Dancing Around the Issues

(The following was intended for publication on the 15th of March, but was intentionally delayed so as not to interfere with Holy Week and the Paschal Triduum.)

“It is not surprising to suggest to faithful Catholics that the time has passed for being silent. What if the time has also passed for being polite? Social media has become the public arena of choice, an arena where the playing field is level, and all bets are off. If you commit a public sacrilege with no apologies, be prepared to get called out on it, and have no one to blame but yourself. If you're a bishop who can't be bothered with the legitimate concerns of faithful Catholics, be prepared to look inadequate to the task, and (you guessed it) have no one to blame but yourself. Say all you want about playing nice, but it hasn't worked, and the Powers That Be are left with the fruits of their indifference. If this level of outrage is to be contained, it must begin at the source. That would be the problem itself, not the reaction.”

Let the games begin.
 

Dancing Around the Issues

This past February saw a parish in Seattle fall victim to a hate crime.

At least that's what some would have you believe. Saint Patrick's Church, located north of downtown in the Portage Bay neighborhood of the city, has what could politely be termed a rather enthusiastic liturgical life, complete with dancing and movement and banner-waving and what-not. They haven't been all that ashamed of it, having until recently chosen to make it public on Facebook. They got a response they weren't expecting, in the form of a barrage of criticism from faithful Catholics in social media, who are tired of the nonsense, irreverence, the desecration of the house of God, whether it happens at the parish down the road, or Down Under. The extent of outrage took the parish in question by surprise, to the point where they removed their Facebook page, so that the photos of their celebrations would be free of harassment.

Well, maybe not entirely.

Enter the predictable punditry, as William Bornhoft admonishes us to respond with love, or something.

"Parish problems should be dealt with on the parish level, when possible. If that fails, they should be dealt with on the diocesan level, and so on. This is entirely in keeping with our teaching of subsidiarity. Rather than behaving like prideful whistleblowers appealing to the online masses when we are offended, we should properly communicate our grievances through the Church’s hierarchy ..."

In response, Joseph Shaw of the UK-based Latin Mass Society reminded Mister Nice Guy, that recourse to dialogue and persuasion hasn't always worked with unreasonable people ...

I think it is worth doing this because it leaves a paper-trail and goes into files. When history comes to be written, no one will be able to say that the laity acquiesced in what is going on. Historians with access to the files will be able to see that we constantly tested the system, and were constantly, with rare exceptions, rebuffed.

But we pay a price for this activity. Mr Bornhoft will be mortified to learn that this kind of thing is regarded, and denounced, by many of the people who hear our complaints or see our letters as aggressive, uncharitable, and contrary to a proper Catholic attitude. The accusations he makes of those posting comments on Facebook are exactly those made of those who are doing what he thinks they should be doing. It has happened to me ...

... and "unreasonable" is exactly what we're dealing with here, as the example to follow will demonstrate.

+    +    +

Much has been written in recent decades about much that has been written; in particular, letters to the local bishop or to Rome by ordinary Catholics, citing their concern over things gone wrong, attacks on the Church from within. Whether abuses against the sacred liturgy in the local parish, errors against the Faith proclaimed from the pulpit or local "theological institute," or women Religious escorting pregnant women to abortion clinics, not to mention other attitude problems -- the list goes on. We are told to "go up the ladder" of the hierarchical system, to be short and to the point, to be excruciatingly polite, with every "t" crossed, every "i" dotted, every jot and tittle correctly jotted and tittled -- and to bide our time.

Basically, to kiss more than their rings.

One would think that the discovery of deception, over the sexual indiscretions of priests in the past generation, would have altered the sympathies of those in the pews. (It sure has hell altered mine.) Father Zuhlsdorf has counseled us, and one could say, wisely so, as to the right and wrong way to address our concerns in writing to the sacred pastors of the Church. He should know, too, since he worked in the Vatican for a number of years, and knows how complaints are handled (or aren't, depending on their merit). It is simply based upon the admonition “in omnia, caritas” -- in all things, charity; not to mention that old saying that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

IMAGE: Catholic Answers, Inc. Used here without permission or shame.

Then, of course, there are the miscreants who ignore that good advice. It is they who become what My Very Close Personal Friend Father Paul Scalia refers to as “The Church Belligerent.”

+    +    +

One year ago this month, Katrina “The Crescat” Fernandes Ebersole related her experience at the parish of her grandmother's funeral. This included the celebrant imploring the people to stand for the Eucharistic Prayer, and Katrina herself being denied Communion on the tongue, to the point where the priest actually grabbed her by the hand. She also describes how, shortly before her grandmother's passing, the parish secretary denied arranging for a visit from the priest when her grandmother was dying, offering instead to have a "lay minister" come and give a blessing.

