Posts

Posted on

On Running to Meet God – An Advent Reflection

Advent is beginning to wind to a close and even liturgically the focus has now turned toward the Christmas Feast. However, still in Advent, we look for the Lord to come. We still wait on the Lord, wait for him to come in glory.

We have all been well schooled in the in the understanding that the word “Advent” means “coming.”  This is fine and accurate but there is one danger to avoid in our current notion of Advent,  and that is that we are not merely passive as we look for the Lord or wait for him to come.  It is not just that the Lord is coming to us but we are also journeying to him. In fact we are running to meet him.

There is an image of the Prodigal Son that comes to mind. His Father saw him and ran toward him, but he too was hastening to his Father with contrition and hope. Yes, in Advent we do look for the Lord’s coming. But the Lord also looks for us as we come to him by faith.  We, like the prodigal son, consider our need for salvation, and with contrition, (did you get to confession this advent?), hasten to meet our Lord, whom we know by faith is coming to us.

This notion of our running to meet God has not been well articulated in the Liturgies of the English speaking world since about 1970. Since 1970 we have been using a translation that is really more of a paraphrase. Much has been left out of the current translation, including this notion of us running to the Lord in the Advent prayers. Happily it looks like a much more accurate translation will begin to be used next Advent. So let’s look at the how the new translation will set forth these prayers and how the theme of our running to meet God, even as he is coming to us, is set forth:

  1. Grant your faithful, we pray, almighty God, the resolve to run forth to meet your Christ with righteous deeds at his coming, so that, gathered at his right hand, they may be worthy to possess the heavenly kingdom.  (First Sunday of Advent)
  2. Almighty and merciful God, may no earthly undertaking hinder those who set out in haste to meet your Son, but may our learning of heavenly wisdom gain us admittance to his company. (Second Sunday of Advent)
  3. Stir up your mighty power, O Lord. and come to our help with a mighty strength, so that what our sins impede, the grace of your mercy may hasten. (Thur of the First Week of Advent).
  4. Grant that your people, we pray , almighty God, may be ever watchful for the coming of your Only Begotten Son, that, as the author of our salvation himself has taught us, we may hasten, alert with lighted lamps, to meet him when he comes. (Friday of the Second Week of Advent)
  5. May the reception of your sacrament strengthen us O Lord, so that we may go out to meet our savior, with worthy deeds when he comes, and merit the rewards of the blessed. (post communion, Dec 22)

Thus, we are not counselled to “wait on the Lord” in a merely passive sense as though we were sitting still and waiting for a bus to arrive. Rather we are counselled to “wait on the Lord” in an active sense, much as when we speak of a waiter in a restaurant waiting on tables. Such a form of waiting is a very active form of waiting. Alert and aware, the waiter or waitress carefully observes the needs of others around them and serves their brothers and sisters. The good ones strive to avoid distraction and do their job of serving well and with swiftness.

Notice too how the prayers indicate what it means to “run.”  We do not run aimlessly or in frantic circles. Rather running to the Lord means:

  1. Being engaged in righteous deeds (holiness) by God’s grace.
  2. Not being hindered by worldly preoccupations and distractions.
  3. Learning heavenly wisdom.
  4. Receiving the Lord’s mercy unto the forgiveness of our sins.
  5. Being alert and ready for the Lord’s coming, the lamp of our soul trimmed (humble and purged of sin) and burning (alive with fiery love).
  6. Strengthened by the Eucharist which is our food for the journey.

St. Paul speaks of running too:

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I discipline my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize (1 Cor 9:24-27).

Are you running to meet the Lord? Or are you just waiting? Advent involves looking and waiting, but it also means running, running to meet the Lord who is coming to us. Run!

Posted on

Crisis at Christmas – A Reflection on the Gospel for the 4th Sunday of Advent

The Gospel today gives us some background for the Christmas feast that we need to take to heart. It speaks to us of a crisis at Christmas. We tend to sentimentalize the Christmas story as we think of the “baby Jesus in the manger.” It is not absolutely wrong to be sentimental about Christmas but we also have to be prayerfully sober about how difficult that first Christmas was and the heroic virtue required of Mary and Joseph in order to cooperate with God in its coming to pass.

 Let’s look at the gospel in three stages: Distress, Direction and Decision.

 1. DISTRESS  – The text of the Gospel says, This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the Holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly.

The Marriage is off – When we read in this text that Mary was found to be with child before Joseph and she were together, we need to understand how devastating and dangerous this situation is. The pregnancy prior to marriage brought forth a real crisis for both families involved in Joseph and Mary’s marriage plans. Quite simply, it put all plans for the marriage permanently off.

Why is this? We read in the text above that Joseph was “a righteous man.”  To our ears this sounds akin to saying he “was a good man.” Most of the Fathers of the Church interpret “righteous” here refer generally to his gracious character and virtue. And we surely suppose all this of him. More recent biblical scholarship also includes the notion that to say he was “a righteous man” also  means that he was “an observer of the Law.” He would thus do what the law prescribed. And this explains his decision to divorce Mary on account of her apparent lack of virginity prior to the marriage. Here is an example of the Mosaic Law in reference to such a matter:

But if  the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then  they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.(Deut 22:20-21)

 This of course is quite extreme to modern ears, but we can see too how far we have come in making light of promiscuity compared to ancient times. No one would argue that such a thing be done today, and rightly so. However this was the landscape taht the Law provided Joseph.

