Posts

Posted on

The Problem of Privatized Religion

Some years ago I preached a sermon that covered the Christian and Biblical teaching on Hell. I believe the Gospel that day was from Matthew 7:13ff  wherein Jesus warns that we should strive to enter through the narrow gate and declares that, “The road that leads to destruction is wide and many follow it. But the road that leads to salvation is narrow and the way is hard and how few there are who find it. I preached what I thought was a very balanced teaching on hell and also the reason it made sense as a doctrine. After the Mass a woman approached me and said, “I didn’t hear the Jesus I know in your words today.” “But mam,” I said,  “I was quoting Jesus!’  Unfazed she replied, “We know he never really said those words, the Church merely invented them to scare us.”

There is a tendency for many to “privatize” the faith today. The faith communally declared and held by the Church is considered adaptable by them. They chose rather to have a private faith, a personal doctrine. Pope’s bishops, catechisms and creeds are all rejected in favor of a private, personal and ultimately self-serving and egotistical private doctrine. Those who scoff at the need for a Pope become pope themselves. Not content with the faith revealed in the Scriptures and in Church teaching have chosen to refashion the faith in a way that pleases them. In effect they invent their own religion and their own “designer” god. The God of the Bible does not suit them, so they make up a new one. I think the Scriptures have a word for crafting your own God and worshiping it: “idolatry.”

Bishop Tobin of Providence Rhode Island has entered into a rather public discussion with Congressman Patrick Kennedy who claims that he is still a faithful Catholic despite a consistent record of voting to fund abortion. In his own words Kennedy says, The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic. Hmm…sounds like privatized religion to me. The communal consensus of Catholic faith going back 2000 years is not “essential” to his being a Catholic. Rather, he has a privatized faith. Bishop Tobin, his bishop,  has rejected any such notion and strongly teaches that one cannot merely redefine Catholicism according to their own whim. Here are excerpts from his statement released today:

….[W]hen someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church….The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)….If you don’t accept the teachings of the Church [Congressman] your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”….Being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic….Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail. Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Perhaps most key to our discussion here are these words of Bishop Tobin: being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. But many today do not want to be part of a community with clearly defined authority and and doctrine. They want instead a private religion that answers to no one. They want a religion they can define on their own and still claim to belong to the community, a community  they really want little to do with if it comes to soemthing they don’t like. Some go even further and insist on a designer God who has exactly their understanding, their priorities, their views. This god is made in their own image and is an idol. The “Jesus I know” over-rules the Jesus of Scripture. The reinvented god trumps the God revealed in the Scriptures.

Privatized religion and a designer God, these are surely signs that point to the arrogance and ego-centricity of our times. The challenge for all of us is to have the true faith, the faith of the Church, the faith and the God revealed in Scripture. Anything less is privatized religions, worse yet heresy’ a designer God, worse yet, idolatry.

Posted on

Defense of the Faith

A friend asked me if I had seen a comment in the Washington Post’s On Faith section about  the recent announcement by the Vatican of its Anglican Provision. The comment is by Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion.  The title of the commentary is “Give us your misogynists and bigots”.  I’m sorry to say it only gets worse.  It can be found here.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins

/2009/10/give_us_your_misogynists_and_bigots.html

Catholic Bigotry

My friend asked if there was an official response to this blatant bigotry that seemed to pass through all of the editorial pens at the Washington Post and deemed suitable for its newspaper and Web forum. I don’t know of any official response, but I wondered how many people were concerned enough to question the Post’s decision to run the commentary.

My immediate reaction to something like this is to say, “look on the bright side, it shows that the Church still matters.” If someone, who has publicly professed his atheism, feels the need to take on the Church, it can only be because he thinks it has power.” However, I have to ask myself if this attitude is a bit of a cop-out. I think it is more accurate to say that I am typical of the Catholic who lets these things slide.  Does this make me an accomplice in allowing anti-Catholic bias to flourish in a way that the media and the public would never accept (and rightly so) for Judaism or Islam?  Look how justifiably careful the media is being in covering the shooting at Fort Hood. In looking over some of the comments in the On Faith section, there are the usual range of opinions that reflect ignorance or poor judgement or bias, but none that come close to the bigotry expressed in Mr. Dawkins’ column. I can’t imagine that the Post did not receive some hateful mail about the suspected shooter at Fort Hood and made choices about which to accept and not to accept.

