Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on

Justice for the One And for the Many

 Perhaps you’ve read that something horrible happened in Washington State early Sunday Morning. Here is a brief press release:
PARKLAND, WA (KPLU) – A gunman killed four police officers at a Parkland area coffee shop Sunday morning. A massive manhunt is underway in Pierce County to find the shooter. The shooting happened at 8:15 a.m. at Forza Coffee on Steele Street South, near McChord Air Force Base. The four officers were with the Lakewood Police Department. They have been identified as Sergeant Mark Renninger and Officers Ronald Owens, Tina Griswold, and Greg Richards. The four were in full uniform, wearing bullet-proof vests. They were working on their laptops, beginning their day shifts, when the gunman entered the coffee shop and shot them at close range.
Police are seeking Maurice Clemmons, age 37, in connection with this case. Though there is little doubt that he is the killer, even if he is not it is still stunning that a man like this is walking our streets. Here is a brief summary of his criminal record:
  1. Sentenced to 5 years for robbery in Pulaski County, Aug. 3, 1989.
  2. Sentenced to 8 years for burglary, theft and probation revocation in Pulaski County, Sept. 9, 1989
  3. Sentenced to an indeterminate amount for aggravated robbery and theft in Pulaski County, Nov. 15, 1989
  4. Sentenced to 20 years each for burglary and theft of property in Pulaski County, Feb. 23, 1990.
  5. Sentenced to 6 years for firearm possession in Pulaski County, Nov. 19, 1990.
  6. Some sentences were concurrent and some consecutive. But the total effect of all these sentences was a sentence of 108 years.
  7. On May 3, 2000, Gov. Mike Huckabee commuted Clemmons’ sentence to 47 years, 5 months and 19 days, which made him eligible for parole that day. The Parole Board granted his parole July 13, 2000. He was released Aug. 1, 2000.
  8. Clemmons then returned to prison for a July 13, 2001 conviction for robbery in Ouachita County, for which he received a 10-year sentence. He was paroled March 18, 2004.
  9. In May of 2009 Clemmons punched a sheriff’s deputy in the face, according to court records. The Officer was responding to a domestic violence call. As part of that incident, he was charged with seven counts of assault and malicious mischief.
  10. Most recently Clemmons had been in jail in Pierce County for the past several months on a pending charge of second-degree rape of a child. He was released from custody just six days ago, even though he was facing  at seven additional felony charges in Washington state. Clemmons posted $15,000 Bond for release.

So there you have it, 13 felony convictions, including aggravated robbery and theft, third-degree assault, and second-degree rape of a child.

Even should he be found not connected with this horrible murder, there are many questions. What is Maurice Clemmons doing walking the streets? How could Governor Huckabee have paroled him? How did he obtain release from prison so shortly after offending again in 2001? Yet again he evaded serious assault charges and, most grievous of all, he was released from custody after raping a child! Can it really be true that $15,000 is all it takes to walk free after raping a child? Should Maurice Clemmons be walking our streets? Surely not.

So, What does this have to do with a Catholic blog? Simply this. I want to raise with you a consideration of  justice  and well ordered love. In considering questions of justice it has been most common in the past 40 years to have the emphasis fall on the rights and needs of the individual. There is clearly a place for such considerations. Justice cannot always be merely what the majority thinks. But neither can the common good be wholly set aside. This is especially true in matters of public safety. The record above shows that a very dangerous man is currently walking our streets. This is neither just nor is it sensible.  We may all want to show some leniency from time to time. Severe justice for first time offenders may not always be warranted. But there comes a time when greater charity and justice has to be shown to the public and the common good must outweigh any personal charity we may wish to extend.

The current record of our Criminal Justice System is that we simply do not seem to have the will to keep even very dangerous criminals locked up. They walk away from lengthy sentences after very short times. They usually offend again and we still let them go early from subsequent sentences. In the popular mind social justice is usually equated with the rights of prisoners. But true social justice cannot forget the common good and must weigh it in the balance with prisoner rights.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say:

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. ….The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party. (CCC # 2265-2266)

It is therefore clear that we do not detain and/or punish to exact revenge. Rather we do so for a twofold purpose: to protect the common good by ending the disorder caused by wrongdoers. And, secondly for the medicinal purpose of correcting the guilty party insofar as possible.

Somewhere it seems we have lost balance. Too often the common good is neglected, even wholly set aside in decisions related to criminal justice. Public authority must discover anew its grave duty to the common good and particularly to the lives of others. Good intentions are not enough. Real people get harmed and killed when we get the balance wrong. Ask the families of the four police officers killed. Ask the many people who were held up at gun point by Mr. Clemmons. Ask the child who was raped by him.

From 2000-2007 I was pastor in a very rough part of town here in DC. We just called it the “hood.” Every week there were shootings. At least once a month a murder took place on our streets. Two of the murders took place right on Church grounds, one during the school day when our school was in session. In every case, the perpetrators of these murders had rap sheets a mile long: armed robbery, car theft, selling and possession, attempted murder, actual murder. But they walked our streets. Arrested on very serious charges they were out in days. When trial finally came, sometimes years later,  they had already offended in other ways. When sentence was passed they served only tiny portions of their sentence and were back out. Nothing, it seemed, would cause a re-evaluation of this revolving door “justice.” And in the hood we lived with fear we should have had. We experienced crime we shouldn’t have.