 What about stoning? It would seem that Jews of the First Century had varying interpretations about whether stoning was required or simply permitted (cf  John 8). Joseph, on account of his virtue and patience, looks for and senses some freedom in not exposing Mary to the full effects of the Law (stoning). But it does not seem he can see a way that he can take her into his home. Thus, as a “righteous man” (i.e. follower of the Law) it seems he decides that divorce is surely required, even if stoning is not.

 Now this leads us to two important reflections. One about Mary, and one about Joseph.

Regarding Mary, we can see what a difficult and dangerous position her “yes” (her fiat) to angel placed her. She risked her very life by being found in this conception outside the normal marital act with her husband. WE know that it is by the Holy Spirit she conceives, but her family and Joseph and his family do not know this, or at least cannot verify it. And even if Mary indicated exactly how she conceived, do you think YOU would merely accept such a story? Mary’s fiat  placed her in a real danger, culturally speaking  and it is a great testimony to her faith and trust in God that she said yes to his plans.

 Regarding Joseph we can also see the kind of pressure he would be under to do what the Law and custom required. There is no mention of Joseph’s feelings at this point. But we can assume when Mary was “found to be with child” prior to the couple’s being together in Marriage,  the social pressures on him from  family  to be rid of Mary were likely strong, whatever his feeling or plans for her were.

As we shall see, Joseph too will undertake great risk to obey God. And thus we go to the second stage of the story.

 2. DIRECTION – The text from the Gospel says, Such was his intention [to divorce] when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said,  “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the Holy Spirit  that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus,  because he will save his people from their sins.”

Be not afraid – One will note that the principle exhortation of the angel that Joseph “not be afraid” to take Mary as his wife. This exhortation is powerful since fear WAS a very big factor in this whole matter. Joseph had much to fear in taking Mary. Some of the Fathers of the Church indicate that the thing the angel said he should not fear was God’s wrath, since in fact, he would not actually be taking an adulterer or fornicator into his home. One can also imagine however some other fears that also needed to be consoled by the angel. For example, Joseph could  easily be rejected by his family for taking Mary in. Likewise neighbors and others could shun him. As a business man Joseph needed a good reputation to be able to use his skills and ply a trade. All of these threats loom if Joseph bucks the law and custom and “brings evil into his house” rather than “purge the evil from the midst”  of his house. But the angel directs his not to fear. This will take courageous faith.

The angel’s explanation is unusual to say the least. What does it mean to conceive by the Holy Spirit? Not exactly a common occurrence! Would his family buy such an explanation? What of the others in the small town of Nazareth? Yes, people were more spiritual in those days, but it all seems so unusual. Further, Joseph hears all this in a dream. We all know what dreams can be like. They can seem so real, but when we are fully awake we wonder if what we experienced was real at all. Joseph too has to trust that what he was told is real and that he should not fear. God has given him direction. But as is often the case with things spiritual, we have to carefully discern and walk by faith, not by fleshly sight and certitude. Joseph has a decision to make.

 3. DECISION – The text from the Gospel says,  When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.

Now given all that we have reflected upon, we can see the strong faith of Joseph and the kind of trust he had to put in God. He had been told not to be afraid, to rebuke fear. Joseph manfully does this. He makes his decision to obey God whatever the cost. We are given no information on how his family and others in the town may have reacted. However, the fact that the Holy family later settles back in Nazareth indicates that God did come through on his promise that Joseph need not be afraid.

Heroes of Faith! But here again note the crisis of that first Christmas and the powerful faith of Joseph and Mary. Quite literally their reputations were on the line, if not their very lives. They had great sacrifices to make in the wondrous incarnation of our Lord. Quite simply Mary and Joseph are great heroes of the faith. For neither of them was their “yes”  easy. It is often hard to obey God rather than men. Praise God that they made their decision and obeyed.

And, as we know their difficulties were not over in the crisis of that first Christmas. There was a badly timed census which required a journey to Bethlehem in the ninth month of Mary’s pregnancy. Imagine walking 70 miles through mountainous terrain in the ninth month! There may or may not have been a donkey, but I doubt riding a donkey in the ninth month is all that comfortable either. Then there was no room in the inn and Jesus had to be born in a smelly animal stable. Shortly thereafter they must flee through the desert to Egypt for Herod sought to kill Jesus.

Jesus is found in a real Christmas, not a hallmark one.  The crisis of the first Christmas prefigures the passion. But this where Jesus is found: in the crisis of the first Christmas. You may hope for the perfect Christmas but there is no perfect Christmas. Yet, Jesus will find you where you are – in real life, in the imperfect Christmas where loved ones may have been recently lost and there is grief, where a job has just been lost and there is anxiety, where health is poor or families are experiencing stress and strife. That’s where Jesus will be found, in your real Christmas. A Christmas of Joy, yes, but also of imperfections, even crises. He is there waiting for you to find him, in the real Christmas of your life.