Defending the Church

As Catholics we have to be better at standing up and saying that Catholic bigotry is not acceptable. We have a responsibility to defend the faith. Opposing bigotry seems to be a good example of when one is called to defend the faith. To be sure, the question of the Anglican Provision is an interesting one and opens many avenues for debate and discussion related to ecumenical dialogue, evangelization, and ecclesiology. No doubt, many people have quite strong opinions and they make for interesting conversation and thought. In the case of this commentary, it is a conversation non-starter because it has no fact or reasonable opinion to which one can respond. 

The Courage of Martyrs

Karl Rahner, the great 20th century theologian, wrote as essay in 1981 called “The Christian of the Future.” He said that in a world that was becoming increasingly hostile to Judeo-Christian principles, Christians of the future would have to have the courage of the martyrs in giving public witness to their faith. For a church built on the witness of those killed for the faith, opposing this kind of bigotry does not seem to be too much for the Lord to ask of his followers.

Defense of the Faith as Evangelization

Some people don’t like the tone of “defending the faith” for fear that it sounds triumphalist, it need not be. We are also called to be evangelizers and to find ways to tell the story of Christianity and the church in a way that people see it is the most wonderful story of life and love. The church is first and foremost an instrument of God’s love to draw others to life and love. 

 

Posted on

The Death Penalty in Our Times

John Allen Muhammad is scheduled to die today by lethal injection. Muhammad terrorized the Washington D.C. area back in October 2002 when he and Lee Malvo, the DC Snipers randomly shot 13 people, killing ten of them. It was a time of great terror. It was especially frightening since it seemed so random and unpredictable. They covered almost the entire DC area and struck at odd intervals of time. No place or time seemed safe. The simple act of pumping gas or coming out of a store might get you killed. Few of us are emotionally sympathetic to John Allen Muhammad’s fate. He caused great harm and terror.

But what of the use of the death penalty? What, if anything, should a Catholic consider as John Allen Muhammad likely dies today by the hand of the State?

It is not my purpose here reconsider Catholic teaching on the death penalty. That has been done by far greater scholars than I. I would like to recommend to your attention one of the best articles I have ever read on the subject. It is by Cardinal Avery Dulles who published on the topic in the journal First Things. The article is fair and quite thorough and you can read it here: Catholicism and Capital Punishment. After carefully setting forth the traditional Catholic teaching Cardinal Dulles concludes by appealing to concept of pastoral judgement:

In coming to this prudential conclusion [of negatively assessing Capital Punishment], the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. The pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.

It seems that the key phrase is “prudential judgment.” Catholics often like to get in protracted discussions and debates about whether or not the death penalty is allowed. Acutally the answer to that question is not unclear. It is allowed, but strongly discouraged by the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.  If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” (CCC 2267)

So, in the end we are dealing with a prudential judgment by recent Popes and most of the worlds bishops who conclude that the Death Penalty is allowable under certain circumstances but it is not expedient since it does more harm than good. It is not a question of orthodoxy per se but of pastoral judgment. Catholics are not absolutely bound to follow prudential judgments of the bishops or even the pope. But let me ask you to ponder why we ought to follow such a judgment.

