FRIDAY POTPOURRI: PARISH HISTORY: 1929 - HOPE AND WORRY

The parish school was established for the 1929-1930 school year.  Obviously without the school building finished yet, some accommodation had to be made.  The Knights of Columbus building at 272 West Market Street was put to use.  The hall of the building which is now the Teamsters Union Hall, was divided into makeshift classrooms for 220 students.  Holy Humility of Mary Sister were the first teachers of the parish.

Then on November 1^st, 1929, the new school building was ready to welcome its first students.  Not that the building was yet finished.  It would not be until Thanksgiving that the it would be dedicated and the first Mass not celebrated until four weeks after the school had taken up residence.

It is interesting to note that over the doors of the new building are the words, “Pro Deo” and “Pro Patria.”  This is translated as, “For God” and “For Country.”  Anti-Catholic sentiment was strong in the United States and many questioned if a Catholic could be a true and patriotic citizen while maintaining allegiance to the Pope in Rome.  Of course, patriotism to legitimate authority is a strong Catholic tenant and so these words in Latin were placed on this new building to show that not only were Sebastianites Catholic, they were also true citizens of the United States.

That Thanksgiving was said to be one of the nicest weather wise in years.  In the middle of once abandoned farm land stood a brand new church, school (main floor), office, convent (for twelve nuns on the top floor) and hall (in the basement) combination building of a modified Spanish architecture, decorated with red, white and blue swags, ready to begin servicing the people of the parish of St. Sebastian.  It was a building “of the modern school of stone and light brick with Romanesque detail.”

The happy day did not come without its downside.  Such a monumental building came with a huge price for such a young parish and it was straddled with a huge debt just as the country plunged into what is now recognized as one of the worst economic downturns in American history.

Though the combination building served many purposes, it did not serve as a rectory and a place for the priests to live was needed.  A house was rented at 454 Roslyn and would serve as the rectory until 1937.

REMAIN CALM

Just before our arrival Ireland legalized same sex unions.  When we reached Dublin, Rainbow flags were everywhere.  They were all down the main road of the city, hanging from businesses and from apartments.  The day we were to leave it was going to be Gay Pride Day there.  Then when we arrived at the airport we were greeted with many newspaper headlines that exclaimed such things as, "U. S. Gay."

I was not home in time to have Sunday Mass with the people of St. Sebastian and so have not had a chance to share with Sebastianites yet the thoughts of their pastor.  In a way I am grateful for that.  It was way to much to process quickly.

 

A couple days into this new reality my first bit of advice before anything else is this: Remain calm.

 

Yes, this is a very serious concern.  It is precisely because it is a serious concern that it is necessary that we remain calm.  Above all, do not make this an emotional issue.  Nobody wins that way.

 

In the 2,000 year history of the Church, we have been through similar things before.  (Consider Ireland's history!)  We have been through similar things in our own time with the legalization of contraception and abortion that became protected rights under the law.  And you know what, the Church has survived for 2,000 years.

 

We have enjoyed an extraordinary time of acceptance.  That is now coming to an end.  Abortion providors and same sex couples are walking in the front door of the courthouse and the 10 Commandments are being taken out the back.  And we will be Okay.

 

And it has not been all roses and chocolates for us anyway.  Catholics were long barred from social clubs, higher paying jobs, higher politcal offices, and from living in certain places.  This parish was built where it was because the neighborhood fought the original desired location where a Protestant church now stands because in the 20s they didn't want Catholics living here.  Things improved.  Then they got worse.

 

The point is: If you want to be Catholic you will survive.  There is a lot of important work to do but you will survive.  We will be fine.  Even if (and especially if) you are put to death for your beliefs, you will be fine.  This is not all there is.  This is not the endgame. 

 

So now let's starting thinking and praying and begin by placing yourself in the mind of Christ.

STRAW MEN

A few assignments ago the parish in which I was ministering was part of a local ecumenical council.  All the local Christian Churches joined together in order to try to create some positive events for the community.  There was one Church, however, that was viciously anti-Catholic.  Actually, I don’t think that they were intentionally anti-Catholic, but they were.  Their tag line was that they loved Catholics and knew that they were going to hell, and so it was their sworn duty to do everything they could to convert us.  This included sneaking into the parish church and leaving tracks that looked very Catholic on the cover but inside taught why Catholicism was so bad.  As a result they were asked not to return to the group.

