Prior to entering the Seminary, I was a choir director, cantor and organist in Catholic Parishes. In those days, (early 1980s), it was widely held that working for a Catholic Parish meant your were going to be paid poorly. The “real money” was made working for Protestant congregations. Concerns were raised (many of them legitimate) among Catholic liturgists and musicians that Catholic parishes needed to rethink their priorities, and pay more just and competitive wages, if we were ever going to rescue Catholic music from the amateurish state it largely was in in the 1980s.
It would seem, according to a recent CARA report that a lot of progress has been made in this direction. And this is true not only in terms of musicians, but also other professional positions. The CARA report says,
A companion piece to the CARA research released in the Emerging Models project’s The Changing Face of U.S. Catholic Parishes is the National Association of Church Personnel Administrators report, Pay & Benefits Survey of Catholic Parishes….One of many interesting findings is how similar wages and salaries are for Catholic parish ministers and those working in similar capacities in Protestant churches in the United States. (See Chart above right). The Protestant data used by NACPA are from Protestant: 2010 Church Staff Compensation Survey.
It would seem that we have largely closed the gap in terms of wage comparisons with the Protestant denominations. As a pastor, I think this is good news. I have come to depend greatly on competent and well trained laity doing parish work. I have a very fine staff here at my parish. My administrative assistant and business manager is the best and daily brings great wisdom and experience to bear on parish issues. My music director is top drawer, and nationally known. My support staff are all excellent. What a blessing.
It is also a fact that the parish has come to bat in the offertory and are well formed in their understanding of what it takes to run a parish where we pay just wages, and strive for excellence in the service of the Lord. I remain humbly grateful to my congregation for their immense generosity and Love of God. Biblical tithing has been embraced by most of the parishioners here who though small in number, yearly generate an offertory income of almost one million dollars.
Money is sign of what we value. Catholics who regularly toss down $50-100 to take the family to the movies, or even more to go to sports events, and then toss $10 in the collection basket are saying something about what they value. Likewise, Catholics who direct 10% of their income to God’s house in obedience to his word (cf Malachi 3:10, inter al) are also saying something.
Further, parishes that pay significant wages for administrative leadership, music and catechetical ministry are also saying something about the value associated with these works in God’s house. Money does have something to say about what we value.
I realize that what I say here is not without controversy. Some prefer to emphasize volunteerism in parish settings. Well enough, and volunteerism must continue to have an important place in parishes. For just as with money, what people do with their time is also an important indicator of what they value.
But there must be a proper balance or proportion at work. Music and liturgy, parish administration and catechesis are essential and important post that ought to be staffed by well trained and well paid individuals. It will surely be the job of such individuals to engage volunteers, and train good leaders to assist them. But in the end, we have to be willing to have well trained people in essential posts and be willing to pay them wages commensurate with both “the market” and also with the value we attribute to their work. And that value is significant. Further, we ought to be willing to pay just wages, with benefits to those whose work approaches full time.
Pastors do well to form their congregations around such notions so that God’s house will not be an afterthought in their lives and financial priorities. In preaching biblical tithing, I often emphasize that God gets the FIRST tenth of our income, not the tenth that is (hopefully) leftover after we pay the cable bill and for the latest iPad.
I also realize that some will comment that they don’t like the money is spent or that they don’t prefer the music, the catechesis. But be careful, give and then offer concerns to the Parish Finance Council. Give and then insist on excellence. Every pastor and finance council is required to report to the congregation every year. But give critique as one who is invested (in obedience to God), rather than one who withholds until he gets what he likes. Our parishes are not products we buy, not services we contract for. They are the Body of Christ we join and become part of, financially and through service. And in the context of communion and generosity, we listen for God’s will and move forward, in conformity to Church teaching.
Alright. I was not born yesterday and realize that whenever money is in the discussion there will be strong opinions. Remember, I do not write a complete treatise here. I am starting a conversation.
I had the great fortune of being in Rome for the past ten days, attending a colloquium and doing some lecturing on the mission and vocation of the laity. The events brought together theologians, canon lawyers, diocesan directors and ecumenists to reflect on the role of the laity in church and society since the Second Vatican Council. In my own preparation I came across a phrase from Hans Urs von Balthasar who described the mission of the laity as “turning the face of the church toward the world.” He went on to say that the laity reveal “the worldliness of the church.”
Is this a good thing?
My first thought was “Is this a good thing?” We often hear the church accused of being too worldly—too concerned about money and material things. On the other hand, we have been trained to think of the church as all about the sacred and the world as all about the secular. Certainly, while walking the streets of Rome you see the sacred and secular living side by side. The vocation of the laity is to move the church from the side into the middle! The laity take the church to places that priests cannot; to boardrooms and bedrooms to breakfast tables and backyards.
A Church committed to the World
Rather than separating the secular and sacred, rather than thinking of the church as a refuge from the world or as an alternate existence, the Council Fathers pledged that the hopes and fears of the world will be the very hopes and fears of the church. We Catholics see the world as full of great ways to experience the love of God and share the love of God. We don’t see the world has hopeless and sit waiting for the kingdom to come. We don’t see people who don’t realize they’ve been given the gift of faith and decide we should simply ignore them. We don’t think that nothing good can possibly come from the marketplace. What we do see is a world that is good and can be made great by the power of the Gospel.
