Young Adult Catholics

YoungAdultCatholics – a blog of CTA 20/30

to Boston, from Virginia, with love

Posted by rhonda80 on April 25, 2013

For all of us who love Boston, and who have at some point in life called that city home, last week was a difficult one.  Like so many others, after hearing the news on the radio Monday afternoon, I began contacting friends in the Boston area, and each of them had their own story.  One friend, who had been in class with me at the Boston College School of Theology and Ministry, was cheering on runners a few miles from where the explosions occurred.  Another friend had been pacing a fellow runner and had left him at mile 21 about an hour before the attack.  A former colleague had a niece injured in the second blast.  Another friend, a Boston area native, told me that she has attended the marathon every year of her life, but skipped this year for the first time to stay home and work on her thesis.  Everyone was shocked and scared, sad and confused.  I did my best to offer encouragement and empathy, to assure them of my prayers, unsure of what else I could give.

                I spent the rest of the week trying to take in the news enough to be informed, but without getting sucked into the sensationalism and the speculation, and trying to avoid the image of the explosion they showed over and over on television.  The various places that were named in and around Boston are familiar and carry memories for me.  The mosque in Cambridge that the brothers attended was shown on the news, and I realized I had walked past it a few summers ago.  Struck by its beauty, I remember that I stopped on the sidewalk to silently pray for all who attended there.

                Now I live in Central Virginia and I spent last week surrounded by the beauty of the Blue Ridge Mountains in springtime – apple trees with bright white blossoms, baby lambs in the barn, dogwoods and red buds in bloom.  I felt the strange dissonance between the idyllic beauty of my surroundings with my own feelings of sadness and grief and my difficult phone conversations with loved ones in the Boston area.  These feelings were compounded by the awareness that for many people around the world, violence is daily reality – though it doesn’t receive the media coverage that the Boston Marathon bombings do. 

                Like so many of us over the last ten days, I have been asking myself how I should respond to last week’s events in Boston.  As people of faith, we pray – for the victims and their families and caregivers, for the perpetrators, for all who are impacted.  Even when we can’t find it within us to pray, we simply offer to God what is within us – our grief, our shock, our anger, our fear.  As NPR reported news of a manhunt and lockdown, I laced up my shoes and went for a four mile run, the rhythm of my footfall on the gravel and my breath their own kind of prayer.

                But it is not enough just to pray.  Events like this make us ask hard questions – about violence, security, vulnerability, community.  As we learn more about the two young men who carried out the attack, we seek to understand their intentions and motivations.  What could have been done to prevent such an action?  Tragedies like the one in Boston make us take a hard look at ourselves, our nation, and our world and ask what can be done to create a more peaceful and just world.

                But before all this, perhaps there is a more elementary step.  Before analysis and action, there is something simpler I am challenged to do in the face of such an event.  I am blessed to live in a community with adults with intellectual disabilities (similar to L’arche), and last Friday evening many of us gathered after dinner to watch a movie, as we often do on the weekend.  We watched Ruby Bridges, which tells the true story of a six-year-old African-American girl who helped to integrate the public schools in New Orleans in the 1960s.  She and her family faced great resistance and cruelty from many whites who supported segregation, but bolstered by faith in Jesus’ example of overcoming evil with good, Ruby and her family persevered.  After the movie was over, I had conversation with three of my community-mates, adults with intellectual disabilities, about what the movie meant to them.  Some of their responses:

                “We should be kind even if people are mean to us, and not hate anybody.”

                “The movie is about respect and love.” 

“Even though we’re all different, we should try to be friends.”

“The movie shows that we should love each other and get along, even when it’s hard.”

We went on to discuss practical, concrete ways that we could be kinder and more loving in our daily lives in community.   The simple and sincere words of my community-mates were a great consolation to me in light of the sadness I had been carrying throughout the week.  Often, the very young, the very old, and those with intellectual disabilities – people whose hearts are more open and less monitored by intellect – can speak with a clarity that is prophetic to the rest of us. 

Of course, it seems overly simplistic and unrealistic – saccharine, even – to say that love and kindness are the answer, especially as we face acts of individual and collective terror and violence.  Yet as I think what my community-mates shared, I remember the words attributed to St Francis of Assisi: “it is better to let one candle than to curse the darkness.”  When the news reports and the stories that are loved ones share make us so aware of the darkness, maybe the first step is to take a deep breath and commit ourselves to living in the light. 

