Prayer itself speaks of deliverance from "the evil one," thus denoting a personal quality to this term. This "evil one" has been rendered as the great fallen angel, Satan. His most perverse weapon might be the humorous caricatures and atheism we have adopted in his regard. What you do not believe in, you cannot be defended against. (Before I continue, I must make note of that word "personal" used in Satan's regard. Although I believe he exists and has influence upon us, I would suggest that he is more an "it" than a "he". Sin by its nature always destroys the dignity of the person and a sin unrepented and mortal would strip away the significance of this great gift.) Evil can also be distinguished in terms of natural and moral. An example of natural evil would be if you lived with your family on a hillside and while you were playing with your children, a volcano erupted and wiped you all out. A natural event is interpreted as evil because people are involved. Otherwise, it might be quite neutral or even judged beneficial. An example of moral evil would be if the same family was assaulted and murdered in their beds by an intruder. Admittedly, the example is severe, but if I mentioned theft, blasphemy, sexual permissiveness, etc. the reader might not see anything wrong. Or, the examples might merely be equated as but another instance of tension between the "institution" and the average Joe.

The Church may be said to create tension in that her values are not entirely the same as those of cultures in which she finds herself. To forgive, to seek peace, to be charitable, etc. are often nice mottos on Christmas and Easter cards, but the Church actually challenges us to live out these values. Even in the hierarchy, the Pope himself is called the "Servant of the Servants of God." The word comes close to meaning slave! However, we interpret his position strictly in terms of power and influence. It is but one more case wherein the way the Church sees something is viewed as the direct opposite by those enraptured by the world. Obviously, there would be Christians who would deny this view; I would simply throw the ball back to them and suggest that even Christians and communities in the Church often see things and operate according to worldly values or Mammon and not as Christ requests. Religious people are not exempt; after all, did not Jesus, himself, call the Pharisees "blind guides"?

I recall another book I encountered recently, which also had something to say about our relationship to the "institutional" Church. Called Basic Christianity by John R. W. Scott, the book begins: "'Hostile to the church, friendly to Jesus Christ.' These words describe large numbers of people, especially young people, today" (p. 7). He continues in the next paragraph to say: "They are opposed to anything which savours of institutionalism. They detest the establishment and its entrenched privileges. And they reject the church -- not without some justification -- because they regard it as impossibly corrupted by such evils" (p. 7).

It should be noted that the above author belongs to the Church of England and not to the Roman Catholic Church. This is but a matter of clarification, not of snobbish antagonism. After all, we have not been without corruption or sin in our camp either. This brings us to an important point. The split or dualism in the language people use in regards to the Church might have something to do with the quality of our Christian witness. Division might sometimes be caused because people see professed Christians living very unchristian lives. A Church which has high churchmen involved in illegal banking swindles, a clergyman who is spied in a very compromising situation, parishioners who attend Mass every Sunday and illustrate their disdain of brothers and sisters Monday through Saturday, etc. may not be all that appealing or convincing to those who are searching for meaning in their lives.

During the Second Vatican Council, this theme emerged in the document regarding atheism, placing part of the blame upon ourselves for the plight of nonbelievers. Today, more and more people are opting, not for atheism and yet not for the Church, but for the dislocated figure of Jesus. As the quality of Christian witness declined, the person of Jesus has tended to be disconnected from the sacrament of his presence, the Church. This is a most bizarre development. Scott writes: "Yet what they have rejected is the contemporary church, not Jesus Christ himself. It is precisely because they see a contradiction between the founder of Christianity and the current state of the church he founded that they are so critical and aloof. The person and teaching of Jesus have not lost their appeal, however. For one thing, he was himself an anti-establishment figure, and some of his words had revolutionary overtones. His ideals appear to have been incorruptible. He breathed love and peace wherever he went. And, for another thing, he invariably practiced what he preached" (p. 7).