Shortly after that story was published, she issued a clarification of events that transpired, including the profound apology on the part of the priest himself, and that she was satisfied with his overture.

Of course, you know another old saying, that "everybody has to get into the act." The mere reference in this venue to such a stalwart-albeit-anonymous fellow may provoke our readers to ask: “Yo, Mighty Black-Hatted One, what more could you in all your pompous pontificating possibly presume to produce as proxy to this predicament?”

Ah, dear minions, how easily one would cut this writer to the quick! Or was there any thought given as to just how this local brouhaha came to such a happy and expedient ending?

It is here that yours truly would dare to tell the untold story, which may or may not have had an effect, but which was undertaken on one's own volition, without prior knowledge or approval of our hapless (and more famous and well-loved) heroine. For it was while overcome with outrage, and just a dash of chivalry, that this writer decided to bring the affair via electronic mail, to the attention of the Most Reverend Francis Xavier DiLorenzo, DD, STD, Bishop of Richmond, Virginia, the diocese in which this adolescent personality cult masquerading as a parish is situated. But did we stop there? Oh no, we're much too clever for that. We copied it to the one person to whom His Excellency would eventually turn and say, "Handle it." In this case, that would be the Reverend Monsignor Mark Richard Lane, D Min, Vicar General, Moderator of the Curia*, and Vicar for Clergy.

And so what follows is the relevant correspondence at this little corner of the internet, in order of occurrence.

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:47 PM, David L Alexander wrote:

Your Excellency:

There is an account of an incident that occurred recently in your diocese, and it is going viral. Its nature is such as to make right-this-damn-minute a very good time to read about it.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/2015/03/denied-communion-on-the-tongue-at-my-grandmothers-funeral.html

You might be interested to know just how much this is getting around.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/03/pita-priests-pastoral-slap-down-at-a-funeral.html

I'm going to assume that the use of illicit or invalid matter for Holy Communion might be a concern of yours. On the chance that it may not be, I seem to recall that the incident as described by the woman, upon attempting to receive Communion, constitutes assault according to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. (No, I'm not a lawyer, just a guy who knows what "tell it to the judge" means.) Maybe you're okay with that as long as it didn't involve sexual abuse or losing money. Others in high places and less beholden to you may feel differently.

That, and there were probably a whole bunch of witnesses.

I would suggest that you might dispense with the usual countermeasures of saving face, as it's generally too late once there's egg on it. Further, I submit that it serves your best interests to personally apologize (that means, meet her face to face and actually talk to her, while being just a little inconvenienced) to the woman in question, and remove the priest from his position. Let there be no room for doubt that this is not the sort of approach which the Diocese of Richmond takes in the administration of the sacraments, or in pastoral care.

It is said that she is planning to contact you. I am doing this of my own volition, because I am tired of reading stories like this, not to mention the bureaucratic bullshit nonsense that usually follows it.

Finally, and in case it has occurred to you, I stopped being overly polite about things like this a long time ago. That's the bad news. The good news for you (not to mention the priest in question) is that it didn't happen to me.

I'd be a lot less polite than I am now.

In corde Jesu,

David L Alexander
Arlington, Virginia

Now, that wasn't very nice, was it?

No, it wasn't. And by all accounts, it broke every rule which the Z-Man would impart to us. I really didn't think I deserved the courtesy of a response. I didn't expect one. A number of factors came into play while writing this, however, among them an outrage of sufficient magnitude that I didn't give a rat's ass.

Assorted malfeasance from the neighboring diocese has been fodder for local stories among faithful Catholics for many years. One might imagine that there has been sufficient time for somebody in charge down there to corral a few misbehavers. Alas (and this might be a chance to speak in the good bishop's defense), the biggest single challenge faced by any diocesan bishop is that of clergy personnel. A number of issues -- keeping them all busy and reasonably content in their assignment, finding enough of them to even fill every assignment, the mere obligatory handful of those with more than their share of growing up to do, and so on -- require a good portion of a bishop's day. And a presbyterate that is unaccustomed to a collective sense of self-discipline (a malady from which my own Diocese of Arlington has been relatively spared) can make that even more difficult, especially when you can't exactly fire them, and when they know it, and when you know they know, and when they know that you know that they … well, you get the idea.

IMAGE: A day in the life of St Thérèse of Lisieux Church, Chesapeake, Virginia. Used here without permission or shame.

So, imagine the surprise two days later (right about the time that Katrina issued her clarification) when this rogue warrior received the following unsolicited response, to that which was penned two days earlier, in his inbox.

