Tag: Church

Posted on

Why Anne Rice is Wrong: The Intersection of the Church and Politics Cannot be Reduced to Simplistic Labels.

The recent and public proclamations of two prominent women, one Catholic the other Protestant, highlight the growing conflicts at the intersection of faith, politics and culture. Author, Anne Rice, who had returned to the Catholic Faith in 1998, recently “renounced” her Christian Faith. And Kirsten Powers, a Fox News analyst and former Clinton Administration official, has written in her defense. The comments of both women show how increasingly difficult it is for the Church to negotiate the delicate balance of proclaiming moral truth and yet not transgressing  political and cultural boundaries by “taking sides” or forging alliances with parties and movements.

Here are some quotes from these women:

  1. Anne Rice from her Facebook Page –   “I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”
  2. Kirsten Powers writing yesterday in The Daily Beast – I feel your pain, sister. Like Rice, I developed a deep faith later in life and, like her, I brought with me liberal views that aren’t normally associated with devout Christians….American Christianity is suffering from a hangover from decades of indoctrination by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and a host of other religious leaders who falsely cloaked right-wing Republicanism in biblical principles. Worse, these leaders modeled the decidedly un-Christian behavior of treating certain groups with contempt. Even if Robertson et al. were actually justified in viewing liberals, gays, feminists, and Muslims as their enemy, their response is simply not rooted in Scripture. (See, for example, “love your enemies” and “bless those who persecute you.”) A popular bumper sticker—”I love Jesus but I hate his fan club”—reflects this growing frustration with the church among devout Christians. Something needs to change, or more Anne Rices are going to walk away. The full article by Ms. Powers is here: Kirsten Powers on Anne Rice’s Christianity Crisis

Now there are any number of things I personally object to in Ms. Rice’s comments. Referring to us as “infamous” borders on Religious bigotry. In her “anti”  list I particularly object to the anti-science, and anti-gay labels. The Church has a very nuanced and smart position viz. science wherein we respect science’s role and only object when certain scientists  transgress into philosophical and religious pronouncements. As for being “anti-Gay:”  It is difficult when an individual or group wants to insist that its entire identity be described by particular form sexual activity which the Scriptures we revere and must obey call sinful, it is unreasonable to expect approval from the Church. But disapproval does not equate to hate as many claim or simple and crude “anti-gay” agenda. The Catholic Church is not anti-gay, we simply cannot approve of any sexual activity outside of marriage and have a principled, Biblical understanding of marriage and sexuality. What is demanded of us is unreasonable. In fact her whole diatribe is simplistic in that it lacks any proper distinctions or respect for the nuances of Catholic and Christian views.

As for Ms. Powers’ comments she too uses words that are unnecessary. Why must she describe Christians as treating certain groups with “contempt?”  Is it now contempt to disagree or stand opposed to the seismic cultural shifts that have taken place in West?  And why the word “enemy?”  Is the fact that Christians oppose aspects of the gay agenda, for example,  mean that Christians necessarily see Gays as enemies? Why are such words used and do they not express the contempt for us that they criticize? Is it not possible for Christians to have principled differences with advocates of the new morality without being charged with contempt and being told we are treating people as enemies, that we are unloving and refusing to bless others?

But the deeper issue I want to explore is the implied critique that Catholics and Traditional Christians are wrong to build alliances in the political and secular realm. The simplistic form of the charge is that traditional Christians (to include Catholics) are just an arm of the Republican Party. I want to suggest that this is both simplistic and inaccurate. I also want to address the charge that it is wrong for the Church to develop alliances.  Let’s begin with a little history.

There is a long history of alliances – While the Church has never officially embraced a political party, political alliances have historically been evident. In the past, until the emergence of the Regan Democrats, Catholic voters were  a reliably  Democratic voting block. There were also many alliances forged between Church leaders and Democratic leaders. Issues such as labor, and labor unions, justice, minimum wage, and care for the poor forged deep alliances between Catholics and Democrats at all levels in the Church. In the years of the Civil Rights Movement the Christian Churches were the central pillar of that movement and a large number of Catholic Clergy, Sisters and lay leaders were active in the movement. The Civil rights movement forged important alliances with civic and political leaders to evoke lasting change. There were also countless alliances that developed between the Catholic Church, Protestant denominations and civic and political leaders to address a wide variety of local issues such as education, economic justice and development in poor neighborhoods, crime, traffic hazards and the like. So there is nothing new about the Church being out in the community and in the political realm forging alliances for matters deemed important.

Now in the first 70 years of the 20th Century the social and moral issues of abortion, euthanasia, homosexual activity, stem cell research and the like were not largely disputed and some didn’t even exist yet. Most Americans agreed essentially on such matters and that they were wrong. Generally then in these years the alliance was strong between the Democratic Party and Catholics due to the issues involved and the politics of the time.

