A couple weeks ago, the only mass that fit into my schedule was the Spanish mass. My Spanish fluency only takes me about as far as reading billboards and headlines, so I was prepared for a mass where I’d have to be “present” without understanding the language. In the past, the missals used had Spanish and English readings side-by-side, but that had changed since the last time I’d come. This time, everything was in Spanish. I read along anyway, thinking that I knew enough Spanish and enough Bible that, between the two, I’d be able to piece together what the readings were.

I was wrong. I couldn’t decipher the first or second readings. But I knew exactly which Gospel reading it was when the time came: the one with Mary and Martha, where Martha complains about Mary not doing enough work.

My Spanish didn’t improve dramatically during the Alleluia or immediately upon standing for the Gospel. Simple process of elimination was all I needed — stories about men in the Bible vastly outnumber those about women, and out of the handful of stories about women, an even smaller selection is culled out to be read at Sunday mass — ever. I really only needed the names to know which reading we were on.

Read the rest of this entry »

In numerous different circumstances spanning the globe — from the halls of the Vatican in Rome, to Berlin, to the White House right here in our very own United States — it seems that concrete, sensible, and decisive leadership has been conspicuously absent from the domestic arena when it comes to solving problems that usually don’t have easily found or quick-fix solutions. The question arises: how long can this undesirable status-quo be maintained without stoking the ire of all those who look to their leaders (whether they be civil or spiritual) for guidance in difficult times? How long can the hard questions be avoided? How long will it be before the systems and catalysts that have given rise to these pressing issues are tackled head on; before they either disintegrate or are forcibly altered (even potentially obliterated) by disenfranchised individuals who have been yearning and looking to these institutions for leadership?

As the Vatican sponsored “Year for Priests” within the Catholic Church has drawn to a conclusion, the world has witnessed a period which was supposed to be an opportunity set aside to exalt and celebrate the glories and gifts of the celibate, uniquely male priesthood. Instead it has turned into a year which has been wrought with horrible, stomach-turning revelations of clerical abuse on a massive scale – spanning the European continent in countries such as Ireland, Belgium, and the Pope’s own Germany all the way to cases in Latin America.

As each new heinous crime came to light the Vatican entrenched itself further and further and became ever more on the defensive. Even as certain acts seemed to directly implicate the then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, during his tenure as the leader of the archdiocese of Munich and Freising, the Vatican offered nothing to explicitly explain how or if the future Pope was directly connected to these incidents. Eventually, even the Pope’s own brother, Fr. Georg Ratzinger, admitted candidly to having corporeally punished students when he was the director of the Domspatzen (the boys choir of the Regensburg Cathedral).

It then came to light that the priest who had abused children while Joseph Ratzinger led the archdiocese of Munich and Freising had been transferred several times to various parishes. After having undergone “psychological evaluation” he was deemed fit to return to his former ministry, and his new assignments dealt directly with ministry to youths and minors! The Vatican explanation for this was that the chancellor of the archdiocese at the time had approved and authorized these motions without the involvement of the then-Archbishop Ratzinger.

Given the time and climate of the Church this is not that hard to affirm as potentially being true. The abuse of children was something that was not only not talked about when the facts were known, it was something that wasn’t even acknowledged as happening when the truth became apparent. This was mostly because of the nasty details of these heinous acts which were committed against underaged children and the fact that they were of a grave sexual nature. It was well before the point when leaders of the Catholic Church were even comfortable talking about sexuality as a normal human experience, much less implicating, acknowledging, and cracking down on their own who were pedophiles — using their sexual urges in a depraved and demoralized fashion. So it is very possible that Ratzinger may not have even known of these cases, potentially because of their very debauchery.

However, it is also possible that Archbishop Ratzinger may have known, and done what seemed best to him at the time with the advice and the facts that he was given. Traces of this misguided approach in the future-Pope’s style of handling these cases became more readily available when he was appointed head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ( or “CDF,” the main entity responsible for theological and doctrinal declarations from the Vatican, formerly known in the past as the Inquisition). 