A week and a half after the Boston Marathon bombings, I am committed to praying, committed to analysis and asking the hard questions about the root causes of violence – and also, inspired by my community-mates, I am committed to making love, kindness, and compassion the central values in my daily life.  In the face of violence, we commit to peace.  In the face of anger, we commit to compassion.  In the face of distrust, we commit to kindness.  We refuse to respond to hatred with more hatred.  We love our families, our neighbors, our friends, and – as followers of the Gospel – even our enemies.  We commit to building an ever-widening and diverse circle of community. 

It’s not the whole solution, but seems to me to be an important first step.  And, as any marathoner could tell you, the first step matters a great deal. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Catholicism: Are You In or Out?

Posted by Lacey Louwagie on April 23, 2013

I just left a phenomenal gathering of activists, clergy, social workers, researchers, and other experts sponsored by the Religious Institute to put together a guidebook about how spiritual communities might provide pastoral care to bisexual people (and others who don’t easily fall within a straight/gay binary). At one point, we were asked to write down one sentiment we felt was key for the guide to address. Mine went something like this:

Someone should not have to choose between her sexual identity and her religious tradition.

As a bisexual woman, the issue of choice is a complicated one. It makes people nervous to know that, hypothetically, the world of romantic attraction is so “wide open” to someone like me. (I say hypothetically because, back when I was single, I only fell in love about once every five years — it was so rare that I was thrilled when it showed up, no matter what form it took!) Although this is less an issue with my generation and those after me than for those who came before, there’s still a subtle pressure to “pick a side.” C’mon, which one are you really? Are you gay but you want straight privilege? Are you only willing to come “half” out of the closet? Are you still “figuring things out”?

As a bisexual woman, I don’t want to be pushed into “choosing” whether to deny my attractions to women or to men, when the reality of attraction is much more complex than that. I feel equally uncomfortable when faced with pressure to “choose” whether I’m Catholic or bisexual, Catholic or feminist. Last week, I saw a bumper sticker that declared, “You can’t be pro-choice AND Catholic.”

I wanted to add a sticker that said, “YOU don’t get to decide who is Catholic.”

Unfortunately, I think a lot of progressive Catholics feel this pressure to choose sides: Where do you really stand? Are you pro-choice OR Catholic? Are you gay OR Catholic? And it doesn’t just come from Catholicism, either. It often comes from the political or personal communities we find ourselves in: “If you’re a feminist, why do you continue to align yourself with a religious tradition that oppresses women?”

But just as issues of sexuality, reproductive rights, and women’s equality are complicated and nuanced, so too is the Catholic church, including all the clergy and lay that comprise it now and throughout history. So, too, are each of our relationships to the places we call our spiritual homes. Pressuring anyone to “choose sides” when it comes to core aspects of her identity is a form of spiritual violence, and it’s not okay. So rather than go into intensely personal territory when these different aspects of identity are challenged, sometimes I’d rather just exist quietly in this inbetween space. Perhaps the next time someone asks, “How can you be both x and y,” I’ll simply respond, “Because I am.”

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 7 Comments »

Rebels for Jesus

Posted by Dave Montrose on April 14, 2013

This post first appeared on Pax Christi Southwest Florida’s site.

“Nonviolence does not mean non-action. Nonviolence means we act with love and compassion.” – Thich Nhat Hanh

A little bit of rebellion goes a long way. Just ask the apostles.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Simplicity (Things I learned from my kids)

Posted by Dave Montrose on April 13, 2013

“We live in a world that celebrates superficial beauty and rejects ugly, yet God sees beauty in all of us despite our ugliness. Jesus loves us just the way we are.” - Pastor Jamie Stilson, Vineyard Community Church of Cape Coral (Fla.)

Today was the first “summer” day for the kids.* We broke out the sprinkler and the heretofore unused inflatable wading pool for the purpose of joyful splashing and scampering. But after a few minutes of Daddy demonstrating how to properly jump through a sprinkler and Mommy placing Jacob (16 months old) in the wading pool, the experience ended up turning into Jacob toddling around the driveway, and Hannah (2 years) taking pleasure in using a sprinkler-free hose to water whom- or whatever she could find.

Once again, my kids have taught me a lesson in Christian living.

"Okay, we're ready to get out and play now."