The common good is not some abstraction. It is about real people. We cannot simply toss the rights of prisoners and accused to the winds. But neither can we simply disregard the common good.  The murder of these fine police officers is just as much a matter of justice as poor prison conditions or overly severe sentencing guidelines. True justice is about balance. Individual rights? Yes. The Common Good? Yes again.

Pray for these brave officers and their families: Sergeant Mark Renninger and Officers Ronald Owens, Tina Griswold, and Greg Richards. Requiescant in Pace.

officersx-wide-community

*
*

Posted on

Whither the Church?

As a Catholic and a priest I remain quite stunned at the decline in Mass attendance during my lifetime. When I was a little child I remember jam packed Masses, get there early or stand. In those days of the early to mid sixties if you put up four walls Catholics would fill them. There were waiting lists for the parochial School, lots of Religious Sisters, and there was not just an associate pastor or curate, there was a first, second, third and fourth curate. Long lines for confession on Saturdays were common then too.

But this is largely gone. Yes there are still some  large parishes in suburban areas but even they used to be a lot bigger. Weekly Mass attendance has gone from 80% to less than 30% Vocations are beginning to rebound but the usual experience is empty convents and largely empty rectories. An Associate Pastor is unknown in many parishes and in some parts of the country even a resident pastor is often missing.

There is no other way to describe this than “stunning.”  And I can hear all the usual arguments about why swimming in my brain. We abandoned tradition! No! Say others, we are not progressive enough!…..There are too many rules!  No,  say others our problem is that we abandoned all the rules!….I could go on. Everyone has their human explanations and there are lots of disagreements about them.

But what might God be doing or allowing? Now I know I am on difficult ground in attempting to ponder this question. But please be sure, I am merely pondering it, not proposing a complete answer. But I have often asked the Lord, “What’s up with the Church?….What has happened Lord?” I do not claim a bolt from heaven came in answer but just a gradual and increasing awareness that what we are experiencing is not really new. There does seem to be a Biblical precedent that in the past God has frequently seen fit to thin his ranks, to prune and purify his people. In the Old Testament as well as the New there seems to be a kind of remnant theology at work. That is to say, of the many followers of God, many if not most fall away and only a small remnant remain to begin again. Perhaps some examples from Scripture will help:

  1. There were Twelve Tribes in Israel. But ten of them were lost in the Assyrian Conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC. The Prophets had warned the Northern Kingdom of its wickedness but a refusal to repent brought the destruction promised. Those who did not die in the war were deported and disappeared by assimilating into the peoples around then. They are known as the Ten Lost tribes of Israel. Only a remnant, the Tribes of Judah and Levi survived in the Southern Kingdom of Judah.
  2. Judah too grew wicked and prophets warned of destruction. The Babylonians destroyed Judah, and Jerusalem with it,  in 587 BC They deported the survivors to Babylon. Eighty years later the Persians conquered the Babylonians and allowed the Jewish people to return to the Promised Land. But only a remnant went, most chose to stay in the Diaspora, preferring Babylon to the Land promised by God.
  3. Gideon had an army of 30,000 and faced the Midianites who had 60,000. But said to him, “Your Army is too large. Tell the cowards to go home.” So Gideon dismissed any of the soldiers who didn’t think they were up for this battle. 20,000 left. Now with only 10,000 God said to Gideon, “Your army is still too large, lest you think you would win this battle on your own.” So God had Gideon observe the men at the stream as they drank water. Some drank leisurely and others lapped up the water like dogs! “That’s your army,”  said the Lord, “300 men and I will be with you.”  Gideon won that day with three hundred men whom the Lord had chosen. God thinned his ranks, and chose only a remnant as his true soldiers. (cf Judges 6 & 7)
  4. Jesus too didn’t seem to trust big crowds. Some of his most difficult sayings come when there is a big crowd. In fact, anytime you see a mention of a large crowd in the Gospels, fasten your seat belt because I can guarantee you that a hard saying is coming!  Once when there was a large crowd, Jesus taught against divorce (Matt 5 & 19, Mark 10). Another time spoke to crowds and declared that no one could be his disciple unless they renounced their possessions took up a cross and followed (e.g. Luke 14). Yet another time Jesus taught on the Eucharist and many left him and would no longer walk in his company (Jn 6).

These are just a few examples of remnant theology in the Scriptures. There are many more. I would like to quote one last one from Zechariah because it also gets to the root of what God may be doing in our times, if my hunch is right. First the quote:

“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd,  against the man who is close to me!”  declares the LORD Almighty. “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones.  In the whole land,” declares the LORD, “two-thirds will be struck down and perish; yet one-third will be left in it.  This third I will bring into the fire;  I will refine them like silver  and test them like gold.  They will call on my name  and I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are my people,’  and they will say, ‘The LORD is our God.‘ ”  (Zech 13:6-9)

A stunning passage to be sure. But it also show the purpose of God thinning his ranks. There is something very mysterious as to why God allows many to stray and yet it is true  that we are free to stay or go. There seem to be times in the History of the Church and Israel that God allows many to depart, even “causes” them to depart as this passage describes it. It is a hard mystery to stomach. But I suppose I understand one aspect of it. It is currently pruning time here in the Northeast. My mighty rose bushes, eight feet tall have been pruned to one foot off the ground. And I had it done on purpose. But if my roses are to thrive next year and be beautiful, the prunings have to be done. The roses do not understand what I do, but I know of what I do. It is necessary, though painful. And God too knows of what he does and we cannot fathom it any more than my rosebushes fathom me. But he does it. And the 1/3 who remain in this passage must also be purified, refined as in fire. But when it is done:  pure gold. Those who remain and accept purification will call on God’s name. They will be a people, a Church after his own heart.