 

Now, I actually do not have a problem with somebody who thinks they have something better going on and invite people to their church instead of the Catholic Church (even though I think they are wrong.)  But I have a difficult problem with the great amount of Churches that misrepresent the Church, then denounce the misrepresentation, and then say, “So join us, because we are not that evil Church.”  I can’t get over how often this is the case.  It is common even in my local area with such mega churches such as Grace and The Chapel, large non-denominationals that boast such a large percentage of their congregations are former Catholics, who feel they have to misrepresent the Church in order to refute her.  Even when they use the Catechism, it is a common practice to use selective passages out of context to make their point.  That is not saying much for someone who believes they have truth and want to convince somebody to join them.  So much for trusting in the Holy Spirit. 

 

On the one hand it is our fault for not teaching our people better.  On the other hand, hurray for us for if the majority of their congregations are made up of ex-Catholics, WHERE DO THEY THINK THEY WERE FIRST INTRODUCED TO JESUS AND ARE STILL FEELING MOVED TO FOLLOW HIM albeit in a breakaway Church?  It is a shame (and not entirely their fault) that former Catholics rely on such sources to tell them what their (former) Church taught them instead of really looking into it – and there are plenty of ways to do so.

 

Thinking about it recently I came to the conclusion that if were not Catholic, I would not be Protestant.  If it were not for the Eucharist in the way that the Catholic Church believes it, I don’t think I would buy into the whole Christian experiment.  I would probably be Jewish.  But as it is, there is the Eucharist.  And I cannot fathom anybody who has been properly catechized in it, and who believed it, would leave the Church for anything no matter how justified they felt.  In fact, most people I talk to concerning their reasons for leaving the Church have nothing to do with such things.  They site better music, better community, better extra-praise services offered by the church and as such, searching for a Church becomes like looking for a good gym – a place that offers things I want rather than an honest search for truth.

DID YOU KNOW THAT 48% OF ALL STATISTICS ARE MADE UP ON THE SPOT? (I JUST MADE THAT UP.)

Today is not so much a rant, but an observation.

 

It’s difficult to get good news out about the Church even when the news is good.  Just for example, can you imagine trying to organize and lead 1.2 billion people from every country, socioeconomic level, age, government, education level, etc, etc, etc, and making them all happy?

 

Aint going to happen.

 

I wanted to organize an outing for dinner with my sister and my cousin yesterday and the three of us couldn’t agree on a place to eat.

 

So, an accurate and documented article came out in the Plain Dealer on Wednesday, March 6^th entitled, “U.S. Catholics Mixed on Benedict, Poll Says” written by Dalia Sussman of the (wait for it) New York Times.  The poll stated that most Catholics were positive about the Church in the United States, 54% giving it a good to excellent rating, and 77% said that things were either improving or remaining the same.  Three quarters thought the next pope would be in touch with today’s Catholics.  (Which ones?  The ones in the desert?  The ones in countries in which the faith is suppressed?  The ones in the jungle?  Oh, I know, you mean the ones that drive minivans and shop at the mall and have three computers and five televisions at home. – Sarcasm there.  Sorry.  I digress.)

 

Wow.

 

Wow.

 

Wow.

 

(I’ll say it again.)

 

Wow.

 

Most presidents would KILL for numbers like this!  And they are only concerned with one country for votes!  Reurters reports that our president has a 43% approval rating according to this article.  Bet he would like to exchange his numbers for those above.  Considering that the Church and our pope have to fashion a faith that speaks to the African, the European, the Asian, the American, etc. etc. etc., and not just cater to the West, and then to have numbers like this IMHO is nothing short of the miraculous.

 

But then it is couched in the article stated above.  “Only” 50% that thought things were good.  “A mere” 4% thought things were excellent.  “But only 3 in 10” of the three quarters who thought positively about the new pope had a “great deal of confidence in that.”

 

Talk about a killjoy.

 

Then there was this totally disconnected little ditty that I absolutely loved.  “’He just seemed kind of bland,’ Dorothy Lascuola, 66, a frequent churchgoer from Butler Pa., said of Pope Benedict XVI in a follow-up interview.”  Perhaps we should elect Justin Bieber for the next pontiff.

 

Thank goodness we know what Dorothy thought.  But Fr. Pfeiffer was just saying yesterday what a masterful mind our papal emeritus has and was commenting on some of his masterful and quite exciting writing.  Of course nothing of this kind was reported so I thought I would make up for it here.

 

*sigh*

 

That did get kind of ranty after all didn’t.  Perhaps I get too much fun out of it.