One notable example is the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy. From 1950-1974 Fr. Murphy worked at a school for deaf boys in Wisconsin. As time went on, reports were revealed that show that Fr. Murphy molested as many as 200 boys during his period spent at the school. When these actions of his had been discovered he was never officially disciplined or reprimanded for them but was simply transferred to another diocese in the state –as we have seen was standard practice at the time– and was allowed to carry out his ministry there unencumbered, yet again, involving youths and children.

Eventually, in 1996, the Archbishop of Milwaukee wrote to then-Cardinal Ratzinger, in his position as prefect of the CDF, seeking to have Fr. Murphy defrocked after allegations of his clerical impropriety and abuse had become so scandalous that they could no longer be ignored. Permission was given by the CDF to begin an ecclesiastical trial among the bishops of Wisconsin that could have potentially led to Fr. Murphy being expelled from the priesthood. Yet all of this changed when Cardinal Ratzinger received a letter from Fr. Murphy himself in 1998 in which he begged that the diocesan trial against him be reconsidered because of suffering “poor health”, the fact that he was 72 at the time, and firmly insisting that he had “repented of any past transgressions.” He closed the letter by stating, “I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood”  After this, the diocesan trial process was suspended and no other formal motions against the priest by the ecclesiastical authorities within the Church were pursued. Fr. Murphy would die later that year and be buried with all the rites and dignities proper to that of a priest.

It was probably this final portion of Fr. Murphy’s letter that struck the most sympathetic cord with Joseph Ratzinger. To him the priesthood is a theological reality and a dignity so great that it cannot be shirked off –lackadaisically– by the whims of this temporal world, but is a sanctified and higher calling that one carries for life. It seems that this ideological bias clouded the future-Pope’s judgment so much that he felt compelled to drop the case against Fr. Murphy, even though he had abused scores of innocent minors.

As time went on however, it does appear that Joseph Ratzinger did gradually adopt a more realistic, stringent and just approach to the situation at hand. At some point he must have realized the true scale and scope of this crisis as well as the fact that these instances of pedophilia were not just the missteps of a few bad apples in the priesthood that could simply be brushed under the rug and forgotten. He had the chance to demonstrate this renewed attitude once he had been elected Bishop of Rome following the death of Pope John Paul II.

In 2008 Pope Benedict XVI ordered the Mexican Fr. Marcial Maciel (a favorite of the late John Paul II) –founder of a conservative and prestigious religious order of priests christened “The Legionaries of Christ”–to a life of “prayer and penance” at a monastery after it was discovered that he had molested numerous minors over the course of his priestly ministry as well as even fathering children by several different women. This year, an investigation of the Legionaries of Christ was also made known to the public by the Vatican.

Yet, even with Benedict XVI’s forthright and welcomed handling of the priestly sex-abuse crisis there is an element that he refuses to allow to be brought to the table for discussion in evaluating the whole picture of this detestable phenomenon — that of the question of priestly celibacy and the role that it plays as a potential catalyst for breeding unhealthy sexual repression among men within the priesthood. Many psychologists have said that this culture of institutionalized, mandated celibacy could very well give rise to unhealthy expressions of one’s sexuality among persons who have never had any other experiences in which to cultivate a normal understanding of this very intimate and crucial facet of their personalities. In the wake of this deplorable scandal even prelates among the higher echelons of the Church’s hierarchy –most notably the bishops of Austria– have called for a reevaluation of this rule (which does not have its origins in Sacred Scripture or in the will of Jesus Christ, but is a medieval invention of a pope from the twelfth century).

Yet the Pope has remained unwavering in his firm belief that clerical celibacy is a “gift” rather than a detriment to members of the priesthood. Initially, it took several months for Benedict XVI to even address the crisis directly — which emanated shock waves throughout the world sending the message that Pope Benedict really didn’t care or understand the scale of the problem at hand.