What the Fathers at the Council did realize was that the church can’t do this without the laity. The particular mission of the laity is secular, not in opposition to the sacred but rather living the sacred in the midst of the secular and thereby making the ordinary holy. Don’t we see people whose lives can be transformed by the Gospel and do we decide to share it with them? Haven’t we all seen a situation at work that can be solved or made better with the application of Gospel principles even if we never mention that is where we learned them? Haven’t we found ourselves thinking if only my friend would talk to a priest, he or she would feel so much better and see a way through this situation? Do we offer to make the introduction to the priest?
As lay women and men we need to recognize the power we have to make holy the ordinary things of life by infusing them with the spirit of God. The Church is depending on us to take it to the world.
If you are interested in learning more, my friend and colleague, Aurelie Hagstrom, who is chairperson of the theology department at Providence College wrote a book called The Emerging Laity in which she explores the work of the Second Vatican Council in this area.
In the first reading at Today’s Mass we have recounted for us the Council of Jerusalem which scholars generally date to around the Year 50 AD. It was a pivotal moment in the history of the Church since it would set forth an identity for the Church that was independent from the culture of Judaism per se, and it would open wide the door of inculturation to the Gentiles. This surely had significant impact upon evangelization in the early Church.
Catholic Ecclesiology is Evident here: in that we have reflected here a very Catholic model of the Church in terms of how a matter of significant pastoral practice and doctrine is properly dealt with. In effect what we see here is the same model the Catholic Church has continued to use right to our own time. What is evident here, and in all subsequent Ecumenical Councils, is a gathering of the Bishops presided over by the Pope which considers a matter and may even debate it. If necessary, the Pope resolves debates where consensus cannot be reached. Once a decision is reached, a letter is issued to whole Church and the decision is considered binding.
All these elements are seen here, though somewhat in seminal form. Let’s consider this First Council of the Church in Jerusalem of 50 AD, beginning first with the remote preparation –
1. Bring in the Gentiles! – The Lord, just before he ascended gave the Apostles the great commission: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). Hence, the Gentiles are now to be summoned and included in the ranks of discipleship and of the Church.
2. But it looks like the Church was mighty slow in beginning any outreach to the Gentiles. It is true that on the day of Pentecost people from every nation heard the Sermon of Peter and 3000 converted. By they were all Jews (Acts 2). In fact, it seems the Church did little, at first, to leave Jerusalem and go anywhere, let alone to the nations.
3. Perhaps as a swift quick in the pants the Lord allowed a persecution to break out in Jerusalem after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7). This caused the gospel to begin a northward trek into Samaria at least. Samaritans however are not usually considered Gentiles, since they were a groups that had intermarried with Jews in the 8th Century BC. There is also the Baptism of an Ethiopian Official but he too was a Jew.
4. Fifteen Years?! The time line of Acts is a bit speculative. However if we study it carefully and compare it to some of what Paul says (esp. in Galatians) it would seem that we are dealing with close to 12 or 15 years before the baptism of the first Gentile! If this is true then it is a disgrace. There were, of course, strong racial animosities between Jew and Gentile that may explain the slow response to Jesus’ commission. It explains, but does not excuse it.
5. Time for another kick in the pants. This time the Lord went to Peter who was praying on a rooftop in Joppa, and, by means of a vision, taught him that he was not to call unclean what God had called clean. The Lord then sent to Peter an entourage from Cornelius, a high Roman military official who was seeking baptism. He, of course was a Gentile. The entourage requests that Peter go with them to meet Cornelius at Cesarea. At first he is reluctant. But then recalling the vision (kick in the pants) that God had given him, he decides to go. In Cesarea he does something unthinkable. He, a Jew, enters the house of a Gentile. Peter has learned his lesson and been guided by God, as the first Pope, to do what is right and just. After a conversation with Cornelius, and the whole household, and signs from the Holy Spirit, Peter has them baptized. Praise the Lord! It was about time. (All of this is detailed in Acts 10)
6. It is a fact that many were not happy with what Peter had done, and they confront him on it. Peter explains his vision, and also the manifestation of the Holy Spirit and insists that this is how it is going to be. While it is a true that these early Christians felt freer to question Peter than we would the Pope today, it is also a fact that what Peter has done is binding even if some of them don’t like it. What Peter has done will stand. Once Peter has definitively answered them, they reluctantly assent and declare somewhat cynically: “God has granted life giving repentance even to the Gentiles!” (Acts 11:19)
7. Trouble Brewing – So, the mission to the Gentiles is finally open. But that does not mean trouble is over. As Paul, Barnabas and others begin to bring in large numbers of Gentile converts, some among the Jewish Christians begin to object that they were not like Jews, and began to insist that they must be circumcised and follow the whole Jewish Law; not just the moral precepts but also the cultural norms, kosher diet, purification rites etc. That is where we picked up the story in yesterday’s Mass.
8. The Council of Jerusalem – Luke is a master of understatement and says “Because there arose no little dissension and debate….” (Acts 15:2) it was decided to ask the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem to gather and consider the matter. So the apostles and some presbyters (priests) with them meet and, of course, Peter is there, as is James who was especially prominent in Jerusalem among the apostles, and would later become bishop there. Once again Luke rather humorously understates the matter by saying, “After much debate, Peter arose” (Acts 15:7).