After 1973 and the Roe v. Wade decision the alliance began to experience its first rifts. But not at first. In the initial years after Roe many prominent Democrats were against Abortion. For example Al Gore, Harry Reid, Jessie Jackson and others protested abortion. Abortion was not at first a strongly partisan issue. But in the decade following Roe, the pro-Choice position began to become Democratic orthodoxy. Pro-life democrats were increasingly hard to find and the party’s platform became officially pro-Choice. Little by little the Republican Party stood forth as increasingly pro-Life and this position was adopted as the official position of the GOP platform. One by one the other moral issues began to divide out along party lines as well.

And here we are today with a host of critical moral issues of which the Church cannot remain silent but in which political divisions are sharp. So sharp are these political divisions that when the Church speaks on what ARE plainly moral issues (eg. Abortion, Homosexual marriage, contraceptives and abortions to minors, stem cell research etc.) she is said to be getting too political, or to talking politics from the pulpit, or promoting a Republican Agenda. And yet these are clearly moral issues which fair minded individuals realize the Church cannot simply ignore.

And hence, new alliances are forming between the Church and the world of politics. Since most all these matters involve public policy, public funds, legislation and the like, the Church cannot be part of the discussion and seek to influence outcomes without bumping up against legislators who, by the way, also happen to be politicians. So the Church and other Christians do what we have always done, we form alliances to address these issues and influence their outcome. It is not just the Church that does this, everyone does this.

Now the point thus far is that political alliances are nothing new in Catholicism. While not being a partisan faith, it is just a fact that strong partnerships have been formed over the past 100 years between the Church and the Democrats in the past, increasingly the Republicans now. Seismic shifts in the culture have led to seismic shifts in the political landscape and led to shifting alliances.

Now that some of these alliances are seen as conservative or Republican some say, “tisk, tisk.”  But such scolding did not come from these same people or  secular media when the alliances were more left of center.

But what of the charge that the Catholic Church is merely an outpost of the Republican Party? It is true,  as has already been stated, there are more alliances withthe right of center and the Republican Party than in the past. This is for the reasons stated. But the fact is, the Catholic Church holds many positions that do not conform to “right-wing politics” and has alliances far broader than one party. The Church is generally pro-immigration, opposes the death penalty, and insists on proper care for the poor. The Pope and most of the Bishops opposed our initiation of the Iraq War. More locally my own parish and most other parishes in the City of Washington belong to a non-partisan group called the Washington Interfaith Network (WIN). Together with Protestant congregations, we number over fifty congregations who develop partnerships with City government and civic organizations to ensure the availability of affordable housing, redevelopment of blighted neighborhoods, restoration of public libraries and recreation centers. Most recently we gathered the Candidates for Mayor and City Council Chair and  secured their promise to work with us on a detailed and multi-faceted jobs initiative to get people back to work. Every month, I along withother clergy and Church leaders in WIN are down at the District Building holding their feet to fire and developing alliances to ensure that these promises are fulfilled.

It is also true outside the Interfaith Network that we Catholic Clergy, along with some Protestant Ministers worked hard to fight the Gay “Marriage” Bill. We have also fought hard for opportunity scholarships for inner city kids and opposed any expansion of Abortion funding.

So what are we? What is the Church? Is it really true to say that we are just shills for the Republican Party? That hardly seems fair. What if we are just Christians who fight for what we value? And the truth is, those values aren’t so easily categorized as Anne Rice and Kirsten Powers think.  We, like everyone else in this country form  alliances, to fight for what we value. But in the Catholic Church those alliances are not as monolithic as some of our critics claim.

Perhaps a personal litany to end: I am against abortion and they call me a Republican. I oppose Capital Punishment and they call me a Democrat. I am against Gay Marriage and many aspects of the Gay agenda and they say, “O see he’s a Republican!” I work for affordable housing and insist that jobs be the priority for the City agenda and they say, “See he’s a Democrat.” And all this time what I was trying to be is a Christian.

Posted on

More on”Spiritual Cross Training”

Getting into Spiritual Shape

About two months ago, I did a blog entry on “spiritual cross training.” I made an analogy between my goal of training for a 5K and training for spiritual fulfillment. I also mentioned that the friend I was training with rarely went to church and when I invited him to a Mass, he went once and commented that it did nothing for him. At that time, I told him, “Neither of us had run a yard in 10 years. What if we tried to run 3 miles in 24 minutes, failed miserably and then concluded ‘running does nothing for me?’” Really, if I haven’t run in years, how can I expect to be able to benefit from the sport in the first workout? Can I run around my neighborhood for five minutes and get on a scale and lament – “I haven’t lost any weight yet!”? I analogized that, “the practice of our faith is a spiritual workout. If you only go to church on Easter and Christmas, how could you possibly expect to be in good spiritual shape? If you don’t make prayer a habit, how can you expect to benefit from the exercise?”

