CALL TO OBEDIENCE

About a week ago I got an Email from an eager and sincere young man who was writing me about his enthusiasm for our current president and how he was going to do everything in his power to make sure that he is reelected. I wrote back with some concerns that I had about the current administration’s policies.

In a counter Email he asked what I thought about Fr. Helmut and he was supposing that we were on opposite sides. Admitting that I did not know the priest he sent me a link at which I could get up to speed.

For those of you who do not know Fr. Helmut is head of an Austrian organization of priests named, “Call to Disobedience.” Among other things they demand that the Church change (else they fear that the 300 priests who signed a petition plus others might have no choice but to break away from the Church) was the call to a married priesthood, a female priesthood, communion for those even non-Catholic persons who are divorced and remarried to a Catholic without a declaration for nullity, rejecting the notion that a priest should be the one to preach at Mass, and a host of other topics along the same lines. In other words, the Catholic Church should do what just about every other Christian Church has already done. We see how well that has worked out.

You can read more about this movement here and here.

The gentleman that sent me the article was correct, we probably are not on the same page concerning these issues. The Church has spoken definitively on these issues and quite frankly I am Okay with them. Even the title, “Call to Disobedience” causes me to step back and pause. Direct disobedience has never been a recipe for sainthood. One might find someone standing up to something unjust, but not against a teaching of the Church. (It gets a little confusing since some of these practices are theological in nature and some are disciplinary.) After all, how did Jesus win for us our salvation? By being perfectly obedient – something we were incapable of doing. If we want to follow in His footsteps how do we do it? In some areas there may be very legitimate causes for change but do you incite a call for disobedience? How can the Church reconcile to that? “A house divided against itself . . .” It is a call not only to disobedience but to disunity a kin to the Protestant Reform which continues to be a scandal in to the Christian Church that Jesus calls “to be one.”

 

Is it true however that if we did these things that the Austrian priests called us to, would things be better? There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal recently which you can find here that talked about this entitled, “Traditional Catholicism Is Winning.” Not that this is a game or that someone wins at another’s expense. But it does tell about some interesting trends concerning the Church in the United States. Consider these:

As mainline Protestantism is in decline the Catholic Church has grown from 55million in 1980 to 77.7 million.

There are 5,000 more priests in the world today than there were in 1999.

There were 467 ordinations in the U. S. last year, up from 442 two decades ago.

Where is the Church growing? In dioceses with a strong and orthodox bishop who is not shy about being Catholic and who invites others to live as authentically.

If I may quote the article:

“This aging generation of progressives continues to lobby church leaders to change Catholic teachings on reproductive rights, same-sex marriages and women’s ordination. But it is being replaced by younger men and women who are attracted to the church because of its teachings.

“They are attracted to the philosophy, the art, the literature and the theology that make Catholicism countercultural. They are drawn to the beauty of the liturgy and the church’s commitment to the dignity of the individual. They want to be contributors to that commitment – alongside faithful and courageous bishops who ask them to make sacrifices. It is time for Catholics to celebrate their arrival.”

After sending me the link to the article about the priest of Call to Disobedience, he asked me to pray for him “if I am able.”

Of course I am.

And pray for me too.

IT'S US OR THEM - WHO ARE YOU GOING TO SIDE WITH?

Elections are well over in these parts and thank the good Lord. They were terrible. Very few candidates did not lower themselves to slinging mud all over place. It was very disheartening. Sadly, it does seem to help get people elected. But are we firing up our younger people to be excited about government? Do they feel like getting involved with a cause in which they can believe? Who wants to give up computer games, T.V. night, spending time with friends and family to choose between two people who point at each other, call the other a selfish, incompetent boob, and invite you to volunteer to work to send whichever you choose to head up that corrupt (whatever it is) government that they want to head up?

When it comes to politics, I’m not personally wed to any political party. I want someone who will go in there and work with whomever to do whatever it takes to make our city, state, and country better and I lose heart when it seems that the number one job among some elected officials when it seems they “stick to family above all else.” Sometimes I lose interest all together.

This takes place more than in politics. I was part of an organization that wanted to recognize significant figures from my family’s country of origin. There was a huge divide among the older people over who was recognized. Any person recognized was a political statement and declared that you were “siding” with someone. The younger folk scratched their heads and said, “Can’t we all just be united and recognize good works without assigning sides? Do we have to join a camp that means nothing to us and simply divides the community?”

