Young Adult Catholics

Last week, the Republican Party celebrated a victory in the states of Virginia and New Jersey. They were quick to characterize these wins as a “referendum” on the policies of President Obama. However, a different chain of events played out in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, where the story was a bit more peculiar.

Dede Scozzafava, the Republican Party’s candidate for the House of Representatives was perceived as too dangerously liberal by some prominent members of the Party, including Sarah Palin and Gov. Tim Pawlenty among others, for her pro-choice stance and support for gay-marriage. Thus, some Republicans, such as the ones mentioned above and other conservative organizations (The National Organization for Marriage, The Susan B. Anthony List) endorsed Doug Hoffman, a member of the Conservative Party, as a far more suitable candidate for the Seat. All of these actions made it appear that currently there’s a litmus test for being a viable Republican candidate, and if all the noted qualifications are not met, one is hopelessly out of the running. This of course was the case with Mrs. Scozzafava, and ultimately, she dropped out of the race and ended up endorsing the Democratic candidate Bill Owens as she bowed out. Bill Owens would go on to win the election in territory where a Democrat had not won since the late nineteenth century.

So what exactly does all of this say? On the one hand, the Republican Party is trying to update their image. In New Jersey and Virginia both of the gubernatorial candidates were moderates who ran not on social issues but fiscal policies. So, there is a movement of individuals within the Party who realize that in order to win elections the only focus can’t continue to be on opposition to abortion and gay-marriage. Yet, there is another portion of the Party who resists this assertion and thinks that conservative “family values” define the essence of the Party. Thus, we see the signal that in some circles, if one doesn’t subscribe to these values one doesn’t meet the tenets for being considered a member and should quit trying to represent the Party.

Which path the Republican Party decides to take will only be made apparent with time.

Still, doesn’t this phenomenon of “purging” in order to create a purer, more fundamentally sound institution seem familiar?

When the “visitation” of American women religious was announced by the Vatican it was described as being an initiative to assess the “quality of life” of these communities and to discover why their influx of new vocations had diminished so drastically during the past few decades. Even after this official definition had been given, broad underlying suspicions disseminated from all corners of the Church on what this act really meant. Essentially, their worst suspicions were confirmed last week when Cardinal Franc Rode (the man responsible for initiating the “visitation”); the prefect of the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, said that concerns about “a certain feminist spirit” prevalent among certain women religious played a part in the decision to carry out the visitation. By “feminist spirit” he of course means sisters such as Sr. Joan Chittister, Sr. Catherine Johnson, and numerous others who have contended that the traditional proposed grounds for the ordination of women are ungrounded and simply unbiblical. Also included in this category of misguided feminism are of course those who fight for the just and equal treatment of homosexual individuals and most recently sisters who support those women who, after probing their consciences, have made the decision to terminate a pregnancy (as was the case most recently with a sister in Illinois).

So is the intention of the Vatican to simply antagonize these women and throw them out of communion with the Church if they don’t subscribe to their rigid ideology of what it means to be Catholic?

In the very same week the Vatican made clear its set of  norms for receiving disaffected Anglicans into communion with the Catholic Church in the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, thus making it clear that those who are opposed to the ordination of women and the equal rights of homosexuals are welcomed with open arms.

All of this sounds like partisan politics as usual to me…

This Wednesday marked the fifty-first anniversary of Blessed John XXIII’s election to the See of Rome. Given his advanced age at the time he was predicted as being nothing more than a “transitional pope.” However, he took the Church, and the world, for that matter, by surprise when he convened the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). The entire purpose of this Council was to enact long overdue measures to reform and renew the life of the universal Church, revitalizing it in light of so much progress that had been made in the twentieth century. In response to the Protestant Reformation, the sixteenth century Council of Trent had attempted to begin this process but ultimately it’s initiatives and intentions were stunted (or cast aside, depending on your point of view) and business as usual continued within the Catholic Church. When John XXIII announced his decision to call Vatican II, much to the bewilderment of his brother bishops. He explained it by saying  “I want to throw open the windows of the Church so that we can see out and the people can see in.” And thus, it was this inclusive, all-encompassing approach of revitilization that shaped all of the sessions of Vatican II.

Instead of being defined in terms of the rigid, hierarchical clerical structure that was so emblmatic of Catholicism, the documents of the Second Vatican Council described the Church as the “People of God” made up of all individuals; the clergy,the  laity, as well as men and women religious. Now, it was pointed out that all members of the Church were incorporated into a universal priesthood of Christ through Baptism (as St. Paul makes clear in his Epistle to the Hebrews). Although the ordained ministry is a special and unique calling within this priesthood all Christians share in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly faculties of Christ. Therefore, the Holy Spirit speaks through the Body of Christ as a whole, not the clergy exclusively.