  1. Addressing the Culture of Death effectively – We are living in what Pope John Paul called a “culture of death.” In this culture,  the death or non existence of another human being is increasingly proposed as the “solution” to problems. Is the baby inconvenient, unhealthy or conceived in adverse economic conditions? Well then, abort (kill) the baby. Is a person suffering a poor quality of life at the end of their days? Well then, euthanize (kill) the patient. Are children difficult to raise and costly too? Well then, contracept (veto the life) of such children. The death penalty too manifests and promotes death as a solution to problems. One of the ways to contravene the culture of death is to live prophetically and to consistently call for an end to such thinking across the board. While it is possible for us to make distinctions between the death penalty and other forms of killing, the world may not always understand our message and its nuance. What if the Pope and bishops are asking us to accept this fact and, as a pastoral strategy, to battle the culture of death across the board? It is a pastoral strategy that seems reasonable given the fact that we live in a culture of death.
  2. So instead of debating what is doctrinal or not, what if we considered what is most effective? What if we allowed our shepherds (the Pope and bishops) to establish a pastoral strategy? What we we trusted their charism to lead us in this matter? Some Catholics have doubted the pastoral judgements of bishops in recent decades. But consider this is not just one bishop, not just one bishops conference, it is recent Popes and the vast majority of bishops worldwide in a collective pastoral judgment, a judgment that is written right in the Catechism. What if we trusted them and the charism they have received to lead us not just in absolute doctrinal matters but also in significant pastoral matters?
  3. Unity is essential in war – We are in time of war culturally speaking, and in such times strategies are necessary. It is also necessary to stand together. What if we set aside all the debates about the Church’s teaching on the death penalty and simply accepted our Pope’s strategy and that of the bishops? In war the troops may sometimes wonder as to the strategy at the top but in the end teamwork and obedience to the chain of command wins the day a lot more effectively than 10,000 soldiers all doing their own thing. Unity around a reasonable strategy seems best. Our Pope and the bishops have asked us to stand unified, strong and consistently against the culture of death.
  4. Religious submission extends beyond defined dogma– Hence it seems that the pastoral judgment of the Pope and bishops in this matter should not simply be considered as one opinion among many. We ought to give special emphasis to what they teach in this matter and other moral issues of our day. There is a lot of legalism among Catholics today about what we “have to believe.” There may well be technical distinctions worthy of discussion but there is also a general teachability (docility) we ought to manifest as well. Lumen Gentium # 25 encourages a submission and docility of the faithful that extends beyond merely defined dogma: Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff  are to be respected by all as witnesses of divine and catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, should concur with their bishop’s judgment, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and adhere to it with a religious docility of spirit. This religious docility of the will and intellect must be extended, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra, in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him conformably with his manifest mind and intention…

In the end we are invited to stand together with the Pope and Bishops in their prudential judgment on the matter of captial punishment. We may be emotionally glad to see the likes of John Allen Muhammad ushered out but in the end we should have serious questions about what we are really doing here. Our Pope and bishops ask us to ponder such things and to stand with them against such death oriented solutions. Why not, in time of war, stand with them in their strategy?

Posted on

The Story of Abraham – Hope for the Rest of Us!

One of the beautiful things about the Bible is that it does not present our heroes as epic figures who never fell. Rather it presents us with real human beings who struggle and eventually “get there.” As an example, I was talking the other day with someone who remarked, “Too bad we can’t all be strong in faith like Abraham.” Ah Abraham, the paragon of faith! Well….eventually but Abraham had some very bad moments in his journey that we ought not to overlook. Surely he became strong in faith but only after some pretty bad falls along the way. Consider some of Abraham’s struggles.