To me it has become clear that the Lord is pruning his Church. He is preparing us for spring. And we do in fact have a difficult winter we are enduring. But we’re being purified, cleansed. These are tough days for the Church but I already see signs of a great springtime ahead. There are many wonderful lay movements and growth areas in the Church. I am very impressed with the calibre of men entering the priesthood. These are men who love the Lord and His Church and who deeply desire to speak the truth in love. In my own Convent we have 25 young sisters of the Servants of the Lord, a wonderful new and missionary order. They too love the Lord and his Church and want to spread his gospel everywhere. Though our overall numbers of practicing Catholics are diminished, I see greater fervency in those who remain. In my own parish there are many who are devoted to prayer, bible study and praise of God. Eucharistic piety is stronger  in the Church today through adoration, daily mass. On the Internet there are many signs of excitement and zeal for the faith. Many wonderful blogs and websites are emerging to strengthen Catholics. EWTN is doing wonderful works and many Catholic Radio Stations have begun.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. God has pruned and is purifying us as Church. There are already many signs of this great work of God. I have no doubt that there are still some difficult winter days ahead before a full springtime sets in. But God never fails. He is renewing his Church and preparing us for whatever lies ahead. I realize this post will not  be without controversy. I do not propose it as the only answer to the times. Neither do I claim that fallen-away Catholics have simply been pruned as though we could know they will never return and be grafted on again. We should continue to Evangelize and seek to grow the Church by Christ’s own mandate. We cannot know when spring will set in fully and so we must step out as if it is already here.

Please remember a  blog is about discussion so feel free to comment. I do not propose this as a full answer but as a discussion starter: Add subtract, multiply but DON’T divide!  😉

Posted on

Follow-up: Bishop Tobin interviewed on Kennedy Case

BishopThomasTobinIn the video below, Bishop Thomas Tobin speaks well enough for himself on the decision to advise Congressman Patrick Kennedy not to receive Holy Communion. My remarks are thus brief. I want only to call your attention to a powerful reminder given by Bishop Tobin. About mid way through the interview he states simply but clearly that if a person’s career, job or position conflicts with their faith they should leave that career, job or position. In a world that esteems such things above almost anything else, this is an earth-shaking summons: faith is more important than any worldly blessing.  This insistence comports well with what Jesus says clearly in Scripture:

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. (Matt 6:24)

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matt 10:37-39)

Life in this world and faith are often in conflict and difficult choices are required of us. If Mr. Kennedy asserts (wrongly I think) that he cannot reconcile his faith in the matter of abortion to public policy, then he should choose his faith and leave the Congress. What is he first? A congressman or a Christian? It seems clear enough to me that he could remain a congressman if he simply refused to promote abortion rights and fund them. But since he (not the Church) says that as congressman he CANNOT vote pro-life, then Bishop Tobin, accepting the conflict that Kennedy insists he has, has invited him to choose.

Now the interview.

Posted on

A Founding Father Gives Thanks to God

We live is an age of demanded secularism. If a religious utterance is made by the State or Government officials the cry goes up from a small minority and there are the usual platitudes about “Separation of Church and State,” a phrase that does not occur in the Constitution. It is well true that the First Amendment requires that the State shall pass no law establishing an official state religion. That same amendment requires that the State not prohibit the free exercise of religion. But this second pillar, protecting religious expression is eroding. Increasing demands are made (even in the comments of this blog)  that religious bodies (especially the Catholic Church) have no  right to attempt any influence in the legislative process. They must “stay out” of  meetings with elected officials, testifying at hearings and seeking to influence public policy decisions. But this of course limits our ability to freely exercise our faith, a major pillar of which tells us to take it to the streets, to evangelize, to be a light to the world, to testify to the truth.

Many secularists argue that the Founding Fathers wanted it this way and that a wall of separation pleased them since most of them were either irreligious or deists. But what is interesting is a all the founding Fathers spoke freely of God and included appeals to God and God’s will  in their remarks. This is true even of Thomas Jefferson. Any visit to the Jefferson Memorial will demonstrate that. A  number of  his writings and speeches are chiseled on the walls, most of them referring to God. Most of these Founding Fathers who, according to modern secularists, want this dramatic separation of Church and State, were involved in drafting the Constitution. Most secularists love to point out that God is never mentioned in the Constitution. But actually He is, specifically Jesus is mentioned. The final line of the Constitution reads thus:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names:

In the year of our Lord?! Oops! Where did that come from?  I guess the drafters of the Constitution never got the memo that God is unmentionable in Government documents or functions. The Lord referred to is none other than Jesus Christ for the year corresponds to the years since his birth.