This song is an old African American Spiritual that reflects on the fact that true discipleship isn’t always easy. Joseph and Mary surely experience and exemplify what the these words say:

I tol’ Jesus it would be all right
If He changed my name

Jesus tol’ me I would have to live humble
If He changed mah name

Jesus tol’ me that the world would be ‘gainst me
If He changed mah name

But I tol’ Jesus it would be all right
If He changed mah name

Posted on

A Ghost of Christmas-Present

Bah Humbug!

For years, I have been a Scrooge! Let me distinguish that from a “Grinch.” The latter wishes to steel Christmas. I don’t wish diminish the joy of people who seem to love the season. For years, I just haven’t happened to be one of those people. Thus, I am a “Scrooge” not a “Grinch”

More specifically, I grimace at the first decorations that appear in the mall. I wince at the thought of shopping and I really find decorating an unwelcome chore.  When asked, “What do you want for Christmas?” my response is often less-than-charitable.  And, as a matter of further disclosure, I was born on December 25th.  That alone is enough reason to be a Scrooge.  (More on the pains of being a Christmas baby later)

Now, of course as a Christian, I joyfully celebrate the “Solemnity of the Nativity of Our Lord”. The theological significance of the day is not lost on me but, I just don’t like the secularism that intrudes on the season. And I recently realized that I have allowed my disdain for the secularism of Christmas to diminish the spiritual joy the season should bring.

The Ghost of Christmas Present

Like Ebenizer Scrooge, God sent me a “Ghost of Christmas Present.”  However, she isn’t ghost but rather one of the English teachers at my school. This young colleague discovered my lack of enthusiam about Christmas and set herself on a mission to get me to better like the season. She is the type of young teacher that has an abundance of innocent idealism, much of which I have abandoned years ago.  And, through the grace of God, some of her idealism penetrated the hardened heart that I have unfortunately developed over the years about Christmas.

Welcomed insubordination

She admitted flat out, “Curtis, I am going to get you to like Christmas!” to which I replied, “Don’t try!”  Now, that sounded like a pretty clear order to me.  It was clear to her too but, she thankfully chose to be insubordinate.

First, when my school had a door decorating competition, I hung a “bah humbug” sign on my office door. Against my wishes, she took upon herself to decorate my door as pictured. Then, she insisted that I wear red and green one day (I didn’t do that one!). She even tried saying “Merry Christmas” in the most annoying way every time she passed me in the hallway.  Of course, I replied each time with a hearty, “Bah Humbug!”

Finally she sent me an email that contained the following:

“At this time of year, people come together, even though you are the scrooge of the season, it is a time when you can really hope and pray for a light in the darkness, its a time where anything is possible….Mary gave birth as a virgin in a barn for goodness sake.

It is a time when people think about each other, families re-unite, make great journeys to see each other, good friends, old friends and distant friends take the time to send a card that has been selected just for them, with really personalized contents.

Of course it would be nice to do that all year round, but lets face it, it isn’t possible really!….Its also a time when you can talk about Christ, where Jesus can penetrate, all-be-it subtly, every mall, home and even every public school. You can spread the Gospel just by humming a carol.

This is your time to go out and really minister to those who usually would not otherwise be open to listening.”

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Brothers and sisters, this came from a young teacher. This is someone I am supposed to be guiding and mentoring. But sometimes, the Holy Spirit allows the master to become the student. And the real miracle, she restored some of the idealism that I abandoned long ago.

Normally, if a teacher is insubordinate, I would write them up.  So, for the record, a hard copy of this blog entry will go into her file.

Thank you Ms. Waterhouse, English Teacher and Friend, Saint Frances Academy!

Oh, and Merry Christmas too!

Posted on

The Pope’s View of the Historical-Critical Method of Biblical Interpretation

I must that I was never all that enamored by the historical critical method of interpreting Scripture. I’ll say more of why in a moment. But some of you may be wondering what the historical critical method is. (If you want to skip my little lesson and some personal reflections of mine and go right to the Pope (instead of mere Msgr. Pope), the quote is at the bottom of the Page in bold italics).

The historical-critical method investigates the origins of a text and compares them to other texts written at the same time, before, or recently after the text in question. Did other ancient texts, whether biblical or non-biblical, adopt similar forms, use similar ingredients, story-lines, allegories, metaphors and the like. The Historical Critical method focuses on the sources of a document to determine who wrote it, when it was written, and where. What do we know of the author and his times? How was he influenced by them? What was his personal story? What other texts did he write and how do they compare what is before us? How does the writing we are studying compare to similar documents of the time? For example, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all very similar in terms of their basic content of what Jesus said and did. However they also have significant differences. How do we understand and explain the differences? Is one of the three “synoptic” (called this because of their similarity to each other) Gospels more historically reliable than the others as to detail? Why is the Gospel of John so different in tone and content that the other three and what are we to make of this? And so forth.