  1. Abram (He was only called Abraham by God later), was told, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you (Gen 12:1) And he does. At one level this is remarkable since God gave him no road maps etc. He just said, “Set out”  and Abram did,  trusting God would direct him. But note a little detail that I would argue amounts to a lack of total obedience: So Abram left, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him (Gen 12:4) Oops, where did his nephew Lot get included? Now some many argue that this is no big deal, but for the record God did not mention Lot in his instructions. And sure enough,  Lot’s presence will cause trouble later on. There is always trouble lurking when we do not wholeheartedly obey God.
  2. Abram gets to the Holy Land and God shows him its beauty.He reconnoiters the land and eventually pitches his tent near Bethel, a name which means house of God. So there he is right where he ought to be, in the House of God, on the Land God had shown him (cf Gen 12: 5-9)  Only one problem though, there is a famine in the land. Will Abram Trust God who has called him to this land? He will not! He goes off to Egypt (Gen 12:10), trusting Pharaoh to feed him but not God. God never said, “Go to Egypt.” It is dripping with irony that Abram leaves a place called “Bethel” (house of God) to go to the house of Pharaoh.
  3. In Egypt Abram does something awful. His wife Sarai (only called Sarah later in the narrative) is very beautiful and Abram is worried that men will want her and thus kill him so they can have her. So Abram tells a lie and has her lie too, asserting that she is his sister. (Gen 12:11-13) He even goes so far as to allow her to be placed in Pharaoh’s harem! (Gen 12:14-16) This is all to protect his own hide and gain influence. Lets just make it plain, he pimps out his own wife. Pharaoh eventually discovers the lie and, suffering its consequences, denounces Abram (Gen 12:17-19).  In effect Pharaoh fears God more that Abram. It takes Pharaoh to get Abram to go back to were he belongs. So Abram returns to the Holy Land, to Bethel, not because of his faith but because of Pharaoh’s threats (Gen 12:19-20).
  4. Ok, so at least he’s back where he needs to be, in Bethel, right? Well now the Lot mistake manifests itself. Abram and Lot actually did quite well in Egypt and return with flocks that are so large that the Land cannot sustain them both together (Gen 13:1-8). Now notice, the Holy Land could sustain Abram but not Abram and Lot together. This inability of the Land to sustain them both goes back to the original disobedience of Abram in bringing Lot in the first place. Lot and Abram agree to part company and Lot picks the choicest of the land, which at that time was where the dead sea is now (Gen 13:8-12) Ok, end of problem right? Not exactly.  The text says that Lot “pitched his tent toward Sodom.” (Gen 13:12). Now you know where all that is going to lead. In the end it will be another distraction for Abram who brought Lot along when he should not have. Lot has bad judgement and has no business associating with the wicked in Sodom and Gomorrah. All of this draws Lot into a big mess in which his family is corrupted. His Wife cannot turn her back on  Sodom and is killed, his daughters are also corrupted and later attempt incest with him (gen 19:30ff). All this is a distraction for Abram who should never have brought Lot in the first place.
  5. God promises Abram and Sarai many descendants. But both Abraham and Sarah falter in faith several times with regards this. Abraham’s first struggle comes when, after many years of promises from God, no child has yet been born. So, in effect he says to God, “Look, I know you got a little carried away by all this offspring talk  so I guess I’m going to have to settle on giving my inheritance to my steward, Eliezar.”  But God says, NO, not that one, but rather your own issue will be your heir. (Gen 15:1-4). Later, Sarah, also despairing that God can deliver  suggests adultery and that he sexually exploit Hagar her slave girl and have a child by her. And he does! (Gen 16:1-4) Ishamel is born and the ugliness begins between Hagar and Sarah (imagine that!) (Gen 16:4-6). God once again has to rebuke Abraham and remind Abram of his promises. Sarah, paranoid at Hagar’s newly exulted position as the mother of Abraham’s only Child not in jealous rage tells Abraham to commit an act of great injustice and to drive her into the desert with her child. He does! (Gen 18:23ff)
  6. God renews his promises to Abram and Sarai and changes their names by entering into a covenant with them (Gen 17:1-15). As God renews his promises for multiplied descendants Abraham falls to his faces and laughs (Gen 17:17). Later, Sarah laughs too (Gen 18:2). Finally Isaac is born (a name which means “He laughs”) which commemorates the struggle of Abraham ad Sarah to believe what God is telling them.