The Council also reflected anew on the way the Church relates to the world. Instead of seeing itself as opposed to and against temporal structures at Vatican II it was said that “The Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel” (Gaudium et Spes). Thus, the Church was a vehicle of God not in conflict with the temporal order but rather a reality that existed within and that was intimately connected to the modern world.

As the Council continued to run its course many other highly signifigant innovations were initiated. The Mass, after having been celebrated solely in Latin since the early Middle Ages, was now allowed to be celebrated in the local vernacular tongues. Instead of being seen as destined for eternal damnation, the members of other non-Christian religions were encouraged to be treated with respect and esteem as their expressions of faith too were acknoledged to contain “elements of truth.” Likewise, non-Catholic Chrisitans were no longer characterized as “heretics” but as fellow members of the Body of Christ with whom reunion must earnestly be sought; particularly the Eastern Orthodox with whom Catholicism shares an inseperable bond. From that point on the ecumenical movement had its creation. Dialogue and reconciliation across denominational barriers were to be the methods moving toward unity, forsaking incivility, condemnations, and discourtesty as things of the past.

The pope’s critics were many. Some thought these actions were too rash and were forsaking the infallible nature of the Church. Pope John, however, dismissed these accusations by saying that they only stemmed from “prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as if the end of the world were at hand.”  To the contrary of these arguments, the pope said that, “Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations in accordance with God’s superior and inscrutable designs.”

Unfortunately, Good Pope John, who had recently addressed a recent Jewish delegation visiting him by exclaiming “I am Joseph, your brother!”, passed away just after the Council had completed its first session. With him went a part of the virgorous and virbrant progressive vision he had had in mind for the Church to contemplate, and ultimately embrace. Shortly after, Cardinal Montini of Milan was elected as his successor as Bishop of Rome and took the name Paul VI. However, Cardinal Montini had been a mainstay of the Roman Curia for quite some time, and this very integral part of his personality would prove problematic in the future, particularly when it came to carrying out the directives of the Second Vatican Council.

Following the immediate aftermath of the Council the Catholic Church seemed to be on fire with the spirit of innovation and renewal. In most places the priests now chose to face the congregation, instead of facing towards the East (with their backs to the congregation) as had been practiced for centuries, during the celebration of the Mass. The laity were encouraged into greater and more active roles within local parishes, even now being able to proclaim the Scripture readings during Eucharistic celebrations and help distribute Holy Communion. Female communites of religious went through makeovers and adapted their religious habits to better fit the needs of modern day society, and their own comfort as well. And everywhere, the progresive spirit of the Council inspired all to no longer be afraid to ask questions but to seriously inquire about the content of their Faith. This phenomenon even spread to numerous members of the clergy, even to many members of the hierarchy. A renewed and charismatic way of being a disciple of Jesus Christ had emerged and had given the Church a second Pentecost! Even the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1976 concluded that the question on women’s ordination was open to debate stating, “the New Testament does not settle in a clear way… whether women can be ordained as priests, scriptural grounds alone are not enough to exclude the possibility of ordaining women, Christ’s plan would not be transgressed by permitting the ordination of women.”

Amidst all this excitement fearful reactionaries of the past had been lying dormant. Then in 1968 these forces finally reared their ugly heads. It was then that Pope Paul VI published his infamous encyclical Humane Vitae, in it he vociferously condemned abortion, any use of contraception, and all forms of marital relations that did not result in the “transmission of life” During the period in which the Council took place Pope John had taken the initiative to create a commission to analyze the traditional Catholic position against contraception in light of the emergence of oral contraceptives and other forms of birth control. By the time the panel had completed their process of prayer, analysis, and contemplation an overwhelming majority (of both clergy and scientists) saw no reason why the ban on contraception should not be lifted. However, rejecting the consensus reached by the experts of the commision, Pope Paul VI decided that it would be to the benefit of the Church to have the ban remain in place. As a veteran of the Roman Curia it’s almost certain that Paul VI based his decision out of a fear of losing a sense of power and crediblity (having papal infallibility and authority be undermined) rather than true pastoral compassion and empathy. And thus, the dismal Roman snowball effect was initiated, keep in mind the ball from now on would be moving uphill and backward rather than forward…

And so the grand restoration began. After Paul VI passed away John Paul I (The Smiling Pope) was elected. Pope John Paul I captured the world with his sensitivity, warmth, and ability to connect with individuals in a genuine manner. Apprently he even sympathized with homosexuals and saw no reason why they would make any less worthy examples of parents to adopted children than heterosexual couples would. Then, mysteriously, he too died after having reigned for nearly a month. It was one of the shortest pontificates in history. The exact causes of the pope’s death have never been verified because autopsies are strictly forbidden under Vatican protocal.

