Pope Francis tells the press how he chose his regnal name:
Meanwhile, the Rev. Dr. R. Guy Erwin, Professor of Religion and History at California Lutheran University (and Interim Pastor at my home congregation) offers "this op-ed in Friday's Ventura County Star with an historian's perspective on the significance of a Pope named "Francis."
Showing posts with label Catholic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholic. Show all posts
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Pope Francis
"That's the first Pope Francis," was my immediate reaction upon hearing the surprising news of a papal election this afternoon (Central Time). "This is a very significant name," I thought. Francis of Assisi is perhaps the most popular of the non-Apostolic saints, and his initial call was to "rebuild the church." As a native Californian, whose first non-Indian settlers were Franciscans, and having worked for the Franciscans throughout my seminary years, it warms my heart to see "Francis" finally attached to the Papacy. I won't pretend to know why Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio chose this name, but clearly he is not afraid of something "new." Neither is the College of Cardinals, who have elected not simply a non-European or not simply a Latin American, but the first Pope from the New World.
And the first Jesuit — making "Francis" an even-more interesting name to me. In time we will find out what the new Pope intends by choosing this name. Regardless, following the papacies John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI, he has some significant shoes to fill.
Until then, here is an English translation of his first words to the Church assembled at St. Peter's Square, courtesy the Vatican news:
Brothers and sisters good evening.
You all know that the duty of the Conclave was to give a bishop to Rome. It seems that my brother Cardinals have gone almost to the ends of the earth to get him… but here we are. I thank you for the welcome that has come from the diocesan community of Rome.
First of all I would like to say a prayer pray for our Bishop Emeritus Benedict XVI. Let us all pray together for him, that the Lord will bless him and that our Lady will protect him.
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit
of you womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death. Amen.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And now let us begin this journey, the Bishop and the people, this journey of the Church of Rome which presides in charity over all the Churches, a journey of brotherhood in love, of mutual trust. Let us always pray for one another. Let us pray for the whole world that there might be a great sense of brotherhood. My hope is that this journey of the Church that we begin today, together with the help of my Cardinal Vicar, may be fruitful for the evangelization of this beautiful city.
And now I would like to give the blessing. But first I want to ask you a favour. Before the Bishop blesses the people I ask that you would pray to the Lord to bless me – the prayer of the people for their Bishop. Let us say this prayer – your prayer for me – in silence.
[The Protodeacon announced that all those who received the blessing, either in person or by radio, television or by the new means of communication receive the plenary indulgence in the form established by the Church. He prayed that Almighty God protect and guard the Pope so that he may lead the Church for many years to come, and that he would grant peace to the Church throughout the world.]
[Immediately afterwards Pope Francis gave his first blessing Urbi et Orbi — To the City and to the World.]
May the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, in whose power and authority we have confidence, intercede on our behalf to the Lord.
Response: Amen.
Through the prayers and merits of the Blessed Mary ever-virgin, of Blessed Michael the Archangel, of Blessed John the Baptist, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of all the saints, may Almighty God have mercy on you, and with your sins forgiven, may Jesus Christ lead you into everlasting life.
Response: Amen.
May the Almighty and merciful Lord grant you indulgence, absolution, and remission of all your sins, time for a true and fruitful penance, an always repentant heart and amendment of life, the grace and consolation of the Holy Spirit, and final perseverance in good works.
Response: Amen.
And may the blessing of Almighty God, + the Father, + the Son, and + the Holy Spirit, descend on you and remain with you always.
Response: Amen.
I will now give my blessing to you and to the whole world, to all men and women of good will.
Brothers and sisters, I am leaving you. Thank you for your welcome. Pray for me and I will be with you again soon... We will see one another soon.
Tomorrow I want to go to pray to the Madonna, that she may protect Rome.
Good night and sleep well!
By the way, he is not "Pope Francis the First." He will not be called that until, and unless, there is a second Pope Francis. May that be many years from now.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Open Letter: Free Exercise of Religion
The following was issued Thursday by the leaders of several religious communities in the United States, including the Presidents/Bishops of four Lutheran church bodies. Written by the Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison, President of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, he also offers this video introduction. Pastor Zip
Hat tip to Fr. William Weedon at ALPB Forum Online.