On Friday, March 13, 2015 3:51 PM, Kevin O'Brien wrote:

To whom it may concern,

I received your email about the incident that happened this past Monday at the woman’s grandmother’s funeral. I would like to make several comments.

First, I have written an apology to the woman for not giving her Communion on the tongue. The pieces of the Body of Christ were brittle and I thought that it would be safer to place it in her hand. I was wrong. I should not have done that. I made a terrible mistake. I learned an important lesson and I will not make that mistake again.

Second, there are people in our parish who regularly wish to receive Communion on the tongue and I gladly give it to them on the tongue. Monday I made a split second decision and I was wrong. I am truly sorry. This is not a usual occurrence.

Third, the bread that we use at Eucharist here at the parish is not “pita bread.” It is in compliance with the guidelines set by the American Catholic Bishops.

Fourth, if someone is dying, I always respond to their request and visit the person as soon as possible.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding this issue. God’s Blessings always!

Sincerely Yours,
Rev. Kevin J. O’Brien

Now, even an arrogant son of a b**** such as myself is not one to kick a man when he's down. If only to remove all doubt, I made an exception.

On Friday, March 13, 2015 8:44 PM, David L Alexander wrote:

Father O'Brien:

Thank you for your letter to me. I found it most contrite. Then again ...

I would surmise that your superiors brought my correspondence with them (as opposed to any of mine directly to you) to your attention. To wit, the action described by Ms Fernandes, whereby you allegedly grabbed her by the hand as she attempted to receive Communion, constitutes assault according to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If this is the case, you are most fortunate that she does not take any further action. I can assure you that I would have been far less accommodating.

Reception on the tongue is normative in the Latin church, while reception in the hand is an indulgence, at the discretion of the bishop or conference of bishops. If you remember from those lectures on canon law, a lower authority cannot restrict that which a higher authority allows. (The latter would be Rome, not the bishops conference.)

As to the form of bread used for confecting the Sacrament, I took the time to examine the recipe that your parish uses. While it appears to meet the criterion set down by the Apostolic See for validity and licitness (the declarations of the bishops conference notwithstanding), there is always the danger of even the smallest of particles falling to the ground (or left on the hands with the communicant unaware, photos available upon request), especially when the form of the Sacrament is, as you describe it, "brittle." I recommend that you either employ servers to accompany you and other ministers with patens, or use a more conventional form of hosts. True, the latter takes away some of the romance, but not the essence.

I also recommend that you initiate serious catechesis with your staff and volunteers, regarding the differences in the roles of priests and laity; more to the point, that a layman offering a blessing to the dying is not of the same order as the administration of the Last Rites. When I prayed the "Proficiscere" over my dying father three years ago, I was under no illusion that it would have replaced Viaticum and the Apostolic Pardon which he had received earlier. Neither should it be.

And so there is no misunderstanding, Father, you have ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to compel the faithful to stand during the Eucharistic Prayer. I trust that manner of coercion will cease immediately. You are hardly in a position to disagree. The proper gesture is to kneel. PERIOD!

Finally, I can tell you that the tone of my letter to His Excellency was most intemperate. In my dealings with both priests and prelates as a master of ceremonies, I show the highest respect for the sacerdotal office. Unfortunately, I know this woman well enough to know the challenges she has faced in life, and how her faith has sustained her. I was so incensed at the offenses described to me (not to mention the entire internet), that I was moved to respond as I did.

We ask so much of our priests (including yourself), such that those whom they serve would grant them more latitude in their human failings. Once in a great while, one who serves will take undue advantage. Once in a great while, those whom he serves look the other way. In time, they may do it all too often. I would consider the possibility that you may not have been well served in this respect. I pray that such imprudence does not plague you too much in the future. Too many souls are in need of you.

In return for your taking this time to write, I feel obliged to inform others of your humble contrition, for the sake of your good name. Thank you again for writing me. I can only imagine how hard this must have been for a man in your position.

Oremus pro invicem!

David L Alexander
Arlington, Virginia

+    +    +

I should say at this point that Ms Ebersole was informed recently about the correspondence (if not shown its substance), and of my intention to publish it. The above is not necessarily a reflection of her own views on the matter, let alone how such incidents might be confronted, but are solely those of this writer. She has been assured that she can safely disavow any association with, or prior knowledge of, the aforementioned correspondence. The author (that would be me) has proceeded on the understanding of there being no objection.

That being said ...

Was the above a factor in a resolution of a pastoral matter? I don't know. I don't expect to.