Now the first Signature on  the Constitution is George Washington. Apparently he too never got the memo about keeping God and religion out of things governmental because he mentions God not a little in his writings and talks. Since it is Thanksgiving I thought I might show a decree he published declaring that the U.S. should have a Day of Thanksgiving in 1789. The document is filled with references to God.  In fact,  if you read it with some enthusiasm you’d swear you’re listening to a Baptist preacher! Read and enjoy this Declaration of the First Official Thanksgiving.   Secularist beware! This is NOT a religion free zone 🙂

 Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best. Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

George Washington, President.

You Go Mr. President!

Posted on

Future Losses: Catholic Schools on the Brink – Time to Come Home!

We have discussed in the past on this blog that Catholic Education throughout the country is in serious crisis. The Washington Archdiocese is no exception. A combination of factors are to blame for the significant numbers of closings in this Archdiocese:

  1. The Loss of Opportunity Scholarships (vouchers),
  2. The increasing cost of running schools.
  3. Aging and expensive school buildings.
  4. The necessarily higher tuition rates put schools out of range for an increasing number of families.
  5. Fewer benefactors in hard economic times means fewer scholarships.
  6. Declining birthrates in Catholic families means there are simply fewer children to fill the seats
  7. Declining numbers of active catholics means Parish budgets are shrinking and fewer Catholics have to cover the increasing costs of parish subsidies for schools.
  8. Declining number of religious vocations to staff our schools.

An article appeared in the Washington Post on Tuesday that I would like to excerpt here and include some of my own commentary in RED

  • Catholic schools look at closing
  • 14 in District and Md. with lower enrollment discuss concerns
  • By Michael Birnbaum
  • Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Pastors at 14 churches in the Washington Archdiocese have warned that their schools could close or be reconfigured if enrollments continue to decline.

The schools are split evenly between the District and Maryland, and all serve students in kindergarten through eighth grade. Not all are in immediate threat of closure. But the meetings between pastors and school parents in the past month signal a further possible retrenchment of Catholic social services in the same month that the church announced it would pull Catholic Charities out of contracts with the city if it doesn’t change a proposed bill on same-sex marriage. And in the case of the threatened D.C. schools, the archdiocese is encouraging its parishioners to get politically involved.  Not so fast here! The Church has not announced that we will pull Catholic Charities out of anything. What we HAVE indicated is that we would no longer qualify to receive city funds in the care of the poor if the current Gay Marriage Bill is passed without further religious exemption. It is the CITY which is causing this possibility not the Church. It is the Church that will be kicked to the curb in this regard. We are not threatening to do anything, we will simply be disqualified by these draconian new laws. As for the education matter we are encouraging Catholics to get politically involved so as to get the congress to revisit their decision to shut down the Opportunity Scholarship Program (vouchers). The Congress has currently chosen unions over children. It is clear that options are best for children. Returning them to a failed Public School System is wrong. We need to politically organize parents and families to convince the congress that children are more important that unions and school bureaucracies.

“These are the schools that have an urgent need for the pastors to sit down with them to discuss the financial health of the community,” said Kathy Dempsey, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese. [The archdiocese operates 96 schools in the District and Maryland and serves 28,629 students, down 2.4 percent from last year, when it closed two schools in Southern Maryland. Two years ago, it gave up control of seven D.C. schools and converted them to public charters]. We did not covert them. We rented them to a high quality Charter provider so that the legacy of our school buildings to provide quality educational alternatives, especially to the poor would be maintained. The Current Charter Operator (Center City Public Charter Schools) does a fine job providing quality, values based education to largely inner city children. Catholic Education would still be better but this is a good fall back position given the current challenges in operating faith-based Catholic Schools.  Notice that these schools closed even prior to the end of vouchers. The schools that did remain open are, for the most part very fragile and the loss of the vouchers may well be the end of them. Vouchers alone cannot keep our schools open but they can provide an important life line that is part of the necessary mix in funding sources.

Dempsey said that people at the seven D.C. schools now under threat met to discuss the futureof the D.C. voucher program, which is up for reauthorization in Congress and was closed this year to new entrants. The seven schools have high proportions of students receiving the federal vouchers, which pay up to $7,500 in tuition for low-income families. Although no formal surveys have been done, Dempsey said many families will probably pull their children out of the schools if the program were discontinued. Dempsey said the church was encouraging the school communities at the meetings “to call Congress and mobilize,” and the archdiocese has been involved in several pro-voucher protests since August.

Of the seven schools in the District, St. Augustine School in Northwest has the highest percentage of voucher students: More than half of its 180 students received vouchers this year, and it was targeted by the archdiocese for conversion into a charter school in September 2007 until community backlash forced a reversal. This is not true. St. Augustine School was never slated for conversion. It was offered a palcein the new Consortium of Catholic Academies which would have kept it open and Catholic. The Parish chose not to accept membership in the Consortium and preferred to return the school to a parish based school. The parish committed to do the fundraising necessary to keep it open and thus far has been successful. The possible loss of half its students will be a serious blow however.  Holy Redeemer School, St. Ann’s Academy, Sacred Heart School, St. Anthony, St. Francis Xavier and St. Thomas More were the other schools in the District that had meetings. Voucher students account for at least a fifth of the students at all of them, Dempsey said.