Do you see? Abraham’s journey was marred by some pretty ugly setbacks. But ultimately Abraham doescome to believe God and he receives the fruit of faith in His Son Isaac. God prepares one final test to strengthen Abraham’s faith (Gen 22). He tells him to offer his son in sacrifice. This time Abraham does not draw back. He sets out for Moriah to obey God. Isaac asks, “Where is the Lamb for sacrifice?” Abraham has finally made it to faith and he simply says to his son, “God will provide the Lamb.” (Gen 22:7-8). Abraham has arrived. He has come to trust God and knows that obeying God will not be without its reward. And God DID provide the lamb as you know.

But Abraham didn’t simply “have faith.” He had to get there by years of struggle, setbacks, and hard lessons. He had to learn that to obey God brings blessings. To disobey God spells trouble. He had to learn that God means exactly what he says and to trust him in all things. If Abraham, the great hero of faith had to go through all this to arrive at faith, maybe there is hope for you and me too. But we too are summoned to learn of faith and grow in it. We are called to obey more and more perfectly and to stop trying to improve on God’s plan. So the example of Abraham is not just a relief to those of us who struggle it is also a road map of what we must do. Faith has to grow and we have to let it.

Here’s an old gospel song that says, “A Saint is just a sinner who fell down and got up.” Maybe there is hope for us too, if we get back up.

Posted on

Jesus vs Terminator

What would happen if Hollywood got hold of salvation history? The following video is meant to be funny and it is. But consider that it unwittingly makes a very important point. You see, Hollywood loves the happy ending and notions like the cross are quite foreign there. Hence, in this clip the Terminator, (Arnold!) won’t let Jesus die! According to Hollywood Jesus, our hero has to live. Now if Hollywood with its worldly perspective got its way we’d still be dead in our sins. An old Gospel song says, “He would not come down from that Cross just to save himself. He decided to die just to save me.”

So now that you’ve permitted me to be serious for just a moment, enjoy a rather silly video, though please overlook the “cartoonish” violence that is part of the shtick.

I’m in the Holy Land this week until November 8th. I have scheduled blogs that will appear each day while I’m away so stay tuned! My participation in the comments however may be a little light since my time with the internet will be sporadic. Comments will be moderated by someone else on the team and I’ll participate when I can. – Msgr Pope.

Posted on

Natural Law is Not New

The Natural Law Tradition of the Catholic Church is often criticised by some Protestants and more often by secularists. Some think of it as merely an invention of the scholastic period. Others (esp. some of the Protestants) think we should limit our discourse to the Scriptures alone. But Catholicism has always seen God’s revelation in broader terms that Scripture alone. To be sure, Scripture along with Sacred Tradition is revelation it is clearest manifestation. But creation too is revelation from God and speaks to his will and to his attributes.

Natural Law, far from being an invention of the Middle Ages is enshrined in Scripture. We find it in the Wisdom Tradition of the Scriptures and also in the New Testament. Most clearly, St. Paul points to it in the Letter to the Romans:

What may be known about God is plain to [the Gentiles],  because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom 1:19-20)

Notice that St. Paul does not speak of murky sort of revelation vaguely noticeable in creation but rather a revelation that can be “clearly seen.” Paul does not call this revelation “natural law” (that designation would come later) but what we now call Natural Law is what Paul is speaking of here.

Further, the concept of “Logos” present in the prologue to St. John’s Gospel also enshrines Natural Law premises. The ancient Jews, particularly those who collected the Wisdom Tradition in the Scriptures (Books such as Wisdom, Sirach, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs etc.) understood that the created world has a Logike (a kind of Logic) based on the fact that God made it through his Logos (Word). When God spoke creation into existence through his Word (Logos) his Logos sets things forth with a Logike(logic) that is discernible and could be studied to make one wise in the ways (the logic) of God. We have come to call this scriptural teaching, Natural Law. In effect we can discern a logic of rationality to what God has made and come to know of God and his will for us.