These are words which are quite on the mark. The only thing I would add is that the contradiction people see is not only in the "institution" but also in the individual. Our language can betray an ignorance of this distinction. For instance, I can recall dissenters to moral teaching being interviewed on television. Instead of hanging out the Church's dirty laundry in public, they should have sought quiet resolutions to their problems, thus avoiding scandal and leading others into sin. How someone can be so egotistical as to believe that he is absolutely right in the face of contrary doctrine and Scriptural testimony, is beyond me. Espousing ideas imprudently might lead others further away from the truth and salvation. That should be felt as a heavy weight to bear. Dissent should always be displaced by religious assent, treating all matters with humility, patience, and the utmost respect. In regards to the issue of lumping blame for problems upon the Church hierarchy, especially upon Rome, I fear it is simply a case where anti-Catholic bigotry is starting to take hold in the consciences of believers. Again, look at what people are saying. During the Fr. Curran affair, many reporters were questioning whether or not serious divergences on moral issues might lead to schism and a separate American Church. The Know-Nothings of yesteryear would have loved to hear that gibberish.

In casual talk, people will speak about how they can be good Catholics despite the misled and oppressive hierarchy. This stuff sounds like a child telling his parents that he won't love them anymore unless they give him all the candy he wants. The parents get yelled at and kicked for doing something they know they have to do in order to preserve the delinquent's teeth. Maybe the rebellion we sometimes see is simply the stirring of the Church in America, undergoing a childish tantrum of maturing as an adult?

I began this reflection by observing that we cannot be too severe in making distinctions between one part of the Church and another. And yet, people do the opposite all the time. Even those halfway benevolent to our heritage fall into these guffaws. For instance, I recall one interview on television wherein a young woman shouted, regarding abortion, "We are the Church and as women we know what is right to do with our bodies!" Or another, "The Pope and Bishops are wrong, we as the People of God know this to be true (contraception) because the majority of us are in agreement."

Let me begin to take some of this apart, for it is very complex. In the first statement, "we are the Church" and in the second, "we are the People of God" are both accurate statements as far as they go. However, in both cases they are uttered with the explicit intention of negating the authoritative membership of the hierarchy; they are also part of the Church. The reality of the Church as a sacrament of Christ's presence is much like the Eucharist. From the Church universal to the local and parish community, the risen Lord is fully present and available. Each is therefore complete in itself, in this sense. We are intimately bound with the other assemblies of our faith who are in communion with the See of Peter in Rome. To destroy or rupture this unity on a universal scale has as its effect, the distortion of the presence of Christ in the local community. The reason I tend to avoid the word "institution" in this regard is because it has been overly identified with another word "corporation" which unfortunately in the popular mind denotes corruption, greed, manipulation, and fraud. These are themes angry people imagine when they think of Church leadership on a universal scale. It is a stereotype which is no more than a big lie.

The irony which emerges in this kind of language is that the very ones who say that they have been excluded from decision-making positions and power would themselves exclude in their rhetoric, the Church leadership, rendering them inconsequential in regard to their views, and even worse, demoting them as non-members of Christ's Church.

From Pope to parishioner, we are all members of the People of God with particular roles and responsibilities. We should not seek to blur the distinction in our roles or to overlap them where to do so would do damage to the mechanism which works in the Church. Even theologians, who are called to defend and to help promote the teachings of Christ which develop and mature organically throughout history -- even they are not the Magisterium of the Church. They are helpers and movers but not the ultimate teachers. Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Priest, Deacon, Religious, Layperson -- this is the pattern which safeguards the good order of the Church. This order is ingrained in us and is not simply extrinsic. All are ways to follow Christ in the universal call to discipleship. The teachings of the Church are taught by the Magisterium which itself is protected by the Holy Spirit from grievous error. Doctrine cannot be determined by census poll or vote. Again, we have to be cautious that we do not make our ways into God's ways. In Hall's book, there also reoccurs the subtle criticism about how individuals are called to leadership. Again, our view of democracy even colors our interpretation of the early Church. A few isolated incidents of communities voting for their ministers does not constitute a precedent and certainly not an infallible forum. The use of Trustees almost destroyed the young Church in this nation, I doubt we would want to return to it. We have all heard stories about Protestant clergymen who have sacrificed their values to get the choice appointments. The Catholic clergy must never do this. Ambition kills the priest! No, the magical answer is not always having communities dictate who their leaders should be. We are called, not to be navel-gazing narcissists but to be Christians. There will be times when the best leaders will tell us what we will NOT want to hear. They will challenge us to grow beyond our selfishness. This is true of the parish and this is true of the Church as a whole.