3.1 miles in 36 minutes

Well, yesterday was the race for which we had been training and I am proud of this rather unflattering picture of me approaching the finish line. I am proud because four months ago, I was really out of shape. I was proud that my friend and I stuck to our training. But, I was most proud because one week prior, I had strained my back severely (I am not the twenty-something-blogger named Laura!). My physician said I would be in pain but running wouldn’t exasperate the injury. I was determined to do this race. My friend knew I was in pain as the race started but keep encouraging me to run through the pain.

So that his affliction may glorify God – John 9:1-41

We finished the race – I trailed him by a few minutes and we felt euphoric having finished with respectable times. Since the race was on a Saturday I asked him, “So, what are you doing tomorrow?” hoping the word “church” was somewhere in his answer. Glory to God, he said he was going to Mass adding, “You did not let a lower back strain get in your way, I shouldn’t let a boring homily get in mine.”

Staying motivated

Training for and running in a road race is not always fun. But the reward of crossing the finish line eclipses all of the pain and setbacks. The true reward comes in overcoming all of the obstacles that get in the way, including a lower back strain. Frankly, attending Mass regularly can have its setbacks as well, such as a boring homily or two. But, if you can see past the occasional disappointment, the reward that awaits, namely the worship of God in the form of the Eucharist, certainly eclipses all pain, suffering and sin.

Staying committed

We are now committed enough to running that we have already entered in a race scheduled for September. Next time, our goal is not to simply finish but to improve our time. Let’s pray that my friend finds that same commitment to God‘s command to keep holy the Sabbath. Also pray that he and others who have fallen away from the Church not only attend Mass regularly but that they integrate Christian spirituality into their entire lives, despite an occasional disappointment.

Posted on

At the Gate Called Beautiful: A Picture of the Church and Our Spiritual Journey

At the Vigil Mass of today’s Feast of Saints Peter and Paul was read the story of a paralyzed man whom Peter and John encounter just outside the Temple at the Gate called “Beautiful.” This paralyzed man’s story is our story and as we read it we learn something of our own spiritual journey to the Lord and to heaven, symbolized here by the Temple. Let’s look at this moving story which is not merely an event of 2000 years ago but is our story. (N.B. The Beautiful Gate is the gold plated doors in the foreground of the picture to the right).

1. At the Story opens we see that  Peter and John were going up to the temple area for the three o’clock hour of prayer. Allow if you will that Peter and John represent the Church. Both of them bishops: Peter, the great leader, first Pope and holding the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and John the great contemplative and mystic. Here is the Church, with authority to preach and teach in Jesus’ Name and also given the great gift to mystically contemplate the Lord whom she announces. And what are they, (what is the Church) doing?  They (She) are  journeying to the Temple. And the Temple symbolizes the Kingdom of God, heaven and God himself. Yes, here is the (visible) head of the Church shown forth by Peter and the heart of the Church shown forth by John and they are on pilgrimage to be with God. They are going up to worship him (as we will all one day, pray God),  to be caught up into the heavenly liturgy.

2. What time is it? The text says it is three in the afternoon. Now the Jewish context for this is that this was a time for regular prayer. Fair enough. But in the Christian context  three o’clock is the hour of mercy. It is the hour when Christ died. It is the hour when salvation’s price is paid. It is the hour when we begin to stand a chance to ever make it out of the long reign of sin. It is three o’clock in the afternoon.

3. And a man crippled from birth was carried and placed at the gate of the temple called “the Beautiful Gate” every day to beg for alms from the people who entered the temple. – Who is this man? He is us. We are crippled from our birth, incapable of, and lacking the strength to walk uprightly. And what has this man done in his condition? He has turned to the world around him to seek help. People carry him so that he can beg. But notice that they can only place him outside the Gate called Beautiful. He is still outside the Temple. He cannot get in on his own and no one has been able to get him beyond that gate. He is outside the Temple, outside of the Kingdom of Heaven. He cannot save himself. Neither can the world save him or get him inside the gate. This is us. We cannot save ourselves. We do not have the strength to walk uprightly past the beautiful gate into heaven. And the world cannot help us either. It can only carry us to the gate, but not beyond it. Life will only deliver us to death. Medicine cannot save us. Science cannot save us. Philosophy, education, money and power cannot save us. The world carries us a certain distance but cannot close the gap, cannot get us inside the gate. And so we sit outside the gate, begging mercy, incapable of saving our self or being saved by those who can merely toss us the equivalent of coins in the face of our massive debt.

4. But thanks be to God it is three o’clock and the Church has come to pray and by God’s grace, enter heaven.

5. Disclosure – When [the crippled man] saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked for alms. But Peter looked intently at him, as did John,and said, “Look at us.” He paid attention to them, expecting to receive something from them.  Something of a “theology of disclosure” is unfolding here. As the man first encounters Peter and John (that is, the Church) he does not see anything extraordinary. Perhaps they will be a source of money. But money is not what he really needs. What he needs is to get inside the gate, into the Temple which symbolizes the Kingdom of God and heaven.