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION:
An Open Letter from Religious Leaders
in the United States to All Americans
June 21, 2012
Dear Friends,
Religious institutions are established because of religious beliefs and convictions. Such institutions include not only churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship, but also schools and colleges, shelters and community kitchens, adoption agencies and hospitals, organizations that provide care and services during natural disasters, and countless other organizations that exist to put specific religious beliefs into practice. Many such organizations have provided services and care to both members and non-members of their religious communities since before the Revolutionary War, saving and improving the lives of count- less American citizens.
As religious leaders from a variety of perspectives and communities, we are compelled to make known our protest against the incursion of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) into the realm of religious liberty. HHS has mandated that religious institutions, with only a narrow religious exception, must provide access to certain contraceptive benefits, even if the covered medications or procedures are contradictory to their beliefs. We who oppose the application of this mandate to religious institutions include not only the leaders of religious groups morally opposed to contraception, but also leaders of other religious groups that do not share that particular moral conviction.
That we share an opposition to the mandate to religious institutions while disagreeing about specific moral teachings is a crucial fact. Religious freedom is the principle on which we stand. Because of differing understandings of moral and religious authority, people of good will can and often do come to different conclusions about moral questions. Yet, even we who hold differing convictions on specific moral issues are united in the conviction that no religious institution should be penalized for refusing to go against its beliefs. The issue is the First Amendment, not specific moral teachings or specific products or services.
The HHS mandate implicitly acknowledged that an incursion into religion is involved in the mandate. However, the narrowness of the proposed exemption is revealing for it applies only to religious organizations that serve or support their own members. In so doing, the government is establishing favored and disfavored religious organizations: a privatized religious organization that serves only itself is exempted from regulation, while one that believes it should also serve the public beyond its membership is denied a religious exemption. The so-called accommodation and the subsequent Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) do little or nothing to alleviate the problem.
No government should tell religious organizations either what to believe or how to put their beliefs into practice. We indeed hold this to be an unalienable, constitutional right. If freedom of religion is a constitutional value to be protected, then institutions developed by religious groups to implement their core beliefs in education, in care for the sick or suffering, and in other tasks must also be protected. Only by doing so can the free exercise of religion have any meaning. The HHS mandate prevents this free exercise. For the well-being of our country, we oppose the application of the contraceptive mandate to religious institutions and plead for its retraction.
Sincerely yours,
The Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, president of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), authored and issued “Free Exercise of Religion: Putting Beliefs into Practice,” an open letter to all Americans voicing opposition to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) contraceptive mandate and pleading for its retraction. Twenty-four religious leaders joined President Harrison in signing the letter, which was issued June 21, 2012.
For more information about the LCMS response to the HHS contraceptive mandate, please visit www.lcms.org/hhsmandate or call 888-THE LCMS (843-5267).
Hat tip to Fr. William Weedon at ALPB Forum Online.
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION:
Putting Beliefs into Practice
An Open Letter from Religious Leaders in the United States to All Americans
June 21, 2012
Dear Friends,
Religious institutions are established because of religious beliefs and convictions. Such institutions include not only churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship, but also schools and colleges, shelters and community kitchens, adoption agencies and hospitals, organizations that provide care and services during natural disasters, and countless other organizations that exist to put specific religious beliefs into practice. Many such organizations have provided services and care to both members and non-members of their religious communities since before the Revolutionary War, saving and improving the lives of count- less American citizens.
As religious leaders from a variety of perspectives and communities, we are compelled to make known our protest against the incursion of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) into the realm of religious liberty. HHS has mandated that religious institutions, with only a narrow religious exception, must provide access to certain contraceptive benefits, even if the covered medications or procedures are contradictory to their beliefs. We who oppose the application of this mandate to religious institutions include not only the leaders of religious groups morally opposed to contraception, but also leaders of other religious groups that do not share that particular moral conviction.
That we share an opposition to the mandate to religious institutions while disagreeing about specific moral teachings is a crucial fact. Religious freedom is the principle on which we stand. Because of differing understandings of moral and religious authority, people of good will can and often do come to different conclusions about moral questions. Yet, even we who hold differing convictions on specific moral issues are united in the conviction that no religious institution should be penalized for refusing to go against its beliefs. The issue is the First Amendment, not specific moral teachings or specific products or services.