Of course some would say yes for reasons that they find important, relevant, and visceral. Unfortunately when it is presented as, “You’re either with me or against me,” you start losing interest in people who do not have the same stake as you do and may cause them to lose interest.

So then we come to church. The days of liberal and conservative are quickly coming to an end. Chances are that if you get in much of a divisive conversation about such things with anybody under 35 (a somewhat arbitrary number, I actually think it higher) chances are that you will see a loss of interest. The argument itself will generate a certain apathy with accompanying roll of the eyes and loss of appetite for the faith. (Aren’t there more important things to debate that this?)

Taking over the liberal vs conservative debate is orthodoxy vs unorthodoxy. Is what is being debated on the Catholic playing field or not? Can we both get along and squarely call ourselves Catholic or not? That is the primary question. What is more deeply entrenched with the Tradition of the Church (not traditionalism – the deeper practices of the faith, the fundamentals) this is what starts sparking the imagination.

Do you want a young person to be excited about the faith, don’t do it by engaging in debates that divide the community. Invite them to experience the whole of the faith, be united even in our legitimate differences, do not water down the faith, give them the treasure of truth, show them the tradition, the raw earthiness of the faith and spark their interest.

IT'S A BIG, BIG HOUSE. SORT OF

We have a relatively new music ministry in the parish that is made up of mostly high school folk that sing worship and praise music. Before going to Steubenville for a youth conference they gathered on the front steps of the church and ran over their music. (This gave me the idea that we need a summer lawn and picnic concert series here next year.) The music that they do is very contemporary and I quite enjoy it. Thus far they have played during adoration when we have our confirmation meetings and a song or two during Mass a couple of times. One of the songs they like to do is “Big, Big House.” The words say something like, “ It’s a big, big house with lots and lots of rooms . . . it’s my Father’s house.” The Church is like a big, big house with the whole extended family living under one roof. And when you have so many people living under one roof, no matter how big the house is, some of the people under the roof will get on the nerves of other people under the roof. Such is our fallen nature.

Now it would be one thing if some of the people under the roof were doing things that were contrary to house rules. An extreme example would be one of them selling drugs to neighborhood kids. That is completely unacceptable. Something should be done. It is another thing, when, even following house rules, some people are bothered by other people. “George is reading again and I want him to come outside and play with me! Make his stop reading!” Well, George has a right to read and so we let him alone even as it drives someone else nuts. But we are family and so we do the best we can.

It is not much different in the actual life of the Church. It is true that there are things that are clearly off of the Catholic playing field. These can be in our corporate life, such as using beer instead of wine at Mass, or in our private life such as having a harem but wanting to declare yourself a good practicing Catholic. House rules are house rules.

But even when someone is clearly on the Catholic playing field, there can still be controversy. Liberal, at least in my understanding of the word, is a rare beast in the Church and is usually not found where one expects it. My understanding of the word when referring to persons in the Church is one who is open to everything that is valid in the Church. If the Church says, “Yes,” then the liberal says, “Sure. Why not? I will not be more restrictive in than the Church.” But many times those who freely take on the title liberal have a small set of Catholic practices or beliefs that are held onto passionately making them the mirror image of traditionalist that can have a similar small set of beliefs or practices and each turns their nose at the other.

The same thing could be said between countries. Very often those of us in the West can think we have a superior handle on what is right for the Church. If Rome doesn’t tag along we accuse them of lagging, not getting it, or being fuddy duddys. If the Church in Zimbabwe doesn’t agree with us we take our definition of freedom, justice, and modernity and think that of course they should accept what we hold dear because it is right and they should come to accept it even if they are not ready for it. Granted there are some things that are just same the world around. You can’t shoot someone for eating a carrot out of your yard. But sometimes people of different nations and cultures have different ideas of freedom, justice, and modernity and they are on Catholic field. They have different problems and goals to which they need to attend. The big, big, house then seems to get a little smaller as we try to even out the rules for a billion people instead of the few thousand in a parish.

It takes a lot of smiling, a lot of acceptance, a lot of welcoming, a lot of understanding, a lot of self sacrifice, a lot of learning, and a lot prayer and trust in Jesus’ promises and the power of the Holy Spirit for us all to get along and if single households can’t always do it without a lot of clanging into each other, so much more need to work at peaceful coexistence as the universal family of our Father.