As such though, the historical critical method focuses primarily, almost exclusively, on the human origins of a text. Of itself this is not wrong, but it is incomplete. The Scriptures are a document of faith, more specifically of the believing community of the Church. They are inspired texts, with God the Holy Spirit as their ultimate author. Further, the role faith in the communities from which the biblical texts emerged is also a significant factor. Hence the biblical text is not merely understood as an historical utterance, but one that was understood and interpreted by those who believed and who also influenced the process of collecting the sacred writings and discerning what was of God. But this process was guided by the Holy Spirit.

The human dimension in all these things is important and essential and the historical critical method is right to explore this dimension, for God the Holy Spirit did not choose to act independently of the human personalities involved or of the believing community of the early Church. But neither was God wholly bound by these things or limited by them. Thus the historical critical method can only be one dimension of proper biblical understanding.

Regarding Sacred Scripture’s human dimension the Catechism has this to say:

In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression. (CCC # 110)

My own struggle – As I have already admitted, I have struggled to be enthusiastic about the historical-critical method. This begins for personal reasons. When I was in Seminary the method was insisted on by some, (not all), of my professors as the only real and valid method of Scripture study. They were zealots of a sort and any suggestion of a world outside this method was dismissed by them. They also isolated themselves historically, since this method is rather a new one. Hence, just about anything written on scripture prior to 1900 was not considered very tenable by them. I remember once turning in a paper wherein I quoted a scriptural commentary from the 1870s. The Teacher simply circled the date in red and had nothing further to say of the point.

I was also troubled by the strong tendency of the historical-critical method to doubt the existence of the miracles recorded in scripture. Not all scholars do this, but the more usual explanation of the miracles were that they were either literary devices, or just epic legends that were common of ancient near eastern and middle eastern texts. Further, claims that Jesus made of his divinity were somehow to be understood as later additions, not something Jesus actually said. Many adherents of the historical critical method were also dismissive of John’s Gospel and tended to sniff at most details there. They considered what they called “the fourth Gospel” to be more theological reflection than actual history, hence it had little offer that they were not quite skeptical of. It did little good to quote John’s Gospel to some of my professors.

De-mystified – Generally speaking then, my experience of the historical-critical method was that it de-mystified the scriptures and saw them only in human terms. The over-arching role of the Holy Spirit as the true and primary author was set aside and, thus, Mark’s gospel was favored over say, John’s and so forth. Since some of my professors were zealots for the method. Asking questions, even in good faith, was considered a veiled rejection of the method and was not usually received well.

And yet I also knew the human dimensions and historical context of the Scripture were important. But getting past the odious qualities of zealots, and the over-emphasis they placed on the human, made it harder for me to learn from them or the method they proposed.

I write all this to introduce the Pope’s reflections on the historical critical method. At heart he is a professor and is thus very careful to distinguish and to realize that the truth is often found in dialogue with various disciplines. He is able therefore to take what is good in the method and describe what is lacking or in need of balance and correction. He does this gently yet clearly. I find his distinctions helpful, especially due to my personal history. I trust the Pope and need someone I trust to say to me, “There is something good here and worthy of acceptance, and there are also some tendencies to avoid.”

This excerpt is from the Pope’s recent book Light of the World. It begins with a question by Peter Seewald which articulates many of the concerns I just expressed and then there is the Pope’s answer.

SEEWALD: The historical-critical method had its merits, but it also led fatefully to an erroneous development. Its attempt to “demythologize” the Bible produced a terrible superficiality and a blindness toward the deeper layers and profound message of Scripture. What is more, looking back, we realize that the alleged facts cited for the last two hundred years by the skeptics intent on relativizing pretty much every statement of the Bible were in many cases nothing more than mere hypotheses. Shouldn’t we be much clearer than we have been that the exegetes have to some extent been practicing a pseudo-science whose operative principle is not Christian, but an antiChristian animus, and that it has led millions of people astray?

POPE BENEDICT: I wouldn’t subscribe to so harsh a judgment. The application of the historical method to the Bible as a historical text was a path that had to be taken. If we believe that Christ is real history, and not myth, then the testimony concerning him has to be historically accessible as well. In this sense, the historical method has also given us many gifts. It has brought us back closer to the text and its originality, it has shown us more precisely how it grew, and much more besides. The historical-critical method will always remain one dimension of interpretation. Vatican II made this clear. On the one hand, it presents the essential elements of the historical method as a necessary part of access to the Bible. At the same time, though, it adds that the Bible has to be read in the same Spirit in which it was written. It has to be read in its wholeness, in its unity. And that can be done only when we approach it as a book of the People of God progressively advancing toward Christ. What is needed is not simply a break with the historical method, but a self-critique of the historical method; a self-critique of historical reason that takes cognizance of its limits and recognizes the compatibility of a type of knowledge that derives from faith; in short, we need a synthesis between an exegesis that operates with historical reason and an exegesis that is guided by faith. We have to bring the two things into a proper relationship to each other. That is also a requirement of the basic relationship between faith and reason.

Just a final word of thanks to the Holy Father for the encouragement he gives me here. His charism is to strengthen and unify us (cf  Lk 22:31). His capacity to do this with clarity and gentleness is evident here. There are values to the historical critical method. And yet excesses must be avoided, distinctions made. I find this succinct answer, which he has elaborated in greater detail elsewhere,  of immense help.