The HHS mandate implicitly acknowledged that an incursion into religion is involved in the mandate. However, the narrowness of the proposed exemption is revealing for it applies only to religious organizations that serve or support their own members. In so doing, the government is establishing favored and disfavored religious organizations: a privatized religious organization that serves only itself is exempted from regulation, while one that believes it should also serve the public beyond its membership is denied a religious exemption. The so-called accommodation and the subsequent Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) do little or nothing to alleviate the problem.
No government should tell religious organizations either what to believe or how to put their beliefs into practice. We indeed hold this to be an unalienable, constitutional right. If freedom of religion is a constitutional value to be protected, then institutions developed by religious groups to implement their core beliefs in education, in care for the sick or suffering, and in other tasks must also be protected. Only by doing so can the free exercise of religion have any meaning. The HHS mandate prevents this free exercise. For the well-being of our country, we oppose the application of the contraceptive mandate to religious institutions and plead for its retraction.
Sincerely yours,
| Leith Anderson President National Association of Evangelicals Gary M. Benedict President The Christian and Missionary Alliance U.S. Bishop John F. Bradosky North American Lutheran Church The Most Rev. Robert J. Carlson Archbishop of St. Louis Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan Archbishop of New York President United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Mother Agnes Mary Donovan, S.V. Superior General of the Sisters of Life Sister Barbara Anne Gooding, R.S.M. Director, Department of Religion Saint Francis Health System Sister Margaret Regina Halloran, l.s.p. Provincial Superior Brooklyn Province Little Sisters of the Poor The Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison President The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. Senior Pastor, Hope Christian Church Bishop, Fellowship of International Churches The Very Rev. Dr. John A. Jillions Chancellor Orthodox Church in America The Most Blessed Jonah Archbishop of Washington Metropolitan of All American and Canada Orthodox Church in America | Imam Faizul R. Khan Founder and Leader Islamic Society of Washington Area The Very Rev. Leonid Kishkovsky Director of External Affairs and Interchurch Relations Orthodox Church in America Most Rev. William E. Lori Archbishop of Baltimore Chairman USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty Sister Maria Christine Lynch, l.s.p. Provincial Superior Chicago Province Little Sisters of the Poor Sister Loraine Marie Maguire, l.s.p. Provincial Superior Baltimore Province Little Sisters of the Poor The Rev. John A. Moldstad President Evangelical Lutheran Synod Deaconess Cheryl D. Naumann President Concordia Deaconess Conference The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez President NHCLC Hispanic Evangelical Association Sister Joseph Marie Ruessmann Generalate Secretary Religious Sisters of Mercy of Alma, Michigan The Rev. Mark Schroeder President Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod L. Roy Taylor Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America Sister Constance Carolyn Veit, l.s.p. Communications Director Little Sisters of the Poor Dr. George O. Wood General Superintendent The General Council of the Assemblies of God |
The Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, president of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), authored and issued “Free Exercise of Religion: Putting Beliefs into Practice,” an open letter to all Americans voicing opposition to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) contraceptive mandate and pleading for its retraction. Twenty-four religious leaders joined President Harrison in signing the letter, which was issued June 21, 2012.
For more information about the LCMS response to the HHS contraceptive mandate, please visit www.lcms.org/hhsmandate or call 888-THE LCMS (843-5267).
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
The HHS Mandate: What's at Stake?
"We don't ask people for their baptismal certificate, nor do we ask people for their U.S. passport, before we can serve them, OK? . . . We don't serve people because they're Catholic, we serve them because we are, and it's a moral imperative for us to do so."
That's Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, in James Taranto's "Weekend Interview" in The Wall Street Journal entitled "When the Archbishop Met the President." You can read the entire article here (unless it gets hidden behind the Journals paywall).
In the interview Cardinal Dolan speaks of his conversations initiated by President Obama regarding the Department of Health and Human Service's new mandate that all forms of birth control be covered by medical insurance plans, including the plans of those for whom some (or all) forms of contraception are morally repugnant.
Tip o' the hat to James Kushiner at Touchstone's "Mere Comments."
That's Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, in James Taranto's "Weekend Interview" in The Wall Street Journal entitled "When the Archbishop Met the President." You can read the entire article here (unless it gets hidden behind the Journals paywall).
In the interview Cardinal Dolan speaks of his conversations initiated by President Obama regarding the Department of Health and Human Service's new mandate that all forms of birth control be covered by medical insurance plans, including the plans of those for whom some (or all) forms of contraception are morally repugnant.