 

RANT - COUNTER RANT: SOME (WHAT I HOPE IS) MEDIEVAL THINKING

Joe Cullen of Alliance wrote a letter to the editor of the Akron Beacon Journal about guns and the NRA and PUCO, which might be good, but he so incredible annoyed me with his first sentence that I could not read on any further.  It was an unwarranted and ignorant attack on the Church.

 

Here is the sentence in part:  “. . .[it] makes me wonder if we are revisiting the times of Galileo and Pope Urban VIII.  That subject is a fear or hatred of science.”

 

This fallacy is kicked around so often it is thought of in the collective memory as true.  It is like Shakespeare’s “Richard III,” the story of the hunch-backed diabolical king of England that is such a good story that if it isn’t true, it should be.  Yet it is not.  In fact, Richard might have been one of the finest kings ever to sit on the thrown.  But who really cares in the light of such a good and well believed story?

 

So it is with Galileo and the Church.  To begin with, is it not odd that this is practically the only story that pops into anybody’s mind demonstrating a rocky relationship between the Church and science?  How many other monumental stories can you sight from history?  This is not an example of a war between science and faith, this is an example of the exception to the rule. 

 

Further, Galileo did not invent the idea that the sun was the center of our solar system.  It had been well known as a theory for centuries.  Further, a tiny bit of research would have revealed to Mr. Cullum that Galileo did not prove anything.  It was a theory that he put forth as fact that could not be proven by the scientific method.  Yet, despite warnings from his fellow scientists he put the theory forth as fact.  Further, he was wrong in stating that it was fact that the sun was the center of the universe. 

 

Yet still he might have been fine had he remained in the area of science.  Yet he pushed into areas of theology making bold statements using his (only partially correct, un-provable theory) as a means to dictate to Scripture scholars how they must interpret Scripture.  Then after many cautions and (perhaps inadvertently) publically humiliating the pope and alienating the scientific community, he was placed under house arrest under the most generous of circumstances. 

 

Could the whole thing been handled better?  Yes on both sides.  Was it the hatred of science that it is always carted out as demonstrating?  Not even remotely.

 

Far from being hostile to the science, the Church embraces science, has produced great scientists, has supported great science.  From the microscope to the telescope to the Big Band theory (as “invented” by a Jesuit priest) the Church helped invent, fund, support, and teach great science.  It is all there in history, methodically ignored by “historians” and misinformed writers of letters to the editor who try to make a point using false “truths”.

 

One thing that I don’t blame Mr. Cullun for is the title of his letter which was undoubtedly chosen by an equally misinformed editor.  “Medieval Thinking”  Not to say that the Medieval period was all a piece of cake, it had some serious problems.  But it was not all the vacuous black hole of human intellegence that light weight historians like to believe (and teach) that it was.  From this period we have the birth of universities, hospitals, modern forms of government, unparalleled opportunities for women to be educated and placed in positions of power (through the Church).  Architecture flourished.  Mathematics and philosophy and the intellectual life in general made great strides.  Countries were brought under leadership making crime and violence in a unified Christendom less of a threat.  Art takes on new importance. 

 

It is easy to look back on an age and point out all the bad aspects of it.  One can only guess how we will be viewed: the bloodiest centuries ever, wars, mass shootings, abortion, pollution, the highest ever incarceration rate, the suppression of religion, one third of the world starving and one third of the world eating itself to death, the baseness of modern entertainment . . . the list could go on and on.  So to use the term “Medieval” as a derogatory word is both pointless and misleading.  One could come up with a very plausible argument that the editor disagrees with the writer of the article sighting that he believes the Galilean controversy was enlightened.

 

(Can you tell I’ve been brooding about this for two days?)

 

The irony here is that Mr. Cullun and the paper did exactly what Galileo did (and I fulfilled the role of the pope.)  They state things as fact, based on faulty information, when they could have done so much good.  And I felt I had to set the record straight.  I would not, however place them under house arrest, I would take their pens away until they attended a middle school history course.

 Maybe they could start here.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: CATHOLICS BE QUIET

Last week a letter to the editor in the Akron Beacon Journal appeared that said (and I quote loosely) that the Catholic Church should stop telling people how to vote for it is not good for public discourse.  There are so many things wrong with the sentence I don’t even know where to begin. 