In effect Peter arises to settle the matter since, (it would seem), that the apostles themselves were divided. Had not Peter received this charge from the Lord? The Lord had prophesied: Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you all like wheat but I have prayed for you Peter, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:31-32). Now Peter fulfills this text, as he will again, and every Pope after him. Peter clearly dismisses any notion that the Gentiles should be made to take up the whole burden of Jewish customs. Paul and Barnabas rise to support this. Then James (who it seems may have felt otherwise) rises to assent to the decision and asks that a letter be sent forth to all the Churches explaining the decision. He also asks for and obtains a few concessions.
So there it is, the First Council. And that Council, like all the Church-wide Councils that would follow, was a gathering of the bishops, in the presence of Peter who works to unite them. A decision is then made, and a decree, binding on the whole Church, is sent out. Very Catholic actually. We have kept this Biblical model ever since. Our Protestant brethren have departed from it for they have no Pope to settle things when they dispute. They have split endlessly into tens of thousands of denominations and factions. When no one is pope every one is pope.
A final thought. Notice how the decree to the Churches is worded: It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us (Acts 15:28). In the end, we trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in matters of faith and morals. We trust that decrees and doctrines that issue forth from Councils of the Bishops with the Pope are inspired by and authored by the Holy Spirit Himself. And there it is right in Scripture, the affirmation that when the Church speaks solemnly in this way it is not just some bishops and the Pope as men, it is the Holy Spirit who speaks with them.
Do you have a cell phone? Does your cell phone tell you who it is that is trying to call you? Do you usually check that caller ID and decide, based on who it is, whether to answer the phone or not?
“Answer”, “Ignore” or “Send to voicemail”?
I do! In all honesty, when someone at my school says to me, “You have a call on line one,” I almost always ask, “Who is it?” Then, I decide if the person is worthy of my time, if I am prepared to talk to that person, if I don’t like that person or if it is conversation I would prefer to have later. I am sure the same thing happens to me when I call others as well. I am not offended , trust me, I am a high school principal. Try calling a parent in the middle of the day.
Caller ID
I love caller ID. When I know who is calling, I know how I am going to react. I am going to pickup the phone if it is my mom or wife because I want to make sure they are OK. I am going to pick up my calendar if it is my Pastor because he probably has something for me to do. I am not going to always pick up the phone if it is my best friend because, we will talk forever and I got to make sure I have time to sit and chat. I am not going to pick up the phone at all if I am driving because that is dangerous and I am not trying to kill anyone. Like many of you, I make these discernments each time my phone rings. And that it OK.
If it is God, pick up and answer!
But, when it comes to Christ, when it comes to God, you can’t hit the “ignore” button but so many times; Can I get an amen? I shouldn’t say to God,” I will call you back later.” You shouldn’t say to God, “Not now I am busy.” We shouldn’t say to God, “I have something more important to do.” You can’t say to God, “This isn’t a good time, go talk to someone else and get back to me later.” You can’t put God into your voicemail but so many times. When God calls, you must pick up the phone and answer. And unlike your mother, pastor, wife or best friend, don’t simply say “Hello.” Answer God’s call by saying, “Here I am Lord, what do you want me to do!”
Are you sure you have the right number?
Brother and sisters, I know at least for me, I have put God on hold many times in my life. I hit the ignore button, turned on my voice mail and took a message. And he kept calling. I tried my best to not be a deacon but God kept calling and I kept saying, “You must have the wrong number.” God said, “Follow me” and I said, but I don’t have the time. I said to myself, “Most Deacon’s are retired, I still have to work” (Which isn’t true by-the-way, but that was my excuse at the time). God said, “I gave you that job that keeps you so busy, want to keep it?” I said “God, I have not studied religion since high school, and I wasn’t all that great at it.” God said, “I am the perfect teacher, I can teach anyone, including you.” I even said “God, I am really not sure I am worthy.” And God said, “I know; That is why the Holy Spirit will be heavily involved in this endeavor.” Like the disciples on the Sea of Galilee, with me, God knew whom he was calling. Sometimes, we think God doesn’t know what he is doing don’t we? God’s doesn’t ask for a resume because he already knows our qualifications. This is important because we often ignore God’s call not out of spite for Our Lord but rather lack of confidence in the graces he has given us. You see, God is not asking us to change who we are, he is asking us to take the talents that he built into us and use them for the Kingdom of God.
I knew you before you were formed in the womb
I often meditate upon the reason why God chose fisherman to be the first disciples, the first Bishops of the flock. Maybe because fishing was a dangerous profession and he needed men who would not be frightened easily. Maybe it was because fisherman had to be patient and building the Kingdom of God requires among many things patience. Perhaps it was because fisherman had to be able to read subtle changes in the weather and water conditions in order to fill their nets and those same skills were needed in leading the early Christian community. Perhaps it was because fisherman rarely worked alone and they had a sense of community that he wanted in his Church on Earth. Maybe it was all of the above and maybe it was a set of qualities that I have yet to understand. But he never said to them, “Stop being fisherman.” Rather, I will take those skills I gave you and make yourselves “Fishers of men.”
Brothers and sisters, when God calls us, he knows what he is doing and he knows whom he is calling. When you answer God’s call, you will never hear God say, “Sorry, I dialed the wrong number!” I heard a priest say once, “God never calls the qualified but qualifies everyone he calls.”