As a final example of the antiquity of Natural Law in the I would like to share excerpts from one of the Church Fathers, Athanasius who teaches on in his great work, “Against the Arians.” In this excerpt Athanasius uses the term “Wisdom” but the teaching, as you shall see is the same as the Logos tradition and what we have come to call “Natural Law.”  Here are excerpts:

An impress of Wisdom has been created in us and in all his works. Therefore, the true Wisdom which shaped the world claims for himself all that bears his image…Wisdom himself is not created, because he is the Creator, but by reason of the created image of himself found in his works, he speaks [of himself] as if he were a creature, and he says: The Lord created me in his works, when his purpose first unfolded.   The likeness of Wisdom has been stamped upon creatures in order that the world may recognise in it the Word who was its maker and through the Word come to know the Father. This is Paul’s teaching: What can be known about God is clear to them, for God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature has been there for the mind to perceive in things that have been made….So there is a wisdom in created things, as the son of Sirach too bears witness: The Lord has poured it out upon all his works, to be with men as his gift, and with wisdom he has abundantly equipped those who love him….and in the light of this wisdom the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of his hands. –  Discourse “Against the Arians” by St Athanasius

Hence we see a valuable and very ancient pearl in what we have come to call Natural Law. In these secular times the testimony of Natural Tradition gives us something of a basis to address a world that rejects the authority of Scripture. The use of Scripture may still be best in the circle of believers, (though even there the testimony of Natural Law should not be overlooked), but Natural Law can provide a possible basis for discussion with non-believers. Even here, there are challenges today. In an age as “skeptical” as ours the plain testimony of “reality” is not so plain to some who radically doubt that we can or should derive moral norms from things that appear in creation. Still Natural Law at least provides some navigating points for a discussion with most non-believers.

One of the glories of the Catholic Church is our rich appeal to several sources for truth. Scripture surely ranks first but Sacred Tradition supplies us additional revelation in addition an interpretive key for the Scriptures. Further, Natural Law, attested to in the Scriptures also supplies a witness to the truth about God and it reveals his glory. This is the broad and beautiful foundation upon which the Catholic faith rests.

The following video sets forth the challenges that a radical skepticism poses and illustrates why the Natural Law is a precious gift to be recovered and respected.

I’m in the Holy Land this week until November 8th. I have scheduled blogs that will appear each day while I’m away so stay tuned! My participation in the comments however may be a little light since my time with the internet will be sporadic. Comments will be moderated by someone else on the team and I’ll participate when I can. – Msgr Pope.

Posted on

Time to Act

benedict_before_un

Faithful Citizenship

As you probably know from the news, the House has begun debate on a health care bill. Now is the time to weigh in. If you are having trouble wading through the material, I call your attention to the latest newsletter from the Maryland Catholic Conference. http://capwiz.com/mdcath/issues/alert/?alertid=14280056

Both in the health care debate and the same-sex marriage debate, many people wonder why the church is “getting into politics.”  In both cases, one could say that the church has always been a partner with the state. We are the single largest private provider of health care in the U.S.. When a priest witnesses the marriage of a couple, he represents both the church and the state. Unlike, many European, Central and South American countries in which couples must have a civil ceremony before a church wedding, in the U.S. this is not the case, the priest (or any minister) is given authority from the state to solemnize the marriage in the name of the state.

The Mission of the Laity

Perhaps, more importantly, it is the vocation of the lay person, by virtue of the prophetic charism of our  Baptism, that we bear Christ and the Good News to the world. It is the laity whom the church assumes will take the lead in building the reign of God by bringing the Gospel to bear on the issues of the day. This does not mean making the state Catholic, but rather taking seriously our responsibility to assess decisions, legislation, and law in light of our conscience and the teaching of the Church.

Religious Liberty

Both of these issues also raise serious questions about the Constitution’s protection of religious liberty and the practice of religion. Pope Benedict spoke to this issue in his address to the United Nations during his 2008 visit to the United States. To the U. N. General Assembly he said “It is inconceivable, then, that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves–their faith–in order to be active citizens. It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights….The full guarantee of religious liberty cannot be limited to the free exercise of worship, but has to give due consideration to the public dimension of religion, and hence to the possibility of believers playing their part in building social order” (General Assembly of the United Nations, 4/18/08).