 

Here are just some of the things wrong with that sentence.  First, who is the Catholic Church?  Well, everyone who is Catholic.  Although it may feel otherwise at times, the “Church” is not clergy or the Vatican or nuns in a convent.  It includes them, but it is not them only.  The reason it may feel otherwise at times is because the “Church” is also a belief, Tradition, a set of philosophies, and a way of living.  When we forget that, leaders of this community (or servants of this community depending on how one sees it) call its adherers to remember basic tenants of their way of life.  If we stand for “A” and a candidate running for office stands for “B” at the destruction of “A”, it is incumbent on those who hold “A” to say, “Hey!  When you go to the polls, don’t forget ‘A’!”  To not do so would not only be irresponsible and negligent, it may lead to great harm for the people who live “A”.

 

And why is the Catholic Church so often singled out?  What if Union Workers thought a candidate was going to be good to the union?  There would be signs everywhere saying, “This candidate is endorsed by the Union!”  Why is it good for them to have said that and not a religious body?

 

Further, the Catholic Church does NOT tell people for whom to vote.  That would be a violation of our tax standing.  But it does weigh in heavily on issues, which one candidate or the other may hold or not hold.  How on earth can one avoid that?  But even so, there is the odd perception out there that there is some neutral way of living  - some mysterious base that is best for all people.  This is false.  There is no neutral way of being.  Every way of living, even those that try to purge religion from them entirely, comes with basic assumptions, philosophies, rules, and boundaries.  Catholic!  Do not be bullied into thinking you are forcing your way of living on others otherwise you are being acted upon in exactly the same way that your accusers are laying in you.  Your position, your way of seeing life, your vision for America is just as valid as any.

 

And as for not being good for public discourse: Since when is it better in the United States to silence a voice in order for there to be better discourse?  If someone were serious about public discourse they would eagerly invite a Catholic point of view into the conversation (and not a disgruntled Catholic who all too eagerly dumps Catholic teaching as being too Catholic.) 

 

To what other group is it possible to say they should stay out of public discourse on life in the United States?  What if the letter had said that a Jewish League should remain quiet at all times or that GLBT Community should not have an agenda nor tell people how to vote on issues?  What would be the point of them even existing?  There would be riots.

 

It is true that we may be the big kid on the block and we can’t wield our beliefs like a bludgeon, but neither are we to apologize for being the big kid or be pushed off the block on which we live we live too.

GUEST BLOGGER: HERE CHICKIE CHICKIE CHICKIE

Actually "Guest Blogger" is not a being exactly honest.  In actuality I am reprinting Cardinal George's words about the whole Chick-fil-A controversy.  Before that, however, I must say that I was listening to NPR yesterday and heard them handle this issue.  They covered it well taking both sides of the issue (though everyone interviewed was for SS marriage) and asking hard questions of those on both sides of the debate.  I was astounded.  So since I point out their foibles so often I thought to give them a nod today.

It is a difficult topic to talk about.  How do you uphold your faith in the Catholic Church and not sound like a bigot?  One way on this topic is to not get side tracked about SS marriage.  This is about government decreeing favors or hinderances depending on your (currently anyway) perfectly legal point of view.

It is not adequate to debate Jesus here.  One of the persons being interviewed yesterday (and I am quoting loosely but not far off) that "Don't get me wrong.  The Bible is an important document in our history.  But it is outdated.  It is nearly 3,000 years old.  We have moved beyond it.  After all it condoned stoning wives and keeping slaves."  (I know, I know, it didn't.  That the problem with bumper sticker debating.)

Anyway, Cardinal George had some intelligent things to say on this so I thought to share it with you today.

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city? Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it? I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”

The value in question is espousal of “gender-free marriage.” Approval of state-sponsored homosexual unions has very quickly become a litmus test for bigotry; and espousing the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history is now, supposedly, outside the American consensus. Are Americans so exceptional that we are free to define “marriage” (or other institutions we did not invent) at will? What are we re-defining?

 

It might be good to put aside any religious teaching and any state laws and start from scratch, from nature itself, when talking about marriage. Marriage existed before Christ called together his first disciples two thousand years ago and well before the United States of America was formed two hundred and thirty six years ago. Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.

Marriage exists because human nature comes in two complementary sexes: male and female. The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women. Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital. Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and “gender-free marriage” is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle.

Both Church and state do, however, have an interest in regulating marriage. It is not that religious marriage is private and civil marriage public; rather, marriage is a public institution in both Church and state. The state regulates marriage to assure stability in society and for the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens. The state has a vested interest in knowing who is married and who is not and in fostering good marriages and strong families for the sake of society.

 

The Church, because Jesus raised the marital union to the level of symbolizing his own union with his Body the Church, has an interest in determining which marital unions are sacramental and which are not. The Church sees married life as a path to sanctity and as the means for raising children in the faith, as citizens of the universal kingdom of God. These are all legitimate interests of both Church and state, but they assume and do not create the nature of marriage.