But here's what I do know. The majority of a certain generation of priests have engaged in years of adolescent behavior, of such nature and extent that would never be tolerated in any other venue in real life, and have enjoyed such indulgence with little consequence if any, and I'm about as sick and tired of it as anyone else. At the age of sixty-plus years, it is in most areas of life, that I am expected to act my age. It doesn't seem to happen with many who pursue a life of "professional ministry." I have seen lives and marriages and reputations ruined. I have seen the good priests suffer for standing with correct belief and correct worship. I have seen those among the faithful who have lost their faith.

All this, so that a tired and perverse status quo might be held together with the bailing wire that is the code of silence, casually explained away as "the good of the Church," as though such would ever owe its preservation to a sinful act.

I would also invite the reader to pay attention to the paragraph highlighted in my response to the pastor. If one is to avoid the pitfalls that are part and parcel to the human condition, we must be aware, not only that our priests are only human, but that they are no more or less so than ourselves. It is important to take notice, not only of how much we need them, but how much they need us, and especially, how and why. We have a case where a priest was caught dead to rights, and has had to humble himself to all who would call him on his errors. He deserves notice for that much, and the vote of confidence that, perhaps, he might be just a little closer to the kingdom of Heaven; dare we might say, even more so than the rest of us.

It is not surprising to suggest to faithful Catholics that the time has passed for being silent. What if the time has also passed for being polite? Social media has become the public arena of choice, an arena where the playing field is level, and all bets are off. If you commit a public sacrilege with no apologies, be prepared to get called out on it, and have no one to blame but yourself. If you're a bishop who can't be bothered with the legitimate concerns of faithful Catholics, be prepared to look inadequate to the task, and (you guessed it) have no one to blame but yourself.** Say all you want about playing nice, but it hasn't worked, and the Powers That Be are left with the fruits of their indifference. If this level of outrage is to be contained, it must begin at the source. That would be the problem itself, not the reaction.

I remain hesitant to recommend to faithful Catholics the method I employed here, assuming it had any direct effect at all (other than finding out the hard way what I have to do to get any attention around here). Given the choice between honey and vinegar, that of the higher ground may be obvious. On the other hand (and in my defense), there are moments when the best results can be found with a fresh road kill.

In other words, sometimes you have to raise a big enough stink to get enough attention, don't you think?

Or don't you?

* The "moderator of the curia" is a position akin to a chief of staff. It is always held by a cleric, one who is often also the chancellor (the chief administrative officer or a diocesan bishop) and/or the vicar general (the chief delegate of a diocesan bishop, always a priest or auxiliary bishop).

** It is clear that the Bishop of Richmond is not among that number, and where he is concerned, yours truly stands corrected.
 

Scouting Goes Rogue: Part 1 (Introduction)

Earlier this year, we reported on the decision of the Boy Scouts of America to revise its membership policy with respect to youth members and sexual orientation. The relevant section of the policy up to this time, one that was supported by the 2000 Supreme Court decision in Boy Scouts of America v Dale, is as follows:

Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all who meet the membership requirements. Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, and Varsity Scouting are for boys. Venturing is for young men and young women. (Updated March 15)

The adult applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth. The applicant must also be the correct age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle, and abide by the Scout Oath or Promise, and the Scout Law.

While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.

The new policy, voted on at the National Meeting this past May, effective the beginning of next year, is as follows:

Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.

In the world of Catholic new media, there has been discussion on this topic at one time or another this past year, as would-be pundits advise Catholic families on what they should or should not do. They draw their conclusions with little in the way of hard evidence, that continued association with the BSA, as of the 23rd of May last, is definitive cooperation with an objective moral evil. Or something.

As poorly thought out as this is, at least it heads in the right direction. What's more, it pales in comparison to the vascilating stance taken by the National Catholic Committee on Scouting.

The Catholic Church teaches that people who experience a homosexual inclination or a same sex attraction are to be treated with respect recognizing the dignity of all persons. The Church's teaching is clear that engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral. Individuals who are open and avowed homosexuals promoting and engaging in homosexual conduct are not living lives consistent with Catholic teaching.

Now, contrast this relatively innocuous position with the official statement by Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, Virginia, released last May in the wake of the BSA decision.

As an organization founded on character and leadership, it is highly disappointing to see the Boy Scouts of America succumb to external pressures and political causes at the cost of its moral integrity. Additionally, it seems clear that the result of this policy change will likely not bring harmony, but rather continuing controversy, policy fights, and discord.

The above has probably been the most forthright statement to date by any Catholic bishop on the issue.