Posted on

Former Revolutionary Becomes Big Brother – Steve Jobs and Apple Refuse a Pro-life and Pro-Marriage App

The video at the bottom of this post was produced by National Organization for Marriage. It details an unjust pulling of a pro-life app from the Apple Store.

Back in November, Apple took down an  app called “Manhattan Declaration” after receiving nearly 7,000  signatures in protest. The app in question had originally been approved by Apple. But it would seem its pro-life and anti gay Marriage stance upset some people.

As you can see by the name of the App it is a reference to the Manhattan Declaration which is a very well worded declaration stating traditional biblical values on a number of key issues including abortion, marriage and religious liberty. The document is carefully and respectfully worded. Here is a summary of the declaration contained in its opening lines:

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to every one’s conscience in the sight of God.. (Excerpt – Manhattan Declaration).

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image

As you can see, the document is respectfully worded. Over 480,000 people, including Cardinal Wuerl  (and yours truly). This is far more than the mere 7,000 who protested the app.

The bottom line is that Apple and Steve Jobs have taken down the app that would lead you to http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/home.aspx and encourage you to read and sign the Manhattan Declaration.  Now mind you, there are over 300,000 apps available and some of them take you to some pretty edgy and controversial sites. There are any number of political apps, and others including pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage sites. For Apple to take down this app amounts to taking sides in the matters of abortion, gay “marriage” and religious liberty. Given the numbers of apps and the number of Apple users, this amounts to a kind of censorship. Jobs and Apple have no reason to limit discussion on these important topics and ought to take a careful look at what they are becoming. An individual (Jobs) and a company who once advertised how they could take on “Big Brother” with their products have now become what they once rebuked.

It is true, Apple is NOT the government. It is also true that Apple is a private company and can decide what to market in their Apple Store. However when a company becomes as large and influential as Apple has and then engages in this sort of bad behavior, they cannot avoid the charge that they have become a kind of “Big Brother” themselves.

Go to the Manhattan Declaration site ( http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/home.aspx )   to read and sign the declaration, if you have not already done so.  You can also sign a petition there asking Steve Jobs to reinstate the App. You can also e-mail Steve Jobs here: [email protected]

Posted on

Cold Nights + Christ’s Calling = New Initiative

Last night while driving over the 14th Street bridge and making my way home, I noticed that the temperature read 23 degrees.  I had plans to bundle up and head for a run with a friend.  But as I sat in traffic and watched the temperature fluctuate between 23 and 26 degrees I began to think otherwise.  There I was, sitting in my warm car, with great music on in the background, and choosing between “bundling up” and running outside, or making my way to the gym.  At the very same time, many of our city’s poor were wondering if they would find a bed for the evening – a place to rest and escape the blustering winds for at least the night hours.

Unfortunately, the need for warmth and security offered by shelters is great.  On an average night, over 1,300 beds are provided through a Catholic Charities program throughout the archdiocese.  Some of the people who seek the warmth of the shelters have been homeless for years, while others have simply fallen on hard times and need an opportunity to get back on their feet.  Some suffer with serious mental illnesses and others struggle with addictive behaviors.   Some are men and others are women.  The one thing that remains the same –  Jesus is present in each person.  Not only is He present in our city’s poor, but Jesus calls out to us and begs us to rediscover His presence in those struggling to survive on our city’s streets.

Since our nights are getting colder and the need for beds is growing, Catholic Charities is responding by opening additional emergency shelters.  Warm Hands, Friendly Faces is a new volunteer initiative that has been created to help provide these beds and extend the light of Christ to the homeless as they come in form the cold. Volunteers are currently being recruited to assist Catholic Charities staff members with tasks around the shelters and be a warm presence for its visitors.

Is God calling you to be a friendly face and extend your hands to our city’s poor?  If God is inviting you to this volunteer ministry, consider responding.  This might be an opportunity to meet Him in a new way.  As Blessed Teresa taught us, “In the poor, we meet Jesus—not a reminder of Jesus, not a symbol of Jesus, but Jesus himself, face-to-face, hungering for our love, thirsting for our kindness, waiting to be clothed by our compassion.”

E-mail [email protected] for more information.

Posted on

Is the Bottom Really Falling Out of Catholic Mass Attendance? A Recent CARA Survey Ponders the Question

Is the number of Catholics really dropping? Is the bottom really falling out of Catholic Mass attendance? If you are a regular reader of this blog you know that I have written several articles and cited several studies that detail an increasingly grave situation for the Church (e.g. HERE). Most of us are familiar with a significant number of Church closings, school closings and the like thought Catholic America. These surely strengthen the view that we are in an increasingly grave condition.

However, there are other views that see the statistics very differently and argue that the number of Catholics is about steady and even slightly growing. The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) has a blog edited by Mark Gray which presents a more sanguine view of the situation and argues that, while there are concerns, the bottom is not falling out of Catholic Church membership in any statistically significant way. I would like to present excerpts of the CARA blog post and do a little running commentary. As I often do, the CARA material will be in bold, black, italics, and my remarks will be plain text red.