People who are not Christian or religious at all take for granted that marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the sake of family and, of its nature, for life. The laws of civilizations much older than ours assume this understanding of marriage. This is also what religious leaders of almost all faiths have taught throughout the ages. Jesus affirmed this understanding of marriage when he spoke of “two becoming one flesh” (Mt. 19: 4-6). Was Jesus a bigot? Could Jesus be accepted as a Chicagoan? Would Jesus be more “enlightened” if he had the privilege of living in our society? One is welcome to believe that, of course; but it should not become the official state religion, at least not in a land that still fancies itself free.

Surely there must be a way to properly respect people who are gay or lesbian without using civil law to undermine the nature of marriage. Surely we can find a way not to play off newly invented individual rights to “marriage” against constitutionally protected freedom of religious belief and religious practice. The State’s attempting to redefine marriage has become a defining moment not for marriage, which is what it is, but for our increasingly fragile “civil union” as citizens.

Francis Cardinal George, OMI

HHS vs IHS

“Bareness is God’s playground.”

It is too early (Thursday morning) to have anything too intelligent to say on the HHS mandate ruling.  The full understanding is not yet known and conflicting reports keep coming in.  The exact nature of the ruling and the future for Catholics (and, in reality, the future of all people of faith) is not yet known and we wait with our collect breath held.

In any event, there is no cause for despair.  There is only room for hope.  If there is one thing we learn from Scriptures is that good things are about to happen when the worst is happening.  It is when all earthly hope seems lost that God finally steps in.  It must be that way otherwise we would always assume that this is the natural order of things.  But God steps in when time runs out, when usefulness is past, when all is lost, when the end seems to have come.  It is only then we can say as the Psalmist proclaimed, “If God had not been on our side . . .”

If it should turn out that this latest ruling is in conflict with our faith, that government mandates directly interfere with our relationship with God, have we not repeatedly seen even to this day that this is precisely when the Church unifies, rises up, becomes strong, and saint and martyrs are made?  Should this be the case there is only room for hope and sanctity which may require sacrifice.  It is a time to be thankful that we live in a time when we not only give God lip service, but have the opportunity to serve Him in a dramatic way.  Remember the reading of this morning, “Not everyone who cries out to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven but only those who do the will of my Father.”

Conversely, if people of faith do not have their religious freedom violated, we may be in a more difficult situation.  We may relax and think all is well.  It is not and it would be dangerous to think we may take a collective sigh and not worry and pray any longer.  The Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus said recently that “We can see clearly . . . an attempt to redefine religion in American society.”  At every turn there is pressure to minimize religion in society, to narrow the definition of a religious institution, to narrow what it means to be a minister, to narrow religious freedom to freedom of worship.  There have been many attempts to narrow the rights of churches such as when it pitted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the Lutheran Church.  The Catholic Church has had Government reduce, fully defund, and/or no longer make referrals to Catholic adoption centers and human trafficking ministries because of our religious nature even though we have repeatedly had far better (and less expensive) success rates.  Because of this we cannot afford to be satiated in a victory.

This may be the dawn of a new day.  And as we know, dawn only follows after the darkest hour.

WAKE FROM YOUR SLEEP

 

It may be that the HHS mandate is one of the best things that ever happened to the Catholic Church.  That is not to say that it is a good thing, but that it might end up having been a good experience for the Catholic Church.

This past Tuesday we had a holy hour for the Fortnight for Freedom to pray and learn about what religion in the United States is up against with the HHS mandate.  There was a favorable turnout, more than we had anticipated, and then Fr. Pfeiffer packed up all the stuff and we went on with the rest of our evening.

But the people who attended did not.  As it turns out a good number of them went to a coffee shop to continue the discussion.  (When was the last time Catholics spontaneously got together after Mass or a prayer service to talk more about the homily?)  One of the gentlemen with whom I spoke told of a feeling of camaraderie, unity, and the energy that one receives when bonded in a common cause with one’s brothers and sisters.  So as it turns out, history is rhyming once again.  Under persecution (and this is persecution under our Constitution) the Church unites and grows stronger.  Such as always been her history. 

When asked what he was going to do about the Catholic Church problem Napoleon is reported to have said, “You cannot destroy the Catholic Church.  The Catholic clergy have been trying to do it for over a century and a half and they are getting nowhere.”  This is a Church that has faced the cruelest governments and has always come out stronger for it.  But it has happened that the faith of a nation has, from time to time, almost died out.  One need just cast a furtive glance to France once known as the backbone of the Church to see that this is true.  In order for that to not happen here we must wake to the challenge.  The lion has been stuck with a stick.  He needs to wake up.