Mr. Obama knew that the mandate would pose difficulties for the Catholic Church, so he invited Archbishop Dolan to the Oval Office last November, shortly before the bishops' General Assembly in Baltimore. At the end of their 45-minute discussion, the archbishop summed up what he understood as the president's message:Cardinal Dolan has more to say about controversy that has ensued, both within the Catholic Church and the nation in general, particularly regarding what appropriate and proper "ministry" of the Church is in our land.
"I said, 'I've heard you say, first of all, that you have immense regard for the work of the Catholic Church in the United States in health care, education and charity. . . . I have heard you say that you are not going to let the administration do anything to impede that work and . . . that you take the protection of the rights of conscience with the utmost seriousness. . . . Does that accurately sum up our conversation?' [Mr. Obama] said, 'You bet it does.'"
The archbishop asked for permission to relay the message to the other bishops. "You don't have my permission, you've got my request," the president replied.
"So you can imagine the chagrin," Archbishop Dolan continues, "when he called me at the end of January to say that the mandates remain in place and that there would be no substantive change, and that the only thing that he could offer me was that we would have until August. . . . I said, 'Mr. President, I appreciate the call. Are you saying now that we have until August to introduce to you continual concerns that might trigger a substantive mitigation in these mandates?' He said, 'No, the mandates remain. We're more or less giving you this time to find out how you're going to be able to comply.' I said, 'Well, sir, we don't need the [extra time]. I can tell you now we're unable to comply.'"
The archbishop sees a parallel irony in his dispute with Mr. Obama: "This is a strange turn of the table, that here a Catholic cardinal is defending religious freedom, the great proposition of the American republic, and the president of the United States seems to be saying that this is a less-than-important issue."Strange indeed. Alas, that is also the current state of the Republic. Again, read the interview here -- it's really important.
Tip o' the hat to James Kushiner at Touchstone's "Mere Comments."
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Pope Benedict XXVI: Ash Wednesday Homily
I had to run to the store for some olive oil this morning before the Ash Wednesday service and, on the way back, Sebastian's radio (Sebastian is my 2002 Golf TDI) was tuned to our local EWTN Radio station, which was airing the Ash Wednesday Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI. As I said to the congregation, not only is this Pope a fine theologian, he can preach.
...I would like to reflect on the liturgical sign of the ashes, a material sign, a natural element that, in the Liturgy, becomes a sacred symbol, so important on this day that marks the start of our Lenten journey. In ancient times, in the Jewish culture, it was common to sprinkle one’s head with ashes as a sign of penance, and to dress in sack-cloth and rags. For us Christians, there is this one moment which has important symbolic and spiritual relevance.That's what I got to hear (in translation from Italian) about an hour before placing ashes on some 30 foreheads and preaching Ash Wednesday myself. You can (like me) read the rest of it here.Ashes are the material sign that brings the cosmos into the Liturgy. The most important signs are those of the Sacraments: water, oil, bread and wine, which become true sacramental elements through which we communicate the Grace of Christ who comes among us. The ashes are not a sacramental sign, but they are linked with prayer and the sanctification of the Christian people. Before the ashes are placed on our heads, they are blessed according to two possible formulae: in the first they are called “austere symbols”, in the second, we invoke a blessing directly upon them, referring to the text in the Book of Genesis which can also accompany the imposition of the ashes: “Remember that you are dust and unto dust you shall return”.
Let us reflect for a moment on this passage of Genesis.
It concludes with a judgement made by God after original sin. God curses the serpent who caused man and woman to commit sin. Then He punishes the woman saying she will suffer the pains of giving birth. Then He punishes the man, saying he will suffer the fatigue of labour and He curses the soil saying “accursed be the soil because of you, because of your sin.” The man and woman are not cursed directly as the serpent is, but because of Adam’s sin. Let us reread the account of how God created man from the Earth. “God fashioned man of dust from the soil. Then He breathed into his nostrils, a breath of life. Thus man became a live being. Then God planted a garden in Eden, which is in the East, and there He put the man He had fashioned.” Thus the sign of the ashes recalls the great story of creation which tells us that being human means unifying matter with Divine breath, using the image of dust formed by God and given life by His breath, breathed into the nostrils of the new creature.
In the Genesis account, the symbol of dust takes on a negative connotation because of sin. Before the fall the soil is totally good: through God’s work it is capable of producing “every kind of tree enticing to look at and good to eat.” After the fall and following the divine curse it produces only thorns and brambles and only in exchange for the sweat of man’s brow will it surrender its fruits....