We hear a lot about how people with same-sex attraction (and the assumption is that "sexual orientation" is limited to that issue) should be treated "with respect recognizing the dignity of all persons." The reality is, that this is not what the Church teaches on homosxuality; it is what the Church teaches on everything! “In omnia, caritas.” In all things, charity. Our mother the Church does not call us to condemnation, but to conversion. She wants us to unite with the Bridegroom, and be happy with Him forever in Heaven. Hers is a message of love, not of hate. What appears at a distance to be a bitter pill, is simply the Bread of Life.

Meanwhile, we hear little from the NCCS on how unnatural sexual proclivities are "an objective disorder," and are an inclination towards "an objective moral evil." That is most assuredly what the Church teaches on homosexuality. A genuine teaching moment has been reduced to a public relations campaign, trying to assure everybody that we promise to be nice, please don't hurt us. As a result, there is little in the way of authoritative direction. And so, at the local level, pastors decide not to sponsor Boy Scout troops at the end of the year (often without even discerning their own bishop's position, as though the Church operates on a congregational polity), parents pull their kids out of Scouting, in some cases as they are about to be eligible for the Eagle Award -- all this without guidance, without an alternative, without much of anything.

To limit the concern of Church officials to merely explicit sexual activity is morally problematic in itself, not so much for what it says, as for what it does not say. Dr Denise Hunnell is a wife and mother with a long history of involvement in Boy Scouting. Not content to rest on those laurels, she brings up the obvious:

What constitutes sexual conduct? It would be normal for a high school age Boy Scout to post pictures on Facebook of his girlfriend. He might be seen holding hands with her. He might even be seen giving her a kiss. None of this would be considered as inappropriate sexual behavior. Now consider the Boy Scout with a same-sex attraction. Would it also be acceptable for him to hold hands and kiss his boyfriend? This policy opens the door to a Clintonian parsing of the definition of sexual relations. Will the Scout invite his boyfriend to the Court of Honor to share in the celebration of his Scouting achievements? Will other Scouts and their parents be expected to look upon this behavior with tolerance and acceptance? For Catholics, that would be impossible.

Unfortunately, the tepid response that is evident in the NCCS position has been the extent of intellectual rigor among so many Catholic leaders involved in Scouting until now. I have spoken to a number of such leaders at the local level. The responses, including to such as the above, are no less depressing.

A local commissioner who liaises with a Catholic unit: "I don't see the difference here, David."

A decorated Scout leader and recipient of a religious award for his service to Catholic scouting: "I don't have a dog in this hunt."

The scoutmaster of a Troop sponsored by a Catholic parish: "It's above my pay grade."

No kidding. Grown men actually say this stuff.

In the roughly three months this past spring, during what the BSA referred to as a "family discussion," little more than a staged exercise of consultation as prelude to a foregone conclusion, was like a bad remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers once the "pod people" started taking over. I heard more inane and ill-formed observations in two or three months from seasoned and otherwise-sensible veterans of Scouting, than I had in the nine years I had been back in uniform.

The good Doctor, on the other hand, is quite correct to imply elsewhere in her treatise, that the leadership of the NCCS has been naive in its approach to the subject. Even children who prepare for First Communion are taught (or should be taught) the Act of Contrition, that they may make a proper Confession, in which they promise "to sin no more, to avoid the near occasion of sin, to do penance, and to amend my life ..." In other words, it is not enough to avoid sin, but also to avoid those situations which invariably lead to sin. It is what the Jews refer to as "building a wall around Torah." The purpose of the wall (or the fence, depending on your translation) is not only to keep something in, but to keep something else out. To put it another way, in the words of Father Peter Stravinskas: "If you want to avoid the unthinkable, you draw the lines well in advance." Those among the Catholic leadership who advise the BSA do not appear to see this as a problem, which is not about a deficiency in theology, but a more basic level of catechesis -- from bishops, no less, and the intellectual dwarfs who do their bidding!

Over the next few weeks at this time, man with black hat will be laying out the new landscape of the scouting movement in the United States, particularly as it has emerged in the last year.

Part 2 of this series will introduce the reader to what are referred to as the "aims and methods of Scouting," and will give some background on the history of so-called "independent scouting." It will provide a brief glance at how a traditional scouting program would look and operate, and what it would provide, based upon the writings of Lord Baden Powell of Gilwell, the father of the scouting movement, and his 1907 Brownsea Island experiment.

With Part 2 as a basis for comparison, Parts 3, 4, and 5 will each present a possible alternative to the Boy Scouts of America (in the form of Trail Life USA, Troops of Saint George, and the Federation of North American Explorers, respectively). Finally, Part 6 will show why remaining with the Boy Scouts of America, all else notwithstanding, may or may not still be the best alternative over the long haul.

If you are a mother or father of a Catholic household with boys in Scouting, you want to read this series.