John Paul II’s papacy was grand and monumental in many ways and indeed offered many benefits and gifts to the universal Church. Yet, gradually, the clock of time continued to be turned back within the Church. The reforms of the Council were undermined time and again. Then, it became forbidden to discuss certain topics under the pain of excommunication. The topic of women’s ordination was declared closed forever with John Paul claiming that, “the Church has and never will have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood…” Homosexuality was continually defined as a “disorder” and family planning methods at odds with those espoused in Humane Vitate were continally characterized as morally wrong. Thus, the Church moved from the People of God into the Realm of the Clergy.

With the election of Benedict XVI more of the same has continued. It seems that fear has given way to true dialogue and analytical thought. Fear of what could be, resignation for the familiar rather than confronting the wonder of the unknown. Once again His Holiness has eloquently and beautifully espoused the intimate and inseperable bond between fides et ratio. Yet, a true dialogue between reason and faith is not allowed to take place within the Church. Dialogue and the persuit of reason should not be conditional or on our own terms, but entirely objective and open to all possibilities. Is this what is taking place within the Church today? Or out of fear is ecclesiastical nepotism (as this week’s Anglican debacle can be most simply described) becoming the way of business within the Body of Christ?

The expression What Would Jesus Do often comes to my mind in light of these circumstances. What would He do if He walked the earth among us and saw how His unconditional love failes to radiate through His Body here on earth. What would He say to the leaders of the Church, who like the Pharisees and Sadducees, have stubbornly clung to legalistic interpretations of doctrine rather than a true adherance to the Spirit of God? What does the Lord think as He rests in our tabernacles and is allowed to be made substantially and sacramentally present by the hands of men but not by women? He, Who did not hesitate to heal and make His compassionate touch known to women, and Who was given to us in human flesh through the womb of His Mother. How have the leaders of the Church lost sight of Blessed John the XXIII’s words, that the mission of the Church is “not to guard a musuem, but to cultivate a flowering garden of life!”

Before He left us, Jesus promised that He would be with us always and that He would send His Holy Spirit, the Comforter, to guide us in all of our efforts. Despite the loss of trust and credibility the People of God has experienced in its leaders we must not give up hope. Since Humane Vitae was published we as the laity have understood that we can no longer simply accept that the Holy Spirit is confined to a body of celibate men. It our job to reveal the “signs of the times” and to help the leaders of the Church understand that the Holy Spirit is indeed at work among us.  We know and are assured that the Spirit of God is in our midst and continues to build us up and confirm our faith as we follow Jesus Christ ever forward into the pages of history! “I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh. Your sons and daughter shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions; even upon your servants and the handmaids, in those days, I will pour out My Spirit.” (Joel 3:1-2)

This life of Christian discipleship is certainly a strange journey. I never really know what God is up to.   I rarely have complete confidence in myself as an instrument of God.  In fact, a lot of the time I feel completely confused, clueless, and lost. 

But I keep going, I keep walking with God, with Jesus, because I believe in him, and we have a pretty good relationship. And like all people that I love, I trust God. 

A relationship with God is a lot like a relationship with any other creature or person. The difference with God, though, is that s/he’s Almighty, Powerful, Perfect, Supremely loving, so there is even more room and reason to trust that God will be good and take care of us perfectly. But, like in any relationship, trust is REALLY hard because it is about letting go of control and allowing the other person/being to have their own power too. I have found, however, that once I let go and totally trust God, I experience the greatest freedom and joy ever. (Of course my trust may only last a little while, as I am so imperfect and have to let go and let God’s goodness take care of me over and over and over.) 
For a few years my salvation and all the blessings I have in my life felt like a burden because I wanted to badly to respond well and live the best life I could. It felt like an impossible responsibility and like I was setting myself up for failure over and over every day. 

And then something clicked in me. I realized that the Christian life is not about responsibility, really. It’s about following. And when we follow, we have to trust. We have to let go and allow God’s graces to shower us with clarity and peace and all that we need.  When I reframe my thinking to know that’s it is never up to me, really, and I don’t have any responsibilities, I get to know the freedom that comes from the Truth. God is in charge, all the time. I never have to be, I never am.

I am simply an instrument of God. And God creates all good things. I have such freedom to trust God that I’ll be okay and things are going and will go as they need to. And, when you think about instruments, they have to be empty and able to have the breath and wind of God move through them in order to make the most beautiful music. So, the great challenge is to let go of all that is within me— worries, fears, doubts, possessions, pride, sin, and so on, to empty myself of the things that clog my heart and mind and my relationship with God. Then I can trust, because God will use me beautifully, and it’s not up to me. I’m empty, I’m God’s. God is good, so I trust and live and Love. Thanks be to God!