Each of us has a talent or a gift that God wants us to use to build his Kingdom. God is calling us to use that talent. For some of us, you are being called to lector, join the choir, be a minister of holy communion, join the St. Vincent de Paul Society become active in any number of ministries we have in an average parish. Your phone is ringing, answer the call, it’s God! Some of you are called to be priests, deacons, religious sisters or brothers. Don’t send God to your voice mail, answer and say, “Here I am Lord.” Some of you are called to be married and to be parents, maybe even adoptive parents, God is calling, don’t text him back saying, “I am busy.”
Say yes!
Brothers and sisters, God is calling and when we answer yes, he doesn’t promise that our life will be easy. But, he promises that our life will be fulfilled. In your prayer life, God is calling; Through your friends, God is calling; Through the voices of your family, God is calling. Perhaps even through this blog post, God is calling. Answer the phone and say, “Here I am Lord. What do you want me to do?” Happy Easter!
A recent announcement of journey home to the Catholic Faith was made by the well known pro-life advocate Bryan Kemper. His announcement letter is posted below. Not only can we rejoice to have a fine and prophetic new member, but, in reading his letter, we can also see certain hallmarks that have led him to the Church. The things he mentions are also things others have mentioned. I would also like to discuss something he does NOT mention.
First here is the letter he sent to his supporters on his blog. I have taken the liberty of adding a few reflections which appear in plain text red.
Dear friends,
I know this may come as a shock to many of you; I am in shock in a way my self. I have spent the past 23 years living my life for Christ always wanting to serve Him and know His truth.
I have been a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for almost 10 years as I was so inspired by the liturgy and reverence I found there. I have also been in a constant journey for God’s truth, studying His Word as well as church history. After many, many years of resisting a calling that I tried to suppress I have finally felt the peace of God with my decision to join the Catholic Church. Please note his reference to being inspired by the liturgy and reverence in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I want to comment on that below.
I know that many of you will be confused, even concerned for me. I know that you will have many questions and even be tempted to try and dissuade me from this decision. While I will most certainly talk to you about what God is doing here, I will not be entering into any debates about this right now.
I want to let you know this is not made lightly; I fought against this for years. There are several things that led me to search and finally choose to go back to the Church. I will share a few things in brief here and would love to sit down in person some time with you if you want to peacefully discuss them in more detail.
Every true spiritual journey is marked by profound consideration and often painful discernment. He clearly has love for the traditions which have nourished and sustained him and cannot lightly leave that behind. I have made this journey with others who have joined the Catholic Church and found that their love and appreciation for what has sustained them and is an important aspect of the gifts they bring to the Church. The Church is wonderfully enriched by the fact that they do not cast aside what they have received in the past, but rather that they transpose and apply it to the Catholic setting. For there is great zeal, love and knowledge of Scripture, a fine tradition of preaching, hymnody, an appreciation for a personal walk with the Lord, and countless other gifts in the Protestant traditions. We are indeed enriched by those who join us.
Church authority: There are simply thousands and thousands of denominations and every time someone disagrees with another teaching of their church they simply start a new one. The Catholic Church has had it’s teaching since the beginning of the Church in the scriptures. There is no way God can be happy with thousands of denominations or so-called non-denominational churches. It seems that when people disagree on doctrine it often results in another break off church. The fact is that current Christian teaching can differ so much between two churches that it really constitutes different religions and different Gods. There must be one established truth that God gave us, one that has remained from the time of Christ.
We have talked a lot about this in this blog. It is the chief problem with the Protestant approach. When no one is Pope, everyone is Pope and there are no real ways of resolving difficulties and the conflicts that inevitably happen when two or more human beings are together. One of the glories of the Catholic Church has been her integrity in terms of authority and unity in terms of doctrine.
There are, to be sure, squabbles among the faithful as to emphasis and direction. But when the problem is doctrinal, or the non-doctrinal debates become too divisive, we DO have a way of ultimately resolving it and remaining in a coherent unity.
Some of the older, main-line Protestant denominations were able to keep this for a time when Scripture’s authority and veracity were unquestioned. But in recent decades, the main-line denominations no longer agree on authority of Scripture in terms of its plain meaning, and the differing views have caused major ruptures in the Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian branches. It is most often the moral questions, such as homosexuality and abortion, that prove most problematic. And without Scripture, tradition and authority the severing into ever wider varieties is inevitable.
Mr. Kemper could not have said it better than when he speaks of there being one established truth that has remained intact since the time of Christ.
Pro-life and Contraception: There is only one church that has been consistent from the time of Christ to today on the teaching of pro—life and contraception. Before 1930 there was never a single Christian church in history to accept any form of contraception and today there is only one that absolutely has kept this Christian teaching and truth.
Praise God for this insight. The Catholic Church has often been excoriated for not keeping up with the times. But of course, as Mr. Kemper notes, this is not the role of the Church. Rather, she is to consistently hold to the truths that come to us from Christ through the Apostles. Though sorely tempted by her own members to update in terms of contraception and, to some extent, abortion, the Church has held firm to what she has received.