“Okay, we’re ready to get out and play now.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Implicit Bias, and Doing vs. Being

Posted by Lacey Louwagie on April 9, 2013

Last week, I took an implicit bias test as part of my homework in a Know Thyself class I’m taking through Coursera. The test was designed to explore a theory that much of our mind’s workings are totally unconscious, and not even possible for us to access, even though they still influence our actions. In particular, it is believed that many of our prejudices exist in this deeper, inaccessible part of ourselves, hidden from us even as we consciously believe we harbor no convictions about one group of people being better than another.

When I took the test, I found that I have a “slight preference” for people with light skin (meaning that I have a slight tendency toward racism). Although I don’t like my results, I wasn’t surprised by them, either — not because I consciously consider myself racist, but because I know that the “isms” are much more pervasive and slippery than we’d like to think, and this is precisely why discrimination continues to exist in a world where many people vehemently deny their prejudices.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Language gap

Posted by Justin Sengstock on April 7, 2013

Jamie Manson’s latest NCR commentary is entitled: “Dolan and Cordileone: Please don’t call it love.” She wonders what exactly it might mean for Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York, and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, to proclaim that the Catholic Church really does love gays and lesbians.

Dolan said “I love you, too” (literally) in an Easter Sunday interview on ABC. He elaborated: “we want your happiness…you’re entitled to friendship.’” And when Cordileone arrived in San Francisco in 2012, he announced: “We need to continue to learn how to be welcoming, let them know that we love them and we want to help them.”

But Dolan is, of course, a vocal opponent of marriage equality. He also declined a request to meet with homeless LGBTQ youth last year. Cordileone, meanwhile, is nicknamed the “Father of Proposition 8.”

And Jamie notes that when the Human Rights Campaign recently distributed a red and white equal-sign graphic on Facebook, meant to be posted while the Supreme Court heard arguments on marriage equality, Cordileone’s PR staff went ahead with their own jaw-dropping riposte: “a graphic of a white division sign and the citation ‘Luke 12:51′ on a red square. (Luke 12:51 is the verse in which Jesus says, ‘Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division.’)” The archdiocese pulled it from Facebook when people complained, but the division sign had made its point.

Jamie wants church officials to stop using the word “love” unless they demonstrate it in concrete, relational ways:

When we love another person, we genuinely desire to know her or him. When we love, we long to listen to the beloved and to learn his or her story….But that quality of listening requires true presence and vulnerability. For now, men like Dolan and Cordileone continue to insist that gays and lesbians do not know the truth about themselves and their relationships.

Unsurprisingly, commenters began shooting back. One critic, who goes by the screen name Purgatrix Ineptiae (my rough translation: “she who cleans out the folly”), wrote that love means something else entirely:

When a bishop says he loves you, he means he wants to help you get into heaven. It doesn’t mean he will clear his schedule to listen (for the thousandth time) to your protestations that he should adopt your opinions. It doesn’t mean he enjoys your company. It doesn’t mean he wants you to like him. It means he wants to help you eschew sin and grow in faith in accordance with his understanding of sin and faith.

Reading Jamie’s understanding of love, which I confess to sharing, and reading the alternate view provided by Purgatrix, I realized (for the thousandth time) what one of the biggest problems is in the church today. It is the language gap.

For all intents and purposes, there are multiple Catholicisms. Words and symbols might coincide, but meanings do not. I began to grasp this near the end of my college career, while researching a paper on sexual ethics for a theology class. I read articles about John Paul II’s understanding of love.

The articles suggested that love for John Paul was, at bottom, the choice to disinterestedly pursue the objective good of another person, particularly the other’s eternal good. Because God is the creator and ground of all that is, we learn how to make such a choice by first studying God’s self-revelation, of which the church is the privileged custodian. Only secondarily do we study human experience.

This view appeals to our idealism, and has some beauty and logic. It is also somewhat removed from the friction of our everyday, embodied lives. It frequently does not allow our personal encounters to speak for themselves with all their compelling mystery and poetry, their unbidden ecstasy and sorrow. And so when we try to dialogue with the Vatican about love, particularly sexual love, the result is generally an impasse.