The Maryland schools are St. Hugh School in Greenbelt, St. Jerome and St. Mark in Hyattsville, St. Catherine Labouré in Wheaton, St. Jude in Rockville, St. Michael the Archangel in Silver Spring and St. Michael in Ridge, in St. Mary’s County. The future of the voucher program doesn’t affect them, but they are suffering from declines in enrollment and charitable giving. As noted above, vouchers or public funding alone cannot save our schools (unless the funding levels were much higher) but some tuition assistance to students is an essential component of helping schools to stay open.

….Schools discussed options to make their operations more sustainable, ranging from increasing enrollment through community outreach to bolstering bank accounts through fundraising, Dempsey said. She said decisions about whether schools close will be made before the January enrollment process begins.

The bottom line is that it looks like we are heading for a smaller more regionally based Catholic School system. I would also like you to consider this fact: As a Church we can no longer sustain many of our programs, schools and parishes when only 27% of Catholics go to Mass regularly and support their parishes financially. In the end this is a people problem well before it is a money problem. People bring resources with them. A  lack of people people means a lack of resources. There are other factors listed above but the bottom line is that we are losing critical mass, we are losing synergy.

If you’re a lukewarm Catholic please consider how desperately you are needed. You may expect your parish to be there for you in times of need like weddings, baptisms and funerals but please consider that the “family Church” may close not long after the family school. Missing Mass on Sunday is not just a sin against God who is due our worship. It is not just a sin against your self  who needs Holy Communion. It is also a sin against others who need your prayers, presence, talents and resources. Together we can meet the challenges of providing schools and social services. Divided and lukewarm, we are slowly shutting down.

This video is from the Dicoese of Austin TX. But you’ll get the point:

Posted on

Pondering the Hermeneutic of Suspicion

I know! I apologize for using one of those rather haughty theological words: Hermeneutic!  I also know that many DO in fact know what the word means. But just in case you don’t let’s define. Fundamentally a “hermeneutic”  is an interpretive key, a way of seeing and understanding the world.

So what do I mean when I speak of a “hermeneutic of suspicion?” Well, consider the times in which we live. Most people  are suspicious of just about everything and everyone! It is a common and usual worldview that politicians lie, the Government is lying, big business is lying, advertisers are lying, the Church is lying. It is presumed that cover-ups are common and, even if there is not outright lying most people and organizations are just acting out of selfish motives and self-serving agendas. If their motives are not selfish they are otherwise bad motives: Liberal! Conservative! Bigoted! Homophobe! Hater! Infidel! Socialist! Selfish Capitalist! Reactionary! Well, you get the point. Everyone is simply dismissed because they  have an ”agenda” and this agenda is somehow less than pure, fair or neutral.

You may well think that some or much of what is said abouve is true. But in pondering this all-pervasive “hermeneutic of suspicion” I wonder if there do not have to be some limits to its application and conclusions. Is “everyone” really lying or just acting out of a less than pure agenda? Is it always wrong to have an agenda? Is self interest always a bad thing? Is it always wrong for groups to seek to influence the national discussion even if that influence serves their interest and worldview? Clearly lying is wrong and there is such a thing as lying but is everything I call lying really lying?

I don’t have simple answers to these questions and PLEASE understand I am not some moral relativist who is simply asking for everything to be murky and gray. But our culture is really overheated at the moment with suspicion. There is a pervasive presumption of the worst in terms of motives, sincerity and the like. It is getting harder and harder to have any kind of a conversation at all about issues without the names and the labels sallying forth and the impugning of motives. I don’t have a simple formula to come up with the right balance between a healthy skepticism and pathological suspicion but I would like to propose a few benchmarks toward a better balance.

1. Everyone DOES have an agenda and that is OK. It’s not wrong to have a worldview and to seek to influence others to that way of thinking. The very word “agenda” is intended as pejorative but it need not be. The problem seems to come up when everyone is defensive about having and “agenda.” Since that is somehow supposed to be “wrong”  we start to do unhealthy things. We often try to hide our truest agenda and paper it over with less than sincere descriptions of what we think and what we want. We start to talk in code and engage in political correctness, jargon and other circumlocutions that are not always true or at least frank. We become less transparent and this fuels suspicion. If we can just accept that we all have agendas and that’s fine, then we become more frank and honest, and suspicion recedes. In terms of full disclosure let me share my agenda: I am a Roman Catholic Christian and I believe everything that the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals. I believe Jesus Christ Founded the Catholic Church, that it is the one true Church. It is my desire that everyone on this planet become Roman Catholic and thus embrace the fullness of the faith given by Jesus Christ and revealed through the Apostles. Clear enough? That’s my agenda.

2. Self interest is not always bad– I do a lot of organizing work in the neighborhood working with the Washington Interfaith Network, a local chapter of the Industrial Areas Foundation. One of our key principles is to help people identify their interests and then act upon them. If they want more affordable housing, great! Then let’s work to find others who have a similar interest and build power around that shared interest. Self interest can be a powerful motivator toward great ends. Instead of being suspicious and cynical that people have self interest in mind, what if we just accepted that this is the universal human condition and used it to engage people for good ends? It’s not wrong to care about myself. I really ought to get my needs met and that also helps others because I am less of a burden on them. If ALL we care about is our self that is a problem. But most people instinctively understand that their self interest is linked to the good of others too. My life is more secure and stable if there is a healthy, strong and vibrant neighborhood. So I can be engaged around my own interests to work for a just and healthy world. The fact that I get something out it does make my motives somehow impure. But the hermeneutic of suspicion demands “pure” motives and unrealistically defines pure as completely selfless. What if we just stopped all that and accepted that people act on what interests them and that it isn’t necessarily bad. Accepting this makes us less suspicious and cynical.