The proposed legislation on both topics involve serious threats to both individuals and Catholic(and other religious) organizations to both meet the mandate to serve all of God’s people and to be able to preserve our freedom to live and teach the faith. It is unimaginable that the Church would limit the services of our schools, hospitals, social service agencies and other programs to Catholics only.  This, in and of itself,  is against the teaching of the Church. However, it is also unimaginable that we would place ourselves in a compromising position with regard to the Gospel.

The partnership of Church and State in the U.S has been enormously successful in building a school system and health care system that has educated and cared for millions of Americans.  It would be a tremendous loss to our communities to lose this partnership.

Posted on

Holy Land Greetings

I have been in the Holy Land since Saturday and send you all greetings. Though this is not my first visit here I am aware of certain special blessings on this trip.

Mass on Calvary– Today I had the privilege of celebrating Mass at the top of Mount Calvary (Golgotha). As many of you know, the site of the crucifixion and burial of the Lord is well attested to archaeologically and historically. A large Church was built over the site at first in the Byzantine period (the period just after the Edict of Constantine). Parts of the current Church date back to the 7thCentury. At one end of the Church is a tall hill, covered over by the Church structure but reachable by steep stairs. At the top of the platform high up in the church the rock face of Calvary is exposed and there is a hole (under the Orthodox Altar) which pilgrims can reach through to touch the spot where the cross stood. Just six feet to the right of that is the Roman Catholic Altar. I was privileged today to celebrate Mass at that very altar with my parish group. You can see it in the photo to the right. In the photo the altar with the red cloth is the Orthodox altar directly over the site of the Crucifixion. The Roman Catholic Altar is to the right with a white lace altar cloth. In a previous pilgrimage we used a chapel in an annex of the church far away from Calvary. But today I got to celebrate right on Golgotha. It is one of the highlights of my whole life.

The Holy Land is Catholic – Another strong impression of my visit is that to visit the Holy Land is “enter” the Catholic Church, at least physically. At almost every site, the place is dominated by a Catholic Church: At Capernaum, the place where the loaves and fishes were multiplied, Cana, Nazareth, the Mount of the Beatitudes, Mt Tabor, in all these places there is only one Church building, it is a Catholic Church Building. In Jerusalem too, most all of the sites have a Catholic Church: The Mount of Olives, Dominus Flevit, the Garden of Gethsemene, the upper room and on Mount Sion (DormitionChurch and site of the Last Supper), the house of Caiaphas, the palce of the trial before Pontius Pilate etc. I wonder what Protestant Christians experience as they visit site after site and see, once again, a Catholic Church, (Blessed Sacrament and all)  either at the site or literally on top of it? And in the few sites where the church is not Catholic (Bethlehem and Holy Sepulchre) it is the Orthodox who oversee it and in both cases there is a strong Roman Catholic presence as well. I do not intend to convey a triumphalist attitude but only to say I feel very proud and happy to be a Catholic here in the Holy Land. Almost every site is fundamentally a Catholic site.

Grateful for the Franciscans– Lastly I want to say that we ought to be very grateful to the Franciscans of the Holy Land for the wonderful care they give these holy sites. They have surely been most kind to our group in allowing us to say Mass as well. At each site they are hospitable to everyone and keep the Churches clean and the holy sites in good repair. They have also been respectful of archeology and been most helpful to the process of verifying the authenticity of the sites.  I contrast the wonderful care of the Franciscans with the less than impressive condition of the several places controlled by the Orthodox. I am sadly surprised at the poor conditions in those places and would expect more from our Orthodox brethren (more on this in a future post).  Bottom line here is: We have much for which to be grateful to the Franciscans of the Holy Land. It is through their kindness that I have been able to celebrate Mass not only today but each day at many sites: Mt. Beatitude, Mount Sion and Holy Sepulchre.

These are just a few thoughts as I send you greetings from the Holy Land.