If you are a parish or diocesan youth minister, or a Catholic priest whose parish has sponsored a Scout Troop, and you want to know what to do next (while waiting for the diocesan youth ministry office to get it together), you want to read this series.

If you are with a diocesan youth ministry office, or a diocesan Scouting chaplaincy, and are tired of waiting for said dicastery to get it together on this subject, you want to read this series.

Concern is raised in this venue over the limiting of the problem to explicit sexual engagement, when the problem is really broader than that. Most people who think beyond the ends of their noses know, that nobody ever joins Boy Scouting with the expectation of getting laid. (There, I said it.) We must conclude, therefore, that there is more to this issue than the one-dimensional approach employed up to now.

If you agree (or if you don't, and would dare this writer to prove otherwise), you want to read this series.

(NOTE: If you are a parish priest, and need to know a few things sooner rather than later, you know where to find me.)

The thing is, many Catholics with boys in Scouting are willing to listen to anybody with enough initials after his or her name, or enough visibility in Catholic new media, who would accuse them of leading their child down the road to perdition had they not burned his uniform sometime after May 23rd, without even suggesting a viable option. (By "viable," I refer to concept of scouting as described above, as opposed to a Catholic boys club whose members all wear the same polo shirts and pray the Rosary around the campfire.) Maybe it's about time we all brought the conversation up a notch, don't you think?

Or don't you? Stay tuned ...
 

Every Matter Under Heaven

For everything
there is a season,
and a time
for every matter
under heaven.
(Ecclesiastes 3:1)

Recently, Michael Voris, of the internet-based video apostolate known as ChurchMilitant.TV (formerly RealCatholicTV), announced his apostolate's first-ever “‘Year of Faith’ Retreat at Sea” cruise for seven days from Fort Lauderdale to various stops in the Caribbean and back. This retreat will be a time of prayer, reflection, fellowship, not to mention Mass and regular confession, given the services of the one and only Father John “The World’s Most Powerful Catholic Blogger” Zuhlsdorf.

The opportunity to socialize and share common ground with Catholics of like mind is good in and of itself. Bringing a good Catholic priest along for the ride is even better in and of itself, given the increasing difficulty of finding cruise lines with a Catholic chaplaincy, never mind a priest whose bonafides are in order. (Some cruise lines have used priests of independent Catholic sects, or "rent-a-priests" who left their calling to marry, but still set up shop for weddings, spiritual counseling, and ... well, opportunities like this.) All this in itself has not been a recent bone of contention. It was the idea of all this under the auspices of a spiritual retreat.

Now, you're sitting there thinking: “But, but ... Oh Black-Hatted One, what harm can there be in joining others of the faithful remnant in prayer and reflection, or do we suspect that your indignation is prompted by (yet another) stick having ventured far into the nether regions of your well-formed posterior?”

Ah, dear minions, a good question. A little over the top, maybe, but never mind that. Let us first consider the essential differences between a spiritual retreat and a pleasure cruise, under the premise that there might actually be at least one.

On one hand, a retreat is held mostly in silence, with a carefully planned sequence of spiritual talks, with balanced if simple meals, and with no allowance for cellphones, electronic devices such as laptop computers or iPods, or musical instruments. All such creature comforts are left at the front desk for the duration of the event. You go to bed early, you get up early, and if you never have a moment's fun, it's beside the point ... isn't it?

On the other hand, a cruise has outside activities, social events with no limit to schmoozing, extravagant meals, swimming pools, shuffleboard, nightclub entertainment, ballroom or other forms of dancing, and social directors which the likes of yours truly would spend most of the time ignoring.

Even when Christ Himself evaded the crowds for solitude, he fled to the desert, not an oasis.

The above having been said, the organizers of this sojourn have no doubt discovered that 1) other Catholic publishers and apostolates have put on the party-dog hat for doing this, 2) the organizers get to go for free (as is standard fare for travel agent/planners among the infidels), and 3) the priest gets to go for free, "for the laborer deserves his food." (Matthew 10:10). On one hand, I don't remember seeing a Caribbean cruise on Father Z's wish list. On the other hand, this is taking place during the latter part of Lent, which is the worst time for a parish priest to break away, and the good Father does not have a parish assignment.

Now, I don't know about the rest of you kids, but when I go on a retreat, I go on a retreat. When I go on a cruise, I go on a cruise. (I haven't yet, but that's not important.) Retreats might be of varying depth and severity, this is true, but in the Catholic tradition, they all have certain things in common, such as the denial of varying degrees of creature comforts, and a certain severity in routine. Unless an entire cruise line is prepared to cooperate, this is an implausible scenario, and it is so during the season of the Great Fast, known in the Western church as Lent. Dressing it up with a certain routine, bringing a priest along, and calling it a retreat doesn't change any of that.