In terms of pro-life issues, you may recall that we discussed on this blog some time ago what David French, a well known Protestant author said of the Catholic Church:for almost forty years has been the beating heart of the American pro-life movement….One cannot spend five minutes with thoughtful Catholics without understanding how the defense of life is a fundamental and integral part of the DNA of the church. Since the defense of life is theologically-grounded, it is functionally and practically independent of any secular ideology. Life is not just an “issue,” for a Catholic; it is at the core of the Gospel. [1]
Yes, dedication to pro-life issues and holding firm on the teaching about contraception are two glories of the Church. And, it is important to see that this sort of prophetic stance is winning new members for us, members who bring great gifts and zeal with them. We ought not fear being prophetic and zealous lovers of life. God is both renewing us and blessing us with new members like Bryan Kemper.
Communion or the Eucharist: I have always believed that communion was more that just a symbol and in looking back at early church teaching it is crystal clear that this was taught from day one. St Ignatius of Antioch a student of John the Apostle taught on this and clarified it well.
Here too is the central glory of the Catholic Church, that we unvaryingly hold to the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I cannot tell you how many have come to the Church or returned to her on this count. The Scriptures could not be clearer on this point and, as Mr. Kemper notes, the Church Fathers also held it from day one. What a magnificent glory it is that we have Christ truly present in our tabernacles and truly receive him in Holy Communion. To remain devoted to Christ in the Eucharist is surely a necessary requirement for the Church if we want the Lord to bless us with new members.
These are just a few of the things that drew me back into the Catholic Church; however there is so much more. I was baptized Catholic as a child so the process is not as complicated for me. I will be starting RCIA classes and working towards confirmation.
I am asking my friends to pray for my family’s journey and me as I truly seek to be closer to Christ. My relationship with Christ is the most important thing in my life and I hope my friends will stand by me, as I grow closer to Him.
As for the work of Stand True; it will remain focused on educating, activating and equipping young to stand up for life and Christ. We have always been an organization that reaches out to and works with all Christians and we will remain true to that. A great work he is doing.
For Christ I stand,
Bryan Kemper
The original statement is found here: Journey Home
So, there is much to be grateful for here. Clearly the beauty, and the integrity of the Church on many issues continues to inspire new members to join us.
I would like to mention something Mr. Kemper did not say and ponder for a moment the possible meaning of it. You will note above that he said: I have been a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for almost 10 years as I was so inspired by the liturgy and reverence I found there. Among the things he did not list, as his reason for joining the Catholic Church, was the inspiration and reverence related to the liturgy. It may well be that he did not discuss this for the sake of brevity. But I wonder if we might not perhaps be willing to learn why the liturgical experience did not make the list?
The fact is that too much Catholic liturgy today comes across as neither inspiring nor reverent. There is nothing wrong with our liturgy in essence. It is the glorious Mass handed on to us by Christ and the Apostles. But the way we celebrate it in the typical Catholic parish is often problematic. It is rushed, sermons are poor and music is sometimes of questionable taste. Further, people dress casually, and sometimes act irreverently in the Church. Many too, seem bored and disengaged from what is going on. Clergy too often seem to celebrate in a perfunctory manner, and liturgical abuses sometimes taint the celebration.
In dealing with converts from the main-line denominations, one of the hurdles I have discovered they often have to clear is the question of liturgy. They come from liturgical traditions that are not as elaborate as the full Catholic Tradition. However, their traditions are marked by a noble simplicity that has engaged them well. There is a great tradition of hymn singing, and congregational involvement. There is also a tradition of fine preaching that includes a lengthier, teaching oriented sermon that fully develops the scriptural text. Their congregations tend to be smaller and the services less numerous. Community is more intimate and so forth. It is often a sacrifice for many of them to leave this and come to an often less cozy and reverent environment that predominates in many of our larger parishes. To be sure, Catholicism offers a wide variety of liturgical experiences and reverence is not easily defined as jsut one thing. But it ought to be noted that Mr. Kemper did not mention the reverent liturgies of the Church on his primary list. We might learn something from this.
Bryan Kemper’s entrance into the Church is something to rejoice in. Obviously he sees and appreciates something in the Church that has caused him to make what is a big step for him. Pray for him as he makes this transition. Further, we ought as Catholics, to rejoice in the prophetic witness of the Church and how many are still inspired to join. Something is going right here and we ought to be grateful at what the Lord is doing. Not only does the Church enrich and inspire others to membership in the Body of Christ, but the Church is also enriched by the gifts that others, like Bryan Kemper brings. Let us rejoice and give thanks.
Today, the Church celebrates the feast of the Annunciation. Through Mary’s “Yes” to God, the Word became flesh within her womb. Today’s readings at Mass reflect Mary’s perfect cooperation with God’s will that helped bring about the redemption of mankind.
The responsorial psalm today is, “Here I am, Lord; I come to do your will.” The second reading (Hebrews 10:4-10) teaches about Jesus Christ living the will of his Father. Jesus always prayed, “Behold, I come to do your will.” Finally, in today’s Gospel, we hear Mary’s words that changed the course of human events and invited God into our world: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” (Lk. 1:38)
The station church today is San Vitale. This church, going back to the fourth century, was a shrine to San Vitale, his wife, and sons – all of whom were martyrs for the faith. The martyrs are some of the Church’s greatest examples of people who followed God’s will very closely, even to the point of death.
In more recent history, the church of St. Vitale was connected to yet another martyr. During the 16th-century persecution of Catholics in England, Bishop John Fisher refused to sign the Oath of Supremacy that denied the pope’s authority and declared Henry VIII the head of the Church in England. Pope Clement VII named Fisher a cardinal and entrusted today’s station church, San Vitale, to Fisher as his titular church. Fisher was martyred for the faith in 1535, soon after being named a cardinal. Like our Lady and Jesus, he said “yes” to the will of God.