As he looks at Peter and John he is unaware of anything unique. Many people see the Church in this way. They are content for the Church to be merely a place of social gathering and they think of her in human terms only. Even worse they see her as merely a human institution and call her “it.” They regard her liturgy as ordinary and focus more on the human elements such as who the celebrant was, how good his sermon was  and if the music good and the congregation pleasant. They see only the human, the ordinary. They do not know that her liturgy draws us up to heaven where Christ the Bridegroom and High Priest ministers to us and leads us in perfect worship of the Father. They do not see her sacraments as powerful beyond measure and the Word she proclaims as bearing the transformative power of God. Like this crippled man who saw Peter and John (the Church) as ordinary, so do many today continue to see the Church as ordinary.

But Peter looks intently at him and says: “Look at us!”  In other words, look again. See something beyond the human. For Christ is the head of the Body, the Church. He indwells his Church and has mystical union with her. The “us” here is not merely Peter and John, it is the Church and Christ! And so the Church rightfully declares, “Look at us!”  And we who are crippled must first overcome our blindness and learn to see Christ ministering in and through his Church.

6. Word – Peter said, “I have neither silver nor gold, but what I do have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, rise and walk.” Then Peter took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles grew strong. – It is right that the Church should feed the poor, help the sick, clothe the naked and engage in all the corporal works of mercy. But she has even more to offer, she has Christ himself. And we who are the crippled man learn to seek Christ, not just worldly improvements and consolations. And then Peter and John, the Church, do what the Church must always do, they (she) announce Jesus Christ. And in his name and by the power of his Word speaking through them, (a word that does not just inform but also performs and transforms), they say what the Church has always said to a fallen and crippled world: “Rise and Walk!” Rise, for you are dead in your sins, and walk, for though you have not had the strength to walk uprightly, now by God’s grace you do! The world is skeptical of the Church’s moral vision for they do not figure on grace and the power of God’s Word to transform. But the Church does not bid us to end fornication, addiction, anger, greed and so forth by our flesh, but rather in the Name of Jesus Christ. That is, by the power of his grace now present and available,  we have the capacity, the strength,  to rise and walk.

And Sacrament – And notice too, Peter does not merely speak the Word to him but also takes him by the hand and raises him. Hence the Church does not merely preach God’s word, she stretches out her hand through the sacraments and the liturgy to strengthen and heal us by God’s power working through them. Every Sacrament touches us somehow. Perhaps it is water splashing upon us in Baptism to make us rise from the dead, oil being applied to strengthen and sanctify us in confirmation, anointing of the sick and holy orders, hands being laid on us in those same sacraments and in confession. And, most preeminently where the Church stretches  out a hand to feed us and we are  nourished by the Lord in the Holy Communion. So the Church does not just stand in a pulpit and preach, she stretches out a hand and touches us. And that hand is really the hand of Jesus Christ mystically united with her and extended through the priests of the Church.

By the power of God’s Word, spoken through the Church and the outstretched hand symbolizing the touch of the Sacraments, the man becomes string and is now standing, by the grace of God.

6. He walks uprightly and enters! – He leaped up, stood, and walked around, and went into the temple with them, walking and jumping and praising God. – And now comes the astonishing fact that he enters through the Gate into the Temple which symbolizes the Kingdom of God and Heaven. He has made it through the gate by the Grace of God. And notice that the grace of God did not come in some merely personal, private way. Rather it came by and through the ministry of the Church. Christ has worked his justification through the ministry of the Church he established to teach, govern and sanctify in his Name.  Notice that the text says the man went into the Temple WITH THEM. He is now within the Kingdom. Before him looms the inner court of the Temple and the Holy of Holies, a great testimony of the presence of God, experienced now (and one day perfectly) in heaven.

This ancient Temple in which they stand will soon be destroyed but it’s place will be taken by every Catholic church, wherein dwells the more perfect Holy of Holies, the Tabernacle. For we who are (were) the crippled man but have now been strengthened through the ministry of the Church are standing within the Church. The tabernacle looms before us as the great presence of God. Every journey up the aisle we make is symbol of the pilgrimage we are on to heaven. We now have the strength to walk that final distance into the Holy of Holies if we but persevere and allow the Christ to minister to us through his Church.  We who once were crippled and unable to walk,  through baptism, confirmation and Eucharist are now strengthened to walk uprightly (with confession to help with the stumbles) toward the Holy of Holies. And one day, by God’s grace working through the Church  we shall journey fully into the Holy Holies.

At the Gate Called Beautiful: A Picture of the Church and Our Spiritual Journey.

Posted on

Deacons – Heralds of the Gospel!