Meanwhile, to the person who accused yours truly in a particular social media venue of engaging in "an ugly display of envy and sour grapes," it is to laugh! Such a response assumes three things: 1) that those who challenge the idea as presented by CMTV are invariably jealous that they cannot or would not attend, 2) that concern over confusing a luxury cruise with a religious retreat is without merit, and 3) that the basis for 1 and 2 are that the parties in question are considered undeserving.

To the first, I can assure this individual that I have ample opportunity to a) go on retreats, b) go on a cruise (eventually), and c) have served Holy Mass for Father Zuhlsdorf, whom I have met and with whom I have broken bread on more than one occasion. He is a fine man, and a devout and (though you might not know it by his internet presence) an unassuming and humble priest.

To the second, my case stands on its own merits, and is motivated solely by them, and so I stand by them. I do so with no resentment towards Mr Voris, CMTV, (both of whom I have defended publicly in this setting), or (certainly!) Father Zuhlsdorf, for their fortunes. That they have suffered the slings and arrows of opposition for their convictions is not to be disputed here.

To the third, it would depend on what you mean by "deserving." Do they deserve a cruise for their apostolic work? Maybe, maybe not. It is hardly a free ride, as both are engaged in the responsibility of managing the event for others. Besides, if enough people decide to attend, Mister V and Father Z will get a cruise whether they deserve it or not, won't they?

But none of that makes it a retreat.

No one in the United States, even in a diocese that is on the verge of schism (and there are those within the walls of the Vatican who have long contended this), has to go offshore as they would with their monetary wealth, to find a haven of spiritual wealth. They can travel to other parts of the country and attend retreats, spiritual talks, and (lest we forget to mention) Gregorian chant symposia, all on dry land, for less money, and without a passport. As for myself, I am presently situated in the ecclesiastical Garden of Eden that is the Diocese of Arlington. I don't need to go on a cruise to hear the Truth with eloquence, having ample opportunity every Sunday to have such legends as those who serve the Church of Saint John the Beloved in McLean, Virginia. (Click on that link there and you can hear them as well.)

Those who choose to attend this soirée, I wish them well, with smooth waters, the wind at their back, and staying clear of the Bermuda Triangle. What I don't wish, is that they would kid themselves into thinking they are attending a spiritual retreat hosted by Princess Cruises, let alone during the season of Lent.

As I have not gained the notoriety for my blogospheric work to nearly the extent of the others mentioned here, this commentary would hardly stir the wind among the willows, don't you think?

Or don't you?

(Less than a week later, a sequel is published, and so the plot thickens!)
 

Reasonable Expectations

IMAGE: Kathleen Riley, left, and Alison Carroll, right resigned as teachers at Saint Ann's Sunday School. (Tracy A Woodward/The Washington Post. Used without permission or shame.)

These two women were just featured in the Washington Post. It is one thing to be a fool, but to be proud of making the papers for it -- well, that is a major piece of work.

Kathleen Riley knows her beliefs on the male-only priesthood and contraception put her at odds with leaders of her church. But as a fifth-generation Catholic who went to a Catholic school and grew up to teach in one, Riley feels the faith deeply woven through her ... Last month, Riley joined at least four other Sunday school teachers and resigned from her post at St. Ann’s parish after a letter arrived at her home requiring her — and all teachers in the Arlington Catholic Diocese — to submit “of will and intellect” to all of the teachings of church leaders.

“I’m just shocked, I can’t believe they’re asking me to sign this,” said Riley, who said she may keep her own children out of the parish education program in the fall. “The bishops are human, and sometimes their judgment is not God’s judgment. We always have to be vigilant about that. The Holy Spirit gives us the responsibility to look into our own consciences.”

Thankfully, the Post has made provision for other voices in this matter. It is not always so generous. Even so, we are obliged to illustrate just what it is that has everyone in an uproar, namely the requirement to sign this:

PROFESSION OF FAITH

I, _______________________________________, with firm faith believe and profess each and every thing that is contained in the Symbol of Faith, namely:

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

I also firmly accept and hold each and every thing definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

_________________________________________
Signature

Signed under oath before the undersigned on

(month)___________ (day)____ (year)________

_________________________________________
Pastor/Parochial Vicar

Of course, the complaints are typical: 1) What about my conscience? 2) Why do I owe my bishop my "submission of will and intellect"? 3) Why weren't we consulted? 4) Why weren't we given a warning? 5) Why are the requirements so "technical"? (No kidding, someone called them that.)