In every instance in which he did, the Pontiff never really acknowledged that the clerical system that has become the status quo over the centuries could have been the very thing that precipitated the trends that caused this dilemma. Instead, Pope Benedict said this in his most recent comments on the sexual-abuse crisis during a recent celebration of Holy Mass with 15,00o priests from around the world on the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, “It was to be expected that this new radiance of the priesthood would not be pleasing to the ‘enemy’, he would have rather preferred to see it disappear, so that God would ultimately be driven from the world. And so it happened that in this very year of joy for the sacrament of the priesthood, the sins of priests came to light — particularly the abuse of little ones “

It is of course true that the sins of human beings and the very real influence of evil in the world have most definitely played a large role in this atrocity that has afflicted the Catholic Church. Yet the Pope’s comments almost seem to downplay the free, voluntary cognisance with which all those priests operated who perpetrated these actions. Their actions are indeed gravely sinful, but can these acts be reduced simply to the sins of individuals or should the Church –and its leaders– as a whole take responsibility for them when the culture and environment within it could have given rise to such undesirable conditions?

The Pope implying that “the Devil” influenced these priests and was the main cause behind their actions misses the big picture and fails to answer the commanding question at hand when it comes to solving this crisis within the Catholic Church. Thus, it must be asked, as well-intentioned as he may be — is Pope Benedict really intending to wholeheartedly prevent further occasions of abuse when he refuses to ask whether the clerical system, rather than solely the sins of individuals, is to blame for the crisis?  Is this really confronting this monumental catastrophe head on and taking all factors into account –even ones that may seem hard to come to terms with and accept–appropriately and with objectivity? Is Pope Benedict truly exercising genuine leadership on this issue?

Here in the United States, it has been two months since we learned of the disastrous oil rig spill in the Gulf Coast region of our nation. Eleven lives have needlessly been lost, and thousands more have been thrust into a state of uncertainty — with the scope and effects of this disaster threatening to end the very livelihood of thousands of fishermen, entrepreneurs, and scores of other individuals who make their livings on the resources found and protected in these waters.

We have watched the CEO of British Petroleum, Tony Hayward, half heartedly profess to sincerely have been affected by this tragedy and pledge all of his support to righting what has been wronged to the families of the victims who perished in the explosion of the oil rig. Yet, candidly he says that he, “wants his life back” — while the family members of the victims of the spill and the deceased themselves have no way of even exercising the option to restore their lives to the way it had been two months ago. When questioned by Congress on his role in this crisis he refuses to answer any questions as if he is somehow detached from all responsibility because he is the CEO and had no idea of how it occurred. Doesn’t the very fact that you are in charge of a company mean that you should have some idea of how and what makes it run?

In cases such as these, the American people have naturally turned to the President to find capable and ready leadership in dealing with this disaster. Ironically, the nation has unfortunately been at a loss for this commodity in several respects.

From the very beginning of this disaster the President did not really go about dealing with this problem in an objective manner. We can assume that this has come as a result of decisions made by President Obama personally or from suggestions that he has received from his advisors (some of them who have been accused more than once of undermining his agenda and credibility in office by their actions). Still, even after all of the containment efforts have been employed and are now underway –essentially– there has been no effective and indefinite end to the plumes of oil (now estimated to possibly number hundreds of barrels each day) that continue flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.

All the while, the Obama administration has insisted that they have had a firm grip on everything that has transpired in the Gulf during the past few months. The President –and his other advisors– try to bolster this claim by dropping the names of important individuals who have been involved with helping to organize efforts to contain the spill. Dr. Stephen Chu, the Secretary of Energy –and Nobel Prize winner– is the one most often mentioned, in this attempt to allay the frustration and rage of the American people. Still, it seems that the combined brilliance of Dr. Chu and the minds of British Petroleum have not figured out how to put an end to this toxic stream that continues to infest, and ultimately, terminate all of God’s creation which has thrived for so long in the Gulf.