“Receive the Gospel of Christ whose herald you have become”  – From the Rite of Ordination of a Deacon

This morning, 20 men were ordained as permanent deacons for the Archdiocese of Washington. Only two years removed from my own ordination to the diaconate, this was my first opportunity to witness a diaconal ordination that wasn’t my own. As these men were called from the congregation, prayed over, made a promise of obedience to the Archbishop and received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands, I was in a state of perpetual awe and joy.

Though we are clergy in every sense of the word, deacons are not “mini priests.” We have a vocation that is uniquely our own. We are ordained to the service of God’s people rather than to the service of the Sacraments. This is most visibly symbolized by the fact that we wear our stole in such a way to keep our right arm free to serve the people of God.

In most dioceses including Washington, those admitted to the Order of Deacon do so after at least five years of prayer and theological study. However, for these men, the hard work has only begun. Please join me in praying for my brother deacons as they begin their careers as “Heralds of the Gospel”

The Archdiocese of Washington Diaconate Class of 2010

Deacon Alfred Manuel Barros
Deacon Thomas Dwyer
Deacon Dan Finn
Deacon Barry Levy
Deacon Don Longana
Deacon Stephen Maselko
Deacon Albert L. Opdenaker III
Deacon Gerard (Stephane) Philogene
Deacon William (Bill) Stevens
Deacon Brandon Justice
Deacon Patrick Christopher (Chris) Schwartz
Deacon Desider Vikor
Deacon Francis Edward (Ed) Baker, Jr.
Deacon Joel Carpenter
Deacon David Divins
Deacon Richard Dubicki
Deacon Robert Leo Martin
Deacon Ammon Ripple
Deacon Kenneth Lee
Deacon Timothy E. Tilghman

Posted on

In Defense of the Use of Military Imagery in the Church

Last week in the blog I penned what was intended as a humorous post based on a video which asked: Is the Church a Cruise Ship or a Battleship?  The video rather humorously depicts how many people want their parish to be like a cruise ship: comfortable, pleasant, with a popular captain and crew, fundamentally existing to please me and serve my needs. The video, and I as well, tweaked this point of view by going to the other end of the spectrum insofar as ocean-going vessels are concerned and suggested that the image of battleship might be more appropriate. In such a ship, my comfort and good pleasure is less the focus. Mission, noble purpose, being well equipped, and effectively engaging the spiritual battle against the world, the flesh and the devil  are more the focus in a battleship image.

Now, as is often the case when any military imagery is used, some of the commenters took offense, or were alarmed at what the use of such imagery might lead to. I want to address some of the concerns in this regard and make something of a defense for the long tradition of military metaphors for the Christian life and by extension the Church.

To begin, lets be clear, the primary Biblical images of the Church are the Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ. Every other image is subordinate to these. But that said the Church can be compared to many things, all of which convey some truth. To say that the Church is like a battleship does not deny the principle images of Body and Bride any more than saying the Church is like a ship, an ark, a family, or a garden, or colony of bees for that matter. All of these images might capture some aspect of the Church worth consideration. A few of the comments from last week suggested that the metaphor of a battleship somehow precluded other images such as Bride and Body. It  does not. One metaphor does not preclude another. “King Jesus has a garden full of diverse flowers”  and each of them has something to say, something to teach that does not cancel the others.

But the specific concern for some seems to be military images per se. Back in January when I wrote of priests as soldiers and more recently last week, commenters had some of the following concerns:

  • I find your militaristic and pugilistic imagery not only off-putting, but bordering on un-Christian.
  • The church should have nothing to do with the military. War and all that comes with it are evil and unnecessary. The church a living body, not a machine like the military would want to treat it. The analogy is insufficient…..
  • Boats figure frequently in the Gospels in the ministry of Jesus–but none of them are battleships. Jesus rode in the fishing boats….Jesus was also pretty clearly opposed to the occasionally militant ideas of his (often obtuse) disciples…..peoples’ desire to make Jesus or His Church into a militaristic organization are hard pressed to find their justification in anything but the weak human desire to impose violence as a supposed solution to evil…..

Now, to be clear, the use of the image of a battleship is not to make the Church a militaristic organization. She is not, she is the Bride of Christ and also his body. But the Church and the Christian can and do have qualities LIKE a soldier or instrument of Battle. Paul for example refers to the Word of God as a sword and says that the Christian should be equipped like a soldier:

Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground. So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate, and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace. In all circumstances, hold faith as a shield, to quench all (the) flaming arrows of the evil one.  And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Eph 6:13-17)

Now Paul, while using military images is not calling for violent action. Rather he is saying that,  like a soldier equipped for battle,  a Christian should realize that he too is in a spiritual battle which requires the weaponry of the truth, righteousness, faith, serenity, confidence of salvation, and the Word of God for his sword.