3. Faith and Trust in the Church are an essential balance to the hermeneutic of suspicion– While it is true that we have to be sober that live in a world where lies are told and where motives are not always pure, it is also true that we have to refuse radical suspicion and cynicism. There IS truth, and there are those who do speak and teach the truth. We must find and seek those harbors of the truth and build and lower our anchor there. For Catholics, the harbor of the truth is the Church. Scripture describes the Church as the Pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).  One of the great tragedies of the hermeneutic of suspicion is that many Catholics have adopted this attitude  toward the Church.  Yes, there is sin and even corruption in the Church, but despite that the Church has never failed to hand on the authentic truth of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ does speak through his Church. I emphatically trust that fact. I believe and profess all that the Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to have been revealed by God. I can do no other. This is my faith. I trust God and believe that he speaks through the Catholic Church despite whatever human weakness is evident in the Church. God can write straight with crooked lines and he can teach infallibly even despite human weakness in the Church.  Without a harbor of truth the hermeneutic of suspicion can and will overwhelm us. We will mistrust everyone and everything and have no real way to sort out all the conflicting claims and counterclaims. Without faith and trust both in God and in the Church I am lost, adrift on a sea of suspicion and cynicism and the hermeneutic of suspicion overwhelms me. This is sadly true today of so many who are cut off from the truth thinking they can trust no one. In them the hermeneutic of suspicion has its most devastating effect. The lack of trust locks them into a tiny world, dominated by suspicion and doubt. Only the gift of faith and trust can diminish such deep suspicion.  With faith we can measure all things by God’s truth and know what is true from what is false. We have a measuring rod to judge what is true and thus we need not flee to suspicion.

This video fits with my agenda! 😉

Posted on

Jesus is God – A Biblical Portrait

Many years ago in seminary I was quite surprised to listen to some of my professors declare what I considered to be heretical things about Jesus Christ. They often said, he did not claim to be God, or he did not know he was God. When I might meekly suggest a certain text that more than suggested he darn well knew he was divine they would simply declare that Jesus never really said what I was quoting from the scripture. They said the early church simply put those words in his mouth. They would especially put their nose in the air and sniff if I quoted from John’s Gospel which they regarded as a later and non-historical reflection on Christ.

Thankfully I had some other professors who were able to reassure me that the Divinity of Christ was not in question and that the scriptures accurately what reported what Jesus himself actually said and did. It still shocked me that teachers who denied or questioned the divinity of Christ could openly teach in a Catholic seminary and am happy to report that those problems have long since been cleared up at the seminary I attended. Yet, I must say, I am still bothered to hear that some college students still have to endure this sort of heresy, it is especially grievous to me that some of this still goes on at Catholic Colleges.

Never one to simply collapse under pressure or discouragement I took up the challenge to assemble the Biblical evidence as to Jesus’ Divinity. It is remarkably rich and consistent throughout all the New Testament Books as you shall see. In this article I give the scripture citations for the most part but cannot include most of the texts in the article since they are so numerous that they would eclipse the article itself. Perhaps at some point in the future I will publish a version with all the citations spelled out. For now, let these  suffice to show forth a glorious scriptural affirmation of the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ

1. Clearly this is a dogma of the Faith (de Fide). The divinity and divine sonship of Jesus is expressed in all the creeds. This is perhaps most clearly stated in the Athanasian Creed (Quicumque):”…we believe and confess that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is God and man. He is God begotten of the substance of the Father before all ages and man born in time of the substance of His Mother. He is Perfect God and perfect man.”

2. There are many passages in the Old Testment that express the qualities of the coming Messiah, among them are some very exalted titles:

  • a prophet – (Dt. 18:15,18)
  • a priest – (Psalm 109:4)
  • a shepherd – (Ez 34:23ff)
  • King and Lord – (Ps 2; Ps 44; Ps 109; Zach 9:9)
  • a suffering servant – (Is. 53)
  • the Son of God – (Ps 2:7; 109:3)
  • God with us (Emmanuel) – (Is 7:14; Is 8:8)
  • Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of the world to come, Prince of Peace – (Is 9:6)
  • Eternal King – (Dan 7:14)

3.  In the New Testament the Father attests to the Divine Sonship of Jesus – (Mt 3:17; 17:5; Mk 9:7; Lk 3:22; 9:35; Jn 1:34; II Pt 1:17)

4. In the Gospels the Lord Jesus gives Testimony to His own divinity and self knowledge. He is of noble stature and knows of his own dignity and power expressing it often in the following ways