The Pope and President Obama seem to have much the same problem when it comes to putting up with the status quo. If something you’ve tried over and over again has not worked why not try something new, revolutionary and innovative?

This past week, the former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, suggested that the President enlist the help of the Dutch –who have tested experience with dykes, dams, and a whole assortment of water-related mechanisms. To me –and I’m sure to countless other individuals– this solution seemed like a no-brainer from the very beginning. If British Petroleum is not doing what they’ve said they were going to do, and had no clear plan of what to do in the event of a disaster of such scope in the first place –why continue taking advice from and enlisting their support as the main source of trying to put an end to this spill if they don’t have the technology available? Why not bring in outside help from elsewhere, from some other entities who are equipped to tackle –and truly control, and stop– this stream of death from pouring into the Gulf day after day?

It is the failure to conceive of alternative solutions such as these that has stoked the ire of the American people. Everyone knows and believes that President Obama is sincere in trying to do all that he can to put an end to this tragedy and deliver justice to all those who have been wronged by this disaster. Yet, the integrity and credibility of his actions are rightly questioned when he continues to employ the same failed approach that has –as of yet– not successfully stopped the spill or significantly mitigated its continued, deadly, effects that continue to wreak havoc in the Gulf of Mexico. Is the President exercising the leadership for which he solemnly swore he would almost two years ago? Leadership is not simply listening to advice and making decisions on the information that has been presented before you. It is also having the courage and determination to see beyond the present situation, and conceive of ever new directions and methods necessary to tackle the cause at hand.

Across the Atlantic, the usually mighty nation of Germany is going through its own batch of bleak times. The oft-celebrated –first ever female chancellor–Angela Merkel has now come under intense criticism, from those within her own Christian Democrats center-right party as well as from members of the opposition in the German legislature, for measures she has taken to try to reel in her country’s recent budget deficit. 

Merkel accomplished this through a controversial 80 billion euro austerity package –which combined budget cuts as well as tax hikes in certain areas– that would come to fruition over the next four years. Mass protests and public outrage has arisen throughout Germany because the package is composed of mostly devastating cuts in federal jobs as well as trimming benefits for the unemployed (sound familiar?).  The once popular Merkel is now facing her most unpopular season yet as the leader of Europe’s strongest economy.

Polls have shown that 79% of the German public disapproves of the chancellor’s most recent austerity measures. In addition to the vocal outrage to these most recent initiatives, Merkel’s party suffered a major setback after it lost its majority in the Bundestrat (Germany’s parliament) during regional elections last month — probably as a result of the deeply unpopular fiscal policies the chancellor was beginning to champion.

The question here is: of course a country’s deficit must be reduced in a rational and reasonable way when its fiscal independence is threatened due to debt, inflation, or other economic perils — but are terminating people’s sources of employment as well as other institutions that provide social welfare to those who are less fortunate the right approach to going about this solution?

Yes, social programs can be expensive, and it is tempting to simply see them as being the source of all of a nation’s economic woes because of the seeming weight that they level on the respective country’s economy. But what about countries such as Brazil, Canada, and China? All three have a nationalized, single-payer healthcare system and none are currently undergoing recessions –in fact, Brazil and China were the only nations to almost completely avoid a recession during the recent economic downturn. Could the fact that all of these nations’ economies have some sort of regulatory measures which have become standard over the years be part of why they have avoided a recession?

Is it really exercising leadership when choices are made that save one’s respective country money but will serve to destroy the lives of countless individuals for years to come? Is it true leadership to find quick, obvious cuts at the expense of the lives of others? Isn’t leadership not only about exercising rational judgment but also about enacting and carrying out the dispensation of justice?