To me military imagery evokes things like discipline, honor, duty, self-sacrifice, laying down ones life for one’s friends, obedience, authority, chain of command, and the like. Christian tradition is rich with military themes. One of the great hymns for the martyrs is “Deus Tuorum Militum” (Oh God of thy soldiers). The beautiful hymn “For all the saints has this line: “And when the strife is fierce, the warfare long, steals on the ear a distant triumph song, and hearts are brave again and arms are strong! Alleluia.” Another line says “The golden evening brightens in the west, soon, soon to faithful warriors cometh rest….” The Protestant tradition also features songs like “Onward Christian Soldiers” and “I am On the Battlefield for my Lord.” When Pope Benedict visited the White House the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” was sung and that hymn is in almost every Catholic Hymnal. The hymn bespeaks the necessity of engaging the great struggle for justice and freedom and links it to the great battle described in the Book of Revelation between Christ and Satan:  He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword: His truth is marching on….

The Church Militant – Then too, one of the most traditional references in the Church’s lexicon of herself  on earth is the “Church Militant.”  The Church in heaven is the Church Triumphant. The Church in Purgatory is the Church suffering.  But the Church here on earth is the Church Militant. In other words the Church here on earth is engaged in a great battle,  still. She battles against error and sin, she shed the light of the truth to a world that prefers the darkness and snatches souls from Satan’s grasp in a great battle. In the Easter Sequence Hymn the battle waged by Christ and continued through his mystical Body is described in this way: Mors et vita duello. Conflixere mirando, dux vitae mortuus, regnat vivus (Death and life have clashed in a wondrous battle, The king of life dies, yet reigns (now) alive). The Church militant continues to experience the unfolding of this great paschal mystery as she, by God’s grace makes daring raids into Satan’s stronghold and leads souls to freedom and victory. Her weapons are the truth of God’s Word, the healing and powerful sacraments and intrepid evangelical souls who witness to the truth and proclaim it to the world. Yes, the Church is surely in a great battle. The Hymn “The Church’s One Foundation”  describes this battle as thus:

Mid toil and tribulation, and tumult of her war,
she waits the consummation,of peace forevermore;
till, with the vision glorious, her longing eyes are blest,
and the great church victorious, shall be the church at rest.

Then too is one of the principle prayers of the Church which invokes the great leader of the Host (a word which means “army”) of Angels:

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host –
by the Divine Power of God –
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

In all these images and expressions it is clear that they do not mean that the Church should buy jeeps and tanks or any worldly weaponry. But the images of battle are invoked to remind the Christian to have the virtues of the solider and to be aware that a battle is taking place all around us that requires sober vigilance and properly discerned action.

The Church for her part has a a key role in summoning Christians to enter the battle (the conflixere mirando) by defining clearly the crucial battles that much be waged on a multi-front war. As St. Paul warns, If the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? (1 Cor 14:8). He exhorts Timothy to “Fight the Good fight” (1 Tim 6:12).  He also distinguishes our warfare in these words:

For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete. (1 Cor 10:3-6)

Hence, In defense of military imagery I invoke long Christian Tradition, the witness of Scripture and the fittingness of the imagery to describe the life of the Christian and also the  Church. While distinctions are important as have been made above, it remains a true fact that we are in a great battle and as such, a spiritualized understanding of the soldier, weapons and battle are both fitting and essential. As with any imagery, one is free to make use of it as it suits them. There may be some who find such imagery less helpful. But there are many who find it encouraging and truthful. It ought not be excluded as a category, image or metaphor  in the Church’s self understanding.

And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him….When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child..from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus(Rev 12, selectae)

Thanks to Cynthia BC  for pointing me to this video: Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus Going on before. Christ, the royal Master, Leads against the Foe; Forward into battle See His banners go! Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus Going on before!

Posted on

Is the Church a Cruise Ship or a Battleship?

Some years ago Fr. Patrick Smith, a friend of mine and a priest of this Archdiocese preached a sermon wherein he asked if the Church was a clubhouse or a lighthouse.

Many it would seem want the Church just to be a friendly place where people can gather. Many of these same people get angry when the Church shines the light of truth on something. They declare that the Church should just be open and inviting. They object when She is challenging and points to the demands of the Gospel.

But the Church has to be more than a clubhouse otherwise she is no different than a bowling league or the Moose Lodge. She is most certainly meant to be a lighthouse, warning of danger, giving light to those in darkness but also risking that some who are accustomed to the darkness,  will complain of the Light of Christ she reflects.

It was indeed a fine sermon and its message is essential and profound. I was mindful of that sermon when I ran across the video below from Ignitermedia.com which asks if the Church is a Cruise ship or a Battleship.

Many it would seem surely think of the Church more like a cruise ship. One that exists for my pleasure and entertainment. “Peel me a grape!” seems to be the attitude that some bring to Church.  The video does a good job listing how people think of the Church as a cruise ship by listing the questions many ask of a luxury cruise liner:

  1. Do I like the music they play in the ballroom?
  2. Do I like the captain and his crew?
  3. Is the service good?
  4. Am I well fed?
  5. Are my needs met promptly?
  6. Is the cruise pleasant?
  7. Am I comfortable?
  8. Will I cruise with them again?