At the end of this post I will still argue that I think we are heading into a grave condition, However, I have great respect for the work of CARA and think their data is an essential reality check that helps us to see what is really going on.

Here then are excerpts of the CARA blog post. The complete post can be read here: CARA Blog Post

Since the end of World War II, on average, 25% of the U.S. adult population has self-identified in national surveys as Catholic (±2 to 3 percentage points attributable to margin of sampling error). This spans many trusted sources from commercial polling by Gallup and others, news media polls, exit polls, and academic surveys such as the General Social Survey and the World Values Survey…..Thus, notice that we are fairly steady in terms of our percentage of the U.S. population. That also means that, as the U.S. population has grown significantly since WW II so have our numbers. In the early 1950s there were about 35 million Catholics in the US. Today there are are over 75 million. This number however does not distinguish between practicing and non practicing Catholics. It is estimated that just over 80% of Catholics attended Mass each Sunday in the 1950s. Today it is estimated that about 25% of Catholics go each Sunday. That means that in the early 1950s about 28 million Catholics were in Church each Sunday. Today that number, even with a growing Catholic population, has dropped to 19.2 million. In other words, almost 9 million fewer Catholics are in Church now as compared to the 1950s.

The chart [at left] tracks growth in the Catholic population percentage from 2% in 1776 (45,000) to 25% in 2010 (77.7 million). The size of the circles represents the total size of the Catholic population…..In the last 40 years, the Catholic population has grown by about 75%. If it did the same in the next 40 years it would be 136 million in 2050 and represent about 31% of the projected U.S. population at that time. This however is an unlikely scenario as overall population growth has slowed in the United States and is expected to slow more as the Baby Boom, and the “echoes” from it, fade…..The highest projection accounts for differences by race and ethnicity. In recent years, polling has consistently indicated that about 60% to 65% of Hispanics/Latinos in the United States self-identify as Catholic. However, there is also evidence that this percentage is dipping slightly lower. This projection assumes this falls even further—to only about 55% and that Catholic self-identification among the non-Hispanic population measures about 18.5%. Both assumptions are on the conservative side. However, even with only assuming 55% Catholic identification among Hispanics/Latinos, the rapid growth expected in this sub-group will likely boost Catholic population numbers significantly (this is even the case if it falls further than 55%). This projection leads to an expected growth in the Catholic population of 65% between 2010 and 2050 with a Catholic population total of 128 million in 40 years, representing 29.2% of the total U.S. population. OK, so the bottom line is that our numbers of overall Catholics will continue to grow significantly even using rather conservative premises. It looks like, within forty years we will surely top 100 million Catholics in the US. A huge number overall. However, will they attend Mass and support the work of the Church? What if the U.S. numbers of practicing Catholics drop to European levels which are currently only 10% going to Mass each week. That means there would be only 10 million at Mass on Sunday, a drop of another 9 million. It is not clear that the numbers will drop that low and as well will see, the 25% practicing Catholic number seems to be rather a stable number at this time. If it holds steady then we will see growth in the numbers in our pews each Sunday. But the key question is, will it hold steady or grow? Or will it drop further? That surely depends on us evangelizing and working to restore people to the Sacraments! It may also be affected by other things such as the economy, the emergence (or not) of some significant crisis and so forth. A final factor that is probably hard to guage is what happens to the children and grandchildren of non-practicing Catholics? Will they continue to self-identify as Catholics or will that “identity” fade as the generations proceed? It’s hard to know. Thus, while the overall news of a growing Catholic population looks good, there are on-going questions about how many of them will, in any meaningful way, practice the Catholic faith and/or hand it on to their children and grandchildren.
Question: Didn’t Pew find that nearly “one in three” people raised Catholic leave the faith leading to an astounding “one in ten” adult Americans who are formerly Catholic? How could the population grow with losses like these?  Answer: …the “one in three” finding drawn from the Pew study is consistently quoted without context. Most often the number is used to drive a narrative—an undeniable signal of extraordinary crisis…..All things considered, Catholicism does a better job of keeping those raised in the faith than any Protestant denomination (68% of those raised Catholic remain so as adults). The Chart at left shows the data for other denominations. I would like to mine the data deeper on the “unaffiliated nones” category which I presume refers to the mega church members and/or evangelicals. I have long thought that we too quickly admire the numbers present in mega-churches and have long suspected that they don’t keep their members for a long time. I have a lot of anecdotal evidence that people go for a year or so and eventually get bored or disillusioned and move on to another mega-church, then to another. At some point they leave the system altogether and I thus suspect the mega-Church phenomenon will run its course and the numbers overall will diminish in that “branch of Zion.”  But there is good news here if we compare ourselves to other Churches. However, it is still an awful fact that one-third of those raised Catholic later leave the Church and lose the sacraments. This is still an awful number..