Leadership in any capacity –whether it be spiritual or temporal– is always a daunting task to carry out effectively. Yet, just because one has been placed in a position of leadership does not mean that they can simply take that position for granted. Leadership is not preserving the status quo, nor is it the stubborn refusal to be receptive and considerate of new possibilities in light of ever-changing realities, and it certainly isn’t exercising decisions at the expense of those who have no voice in the matter. Leadership is an appointed task which is ultimately meant to be of service to the people. Whenever they are not being listened to, protected, and respected to the utmost degree — this unique and fundamental task for the good of a well-maintained society has failed to be executed genuinely and prudently.

Many of us are excited this Friday, May 28th.  Most of us have Monday, Memorial Day, off work.  A long weekend!

We recall on Monday the many men and women who have died in war protecting the United States of America.  They’ve – to be sure – given courageously.  Most serve admirably.  We honor these soldiers in parades and picnics, rituals and memorials, at meet ups and gatherings. They are deserving of our respect and remembrance.

What about those who stared down evil and injustice non-violently?

Those who, when most of the world employed coercive and manipulative tactics, stood up peacefully as non-aggressors, organizing movements, encouraging dialogue, cultivating understanding.

Do we memorialize, remember even, those who have died in the pursuit of non-violent resistance?

Jesus. Ghandi.  Martin Luther King, Jr. Helen Prejean.  There are countless others.

As guns salute and fire ammunition in the air at cemeteries in ceremonies nationally, may we memorialize and remember those who died advocating for and seeking non-violent means to peace.  May we honor those who fought violence and oppression with civil disobedience.  May we account for those who fought war with love, mercy, and compassion.

By Julia Walsh, FSPA and Amy Nee

In a land of concrete and cold stone, restlessness for New Life stirs and shakes.

We fumble through work in an urban landscape. We speak to the oppressed and vulnerable, saying they are empowered to free others; they are powerful and rich beyond measure; they need to contribute to the betterment of the world. Yet, how can this sink in or resonate when they are overwhelmed by their own needs and struggles? We don’t have an answer, yet our voices ache from trying to obey the Spirit, to share convictions, to offer hope and healing.

This paradox mirrors what bruises the world: we who decry it are a part of the system of oppression. We are oppressed by our own participation in the torture, in the violence, in the poverty and discrimination. We are seeped in the things that we despise because we are a part of this world.

Yet we resist. We stutter and whisper “peace” while the world cheers “Fight! Fight!” The chant is global and it’s in the microcosms of high school hallways. We are conflicted by conviction, shadowed by shame. We have been socialized to believe that we are the best, or at least better than those who are different than us. We walk forward and proclaim that we believe in equality and justice in the ways that God has dreamed. Then, haunted by hypocrisy, we cry in confessionals with the realization of our own racist tendencies.

And, we look for cracks in the concrete; in the system, in ourselves, in the land that surrounds a school, broken like a battlefield. We don’t wait for permission and we find our own ways to be generous to the earth and people who we love. We drive through violent neighborhoods and buy seeds at Home Depot, stir up sick soil and pray over the life we try to plant.

Then, we step back and trust that God will guide the seeds to life. God will shed the Light and shower the water. We’ll have the strength to weed and pull out garbage that blows in. Along the way we are awed and surprised with the transformation and affirmation. Others shall be supportive, generous, and we’ll find Jesus hidden under tarps around corners that seem abandoned.

This is the story of the Genesis of the Hales Franciscan High School garden. It is also part of the larger story of the Truth of this earth that has God placed us on together.

(Cross-posted to: http://kairoschicago.blogspot.com/ )

Originally from Northeast Iowa, Sister Julia is a Franciscan Sister of Perpetual Adoration, based in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Her love for God and God’s good world is manifested in her attempts to be an educator, a youth empower-er, an earth lover, and a peacemaker. She ministers at an inner-city Catholic high school in Chicago.

Amy Nee is a Catholic Worker, a gardener, a volunteer, a care-giver and Sister Julia’s friend.