Recently, the nation has been captivated once again by the spread of the H1N1 flu epidemic (commonly dubbed as the “swine flu”). Although the illness has not claimed as many lives within America as it was first feared it would the number of individuals who have perished as a result continue to dishearten and prevent any sense of normalcy from returning to the lives of most Americans.  It’s been reported that 76 children have died nationwide from succumbing to the virus. (Why they’ve continued to refill the holy water fonts in my parish once again is beyond me…)

Strangely, many parents have reservations about their children receiving the new vaccine. An Associated Press poll reported that a third of American parents questioned stated that they would not allow their children to receive the H1N1 inoculation. Many cited fears that the vaccine was so new and untested that it would not prove to be effective. Others said that they were concerned about side-effects that could exacerbate and worsen the conditions of their already sick children. And still others thought that the swine flu was no worse than the regular flu and would just require their children to receive the regular annual flu shot.

To me at least, this is confusing and not to say the least, foolish, bizarre, and unwarranted judgment. Seeing the number of deaths caused by this pandemic, particularly among children, who would not want to protect their children against the possible threats of this new and unfamiliar disease? Why would anyone turn down an opportunity to be healed from affliction?

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI’s Weekly General Audience focused, ironically, on another kind of medicine. The pontiff centered his reflections on a saint born in the sixteenth century, St. John Leonardi. This former pharmacist was the founder of the Society of the Propagation of the Faith, which is dedicated to evangelization and was one of the contemporaries of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, a period during which reform and renewal was, simultaneously, attempted and crushed under foot. Pope Benedict summarized his reflection on the saint by saying that Christ is the “medicine of God” and that any type of reform or renewal must be initiated out of love for Him and for the Church.

So, it seems that His Holiness might finally, unofficially, be endorsing movements of reform within the Church! Not so fast… Recently, Archbishop Donald Wuerl, leader of the Archdiocese of Washington D.C., has come out openly opposed to the District’s propositions currently underway to legalize same-sex marriage. The usually moderate Wuerl is now starting to show colors that are remarkably similar to some of his other notoriously and aggressively conservative brother bishops when it comes to this issue.

Just this week Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus of Detroit; and a tireless advocate of peace, justice, women’s equality, and especially homosexual rights, was denied the opportunity to speak to a gathering about the topic of peace in the Diocese of Marquette, Michigan. Bishop Alexander Sample of Marquette has explained this decision as a result of Bishop Gumbleton’s outspoken views on the issues of homosexuality and women’s ordination (even though this was not the topic of the discussion that was to be held).

So it seems that real and genuine reforms, at least according to Pope Benedict, are only ones that deviate minutely from the status quo and leave the mechanisms of the universal Church largely unchanged, as it has been for centuries. One example of Pope Benedict’s “reforms” has been to allow the universal, unimcumbored, celebration of the pre-Vatican II, Tridentine Mass, which is said entirely in Latin, with the celebrant facing towards the East, with usually little or no vocal participation by the laity who are just observers to the priest-celebrant. While this really doesn’t seem to have huge implications for the Church it does send a message, “Keep the people in their place” This stark assertion was just what the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, had to wake up to last week as she was described as not “knowing her place” by members of the Republican Congressional Committee.

Another taste of Benedict’s “reforms” will especially be felt here in the States very soon. A new translation of the Order of the Mass has been ordered by the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome that is more in tune with the official Latin translation. The current translation in use, which was created in the 70’s in the wake of Vatican II, was written to appeal to an aspect of community which was reawakened when the Church was described as the “People of God” at the Council. Saying “and also with you”, “I believe in… Jesus Christ… one in being with the Father”, some of these expressions will be changed to be in greater conformity with the Latin text. Some changes aren’t that noticeable, but some others, will be very difficult for current day Mass-goers to relate to. While at first glance it may not seem like that big of a deal, aren’t these measures just simply reinforcing the barriers between the clergy and the laity that had been modified during the Second Vatican Council?

True reform is indeed centered on a love for Christ and His Church. But why could Christ’s love, which is such a radical, revitalizing force, not be exercised when pondering new circumstances, new cultural contexts, and new questions for the life of the Church? When Pope Benedict speaks about love for Christ is this just a substitute for loving the bishops who carry out his orders?

The Church is lovingly described as our “Mother.” But in many cases nowadays it seems that “Holy Mother Church” has abandoned her children. Christ proclaimed Himself as the Fountain of Life-Giving Water who would provide solace, refuge, and fatigue to all those in distress and peril, especially those marginalized by society. Why can Pope Benedict and the leaders of the Church not realize that the Body of Christ is sick, and as we are reminded of in St. Paul’s Epistles, what effects one member of Christ’s Body, effects us all.