We are here to provide the answers to these complaints, one at a time.

1) Conscience

Yes, the Church does hold esteem for the "internal forum," man's inner voice, his conscience. Man is what Thomas Aquinas called "a reasoning animal." He is an animal who knows, and who knows that he knows. When the Second Vatican Council upheld the role of man's conscience, the Council Fathers were not introducing a novelty. What has happened, unfortunately, is that people tend to leave out the rest of what the Council said. They tend to elevate that which binds one's inner self (the subjective) to the detriment of that which is intended to give it direction (the objective). It comes down to this; let your conscience be your guide, but let the Church guide your conscience, as Christ intended for Her. This is illustrated in one of the comments that accompany the article.

ChristmasCarol
7/13/2012 7:48 PM EDT

As a former DRE with 10 years experience administering religious ed programs in the Arlington Diocese, I heartily applaud the Bishop's efforts to invite people to commit to the Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church before embarking on the role of catechist ...

There were numerous occasions in my own experience as a DRE in which I had to deal with angry parents who complained that their children were not being taught the Faith correctly. Upon researching these matters with all parties involved, it was most often the case that the teacher was giving the class personal opinions rather than Church teachings. Opinions need to be checked at the door; no matter what the catechist believes personally, they are there to teach the facts of the Faith to their students--anything else does everyone a disservice ...

So, what of the rights of the children, not to mention the parents of those children? Are they reasonable to expect to be told what the Church teaches, as opposed to what somebody thinks they should be teaching?

This is what can happen when the place of conscience -- what it is, and what it is not -- is misunderstood. A person's opinion is presented as though it is fact, and is ironically challenged by one who is dismissed for "just an opinion." Even those who object to a Church teaching have a right to know what it is to which they are objecting. When fact and opinion are blurred, this right is denied, and the person is dealt with unjustly, without even knowing it, never mind wanting to know.

So then, Ms Riley is not just "at odds with leaders of her church," she is at odds with the Church, period. She has disqualified herself from teaching about what the Church believes, by her own admission. (And making quite a show of it, one might add.)

2) Submission of Will and Intellect

Critics of the oath are quick to point out, not so much to the oath itself, but that they "adhere with religious submission of will and intellect" to the bishops. They assume that one is expected to agree with every prudential judgment they make, even the bad ones (like criminal background checks on account of scandals for which the laity, in large part, are not at all responsible, but have the opportunity to pay for). But this is not about their personal opinions, or their personal ... anything! The Pope of Rome, and his bishops in communion with him, constitute a "magisterium," a teaching authority. It is the authority of their office to which one submits, not the persons themselves, and the Most Reverend Bishop of Arlington is one of that number. All members of the faithful are required to submit to the ordinary teaching authority of the Church, whether they teach about it, or simply live it out.

If your Sunday school teacher cannot do that, there is a bigger problem than his or her fitness to teach the Faith, and until that's all worked out ...

3) Consultation

"Why weren't we consulted?" This is the rallying cry of a generation of aging flower children who don't get their way. They say they want the chance to "dialogue," but it is generally a ruse. Such exercises are an excuse to delay the inevitable, to bog things down in committee, in the hope that one might have one's way, or failing that, have the matter in question forgotten. Such is an old trick of bureaucracies everywhere. Most progressives in positions of authority in the Church, where clerics or laics, whether at parish or diocesan level, are in no mood to negotiate with anyone once they are in charge. Besides, if a matter is settled, as are the teachings of the Church are, through what Christ has handed down to His Church, there is nothing to negotiate.

4) Fair Warning

There is never a good time to give someone bad news. You can break it to them as gently as one will, but at the end of the day, bad news is bad news. The need for a "warning" presumes the need to prepare, to reflect upon a decision. Should it not occur to a catechist that he or she be prepared to defend that which he or she teaches, inasmuch as he or she is bound to believe in that which he or she teaches? In the event that such poses a moral conundrum for the catechist, why is he or she teaching it?

In which case, the warning is there at the offset.

5) Degree of Difficulty

Finally, what about that really "technical" language for which "the people of God" cry out in the wilderness demanding an explanation? What is it that could possibly be above and beyond the comprehension, of what numerous progressive Catholic periodicals are always telling us, is the most astute and well-informed generation of laity in the Church's two millennia of history? Why, nothing more than the text of the Nicene Creed, that which is sung or recited every Sunday, by Catholics of all Rites of the Church. For over forty years, that Creed has been proclaimed in the language of the people in the Roman Mass. The very least that can be said, is that most of us have had enough time to mull it over.

Including two aggressively naive women who think this is all about them.