WHY WOULDN'T THE PRIEST CROSS THE ROAD?

Saint Thomas Aquinas recommended the via media, the middle way. Blessed Columba Marmion* said, “Be not the first by whom the new is tried, nor yet be the last to lay the old aside.” A good priest friend recommended to me the other day that I would better serve my career if I became more middle-of-the-road. This unnerved me until I realized that I don’t have a career.

But exactly what, in the faith life, is the middle of the road? In these confusing times it seems as though the road is completely covered with snow and finding the middle is rather difficult. Most people do think they are standing directly on or pretty darn close to the middle of the road and so the heart of the Church. I know I do. And there are people to the left of me and people to the right who also feel secure in stating that they too are in the middle of the road.

But people also mean many different things by the phrase. Some people are hypersensitive to symbols and so they see a priest wearing a fiddle back vestment or incensing with a bowl instead of the thurible and instantly label the poor guy as being radically one way or the other.

As you are aware I am sure I have my preferences in such things. But they do not matter two hoots. They are mostly aesthetics. I like them and I think they work, but I do not have to have them. Where one’s ideas begin to matter is in matters of faith and morals. Being middle of the road means not being more holy than the Church (and thereby enforcing one's personal piety on others which can be harmful) nor does it mean ignoring that to which the faith calls us (and thereby breaking the bond of love and truth which can be equally harmful.)

They key is orthodoxy and compassion. Orthodoxy; keeping with the mind of the Church. Without truth we have nothing to offer but therapy and poor therapy at that. Compassion; loving with the heart of Christ. Without love, all you have is conformity to law not a relationship with the person Christ.

Being pastorally sensitive which is equated with disregarding Church law or being faithful which is equated with narrowing Church law to a certain way of being Catholic have nothing to do with being middle of the road. Neither do symbols that may look traditional or progressive but are quite simply on the Catholic playing field. But being orthodox does. The question is, do we allow other’s legitimate expression of orthodoxy? Do we allow them to express their Catholicity without labels or demeaning comments? That, I believe, is being truly the middle of the road.
What think you?

* An anonymous reader suggested that this quote is actually from Alexander Pope, an 18th century English poet. I went back through my manuscript and found that indeed it was attributed so. Thank you to the reader and my apologies for the mistake.

CATHOLIC PIE AND FOOTBALL FIELDS

In a recent story in "The Sun", Mary Kenyon says she was looking for a friend just like her; a mother of many children who breast-fed and home-schooled, but always seemed to find breast-feeding mothers who didn't home-school or home-schooling mothers who didn't breast feed. Her close friends however ended up being the ones who were different, accepting, and taught her to be open to others. "If I had ever met my twin friend," she said, "I probably would have found her annoyingly self-righteous."

In a similar way I sometimes daydream about being in a parish where everybody believes and thinks quite the same as I with the same taste in music and art. Such will never be the case. That is part of the richness of being the Catholic (or universal) Church - all peoples, all times, all places.

And really, that is not all that bad. I, too, as much a I hate to admit it, learn a tremendous amount from those with whom there is a differencing of opinion.

Fr. Robert Hilkert (RIP) my first pastor had to deal with a house full of priests who were just about as differently tempered as you could imagine. It is a testament to him as a pastor that we made it all those years with nobody ending up bleeding. His basic premise was that we were all priests and as long as we stayed on the Catholic playing field all was well.

The danger in identifying too closely with being liberal or conservative or whatever in the Church, is in becoming holier than she and limiting the legitimate expression of others (assuming that it is truly a legitimate option.) Rob said it well, our goal is orthodoxy - living the life that Christ calls us to in the manner it has developed within His church and as the Church allows.

That is not to say that we cannot have a vision or preferences and promote them - even strongly. Which I do. (Ask any of my friends.) But there is a big roof on this Church and it covers a lot of people with whom we are called to pray, not pray like. And sometimes that means breaking out of our private wedge of the Catholic pie. (AS PAINFUL AS THAT MAY BE AT TIMES.)

“I used to be a liberal, if liberal means concern for the other guy,” Father Groeschel said. “Now I consider myself a conservative-liberal-traditional-radical-confused person.” - (Taken completely out of context, but funny here I believe. For the scoop on what he was talking about, take a gander at the Curt Jester.)