This feast of the Annunciation, let us stay close to our Lady, so that with her we can say, “I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” By following God’s will, we too can be the instruments who bring Christ into the world.
We usually think of the 1950s as an era when just about everyone went to Church. But the cover from the 1959 Saturday Evening Post at the right indicates that even at that time there were already trends underway that indicated not all was perfect in paradise. It is a long and unfortunate trend that men have often left the spiritual upbringing of the Church to their wives and stayed home on Sundays.
A recent CARA blog post written by Mark Gray takes a closer look at the data of Mass attendance from the 1950s and indicates that our perceptions of the high mass attendance in the 1950s may need some adjustment. This is due to the fact that much of the data was based on self-reporting of Catholics. Such reporting is often unreliable since, bluntly stated, people tell fibs to survey takers. Sometimes they tell fibs to themselves. Consider the scenario:
Poll taker: Do you go to church on Sundays?
Respondent: Sure! (Which really means sometimes).
Poll taker: Of the 52 Sundays a year, how many would you say you are in Church?
Respondent: Oh, at least 50 (Which really means more like 10).
The fact is, people like to look good to poll takers, and often answer the question in flattering ways rather than purely truthful ways. This was even more likely the case in the 1950s when Sunday Church attendance was more of a social expectation than today.
Even today, 42% of Catholics polled say they go to Mass each Sunday. But we know from harder data (such as head counts) that the number is closer to 30%
I’d like to put some excerpts of the CARA blog post here and make a few comments along the way. The actual article is fairly long and you can read the rest here: Deconstructing Mass Attendance Numbers
As usual, the Article excerpts will be in bold, black italics, and my remarks in plain text red.
Didn’t everyone go to church in the 1950s?…. But the fact that [the Norman Rockwell Painting above] made it on to the cover of America’s magazine of record at the time indicates that it resonated with the culture of this period [1959]. This issue of the Post was published at a time when weekly Catholic Mass attendance was peaking, as measured in Gallup telephone surveys (74% in 1958 and 72% in 1959).
[But] in 2008, Gallup surveys estimated Catholic Mass attendance in any given week had fallen to 42%. Don’t giggle. I know you don’t believe that 42% of Catholics nationally attend Mass in any given week and you’re right. But why do we believe 74% did in 1958?[Well said. Many of us who quote statistics on Mass attendance exaggerate the 1950s number upward and the current numbers downward because it suits our point. I have been guilty of this. It reminds me of an old GK Chesterton sayings, Many people use statistics like a drunkard uses a light pole, for support rather than enlightenment].
You can only get an attendance percentage by dividing the Mass attendance count….by the number of self-identified Catholics in the parish boundaries that could have attended. [And this sort of data is harder data than self reporting Catholics called on the phone who will tend to exaggerate the frequency of their attendance. This sort of data is a lot harder to come by and requires careful headcounts in parishes. Many dioceses conduct an October headcount. But even four weeks of data is not, of itself enough since there are great seasonal swings in many parishes. Real data collection is hard work].
Perhaps more can be said by taking a second look at a researcher who was in many Catholic parishes studying Mass attendance in the 1950s. Joseph H. Fichter, S.J., (granduncle to current CARA research associate Fr. Stephen Fichter) famously studied parish life by going door to door and taking censuses, making Mass attendance head counts, observing parish life, and documenting everything possible both qualitatively and quantitatively. [Like I said, data collection is hard work]
Fichter estimates Mass attendance levels based on the number of individuals registered with the parish. But he also provides the counts for dormant Catholics…. people who self-identify their religion as Catholic but who do not attend Mass [at all]. Thirty-eight percent of the Catholics within the parish boundaries he studied in this book were dormant. Thus, at the outset we know that typical weekly attendance by the measure of this study could have been no more than 62%. But [the number drops further when we consider that only] 79% of the non-dormant Catholics attended Mass on a typical weekend. So [in combining these two facts] the total percentage of self-identifying Catholics attending Mass in this study was estimated to be about 49%. [OK, I see your eyes crossing with all the numbers. But the critical number is that the number of Catholics attending Mass EVERY week was really closer to 49% in the 1950s when properly adjusted. So the 74% number is too high. Mark Gray explains why in the next paragraph].
Attendance over-reports [in Gallup-like surveys] occur as people being interviewed over the phone respond to their interviewer with answers about their behavior that they believe to fit socially desirable expectations. So typically the respondent has just told the interviewer their religion and then they are asked how often they attend services. Many respond in a way that they believe is socially acceptable—even if it does not fit their actual pattern of attendance.
We have some early evidence of this in the Americans’ Use of Time Study, 1965-1966. Here, 57% of Americans when asked directly about their church attendance reported that they had attended in the last week. However, only 39% of these respondents actually indicated attending religious services when recording their time use hour by hour in diaries (i.e., an indirect measurement)…. [OK, so basically people lie, err….fib. Fact is we do tend to over estimate how good we do 🙂 ].