IT'S A NUN ISSUE

Are you properly angry at the Vatican for badgering our nuns?  Have you the proper moral outrage?  Are you disgusted? 

Why do you feel that way?  Are you confident that you have all the facts of the case?  Are you sure that the way information is coming to you is balanced and complete? 

The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a salacious article concerning these matters written by Maureen Dowd.  Here are some quotes from her column entitled “Misguided Vatican takes on sisters” dated 30 April 2012:

“Who thinks it’s cool to bully nuns?”

“Yet the nuns must be yanked into line by the crepuscular, medieval men who run the Catholic Church.”

“How can the church hierarchy be more offended by the nuns’ impassioned advocacy for the poor than by priests’ sordid pedophilia?”

“Instead of looking deep into its own soul, the church is going after the women who are the heart and soul of parishes, schools and hospitals.”

“The stunned sisters are debating how to respond to the Vatican’s scorching reprimand.”

 “. . . it scares the church hierarchy to have ‘educated women form thoughtful opinions and engage in dialogue.’”

If this was all that knew about the situation I would be embarrassed, humiliated, and ashamed of the Catholic Church.  Indeed there is no local paper willing or brave enough to give a broader perspective and so the cultivation of animosity toward the Catholic Church continues to be planted and nurtured.

But what if there is more to the story?  Take these quotes from Elizabeth Scalia’s article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “The Vatican’s Corrective to Liberal Catholics” dated 27 April 2012:

“The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s first duty is to assure that the doctrines of the church are being accurately reflected and communicated to the church body by those canonically representing the faith.”

“. . . Sister Laurie Brink (the then president of the Leadership Conference) had acknowledged that while many sisters walked unevenly with Rome, some had moved, ‘beyond the church, even beyond Jesus.’”

“But concern is not the same as condescension and there is an unmistakable pastoral tone permeating the entire assessment.”

“Yet the corrections and reforms prescribed to the Leadership Conference are few in number and not extraordinary.  They include liturgical prayer, Eucharistic focus, putting away “other” minds in order to form more closely to Christ’s and – a genuine challenge for all Christians – obedience to primary church teachings that remain unchanged even after Vatican II.”

Interesting.

One might wonder if Dowd and Scalia were talking about the same situation – the same country – the same century.  If one or the other was your primary source of information on this news item, it would greatly sway your position.

What I offer is this: be very careful about forming an opinion from single source or similarly biased news sources.  Always wonder if there is more to the story than is being told.

MONDAY DIARY: OBSFUCATION

Before we get to the Monday diary there is at least one thing you need to know and I am generally surprised at how many people do not know this: The HHS mandate DOES cover abortion. You will have to provide a co-pay for your child to be treated with penicillin, but abortions under this plan will be absolutely free and, if allowed to go forward, is to be paid for in part by the Catholic Church – or at least they will try to make this happen.

So this past Friday there was a rally in Cleveland to protest the HHS mandate. I was feeling rather low that I would be unable to make it as we had school confessions that had to be cancelled once already, and having the pressure of being awfully close to Easter thought it an impossibility. But low and behold we were out of confessions earlier than I had anticipated and running into another person from St. Sebastian who was also lamenting the fact that we were not there, we jumped in the car and headed to Cleveland (not being wise enough to check and make sure where it was before we left.)

We ended up on the wrong side of town (where everybody was heading for the Film Festival) and had to hoof it across downtown to make it to the correct spot by the giant “FREE” stamp. We were only about 5 minutes late. There was a decent sized crowd there (I am horrible at guestimating crowd size. I am always way off when compared to an actual number.) I don’t know why, but I was rather surprised that it was an actual protest. There were signs and banners, petitions to sign, motivating speeches over loud speakers, singing and chanting. I leaned over and said to the person I was with, “Oh my gosh, we are radicals!”

You know, at one time and not all that long ago, everybody taught and generally believed what the Catholic Church teaches about sexual ethics. Since the 1930s when the Anglicans made an exception in contraceptive use for extreme circumstances slowly everybody else moved away from that common understanding to what we have today. (Apparently after 2,000 plus years God started to change His mind.) Now enlightened people believe that the virtuous path is to sicken our bodies to make them reject their natural functions, to sterilize ourselves, or destroy the living presence in the womb that can only be a human being at our whim. Some enlightenment.