Friday, October 30, 2009
Remembering the Signs
So there I was, driving north-bound on I-35 about a half-hour after crossing the Iowa-Minnesota border, on my way to the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis. It's not the most exciting drive, but I had the lecture series by Br. William Short, ofm, St. Francis of Assisi: A New Way of Being Christian, on the CD player to keep my mind occupied. When I was in seminary I worked for the Franciscan School of Theology -- first as it's Controller then, upon my return from intership, as the (personal) Assistant to the President. Brother Bill was FST's President all that time, though in the Spring-Summer of '92 he was on sabbatical, so I was Bill Cieslak's assistant my last few months there. Anywho, listening to Bill's lectures -- and I highly recommend them -- had reminded me of just how compelling lecturer he is. I'd not thought for years of how his lectures in the GTU's pre-Reformation Christian history courses were immensely well received. The CDs were (are) a nice reminder of what I really liked about going to seminary in Berkeley, and one of the reasons I've always had a stronger affinity for FST than my official alma mater, PLTS. But I digress.
So I'm driving northbound on I-35 in the middle of August. Also known as "road construction season." Especially this summer as where ever you drove, you weren't far from watching our grandchildren's money at work stimulating the economy for us. So we're actually driving northbound on the southbound lanes, as the northbound ones are closed so they can be rebuilt.
And, suddenly before my eyes, an hour or so away from the ELCA Churchwide Assembly that would be called to order in just a few hours, came this sign:
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Renewal of Commitment to Priestly Service
The pews on the Gospel side and the side aisles were full as I entered the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Immaculate Conception in Peoria a couple minutes before one o'clock. The Epistle side was empty, set aside for the priests of the Diocese of Peoria who would in just a few moments process into Cathedral for the annual Chrism Mass, where they would renew their vows and Bishop Daniel Jenky, CSC, would bless the oils to be used in the coming year for sacramental use.
After his sermon, Bishop Jenky invited his priests to stand:
Bishop: My brothers, today we celebrate the memory of the first Eucharist, at which our Lord Jesus Christ shared with his apostles and with us his call to the priestly service of his Church. Now, in the presence of your bishop and God's holy people, are you ready to renew your own dedication to Christ as priests of his new covenant?
Priests: I am.
Bishop: At your ordination you accepted the responsibilities of the priesthood out of love for the Lord Jesus and his Church. Are you resolved to unite yourselves more closely to Christ and try to become more like him by joyfully sacrificing your own pleasure and ambition to bring his peace and love to your brothers and sisters?
Priests: I am.
Bishop: Are you resolved to be faithful ministers of the mysteries of God, to celebrate the Eucharist and the other liturgical service with sincere devotion? Are you resolved to imitate Jesus Christ, the head and shepherd of the Church, by teaching Christian faith without thinking of your own profit, solely for the well-being of the people you were sent to serve?
Priests: I am.
Bishop: (to the people) My brothers and sisters, pray for your priests. Ask the Lord to bless them with the fullness of his love, to help them be faithful ministers of Christ the High Priest, so that they will be able to lead you to him, the fountain of your salvation.
People: Lord Jesus Christ, hear and answer our prayer.
Bishop: Pray also for me that despite my own unworthiness I may faithfully fulfill the office of the apostle which Jesus Christ has entrusted to me. Pray that I may become more like our High Priest and Good Shepherd, the teacher and servant of all, and so be a genuine sign of Christ's loving presence among you.
People: Lord Jesus Christ, hear and answer our prayer.
Bishop: May the Lord in his love keep you close to him always, and may e bring all of us, his priests and people, to eternal life.
Ah, if only we Lutherans could have something like this...
After his sermon, Bishop Jenky invited his priests to stand:
Bishop: My brothers, today we celebrate the memory of the first Eucharist, at which our Lord Jesus Christ shared with his apostles and with us his call to the priestly service of his Church. Now, in the presence of your bishop and God's holy people, are you ready to renew your own dedication to Christ as priests of his new covenant?
Priests: I am.
Bishop: At your ordination you accepted the responsibilities of the priesthood out of love for the Lord Jesus and his Church. Are you resolved to unite yourselves more closely to Christ and try to become more like him by joyfully sacrificing your own pleasure and ambition to bring his peace and love to your brothers and sisters?