This morning on my weekly meandering through PostSecret.com, this postcard jolted me a bit. I didn’t write it, but I could have. Back when I lived in Duluth, Minnesota, I put an inordinate amount of faith into wishes made in tunnels and under bridges. I held my breath and put my hand up in response to an old superstition that says if you can hold your breath till the end of the tunnel, your wish will come true. Except, I don’t really make wishes anymore — instead, I use “wishing” games as an opportunity to pray. So I held my breath through all four tunnels on my daily route through town, and I talked to God every time. I often remember not knowing exactly what to “pray” for, so I’d send up “God’s choice” prayers — basically a request that God would do for me what S/He deemed best.

Read the rest of this entry »

As I was surfing the net yesterday, I—along with everyone else who saw the headline—was completely floored when I glimpsed this headline on the National Catholic Reporter’s blog, “Schönborn attacks Sodano, urges reform”

Of course to anyone who is a close follower of internal Catholic affairs it should be no surprise that—on initial inspection—the reputation of Cardinal Schönborn and the radical concept of ecclesial reform seem to be practically mutually exclusive.

Yet, once the article–obtained from the UK’s Catholic Tablet weekly is inspected one can see what all the hubub has been about.

In it, Cardinal Schönborn delivered a scathing criticism of the current dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano (who on Easter Sunday notably dismissed the ever gathering storm of the clergy sexual-abuse scandal overtaking Europe as “petty gossip”). He further rebuked him by saying that his comments had “deeply wronged” the victims of sexual-abuse committed at the hand of clerics and that the Church was “urgently in need of reform.”  Throughout the fallout of this most recent crisis which has plagued the Catholic Church, Cardinal Schönborn has been one of the foremost heralds among its prelates in denouncing these heinous acts and thereby demanding true and genuine reform of the Church. During Holy Week he even made it a point to publicly celebrate a Mass of Penance for all those victimized by depraved clerics and once more used the opportunity to denounce both the system and the environment that gave rise to these horrible acts.

 However, the comments that caught the most media attention were found later on in the piece. In response to a question probing the Church’s stance on homosexual individuals the Cardinal stated that,

“We should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships…A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous.”

And thus, the shockwave of curiosity and bewilderment was ignited throughout the blogosphere and the world at large.

But what exactly do the Cardinal’s comments mean? He didn’t necessarily condone homosexuality or homosexual relationships nor did he condemn them.

Heretofore, the Archbishop of Vienna has always been characterized in glowing terms (especially among more conservative-minded members of the Church) as having long been Joseph Ratzinger’s most astute protegé during his tenure at Regensburg University in Germany. He has been championed in many circles as the Catholic Church’s best hope to continue the late Pope John Paul II’s legacy of “evangelical Catholicism” (as John Allen would describe it) of positively promoting all of the Church’s teachings—even controversial ones—not so much as prohibitions on humanity, but rather as conscious assents to the will of God and the alleged dictates of the Gospels.

Usually he has been consistent with this approach, but there are a few notable exceptions that might give a bit more insightful perspective into the Cardinal’s most recent comments that have sparked so much astonishment—and even enthusiasm—among many.

In 2005 Cardinal Schönborn wrote an article for the New York Times in which he stated,

“Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

This comment sparked criticism because the Cardinal seemed to be undermining the foundational premise of Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, he would continue to insist in the following months that he was not at all discounting the theory, but instead emphasizing that God did in fact have an active role to play in the process. In effect, he was promoting a middle of the road approach to the vigorous debate between Creationists and proponents of evolution—basically saying that scientifically, evolution is certainly legitimate as a theory for explaining the origin of the human species in the natural world, and yet, the role of God ultimately guiding the process cannot be forgotten either. It must be remembered that this has always been the Church’s official position regarding the legitimacy of the theory of evolution in explaining the origin of mankind on the planet Earth.