Speaking of dialogue, I had a related light-bulb moment while reading David Gibson’s book about Pope Benedict XVI, The Rule of Benedict. One passage argued that while Benedict considered himself wholeheartedly committed to dialogue, he often used the word in a different way than it appears in common discourse. Benedict’s model for “dialogue” was the Gospel of John, in which the truth-seeker asks questions of the truth-bearer, as Nicodemus does with Jesus, and then accepts what the truth-bearer reveals. This is dialogos with the divine logos, not a hashing-out among parties of equal standing. For me, it explained a lot.

If this is how much our basic terms and concepts differ, then consider just how much we talk past each other, and how much we will continue to do so. I obviously have no easy solution. I doubt there is even a hard solution.

But if I am not immediately optimistic, I yet have hope. My hope is in Jesus’ observation that the proof of the tree is its fruit. My hope is in Gamaliel’s counsel that what comes from God is not stoppable. We will see which language, which worldview, gives the most abundant life to the most people. And you know where my bias is.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Mary Magdalene, Rules, and Following Jesus

Posted by Lacey Louwagie on April 2, 2013

After we attended Easter service, my husband was speculating about what it might have been like for Mary Magdalene to go out and try to tell the rest of the world what she had discovered at the grave of Jesus. I told him about my copy of The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, which might shed a little more insight. He read it aloud as we drove to my aunt and uncle’s for Easter brunch, adding his own commentary along the way. At one point, Jesus is quoted as saying:

“Impose no law other than that which I have witnessed. Do not add more laws to those given in the Torah, lest you become bound by them.”

Ivan paused and said, “It’s no wonder this book was banned from the Bible!”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Unless a grain of wheat shall fall

Posted by Justin Sengstock on March 25, 2013

On a hazy, hot July morning several years ago, I sat in a comparatively frosty classroom at Boston College, auditing a summer course. Gustavo Gutierrez, the father of liberation theology, was our teacher.

The frail 82-year-old Peruvian priest, who sweated profusely despite the air conditioning (his lungs were stressed by the local air, and he habitually carried an extra shirt in a plastic bag), described his last conversation with his friend Oscar Romero. He had called Romero from an airport.

Gutierrez had only a few minutes before his flight, but he wanted to check in with the embattled archbishop. For several years, Romero had witnessed on behalf of the abused, terrorized Salvadoran poor. And it was now clear that the death squads, backed by the powerful interests they served, no longer wished to endure this meddlesome priest.

Gutierrez told Romero, “Take care of yourself.” There was a pause on the other end of the line.

“If I wanted to take care of myself, I’d have to leave the country,” Romero said.

A couple of weeks later, presiding at evening Mass on March 24, 1980, Romero preached from the text in John about how the grain of wheat must fall to the ground and die if it would ever become more than a grain of wheat. As he finished, a sniper stepped out from behind a pillar and pulled the trigger. The grain of wheat fell to the ground and died.

The thirty-third anniversary of Romero’s martyrdom, March 24, 2013, coincided with Palm Sunday. I am appreciative of this double observance. Deeply appreciative.

You see, we tend to shroud Jesus’ Passion in an incense-scented mist. We cull from the Gospels, from the prophets and the epistles, from later traditions like Veronica and her face wipe and Longinus and his spear, mixing and matching. We construct a Greek play where the chorus and the actors all strut their proper roles and chant their honed responses. We watch from a distance while the blood saves us from our sins. The main characters either mysteriously understand the cosmic transaction, knowing they are on a mission from God, or giddily refuse to grasp the obvious significance, happy to serve their father the Devil.

We easily forget this is also an earthy, brass-tacks narrative, its protagonist a mouthy upstart from the edge of acceptable society, who stood up for inconvenient outsiders and their inconvenient lives. He finally became a traitor to the state and its authorized religion, both of which did business in a corrupt, self-aggrandizing way he loudly rejected. Therefore the state disposed of him alongside the other criminals, who to their executioners were an undifferentiated glob of undesirables, all equally destined for the garbage disposal: thieves, murderers, prophets, messiahs.

We seem to need martyrs like Oscar Romero, who lived a very similar story in our own time, to sharply remind us that as it was for them, so it was for Jesus Christ.

And many of us really don’t like to hear it. We resist. We do not want the Passion narrative to be too readily accessible to us as everyday human beings, as people who have daily opportunities to reject injustice and incur the cost, or accept injustice and swallow our shame.