It is a true fact that our parishes ought to work very hard to make sure the faithful are effectively served and helped to find God. Good sermons, excellent and obedient liturgy to include good music, a beautiful Church and dedicated clergy and lay staff. God deserves the very best and so do his people. However it also follows that the world does not exist merely to please me. No parish we attend will ever be exactly the way we want it. No priest preaches perfectly every Sunday. The choir does not always sing my favorites.

Some people stay away from Church and call it boring or say they aren’t being fed. But in the end, it’s not about you! We go to Mass to worship God because God is worthy, because God deserves our praise and because he has commanded us to be there. God has something important to say to us whether we want to hear it or not. He directs us to eat his flesh and drink his blood whether we like it or not. We must eat or we will die. Holy Mass is about God and what he is saying and doing.

The video goes on to suggest a better image for the Church as a Battleship. I was less impressed with the criteria they gave comparing the Church and a battleship and so I have added my some of my own as well:

  1. Is the ship on a clear and noble mission?
  2. Is the ship able to endure storms at sea?
  3. Does the captain submit to a higher authority?
  4. Are the tactics and moves of the enemy well understood by bridge crew?
  5. Does the bridge crew have proper training and experience?
  6. Are the general crew members equipped to succeed?
  7.  Is the general crew well trained in the available weaponry?
  8. Does the general crew cooperate with the captain?
  9. Are they taught to be disciplined and vigilant?
  10. Are they rooted in (naval) tradition yet well aware of current circumstances?
  11. Are they at their posts?
  12. Do they take the battle seriously?
  13. Does the ship have adequate first aid and medical help?
  14. Is the crew properly fed?

Some dislike any military imagery in reference to the faith. But pugna spiritalis(spiritual battle) is simply a fact. We are besieged by the world, the flesh, and the devil. We are called to engage the battle and by God’s grace with through to victory.  Our weapons are the Word of God, the Teachings of the Church, the Sacraments, and prayer. We cannot win on our own but must work together under the authority of the Church which is herself under God’s care and authority. We are rooted in the wisdom of tradition and guided by the Pope and Bishops to apply that wisdom and our training to these current times. Peter’s Barque has endured many storms, yet has never sunk. She is a sure a steady ship on a clear and noble  mission.

Posted on

Adore the Lord in Holy Attire – On Proper Dress for Mass

Last week we had a discussion on the women wearing veils in Church. One of the themes that emerged in the comments was that the discussions about what to wear in Church should be broader than just a veil. More specifically BOTH men and women should consider how they dress when going into God’s house. Hence I would like to explore some background issues and  enunciate some principles. You of course will be able to add to them.

1. Scripture – There is very little in Scripture that seems to spell out the proper way to dress for sacred worship. There is the general directive to Adore the Lord in holy attire (Psalm 96:9; Ps 29:2) But this seems more an allusion to holiness (God’s and ours) more than to clothing per se. There are directives for the Passover meal that one should have staff in hand, with loins girt and sandals on their feet (Ex 12:11). But this seems a specific rule for the Passover meal only and hardly something that would done in the synagogue or temple. To gird one’s loins meant to pull up the lower part of one’s outer garment and tighten the belt. This exposed the lower legs and allowed greater mobility for them. It was a sign of being flight or of being at work. It is the ancient equivalent of “roll up your sleeves.”  (more HERE). As a general rule Jewish people would not show their legs unless circumstances strongly required it. They would surely not come to the synagogue or the Temple in this manner. Scripture also speaks of Phylacteries and Prayer Shawls. But these sorts of clothing and accessories seem to have come under some critique in the New Testament (Matt 23:5) and their use was not continued in the New Testament Church worship.

2. Church norms and rules – There are no official and specific Church norms or requirement for lay persons who attend Mass mentioned in Canon Law or the Sacramentary. Surely for priests and other clergy there are many rules and norms but I am unaware of any currently binding norms for the laity. Although the veils were once required for women, the 1917 Code of Canon Law was abrogated and the current code is silent on any requirement.

3. Hence it seems that Culture supplies most of the norms regarding what is considered appropriate attire for Church. And, alas our culture is currently quite unhelpful to us in this regard. Here in America we have become extremely casual about the way we dress for just about everything. It seems we almost never dress up anymore. This has changed somewhat dramatically in my own life time of just less than 50 years. “Sneakers” or “tennis shoes” as we called them were for sports or running around and playing in the neighborhood. But we would never even think of wearing them to school and certainly not to Church. I remember having a special set of shoes just for church. In the 1960s, it was also expected that I would go to Church in formal, pressed trousers, a button down shirt, and, except in the hottest months, a tie and even a suit jacket in winter. My sister and mother always wore a dress. Pants would not even have been considered for them. For the younger girls a skirt and a blouse might be OK but preferably a dress with a hat or veil.