  • Jesus indicates that he transcends the prophets and Kings of the Old Covenant
    • Jonah and Solomon – (Mt 12:41ff; Lk 11:31ff)
    • Moses and Elijah – Matt 17:3; Mk 9:4; Lk 9:30
    • King David – (Mt 22:43ff Mk 12:36; Lk 20:42ff)
    • He says that the least born into His Kingdom will be greater than John the Baptist who, till  that time was considered the greatest man born of woman – (Mt 11:11; Lk 7:28)
  • Jesus teaches that he is superior to the angels:
    • That they are his servants who minister to Him – (Mt 4:11 Mk 1:13; Lk 4:13)
    • That they are his army – (Mt 26:53)
    • That they will accompany him at his second coming and do his will -Mt 16:27; 25:31; Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26)
  • Jesus appropriates Divine actions unto himself and thus sets forth an assimilation unto the Lord God:
    • He declares it was He who sent the prophets and doctors of the Law (Mt 23:34; Lk 11:49)
    • He gives the promise of his assistance and Grace (Lk 21:15)
    • He forgives sins which power belongs to God alone (eg Mt 9:2)
    • He, by His own authority completes and changes some precepts of the Law. (Mt 5:21ff)
    • He declares Himself to be Lord of the Sabbath (Mt 12:8; Mk 2:28; Lk 6:5; Jn 5:17)
    • Like the Heavenly Father he makes a Covenant with His followers (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20)
  • Jesus makes Divine demands upon his followers
    • He rebukes some for lack of faith in (Mt 8:10-12; 15:28)
    • He rewards faith in him (Mt 8:13; 9:2; 22:29; 15:28; Mk 10:52; Lk 7:50; 17:19)
    • He demands faith in his own person (Jn 14:1; 5:24; 6:40,47; 8:51; 11:25ff)
    • He teaches that rejection of him and his teachings will be the standard of final judgement (Lk 9:26; Mt 11:6)
    • Jesus demands supreme Love for him which surpasses all earthly loves (Mt 10:37,39; Lk 17:33).
    •  He accepts religious veneration by allowing the veneration of falling to the feet: this is due to God alone (Mt 15:25; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 28:9,17)
  • Jesus is well conscious of His own power – Mt 28:18
    • His many miracles which he works in his own Name.
    • He transfers this power to his disciples
  • Jesus knows and teaches that his own death will be an adequate atonement for the forgiveness of the sins of the whole human race. (Mt 20:28; 26:28)
  • Jesus appropriates to himself the office of Judge of the world which according to the OT (eg Ps 49:1-6) God would exercise (eg Mt 16:27) . And His judgement extends to every idle word (Mt 12:36), will be final and executed immediately – (Mt 25:46)
  • Jesus is Conscious of being the Son of God.
    • Jesus clearly distinguishes his claim in this regard from his disciples relationship to the Father. When he speaks of his own relationship he says, “My Father” To the disciples he calls God, “Your Father” but, He never unites himself with them in the formula “Our Father” Thus a distinction is maintained. (Jn 20:17)
    • Jesus revealed himself to be Son of God first in the temple when he remarked to Mary and Joseph that He must be about his Father’s business (Lk 2:49)
    • Jesus claims to be both messiah and Son of God in the presence of the Sanhedrin (Mk 14:62). The Sanhedrin perceive this as a blasphemy.
    • Jesus tells a story of himself in the Parable of the Evil Husbandmen thus confessing himself to be the only Son of God.
    • He is aware of being one with the Father (“The Father and I are one.” (Jn 10:30,38) They Jews respond by accusing Him of blasphemy
  • Jesus indicates in John’s Gospel that
    • He is eternal “Before Abraham was I am” (Jn 8:58)
    • That He has full knowledge of the Father (Jn 7:29; 8:55;10:14ff)
    • He has equal power and efficacy with the Father (Jn 5:17)
    • He can forgive sins (Jn 8:11 et sicut supra)
    • He is Judge of the World (Jn 5:22,27 & sicut supra)
    • He is rightly to be adored (Jn 5:23)
    • He is the light of the world (Jn 8:12)
    • He is the way, the truth and the light (Jn 14:6)
    • His disciples may and ought to pray to the Father in His name, additionally they may to Him (Jesus) (Jn 14:13ff 16:23ff)
    • The solemn confession of the Apostle Thomas “My Lord and my God.” is acceptable and in fact, an act of Faith (Jn 20:28)
  • Other Scripture Passages on the Divinity of Christ
    • I John 5:20 – “And we know that the Son of God is Come and has given us Understanding that we may know the true God and may be in His True Son; this is the True God and Life Eternal.”
    • John 1:1-14 “In the beginning was the Word and the  Word was with God and the Word was God…..”
    • Phil 2:5-11 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped…and every tongue must confess to the Glory of God the Father that Jesus Chirst is Lord.
    • Rom 9:5 – “to them, (the Israelites) belong the patriarchs and of their race, according to the flesh is the Christ, who is God over all blessed for ever.”
    • Titus 2:13 “Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ.”
    • Heb 1:8 – “But to the Son (God says): Your Throne, O God is for ever and ever.”
  • In addition Scripture attributes Divine qualities to Jesus
    • Omnipotence manifest in the creation and the conservation of the World – Col 1:15-17; I Cor 8:6; Heb 1:2ff
    • Omniscience – Col 2:3 – In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge….
    • Eternity – Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together
    • Immutability – Heb 1:12; 13:8
    • Adorability – Phil 2:10; Heb 1:6

Well I hope you get the point. Those who claim that Jesus didn’t know he was God or never made divine claims just haven’t read the Scriptures. He is Lord. He is God. All things came to be through him and he holds all creation together in himself. Those who have denied his divinity will one day fall to their faces before his glory (Rev. 1:17).