So the Church did not change, everybody else did – and there is a general push to make the Church Red Rover, Red Rover let Catholics come over. All of a sudden instead of being the mainstream we find ourselves countercultural rebels. I’m not sure if I think it is cool or scary.

There is one thing for sure however, Catholics do not make good protesters. As a lot we sit in back, mumble our responses, and slip out early so we don’t have to fight traffic. So to get them to chant in full voice, “HEY! HEY! HO! HO! THE HHS MADATE’S GOT TO GO!” is rather an ominous task.

The crowd was lively and very well behaved. I was extremely proud at how well Saint Sebastian Parish was represented! It was a long drive at a difficult hour and we showed in good numbers. I am glad I will be able to say that this is one of the ways that I tried to make a difference in this matter one day.

THEN THE NEWSPAPER COVERED THE STORY

I was very glad that the Plain Dealer covered the story front page above the fold. But then I read the article and became very disappointed. The article was very misleading. It was misleading in the following points:

1. It repeatedly states that the protest was about contraception. Yes, in part. Totally missing was any mention that the HHS mandate also covers abortion. Not once was this mentioned. If “the powers that be” truly believe in this mandate then be honest. Be very clear what it is about. Let it pass on its own merits and don’t be sneaky about it. Want to know the Catholic Church’s position on this matter? It has been perfectly public for over 2,000 years. Have the courage of your convictions.

2. It says that the mandate will effect “some faith-based institutions.” This is so highly understated as to be funny. Besides parishes there is barely another institution that will qualify outside of the Amish Church. Schools, hospitals, Universities, Social Services, almost NOBODY meets the criteria to be exempt. It is doubted that the work of Jesus Himself would have been exempt.

3. Most misleading of all is the end of the article stating that the “morning after pill” is not an abortion inducing drug. This is from the EWTN site, “So how can it be said that the "morning-after pill" or any "emergency contraception" is not abortifacient? Or that it merely prevents implantation? In fact, those who say that the "morning-after pill" is not abortifacient but prevents implantation do not realize that they are affirming its abortifacient nature when they say that it prevents implantation: since this action can only take place after fertilization and works by preventing the continued development of the embryo, it can only be abortifacient.

"This is so true that, in order to deny its abortifacient action, those who are proposing its use have also had to redefine pregnancy. By calling into question years and years of scientific certitude on the basis of which the period from fertilization to birth has always been defined as "pregnancy", some now maintain that pregnancy only begins after the embryo's implantation in the uterine wall, therefore not before the sixth day at the earliest or before the l4th day at the latest. Thus, a product that prevents implantation could not terminate a pregnancy and could not be abortifacient!

"Some, of course, are hesitant about this redefinition of pregnancy and, in order not to press the issue, will merely speak of a similarity between an action that prevents implantation and one that is abortifacient: but it is obvious in any case that this semantic manipulation has a precise purpose. In this way—as The New England Journal of Medicine says—it is possible to manipulate public opinion into accepting "emergency contraception". Merely redefining contraception to include the prevention of implantation does not alter the fact that the prevention of implantation is problematic for some people (NEJM, 1993, 328/5, pp. 354-355)."

4. Finally the PD drags out the found wanting statistic that 98% of Catholic women support the use of contraception. It is obvious they did not read the report from which it came but are parroting what they have heard. The survey did not include all Catholic women but only those who would consider themselves “in danger” of becoming pregnant. (If you did not think it a “danger” you would not be included.) You were also excluded if you were open to being pregnant, if you were pregnant or recently pregnant. There was also no effort to see if you were a practicing Catholic or a cultural Catholic.

Not fair, not accurate, not complete. Makes you wonder.

I NO LONGER LISTEN TO NPR. WHY DO YOU?

Actually that’s not true. I still listen to NPR. As a matter of fact I was listening to it on Monday going to the grocery store and I heard a segment about Soraya Chemaly who wrote an article for the Huffington Post entitled, “I’m No Longer Catholic. Why Are You?” The thing that I find most interesting about the segment is that it existed in the first place. When was the last time you heard radio programs or read (besides blogs and such) about people saying, “I’m not longer Methodist, how about you?” or “I’m no longer Presbyterian, or Jewish, or Hindu?” Certainly except on the most rare occasions do hear about the great numbers of people who become Catholic every year (or even specific persons.) Until the event was moved to the Cleveland Diocese cathedral, those coming into the Catholic Church every year in this diocese alone was so large as to fill the floor of the convention center in Cleveland. Was there ever even a mention of this? Once?