Priests: I am.
Bishop: Are you resolved to be faithful ministers of the mysteries of God, to celebrate the Eucharist and the other liturgical service with sincere devotion? Are you resolved to imitate Jesus Christ, the head and shepherd of the Church, by teaching Christian faith without thinking of your own profit, solely for the well-being of the people you were sent to serve?
Priests: I am.
Bishop: (to the people) My brothers and sisters, pray for your priests. Ask the Lord to bless them with the fullness of his love, to help them be faithful ministers of Christ the High Priest, so that they will be able to lead you to him, the fountain of your salvation.
People: Lord Jesus Christ, hear and answer our prayer.
Bishop: Pray also for me that despite my own unworthiness I may faithfully fulfill the office of the apostle which Jesus Christ has entrusted to me. Pray that I may become more like our High Priest and Good Shepherd, the teacher and servant of all, and so be a genuine sign of Christ's loving presence among you.
People: Lord Jesus Christ, hear and answer our prayer.
Bishop: May the Lord in his love keep you close to him always, and may e bring all of us, his priests and people, to eternal life.
Ah, if only we Lutherans could have something like this...
Sunday, May 18, 2008
California Catholic Bishops' Reaction
The California Catholic Conference released this statement on Thursday:
Catholic Bishops React to CA Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage
SACRAMENTO – Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, released the following statement on behalf of California’s Bishops and the California Catholic Conference, following the California Supreme Court’s decision declaring the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (Proposition 22) unconstitutional, thus allowing same-sex marriages to take place in California:
“The California Catholic Conference of Bishops must express its disappointment in the California Supreme Court decision to declare Proposition 22 unconstitutional.
“Proposition 22, which states, ‘Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid and recognized in California,’ passed eight years ago by a vote of 61.2 to 38.8 percent. That statute reflected the wisdom of the voters of California in retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a biological reality and a societal good. Unfortunately, today, the Court saw fit to disregard the will of the majority of people of California.
“Catholic teaching maintains that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman joined in an intimate partnership of life and love—a union instituted by God for the mutual fulfillment of the husband and wife as well as for the procreation and education of children.
“Partnerships of committed same-sex individuals are already legal in California. Our state has also granted domestic partners spousal-type rights and responsibilities which facilitate their relationships with each other and any children they bring to the partnership. Every person involved in the family of domestic partners is a child of God and deserves respect in the eyes of the law and their community. However, those partnerships are not marriage—and can never be marriage—as it has been understood since the founding of the United States. Today’s decision of California’s high court opens the door for policymakers to deconstruct traditional marriage and create another institution under the guise of equal protection.
“Although we strongly disagree with the ruling, we ask our Catholic people, as well as all the people of California, to continue to uphold the dignity of every person, to acknowledge individual rights and responsibilities, and to maintain support for the unique and irreplaceable role of traditional marriage as an institution which is fundamental to society.”
Also on Thursday, the Archbishop of San Francisco George H. Niederauer issued his own statement:
In regard to this decision of the court, the Catholic Bishops of California have said that "Catholic teaching maintains that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman joined in an intimate partnership of life and love-a union instituted by God for the mutual fulfillment of the husband and wife as well as for the procreation and education of children."
This teaching of the Church follows forth from the teaching of Jesus Christ: "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" (Matthew 19: 4-5)
At a moment in our society when we need to reinforce the strength of marriage and family this decision of the Supreme Court takes California in the opposite direction. This action challenges those in society who believe in the importance of the traditional understanding of marriage to deepen their witness to the unique and essential role that marriage between a man and a woman has in the life of society.
The Bishop of Monterey, Richard J. Garcia, issued this statement on Friday:
Catholic tradition maintains that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman joined in an intimate partnership of life and love. Eight years ago the Bishops of California endorsed Proposition 22 which the California Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional in their May 15, 2008 decision. The words of that proposition still merit our support that, “Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid and recognized in California.”
Church teaching on marriage derives from the words of Jesus who said, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5)
Let us dedicate ourselves to upholding the inviolable dignity of every person. Let us at the same time declare by the witness of our lives our recognition of the vital role that marriage between a man and a woman plays in family and society.
Catholic Bishops React to CA Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage
SACRAMENTO – Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, released the following statement on behalf of California’s Bishops and the California Catholic Conference, following the California Supreme Court’s decision declaring the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (Proposition 22) unconstitutional, thus allowing same-sex marriages to take place in California:
“The California Catholic Conference of Bishops must express its disappointment in the California Supreme Court decision to declare Proposition 22 unconstitutional.