Some time later in 2006 the Cathedral of St. Stephen in Vienna, Austria decided to plan a Valentine’s Day blessing for all couples who were in love. Shortfly following the ceremonies it was reported that homosexual couples had even presented themselves to be blessed and no difficulties were encountered. In a manner vaguely similar to today’s most recent headlines concerning the Cardinal, it was widely reported that Cardinal Schönborn never barred such couples from coming forward to participate in the blessings. Later, a “clarification” was issued which stated that even “non-married” persons who felt so strongly in love—even though they may not have been engaged or in a relational status officially recognized by the Church—were able to take part in the blessing in an “individual” manner but not together as a couple.

The available facts don’t seem to be numerous enough to be able to verify whether this was indeed the case or whether homosexual individuals in committed, loving relationships did present themselves for the blessing and if anything was done to prohibit them from doing so. Neither has Cardinal Schönborn himself ever spoken concretely on this topic to date to put to doubt any of these speculations.

If observed carefully, one can almost sense a pattern in the approach that the Archbishop of Vienna has consistently taken on these various issues. Despite being mentored and honed in numerous ways by the present Pope, Christoph Schönborn seems to be quite a different man from Joseph Ratzinger.

Throughout his academic and theological career—at least following his change from liberal to conservative on the theological spectrum in the wake of changes implemented following the Second Vatican Council—Joseph Ratzinger has always responded the same way when confronted with controversial issues. He simply issues the Catholic Church’s official Magisterial proclamations and ends discussion of the topic. A notable example of this was when during his 2009 visit to Africa he was asked a question about the Catholic Church’s stance on the status of couples where one partner has been infected with the HIV/AIDS virus. Much debate has been made about this issue because of the traditional prohibition against birth control by the Magisterium because it “eliminates the possibility of new life”, and some thought that the HIV phenomenon might provide an exception to re-examine this teaching in light of new theological and scientific innovations. Yet, Pope Benedict XVI was unwavering on this matter saying that condoms only contributed to the problem. We only need to examine history to see what kind of reaction that declaration was met with.

Whether it has been divorced or re-married couples, the question of abortion, the morality and dignity of homosexual persons and their relationships, or the status and salvific significance of other religions in relation to Christianity; Joseph Ratzinger has really never shown any instances of being theologically objective or sociologically receptive for the sake of beginning dialogue and discussion on any of these pressing issues. Instead, it seems that he has taken the opposite direction in some cases and reversed barriers that were eliminated during the papacy of the late John Paul II (most notably, extending an invitation to disenfranchised Anglicans who were upset with the body’s stance on homosexuality and the ordination of women to join the Catholic Church and essentially form their own “rite” within Catholicism).

Cardinal Schönborn by contrast seems to always deal with issues in a theologically grounded yet pragmatic manner. Instead of simply condemning the phenomenon of homosexuality or urging all homosexuals to a life of celibacy—as is the current Magisterial position of the Church—he leaves the question open and up to the individual. The most important thing to him is the quality of the relationship. Granted, he hasn’t endorsed homosexual relationships outright, but he does talk about the possibility of there being a positive aspect present within them—which is something we usually never here from the prelates of the Church these days.

This particular approach of the Cardinal’s is notably similar to the venerable Fr. Charles Curran’s—who was one of the first theologians to attempt to genuinely tackle the issue of the question of homosexuality in a positive and reasoned context. Fr. Curran’s conclusion was that because of the presence of sin in the world certain subjective tendencies could not be avoided. Although they were objectively wrong they were not subjectively sinful. Thus meaning, although homosexual relationships were technically wrong because they were not open to “procreation” they may not necessarily be subjectively sinful for the individuals involved, taking into consideration the solidification of the person’s orientation and the quality of the relationship that they were in. Ultimately, even if it might technically be wrong, if the relationship was sufficiently supporting the two individuals in terms of moral and emotional stability and integrity, it could in fact end up being a very good thing morally.

I personally don’t necessarily agree with this approach. To me it doesn’t go far enough, and I agree much more with the distinguished Fr. John McNeill who sees a homosexual orientation as simply being a “gift” from God which is morally “neutral” or equivalent when compared to loving, heterosexual relationships. Yet, currently, the Church’s teaching on sexuality is mired in the archaic centrality of procreation as always being the ultimate goal and pinnacle of sexual intercourse. So, this limited understanding prevents the prelates from seeing homosexuality in any other context aside from its relation to procreation.