We know deep down that if this week is more than just a memorial of salvation history, more than just a time to gratefully celebrate what somebody else did, then we are obliged to find some way of embodying the Passion narrative ourselves. And, in so doing, we will incur responsibilities greater than pious acts and ritual observances. We will have to focus on things much bigger than our interior devotion or personal purity. We will have to accept, as both Jesus and Romero did, some way of dying so that others around us might live.

At the Last Supper, Jesus said: “If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet” (John 13:14). So much easier to limit ourselves to thanking the first person who showed up with soap and a bucket, isn’t it? I know it is for me.

Oscar Romero, pray for us. Happy Holy Week.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Francis, S.J.

Posted by Justin Sengstock on March 13, 2013

Wednesdays are my day off. I got up late. I was on my second cup of coffee when CBS News broke in, bringing white smoke and booming bells in the campanile of St. Peter’s Basilica. I was on my second egg-salad sandwich when the former Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio, S.J. of Buenos Aires stepped in front of the city and the world.

Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran, the protodeacon with the privilege of announcing such things, spoke in Latin that echoed badly on the CBS feed. I needed the interpreter to tell me it was Bergoglio, which was the first surprise. With the election over so quickly, I had feared a barreling tide for the Milanese cardinal, Angelo Scola, who kept crawling around the top of all the good bookie lists.

I do not hold anything unique against Scola. But I did not want the papacy to revert to an Italian possession. This is an international church, now more than ever. Nor did I want a man who would be both the third archbishop of Milan (Pius XI, 1922; Paul VI, 1963) and fourth patriarch of Venice (Pius X, 1903; John XXIII, 1958; John Paul I, 1978) elected pope in only a century. We need to keep moving on, and I’m pleased that we are.

I did not need an interpreter for the rather electrifying name, Franciscum, which came through clearly enough. Francis he would be. According to Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi, Bergoglio’s choice is in deference to il Poverello from Assisi, not the Basque Jesuit evangelist Xavier.

It is not technically “Francis the First,” as I keep hearing. Albino Luciani specifically stipulated himself as Joannes Paulus Primus (John Paul I). Pope Francis did not do so.

He is the first Jesuit pope. I admit some tribal pride here: my college degree is from Loyola University Chicago. And Francis, son of Italian immigrants but a Buenos Aires native, is also as much the first American pope as Dolan or O’Malley would have been. Argentina is in South America, and, as I always want to tell people who speak overmuch about “American this” and “American that,” South America is America.

He is 76. That means that, considering that modern popes from Leo XIII (aged 67 when chosen in 1878) onward have generally been elected at ages 63 to 68, we’ve gone to the extremes for the third time in a row. John Paul II, 58, represented the young extreme (as did Benedict XV, 1914, aged 59), while Benedict XVI, 78, represented the elderly extreme (along with John XXIII, 76). Francis, like his immediate emeritus predecessor, will have a reign of years, not decades.

As archbishop of Buenos Aires, Bergoglio was known for his attention to the gulf between rich and poor. He lived in a small apartment rather than the palace available to him. He is said to cook for himself. He pointedly shunned his limo, favoring public transit.

When Francis emerged onto the loggia, his balding head and inscrutable, abstracted half-smile reminded me of no one so much as Pius XII, a Roman-born aristocrat and the last pre-Vatican II pontiff. But I noticed right away that Francis was not wearing the red mozzetta, the short choir-dress cape of watered silk or ermine-lined velvet that popes usually don for their first public appearance.

Nor did he wear the liturgical stole. He only put it on when he gave the blessing, and then he promptly handed it off to an aide. The image was that of a matter-of-fact, plainclothes pope, someone who really would rather be riding a bus or making his own dinner right now instead of standing here, doing this.

He began his opening remarks with a quiet “good evening,” joking that the cardinals had gone to the edge of the world just to get them a bishop. He led some prayers for Benedict, then asked the crowd to “do me a favor” by blessing him first before he blessed them. Francis bowed for several seconds while the crowd prayed. He concluded by asking everyone to please have a good night’s rest.

It had a different flavor from Benedict’s reflections on being a worker in the vineyard: humble, yes, but you could hear all of Ratzinger’s commas click into place. It was also different from John Paul II, the former stage actor, whose apparently spontaneous but precisely polished introductory speech had a “friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!” ring to it.