The CARA post then addresses the Church closing phenomenon.
 …..For generations Catholic immigrants have often started their new lives in industrial urban areas. They created parishes where others spoke the same language. Sometimes a Polish parish would be built across from a parish where Italian was the language in use. The sheer number of people involved led to a boom in parish construction and along with schools—often in close proximity to each other. Yet, in the post-World War II era things began to shift. Many Catholics moved to the suburbs and away from the Northeast and Midwest into the Sunbelt. New waves of Catholic immigration from Latin America have led to even more growth in the South from coast to coast. The Catholic population has realigned itself in the course of a few generations. People move, parishes and schools do not. Many of the parish and school closings one reads about are in inner cities of the Northeast and Midwest where Catholic population has waned. ….OK fair enough. But I would argue that we still cannot avoid the fact that there are 9 million fewer Catholics in Church on Sunday than in the early 1950s. The other factors mentioned here are not insignificant, but neither is 9 million fewer Catholics in the pews. Many of the over-churched urban areas would still have many more thriving parishes if even 50% were still going every Sunday. I surely doubt we would be closing as many parishes, even in depopulated urban centers, if Catholics were, as a whole, more faithful.

Although Catholic Mass attendance did decline in recent decades from a peak in the 1950s, there has been no decline in Mass attendance percentages nationally in the last decade. Just under one in four Catholics attends Mass every week. About a third of Catholics attend in any given week and more than two-thirds attend Mass at Christmas, Easter, and on Ash Wednesday. More than four in ten self-identified Catholics attend Mass at least once a month. So the good news is that we may have bottomed out. You can click to the “no decline” study at the blue text above and sure enough, the number of weekly attendants has hovered steadily in the low 20%s for over ten years now. There is little guarantee we will stay here however and I remain concerned that the number is going to head even lower as secularism continues to increase and the unchurched generations become even more detatched from things spiritual. Even the great Christmas and Easter holy days are becoming silenced in our culture.

In the end, I find looking at the CARA analysis helpful in distinguishing the true problem. The overall number of Catholics is, in fact rising. However the critical factor seems to be that Mass attendance has dropped dramatically since the 1950s, from over 80% to around 20-25% now. This indicates a very critical condition indeed. Tell me any organization in which 80% of its members were inactive that you would call healthy. Our condition is critical. It is helpful to know that we seem to have stabilized at this number. That is, we haven’t gone lower in over ten years. However I am concerned that the 25% number is soft and wonder if it will be stable for long. Rampant secularism, the moral malaise of many, a hostile culture etc. all stand to likely erode that number even further.

I pray for a miracle to be sure. I pray for an evangelizing spirit among Catholics. The Church at the upper right of this post is St. Mary of the Angels in Chicago. Ten years ago it was boarded up and slated for demolition. But Opus Dei agreed to take it and brought it back to life. Today it is a thriving parish. But generally, we have become very sleepy and many have barely noticed as large numbers of fellow Catholics  have slipped away. In the end, the greatest tragedy is not the numbers per se but the fact that almost 80% of our Catholic brothers and sisters are away from the sacraments, away from the medicine they need, and not having the gospel preached to them. These 80% live in a poisonous culture wherein their mind will increasingly darken without the help of the Sacraments and the Word of God. This is tragic and if we have any real love for them we will not rest until they are restored to God’s house. God asked Cain one day, “Where’s your brother?” And God still asks this of us. We may protest that we have murdered no one. And yet, many of them will die spiritually if we remain indifferent. “Where is your brother?…Where?”

This song says, Come and go with me to my Father’s House

Posted on

The Pope Reflects on Mystery of Iniquity and the Need for the Church to be Sober About It.

I just finished reading Pope Benedict’s Book: Light of the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald. There are so many excellent points in the book it is hard to know where to begin. I thought, perhaps over the next few weeks to occasionally present a clip from the book and make it the basis of a reflection and conversation. In my Kindle I marked a number of texts for this purpose.

There is a very helpful discussion in the book on the mystery of iniquity and the Church’s need to be sober about this fact even with, and especially in her own ranks. The matter surfaced in the discussion between Mr Seewald and the Pope about the clergy sex abuse crisis that has swept the Church, first in America, and then in Europe. Peter Seewald asks the following question:

The causes of abuse are complex. Aghast, one wonders most of all how someone who reads the Gospel every day and celebrates Holy Mass, who is constantly exposed to the sacraments and is actually supposed to be strengthened by them, can go astray in this horrible way.

And the Pope Answers:

That is a question that really touches on the mysterium  iniquitatis, the mystery of evil. One wonders also in this regard: What does someone like that think in the morning when he goes to the altar and offers the Holy Sacrifice? Does he actually go to confession? What does he say in confession? What consequences does that confession have for him? It really ought to be the major factor in extricating him from it and compelling him to amend his life. It is a mystery that someone who has pledged himself to what is holy can lose it so completely and then, indeed, can lose his origins. At his priestly ordination he must have had at least a longing for what is great and pure; otherwise he would not have made that choice. How can someone then fall so far? We do not know. But this means all the more that priests must support one another and must not lose sight of one another. That bishops are responsible for this and that we must beg the lay faithful also to help support their priests. And I see in the parishes that love for the priest grows when they recognize his weaknesses and take it upon themselves to help him in those weaknesses (Light of the World, Loc. 582-92)

While the context of their discussion was on priestly sins, one may also apply this to many circumstances. For example, how can a man who married his wife and once loved her intensely, fall so far as to be in intimacies with another woman?  What does he think as he returns home and his children run to greet him? How has he gotten to this point? How can he do this to his family? Or perhaps one can imagine that even murderous felons were once innocent children who played simple games and wept grievously if they but fell from their bike. What happened to them that they have become calloused and hardened to the point that, taking the life of another, or brutally harming them, causes them little compunction.