Father Fichter’s observations also indicate that some of the Mass attendance of the 1950s was not as “active”[i.e. devout] as we might remember it. Here is a passage that likely still resonates with your observations of parish life today:
“A measure of the parishioners’ devotion to the Mass and of their fulfillment of this obligation is seen in the numbers who arrive late and who leave early. By actual count it was noted that, at all Sunday Masses, 8.37 per cent of the congregation arrived after Mass had started and that 6.35 per cent left before it was completed. … Although we have no accurate count, we have noticed that many of these persons are duplicated in both categories. In other words, those who come late also tend to leave early. … The younger males constitute the majority of those who omit part of the Mass, while older females make up the majority who arrive in church well in advance of Mass” (1951, pg. 138)……“By actual count, 35.08 per cent of the congregation read the missal all during Mass, while another 22.08 per cent read some sort of prayer-book while following the priest’s reading of the Gospel. … The remaining persons simply stare off into space, although several men in the last pews sometimes read a copy of Our Sunday Visitor during Mass” (1951, pg. 138). [Oops, maybe a little less devout than some of us remember. I DO remember the silly legalisms of the past where people asked questions like, “How late can I be to Mass and still fulfill my obligation?” My sense is that the trends noted here are a little worse today despite the Mass being in English. A lot of Catholics still give the impression that they are at Mass merely to “check off the God box” and that they seek the fastest Mass possible. Many are devout today, but many are not].
Over a year of Masses, on average, attenders were much more often female (about 7 in 10 or more) than male—a composition that can only result from some men, perhaps like the man in the Rockwell illustration above, staying home. [I want to post on this topic sometime soon].
Many cite CARA’s weekly Mass attendance figure in the low 20 percent range. Some also then cite Gallup’s figure from the 1950s and attempt to argue that Mass attendance has fallen from nearly 80% to just above 20%. This is misleading and inaccurate…..as shown above, the Gallup numbers for the 1950s are inflated…. [Again, I plead guilty to some of this].
Currently, CARA surveys indicate that 23% of self-identified adult Catholics attend Mass every week. Yet, in any given average week, 31% of Catholics are attending…. Note there is considerable local variation in Mass attendance levels with higher levels in the Midwest and lower in coastal urban areas). During Lent and Advent, Mass attendance increases into the mid-40 percent-range and on Christmas and Easter, an estimated 68% of Catholics attend. [This is a good distinction. I sometimes hear the 23% number and other times the 31% number and wonder which it is].
[OK, so what’s the Bottom Line?]
Thus, if one is seeking to make a comparison of Mass attendance in the 1950s to now, the drop is not 80% to 20%. Instead it is from a peak of 62% in 1958 to about 31% now. This is still a remarkable decline. It means that the Mass attendance you see at Christmas and Easter is a lot like the attendance you might have seen in a typical week in the late-1950s.
OK I know, it was a lot of numbers, but in the end, the report suggests that we need to trim a bit off the extremes and bring both numbers a little more toward the middle. In the end, we have still suffered an enormous decline and the recent wave of church and school closings demonstrates that. In these leaner times we do well to consider that it is more important than ever that we be at our posts. It is simply a fact that we need one another to survive.
In his book Jesus of Nazareth Part II The Holy Father takes up the issue of the Evangelization of the Jewish People and offers a position that I must say quite surprises me. As an obedient son of the Church, I must also say that it is for me somewhat of a corrective position. For the position he annunciates has not been my point of view. I trust the Pope and must now consider how I must amend my prior thinking based on his observations. Yet, truth be told, I am still a bit stunned by what he says.
It is a fact that the Pope has set his reflections outside the Papal Magisterium, for he says in the forward to volume 1:
It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the Magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search “for the face of the Lord” (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial good will without which there can be no understanding. (Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1, Forward, xxiv)
Nevertheless, I cannot simply regard him as any sort of theologian with whom I may dispute. He, even when he speculates outside the formal magisterial structures, commands my respect and my soul ought to be teachable even in these matters.
So, with all this in mind let me set forth what the Pope teaches about the evangelization of the Jewish People and offer a few reflections.
Background – The Pope, in Chapter Two of Jesus of Nazareth (Vol. 2) is reflecting on the evangelical mission of the Church to preach the Gospel to all the nations. The urgency with which the Apostles undertake this mission is related to the teaching of Jesus that the Gospel must first be preached to all the nations prior to his coming (Matt. 24:14; Mk 13:10). Thus, the End Time can come only after the Gospel has been brought to all peoples. The Pope calls this period “the time of the Gentiles” (Cf. Rom. 11:25-26).
During this time, he argues that the principle focus and mission of the Church is ad Gentes (to the nations). For as Paul teaches, A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of Gentiles come in, and so, all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:25-26). For now, the Pope argues, the Church’s priority is, thus, the Gentiles.
Let me allow the Pope to speak:
In this regard, the question of Israel’s mission has always been present….Here I should like to recall the advice given by Bernard of Clairvaux to his pupil Pope Eugene III on this matter. He reminds the Pope that his duty of care extends not only to Christians, but: “You also have obligations toward unbelievers, whether Jew, Greek, or Gentile” (De Consideratione III/1, 2). Then he immediately corrects himself and observes more accurately: “Granted, with regard to the Jews, time excuses you; for them a determined point in time has been fixed, which cannot be anticipated. The full number of the Gentiles must come in first. But what do you say about these Gentiles?. . . …(De Consideratione III/1, 3).