Hundreds of thousands of protesters converged on our nation’s capitol on Pro-life Sunday, hundreds from north east Ohio alone. Did you hear a peep anywhere? The major media that did report on it tended to focus on the relatively miniscule group of people who were protesting the protesters.

It is “in” not to be Catholic. (Yet another good reason to be Catholic.) It is going to get a LOT worse before it gets better – A LOT WORSE and for a long time. There is a love/hate relationship between modern culture the Catholic Church. That is why we say that the Church is counter cultural and if you are “counter” you will be demonized. Forget black clothing, multiple piercings, tattoos on your neck, and pentagrams hanging from your neck, if you want to be counter cultural, be Catholic.

If you want to be Catholic in these times you are going to have to pray and THINK. When you hear a radio program like the one mentioned about ask yourself, “Why is this program being aired? Where is the balance? Who else is treated like this?” If you rely on the popularity of being Catholic to be Catholic you are in for some rough times. (Conversely, if you are a contrarian and Catholic this is your time to shine!) But for most it will be a daily grind. Get used to it.

The most important thing to keep in mind is the Eucharist. When I hear people like Soraya Chemaly state the reason why they left the Church – for many reasons that are very important to them – never is the Eucharist mentioned. Here is the source and summit of our lives and it is not so much as mentioned as a regret having to leave it behind. Could they have ever understood what it means to be Catholic? If they found that they “had to leave” but could not so much as say how much it will hurt to leave the Eucharist behind tells me that they never got it in the first place.

Are there issues to work through in the Catholic Church? You bet. Are they worth giving up the Eucharist? Not even remotely. In these times keep your eyes in Him.

A BITTER CUP OF COFFEE

There is a fine line to walk as Catholics when it comes to protesting alleged cases of anti-Catholicism. At one extreme are those who bristle at every perceived slight. The danger in this is that one could be labeled an extremist rendering one’s message worthless. The other extreme is to remain quiet and passive no matter what, which is simply escaping from real problems. Nothing good comes from that. But there is an in between in which sensible people decide that there are hills worth dying on and who pick their hills with care.

I tend to give great leeway to people who like to knock the Church simply because we are the big kid on the block. Fr. Benedict Groeschell describes the Catholic Church as a hippopotamus. No matter how gentle it tries to be it is so huge people can tend to get crushed so I try to listen with a sympathetic ear. So when I do decide to make my voice known in defense of the Church, I mean it.

Last week Adoro invited readers to write to Starbucks concerning this article to tell them that their song by Joni Mitchell that mocks Catholics is offensive and that they should do something about it. I didn’t jump on right on the bandwagon. I looked into it a bit, prayed, and though that I would contact the company.

In my letter to them I stated that I was a Catholic priest and that I found the message of the song reprehensible. “Do you also have songs slandering Jewish people or Muslims or atheists or coffee drinkers?” I asked. “Even if you do, this is inappropriate behavior just the same. I am disappointed.” Why did they decide Catholics specifically were Okay to attack?

The return letter stated that, “We understand that our customers have diverse tastes and perspectives. In selecting music, we strive to represent the work of a variety of talented artists who reflect many creative viewpoints. Starbucks is an avid supporter of free speech and the creative process. When considering new projects, our primary goal is always to help our customers discover and acquire quality music.”

Now, I could care less about the genre of her music. If it were the case that I simply did not like the type of music I understand that that is more my problem than anything else. But this was not about liking or disliking the music. The letter brought to their attention the message of the view being presented by them. And it was most definitely not simply, “a creative viewpoint” or “free speech”, but a clear message that they do not want me or my parishioners or fellow Catholic in their store. "Free speech", which they invoke, means debating ideas, philosophies, presenting alternatives, and such like. I have no problem with that. But even in an artistic representations ridicule and unfounded statements are still slanderous, irresponsible, and reprehensible. And while it may be sad that a major company would defend an attack on their customers, it is a tragedy that those same customers would still gleefully enter and buy their product. Even had they said something like, “We’re sorry. We understand why you might feel this way and we certainly do not dislike Catholics but this was part of a larger project. In the future we will at least try to be more careful or more balanced” I would be happy. I would still drink Starbucks. But telling me (and you) in essence, “Get over it,” is unacceptable.

So what am I going to do? Apparently exactly what Starbucks want. As sad as it makes me, I will no longer be going to Starbucks. When I am with people who want to go, I will tell them this story. And in fairness this post will be mailed to the company.

This may or may not be your hill to die on. But make sure you have a hill. Being a Catholic is not something you do, it is something that you are. Take pride and dignity in that.