There is indeed a downward path or trajectory of evil,  though its intensity in some remains mysterious. But the fact is, little sins and insensitivities   lay the foundation for greater ones. As one gives way to repeated sin and fails to repent, that sin becomes custom or habit. But having descended one rung on the ladder, the next rung now seems not so far, nor the one below that. And as one descends further into the darkness the eyes adjust to an increasing dimness, such that the light above now seems quite obnoxious. And behaviors once thought shameful, even impossible to one, now seem within reach and somehow plausible. As the memory of the light fades, the once unthinkable now becomes a daily fare. The descent on the moral ladder continues, one rung at a time, and the light gradually disappears.

St Augustine put it this way: Because of a perverse will was lust made; and lust indulged in became custom; and custom not resisted became necessity (Confessions 8.5). Evil does grow, hearts do harden, intellects do grow dark, very dark. 12-Step meetings often reference the “stinking thinking” that reinforces addiction, bizarre behavior,  and makes every form of lust one’s “God-given right.”  The only way to break this cycle is honest,  frequent confession and authentic accountability to others.

Accountability – Hence the Pope rightly observes that priests must support one another and bishops must be responsible to shepherd their priests and hold them responsible and accountable for the health of their spiritual and moral life. Lay people too must not only pray for their priests but also be of active assistance. This assistance can take the form of simple encouragement, but it may also have to take the form of alerting those to whom a priest is accountable, if the matter is serious.

But here too this is not a matter only for priests. Everyone benefits from frequent, honest confession and accountability to others. I am aware of an increasing number of individuals who struggle with Internet pornography and have made the decision to be accountable to certain close and trustworthy friends. These friends closely monitor the Internet habits of the one struggling by receiving access to the computer cache, and other data made available to them via an ISPN. Accountability, along with Sacramental confession are essential components of the moral life. Otherwise, the mystery of iniquity too easily grows and overwhelms

Salutary Punishment – In the life of the Church there is also need not only for accountability but also salutary penalties which exist, not only for the good of the offender, but also to protect the common good. Here is what the Pope has to say in Light of the World:

The Archbishop of Dublin told me…..that [in Ireland] ecclesiastical penal law functioned until the late 1950s; admittedly it was not perfect—there is much to criticize about it—but nevertheless it was applied. After the mid-sixties, however, it was simply not applied any more. The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist. This led to an odd darkening of the mind, even in very good people. Today we have to learn all over again that love for the sinner and love for the person who has been harmed are correctly balanced if I punish the sinner in the form that is possible and appropriate. In this respect there was in the past a change of mentality, in which the law and the need for punishment were obscured. Ultimately this also narrowed the concept of love, which in fact is not just being nice or courteous, but is found in the truth. And another component of truth is that I must punish the one who has sinned against real love.  (Light of the World, Loc  468-76)

This, of course, is a consistent problem in the Church today, also in many families, and to a certain extent is the wider society. Fraternal correction has fallen on hard times and the results are disastrous. Grievous sins often go unremarked, let alone punished. Pulpits are too often silent, pastors, teachers, educators and parents are slow to teach and correct. In many western countries the criminal justice system is quite often askew and many serious criminals are only lightly punished, and too easily walk in wider society where they can, and do harm, again, and again.

I have written here before on the biblical teaching on Fraternal Correction (http://blog.adw.org/2009/11/fraternal-correction-the-forgotten-virtue/). There is no need to repeat it all here except to emphasize as the Pope already indicates, that Fraternal Correction is ordered to love, it is a work of charity and is also listed among the spiritual works of mercy.

Note however that Pope Benedict is speaking of more than correction, he also includes salutary punishment. For correction without any punishment ever, even on the horizon, is usually ineffective. Human nature, (at least the fallen version of it), usually requires more than merely verbal warnings and rebukes. There is a place in the Christian community for punitive measures. We do not punish for its own sake but rather as a medicine for the sinner and protection of the common good.

Both Jesus and Paul go so far as to prescribe excommunication for more serious matters, if the sinner is unrepentant (cf: Matt 18:15ff, 1 Cor 5:1ff). Sadly the Church has, at least collectively speaking, been loath to use many canonical penalties, let alone excommunication. The result is that error and misbehavior often go on openly, and for decades. The result is an uncorrected sinner who then harms the faithful by bad teaching and/or example. The Pope’s words here are powerful and one would hope they indicate a change of thinking at wider levels in the Church too. Mercy has its place but love must also insist on truth, respect the common good, and the true good of the sinner.

A fabulous book and conversation with the Pope overall and must reading as soon as possible.