But things changed dramatically around 1970. The photo above right was taken in 1969 at St. John the Evangelist Parish in Canton, Massachusetts. It was the end of an era. Within five years neckties were lost and jeans and a t-shirts came to be the norm. Most of the women as we discussed lost the veil, and dresses gave way to more casual pants suits and then also to other more casual things like jeans etc. Shorts for men and women, unthinkable in previous years also began to appear in church as did tank tops and other beach attire. Within ten years the culture of dressing up for Church was almost wholly abandoned. Now  wearing a tie to Church would seem stuffy and formal.

But this is where our culture has gone. It is not just Church. Years ago when my family went out to eat we almost always dressed up. Maybe it wasn’t a full neck tie but at least trousers and a button down shirt. Maybe not a formal dress for mom and sis, but at least a skirt and blouse. A restaurant was considered a semi-formal outing. School was also considered a place where things like jeans and informal t-shirts were out of place. Going down town to shop meant we changed out of shorts and put on something appropriate. Shorts were basically for running around the house, playing in the yard and such. But you just didn’t go out to more public settings wearing shorts and flip flops or even sneakers.

Pardon me for sounding like and old fud but I am not really that old. My point is that culture has changed,  and changed rather quickly. This has affected the Church as well. What were fighting is a strong cultural swing to the extremely informal. Most people don’t even think of dressing up for most things any more let alone Church.

4. Hence at the cost of seeming old and stuffy I might like to suggest a few norms and I hope you’ll supply your own as well:

  1. Men should wear formal shoes to Church. We used to call these hard shoes (because they were) but today many formal shoes are actually quite comfortable.
  2. Men should wear trousers (not jeans).
  3. Men should never wear shorts to Church.
  4. Men should wear a decent shirt, preferably a button down shirt. If it is a pullover shirt it should include a collar. Wearing a plain t-shirt without a collar is too informal.
  5. Men should consider wearing a tie to Church and in cooler weather, a suit coat. Some may consider this a bit too stuffy and formal but who knows, you might be a trend setter!
  6. Now as I talk about women I know I’ll get in some trouble!
  7. Women should wear decent shoes to Church. Flip flops, beach sandals etc. seem inappropriate.
  8. Women should not wear shorts to Church.
  9. Women, if they wear pants, should never wear jeans to Church. Some nice slacks that are not too tight can be fine.
  10. Women should consider wearing a dress or at least a skirt in preference to pants. It just looks a bit more formal than pants.
  11. Women should wear a nice blouse (if they are not wearing a full dress). The blouse or shirt they wear should not be too tight.
  12. Sleeveless garments are pushing it a bit but can be acceptable.
  13. Women should never wear tank tops, tube tops, spaghetti straps, or bare midriffs to Church.
  14. Well, you may have at this list. Add or subtract as you will.

A final thought: Clothes say something about what we think, what we value. They also influence how we behave and feel. That our culture has become so casual about everything says something about us. I cannot exactly articulate it but it seems to say, “nothing is really all that important.” But that is not true. Going to God’s house IS  important. Being ministered to by the King of Kings and Lord of Lords is astounding. Casual attire in these circumstances is simply inappropriate if we really think about what we are doing, where we are going and who it is we will meet. It does not necessarily follow that we must wear tuxedos and formal gowns. But decent semi-formal attire seems wholly appropriate. Sunday is special, God’s House is special. Somethings really ARE important and our clothing and demeanor ought to reflect this truth.

Posted on

The Church is A Miracle

If the Church were depending on human beings to exist and stay unified how long do think she would have lasted? Probably about twenty minutes, max!

There are no governments or nations that have lasted 2000 years. Very little else in this world can claim such antiquity and even if it does can it claim to have remained essentially unchanged in its dogma or teaching?

The Catholic Church is one, even after 2000 years. An unbroken line of Popes back to Peter and an unbroken line of succession for all the Bishops back to the Apostles through the laying on of hands. Not bad. Our history is not without some pretty questionable moments, in terms of the human elements of the Church. That the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church certainly suggests they would try again and again. But here we are, a miracle. Still standing after all these years! Christ is true to his promise to remain with us all days unto the consummation of the world.

We, the human elements of the Church may not live teachings of Christ perfectly, but the Church has never failed to teach what Christ taught even (as now) when the world hated us for it. At times we are tepid and struggle to find our voice, but Christ still speaks and ministers even in our weakness. St. Paul once wrote regarding himself and his fellow clergy: But we hold this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing power may be of God and not from us (2 Cor 4:7). When I think of the human weakness of the Church whether in the clergy or in the laity, I am absolutely struck by the truth that the continued existence of the Church all these centuries is a true miracle, right before our very eyes. Yes! A miracle.