Still, much as Fr. Curran’s observations were a landmark in opening the door to the discussion of homosexuality in the context of theology, so it seems that Cardinal Schönborn’s comments could be in the wider public sphere of the Catholic Church. Although the approach of affirming homosexual relationships as “essentially imperfect” isn’t really desireable, it must be remembered that as has been said so often, the Catholic Church thinks in terms of centuries not years. Also, when has homosexuality ever been mentioned so positively by any prelate in recent memory since Cardinal Martini of Milan was considered a papbile?

If the Church must be reformed by baby steps I think Cardinal Schönborn might be the perfect candidate to carry out the job if it were the will of God that he someday be elected as the Bishop of Rome. As much as Pope Benedict makes of the importance of integrating faith and reason the Archbishop of Vienna really seems to actually but that integration into action. Only time will tell if God truly intends to use this compassionate conservative to help reform and renew His Church so that it might more fully reflect the love and compassion of the Christ of the Gospels. Whether Cardinal Schönborn’s vision is meant to be shaped into a tangible reality or not remains to be seen. Still, his approach, compassion, and understanding continue to be most welcome!

I’m currently reading Matthew Kelly’s Rediscovering Catholicism (and loving it). One of the suggestions Matthew Kelly makes in the book is to carve out ten minutes a day for silence — and to use these ten minutes as praying / “listening” time with God. Deciding to give this practice a try really drove home to me how full of NOISE my life is. I listen to audiobooks when I do housework and take my dog walking. I listen to music when I take my morning bath (because, believe it or not, I don’t have a shower) and when I drive. I play my music library on random while I work. I realized that if I just decided to turn off the noise for one of those activities per day, I’d have my ten minutes, easy.

And I also found myself wondering why I’ve been so diligent about flooding every moment of my life with sound. Does it come from many years of living alone, and needing to keep loneliness at bay? Does it come from my constant desire to multitask (as someone who loves to read, being able to “read” while doing the dishes is a pretty sweet deal). Or . . . am I afraid of what I might discover in the silence?

I decided to let silence prevail during my morning routine in the bathroom. And on my first day, I threw the question out that Kelly suggests asking in the silence: “God, what should I do with my life?”

Actually, I got about as far as, “God, what–?” when an answer flooded in, before I was even done with the question.

I was stunned. I was amazed. And I was, I admit, a little skeptical.

Still, I feel inspired by the clarity of the “first transmission” to come through this new practice, and will continue to discern the best way to move forward. I trust another answer to whoosh in if I find myself stuck along the path — if I can just be silent long enough to listen.

Last week, a good friend sent me a link to Reverend Barbie, the creation of a woman Episcopal priest who thought kids might be curious about and want to play with religious vestments that go along with the office of the priesthood.

As a feminist, I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with Barbie. But if I’m going to be totally honest with myself, I’ll admit that I fall more along the “love” end of the spectrum. Unrealistic body types and gender stereotypes aside, I loved my Barbies when I was a little girl (and, okay, as a not-so-little girl, too), and they truly were the main tool I used for understanding the world. Although I could do without the “pinkification” of every imaginable career, I do like the fact that Barbie does hold almost every imaginable career. What a girl can imagine is the first step toward what she can be.

Although Mattel doesn’t endorse or produce Reverend Barbie (which is obvious from the high quality and accuracy of her robes), she might be able to do what CTA still hasn’t: inspire a new generation of girls to see themselves as religious leaders. Creator Rev. Julie Blake Fisher plans to add an African American Bishop Barbie and a Cathedral Dean Ken doll. They will presumably all be Episcopalian, but I’m putting my money on Rev. Fisher to bring a woman to the Catholic priesthood before Rome does.