Hildegard Brem comments on this passage as follows: “In the light of Romans 11:25, the Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God, ‘until the full number of the Gentiles comes in’ (Rom 11:25)….(quoted in Sämtliche Werke, ed. Winkler, I, p. 834).
The prophecy of the time of the Gentiles and the corresponding mission is a core element of Jesus’ eschatological message. The special mission to evangelize the Gentiles, which Paul received from the risen Lord, is firmly anchored in the message given by Jesus to his disciples before his Passion. The time of the Gentiles—“the time of the Church”—which, as we have seen, is proclaimed in all the Gospels, constitutes an essential element of Jesus’ eschatological message.
….In the meantime, Israel retains its own mission. Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it “as a whole” at the proper time, when the number of the Gentiles is complete….the evangelization of the Gentiles was now the disciples’ particular task…. (Jesus of Nazareth, Vol 2, pp. 44-46).
To be honest this notion is completely new to me. I have never considered the Jewish people a temporarily lower priority for the Church, let alone temporarily exempt from the evangelical mission of the Church. The initial thought of this troubles me. Yet the Pope seems clearly to hold this view, for though he quotes others, he does not critique their views.
I have always considered the Jewish People to be an essential focus of the evangelical mission of the Church, here and now. It seems to me that Paul, as he evangelized went first to the Synagogues and gained whatever converts he could, and then turned to the Gentiles. He speaks of his ministry as bringing good or ill to those who obey or disobey, Jew first, then Gentile (Rom 2:9-10).This, at least, was my thinking and what it was based on.
Yet now, having laid my teaching at the feet of Peter, it appears that I may have “run in vain” (cf. Gal 2:2). The Pope seems to hold, (granted he does not formally teach it), that the time of the Jews is only later. For now, the focus is the Gentiles.
In a way this explains a lot. I have often been puzzled over the low priority given the mission to the Jews in Rome. There even seems to be a certain apologetic opinion among some in Rome, that the Jews should not be “proselytized” and evangleized, and that those who do so, are doing something wrong. Some have even gone so far as to say the Jews are already in a saving covenant (which I do not thing the Pope is saying here). I have usually presumed such positions were more than influenced by a European anxiety and (an understandable) guilt over the Holocaust that made Church officials anxious to suggest the Jewish people were lacking something, in not having faith in Christ. I never considered a theological basis for the position as the Pope has presented it here.
I have read some rather vigorous discussions about Romans 11 where Paul writes, as already noted: I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved. (25-26).
Some have interpreted this passage to mean that the Jewish People will all be saved ultimately.
Some think it means literally every Jew,
Others think that most Jews will be saved and that “all Israel” is more of a corporate notion than an “every man, woman and child,” notion.
Still others, such as I, have thought that “all Israel” refers to believers in Jesus Christ, both Jew and Gentile. For, it would seem, that Paul defines Israel only as those who accept the Messiah, Jesus. For, in Romans 11 he describes Israel as an olive tree. And unbelieving branches were pruned off (11:20), and believing branches (Gentiles) were grafted in. The pruned branches can be re-grafted, but only if they come to faith in Jesus. Thus, in the end, “all Israel” means believing Jews and Gentiles together in Christ. And though surely Paul is hopeful that many of the pruned branches will be re-grafted, it has seemed to me that “all Israel” can refer only to true believers in Jesus Christ, Jew and Gentile.
If I understand the Pope however, it would appear that my grasp of Romans 11 (as stated in # 4 above) has been flawed, at least insofar as the position he annunciates. If I interpret him properly, He sees “all Israel” as referring to those Jews who will be saved at the end of the age.
So here is to me a stunning passage that requires me to carefully rethink how I have understood the matter. This is so even though the Pope does not claim magisterial authority, at least for me, since I respect even his non-infallible teaching and want to give it serious consideration and assent.
Some Questions – And yet I wonder of the practical application of this view and have some questions. Please understand that these questions are not rhetorical, they are actual questions I have because I want to learn.
Does this mean that it is always wrong to seek Jewish converts?
Or does this position of the Pope simply explain why the mission field of the Jewish people has been meager? (For, as Paul says, a hardening has come upon them for a season until the full number of Gentiles enters).
While it is possible to understand a corporate conversion of the Jews at the end of the age, what of the Jews today and yesterday? Are they included in this notion? What will come of them?
Are the Jewish People today in an operative covenant with God that we as Catholics ought to recognize (as some suggest in quoting Rom 11:29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable)? Or did the Old Covenant end with the destruction of the temple? (as others suggest in quoting Hebrews 8:13 which says, By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear)?
Well, enough said, you need not, dear reader, follow me all the way as I think out loud. But in a brief couple of paragraphs the Pope has managed to powerfully question the way I have thought. I still have questions but I am willing to be taught. Perhaps some of you have wrestled with this already and have something to offer to the discussion. Above all, I am sure the Pope would be happy to know that his book has us thinking, discussing and praying.
Prior to entering the Seminary, I was a choir director, cantor and organist in Catholic Parishes. In those days, (early 1980s), it was widely held that working for a Catholic Parish meant your were going to be paid poorly. The “real money” was made working for Protestant congregations. Concerns were raised (many of them legitimate) among Catholic liturgists and musicians that Catholic parishes needed to rethink their priorities, and pay more just and competitive wages, if we were ever going to rescue Catholic music from the amateurish state it largely was in in the 1980s.