I won’t lie. I was thoroughly and completely charmed. I want Francis to succeed. I want to believe. And yet…and yet…

…I’m not naive. He is no liberation theologian. Latin American Jesuit does not always mean Grande, Ellacuria, or Martin-Baro, and in Francis’ case it does not. There is controversy over whether Bergoglio appropriately supported Argentinean church workers against the military junta. And he is unfriendly to the LGBTQ movement. Much of this is to be expected. Radicals rarely become popes or pope-makers.

And I want particularly to guard against being taken in by emotion or symbols, by either pageantry or deliberate departures from pageantry. The Catholic Church, whatever else it may be, is consummate theater, the best in the world.

Jesus told the first Francis to rebuild his church. Now we can only wait and pray, with everyone else, until today’s Francis reveals what he believes Jesus is telling him.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

Fox News, Women Priests, Black Smoke, and the Whole Self

Posted by Lacey Louwagie on March 12, 2013

Recently, my friend Jenny published an article at Relevant about women in ministry, in response to a recent report that women are leaving the church at twice the rate that men are. This paragraph particularly resonated with me:

“It’s not so much that women feel the Church doesn’t value the contributions they do make; it’s that they don’t see opportunities or don’t feel the freedom to bring their whole selves to the table.”

This pretty much sums up my whole experience within the Catholic Church. I always felt drawn to the Church, loved it, even, but continuously felt as if I just couldn’t quite fit. Even at age ten, the arguments against women’s ordination made no sense to me, and they make just as little sense now. I believe what kind of family planning a couple decides to use is none of the Church’s business. And as a bisexual woman, I believe that God would have blessed my love just as much if I’d fallen in love with a woman as I feel God has blessed my love (and me) when I married my husband. When it comes to issues of sex and gender in the Catholic Church, most of my writing and exploration has followed the consistent theme of never being able to feel completely whole in the roles assigned to me by my church.

Pink smoke would look so much less ominous.

I normally wouldn’t have watched the coverage of the Vatican conclave (we don’t have a TV), but Fox News happened to be playing it while I waited in the lobby to get my car worked on today, so I saw the black smoke rise. A priest gave commentary to a correspondent about how the conclave hadn’t been able to come to a clear agreement on the Papal successor, and the correspondent asked, “Well, isn’t it especially hard when you exclude half of the population?”

I’d brought work with me, and so I’d been trying not to get too distracted by the news. But this made me put my book down. Was Fox News asking about women’s ordination?

Indeed they were. The priest responded by talking out of both sides of his mouth. First, he said that he thinks it would be wonderful if there were more women involved in positions of power within the Church, and that he would love it if women took a more active role in choosing the next Pope. As if the lack of women at the conclave is because, you know, those women just don’t get involved.  What he failed to explain, for those watching who may not have been familiar with Catholicism, is that only Cardinals are allowed at that conclave. And only priests can advance to the position of Cardinal. And only men can be priests. Which means that if we want more women involved in that level of decision making, we need to a) ordain women or b) open the power structure up to include the laity. But he didn’t suggest either of those things outright — my suspicion is because, to do so, he’d have to admit that the problem doesn’t lay with “uninvolved” women, but with a Church that systematically shuts them out.

After that, he gave the usual excuses about the male apostles, and he offered a delightful twist (they always do!) about how, “Men and women were just designed by God to play different roles. I don’t consider it unfair that I don’t get to give birth!”

The Fox News correspondent didn’t seem convinced; and I felt grateful for women like Janice Sevre-Duszynska, who I know are the reason mainstream news sources are talking about these issues. The Vatican may be able to shut us out, but it can’t shut us up!

In the meantime, I’m attending a United Church of Christ church, where I can bring more of my whole self to the table than I can in my native tradition. It still doesn’t satisfy all of me. I miss Holy Water, Catholic hymns, and the ritual of the Eucharist. But the pastors at this church know I come from a Catholic tradition, know that I still have ties to the church, and everyone is OK with that. They know more about my “whole self” than I’ve ever shared with a Catholic priest.

A few weeks ago, one of the pastors asked me whether I was going to write about the resignation of Pope Benedict for this blog. I said I didn’t have much to say about it. I still don’t have a lot to say — the Papacy feels so distant from my day-to-day spirituality, from who I am as a Christian or even a Catholic. And while I wait with a certain level of semi-detached interest, I’ll really start paying attention when, as folk musician Dierdre Flint says, “they declare Pope Catherine.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 85 other followers