There is some truth to Hall's statement that "There are many Christian leaders who are not Ministers (bishops, priests, or deacons), but need to develop their ministry as shepherds within their respective institutions" (p. 8). However, I would caution that the limits of such ministry be clearly delineated so that it might not become confused with the service offered by clergy. Indeed, the word "ministry" itself might be better used as something peculiar to the ordained. A ministry might be "confirmed within" and become "evident to" one's community; however, I would caution against a clear identification (p. 18). Hall uses the example of Saint Francis who failed in converting Muslims in Syria and went home to where his call was fulfilled in his community. Certainly, God may have called Saint Francis back to Italy, but because he had something for him to do there, not because his ministry up until that point had been a failure. Such a view would negate the value of almost all missionaries in foreign lands where the message falls upon deaf ears. The Lord does not call us to be successful, only faithful. Again, we find another error of revisionism, that the fruits of our labors must always be abundant and obvious. The real ways of God are such that we might minister an entire lifetime and never really know empirically whether we made any difference or not; and yet, in faith, we know we did what we were called to do-- what we had to do. God's kingdom may be filled with a bounty prepared and harvested unknowingly in this life by faithful and tireless ministers of the Gospel.

Hall makes two points which I would like to applaud and re-emphasize:

Individuals are important but always within an institutional context. (p. 19)

If the growth is to be positive and life-giving, the institution must become a friend rather than an adversary. (p. 20)

First, there is a sense in which statement one is false. After all, each and every one of us is precious and irreplaceable in the eyes of God. Second, however, in regard to the corporate, the Catholic Church has always had a high regard for herself as a community. We are all bound together in the Mystical Body of Christ. From the saints in glory to the most miserable sinner asking pardon on this planet-- we are one. In the Old Testament, Yahweh called to himself a primitive Semitic people and made them his own. He called Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, the prophets, etc. from out of this community to bring them repeatedly back to fidelity to him. In the New Testament, Jesus emerges as the Messiah who would be hailed by John the Baptizer and who would gather twelve disciples around himself as the beginnings of a new People of God. All the great heroes or saints of the Church are the individuals who are important in our legacy as a Church and as disciples of Christ.

The second proposition is true as well; however, there is a responsibility of the perceived to witness integrity and holiness and of the perceiver to be generous and open. Closed hearts and minds will interpret the most loving and protective of mothers as simply oppressive and demanding. Conversely, we are to nurse from the bosom of this bride of Christ as thankful children, not as a ravenous and corrupted horde. We should not so much stress the tension as the unity of all the facets which make up the jewel we call the Church. The Church is here understood as the vehicle of salvation; not as an obstacle to everlasting life.

Prayer:

Dear Father, help us to see beyond our own selfish agendas to recognize the true needs of our brothers and sisters. Let us be as respectful to the teachers of our Church as we are to our family members whom we love and respect. From single to married, from bishop, priest, deacon, religious to layperson, let us nurture a generous spirit and a tongue which utters words of reconciliation. Let us be mindful that we are an indispensable part of a whole which is valuable and wonderful. We are part of this "institution" stemming some two thousand years, countless saints, and a billion followers walking this planet right now. Make us one in heart, mind, and soul, as we are one in baptism. Amen.