Posted on

A Strange Sort of Logic – The Kennedy Case

There is news today the Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence RI, and the Bishop of Patrick Kennedy has advised him to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. This was announced by the Congressman himself. What is the reason that someone in Mr. Kennedy’s situation might be instructed to to refrain? As you may be aware, Holy Communion is not just communion with Jesus Christ in a personalised sense, it is communion with the Body of Christ the Church. A Catholic who receives communion is is not just saying in an abstract sort of way,  “I believe in Jesus.” They are also saying, I share communion with his mystical Body on earth, the Church. I believe in one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I believe that when  the Church speaks solemnly and authoritatively that it is Jesus Christ who speaks. For Scripture records that Jesus said to the apostles and their successors, “He who hears you hears me.” Hence, our communion with Christ is not just an abstract Christ, a Christ of our own making, it is communion with the Christ defined in the Scriptures who also has a Body, the Church which actually speaks in his name. Holy Communion is thus communion with Christ and his body the Church, which speaks in his name. In recent months Congressman Kennedy has made declarations that it is possible for him to vote for abortion rights and to vote to fund abortion and still be a Catholic in good standing. He has repeated this claim over the objections of his own Bishop and he has done this publicly. His Bishop has instructed that he cannot consider his communion with the Church to be intact by such actions. Hence Holy Communion cannot rightfully be celebrated when such a lack of communion on a serious matter is lacking. If communion means something, and it does: communion with Christ and communion ALSO with his Body the Church, then it is not possible to celebrate a communion that is severely lacking.

There can be a further reason for a Bishop, or any pastor for that matter,   to advise someone to refrain from communion and that is the matter of serious sin.  One of the first Pastors of the Church, St. Paul instructed the faithful to receive Communion worthily:

Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. (1 Cor 11:27-32)

Notice therefore that since we recognize the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of the Lord, to receive communion unworthily, that is in serious sin, is to sin against the Body and Blood of the Lord and to bring judgment upon oneself. Any good Pastor ought to warn the faithful who seem to be in objectively sinful situations to carefully examine themselves and confess lest they come under further judgment by unworthy reception. Notice too that St. Paul sees this being disciplined as a kind of medicine. Hence if we accept the judgement of the Church and the disciplining of the Lord we may well be saved when the world is condemned on Judgment Day. Discipline at the time it is administered seems obnoxious (cf Heb 12) but if it is accepted it can lead to a change of heart and ultimately to salvation on the Day of  Judgement. It is an objectively serious sin to promote abortion and even more serious to vote to fund it. It is to be hoped that Congressman Kennedy and others might think seriously about what they are doing and come to a whole hearted acceptance of the Lord’s teaching on Life.

Thus we have the background issues as to why a Bishop might instruct a member of his flock to refrain from Communion.

Patrick Kennedy unfortunately is not alone. He speaks for a lot of Catholics who think they can invent their own Church and establish communion with that Church. Further, that they can call the Church that they invent  the “Catholic Church” and claim that they are in union with a this fictional Catholic Church and ultimately with Christ,  who is supposedly the head of this fictional Church. Bishop Tobin has warned Mr. Kennedy and others like him that they cannot simply invent their own Church and call it Catholic. There is an actual Church, founded by Christ, that is defined by him. It is not a Church of our own invention. It is rooted in the teachings of Christ and cannot simply be refashioned according to the whim or recipe of anyone other than what Jesus Christ has given. Even the bishops and the Pope cannot recast the Church. We have clear tradition and the Scriptures which must serve as the basis of the of how we understand ourselves. The Church is the servant of the Word of God, not its master. We must interpret and understand the Word of God but we cannot and must not over ride it.

Bishop Tobin has asked Congressman Kennedy to be honest and understand that he is not in communion with the real Catholic Church. Communion with the real Church has real parameters. There are just some things not compatible with being a Catholic and in communion with the real Catholic Church. There is a “bridge too far” that cannot be crossed for me to claim I am still in my homeland. At some point I have left the motherland , at some point I no longer speak my mother-tongue, the language of faith.

In the video below Congressman Kennedy has indicated that the bishops and the Church are simply guilty of being divisive and “fanning the flames of dissent and discord.” But Mr, Kennedy you have it exactly backwards. In the Catholic Church the bishops in union with the Pope ARE  unity and accord! It is those who break union with the Bishop and Pope who are guilty of dissent and discord. If you claim to be Catholic you cannot also claim to be working for unity when you oppose the Pope and bishops in union with him. They ARE the source of our unity. This is not new idea. St Ignatius of Antioch stated it all pretty clearly when he said:

It is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey [your bishop], in honour of God who has willed us [so to do], since he that does not so deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible….I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ,… As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters…. let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled.  (Ignatius to the Church at Magnesia 3,6-7)

It is simply impossible to speak of unity in the Catholic Church apart from the Pope and the bishops in union with him.  Congressman Kennedy, you are the one guilty of disunity and discord if you walk away from the Pope and the Bishops in union with him on important moral issues of our day. It is a strange sort of logic to break union union with the Pope and bishops and then accuse them of breaking union and sowing disunity and discord.  The bishops in union with the pope are not the source of disunity, they are the STANDARD of unity and the source of union for every Catholic.