“Proposition 22, which states, ‘Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid and recognized in California,’ passed eight years ago by a vote of 61.2 to 38.8 percent. That statute reflected the wisdom of the voters of California in retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a biological reality and a societal good. Unfortunately, today, the Court saw fit to disregard the will of the majority of people of California.
“Catholic teaching maintains that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman joined in an intimate partnership of life and love—a union instituted by God for the mutual fulfillment of the husband and wife as well as for the procreation and education of children.
“Partnerships of committed same-sex individuals are already legal in California. Our state has also granted domestic partners spousal-type rights and responsibilities which facilitate their relationships with each other and any children they bring to the partnership. Every person involved in the family of domestic partners is a child of God and deserves respect in the eyes of the law and their community. However, those partnerships are not marriage—and can never be marriage—as it has been understood since the founding of the United States. Today’s decision of California’s high court opens the door for policymakers to deconstruct traditional marriage and create another institution under the guise of equal protection.
“Although we strongly disagree with the ruling, we ask our Catholic people, as well as all the people of California, to continue to uphold the dignity of every person, to acknowledge individual rights and responsibilities, and to maintain support for the unique and irreplaceable role of traditional marriage as an institution which is fundamental to society.”
Also on Thursday, the Archbishop of San Francisco George H. Niederauer issued his own statement:
In regard to this decision of the court, the Catholic Bishops of California have said that "Catholic teaching maintains that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman joined in an intimate partnership of life and love-a union instituted by God for the mutual fulfillment of the husband and wife as well as for the procreation and education of children."
This teaching of the Church follows forth from the teaching of Jesus Christ: "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" (Matthew 19: 4-5)
At a moment in our society when we need to reinforce the strength of marriage and family this decision of the Supreme Court takes California in the opposite direction. This action challenges those in society who believe in the importance of the traditional understanding of marriage to deepen their witness to the unique and essential role that marriage between a man and a woman has in the life of society.
The Bishop of Monterey, Richard J. Garcia, issued this statement on Friday:
Catholic tradition maintains that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman joined in an intimate partnership of life and love. Eight years ago the Bishops of California endorsed Proposition 22 which the California Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional in their May 15, 2008 decision. The words of that proposition still merit our support that, “Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid and recognized in California.”
Church teaching on marriage derives from the words of Jesus who said, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5)
Let us dedicate ourselves to upholding the inviolable dignity of every person. Let us at the same time declare by the witness of our lives our recognition of the vital role that marriage between a man and a woman plays in family and society.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Bishop Challenges Pro-Choice Catholic (?) Governor
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, writes the following in the May 9 installment of his weekly column, "Life Will Be Victorious," in The Leaven, the Archdiocese's newspaper. The Kansas City Star seems unhappy (see here and here) that the Archbishop dares to exercise genuine pastoral care with one of his flock.
Governor’s Veto Prompts Pastoral Action
On the day of my return (Monday, April 21) from the exhilarating experience of participating in Pope Benedict’s pastoral visit to the United States, I learned that Governor Kathleen Sebelius had vetoed the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act (HS SB 389), which had been passed by significant majorities in both chambers of the Kansas Legislature. Last week, an attempt to override the governor’s veto failed in the Senate by two votes.
Governor Sebelius in her veto message claimed: “For years, the people of Kansas have asked their elected officials to move beyond legislative debates on issues like abortion.” From her veto message, I received the impression the governor considered it a waste of the Legislature’s time to pass a statute that attempts to protect some women by making certain they have the opportunity to be well-informed: 1) about the development of their unborn child; and 2) about abortion alternatives available to them. Evidently, the governor does not approve of legislators devoting energy to protecting children and women by making it possible to enforce existing Kansas laws regulating late-term abortions.
The governor’s veto message demonstrated a lack of respect to the members of the Kansas General Assembly who had carefully crafted and resoundingly passed the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act, as well as to the many Kansans who find it more than an embarrassment, in no small part due to several previous vetoes by Governor Sebelius of earlier legislative efforts to regulate abortion clinics, that Kansas has become infamous for being the late-term abortion center for the Midwest.
What makes the governor’s rhetoric and actions even more troubling has been her acceptance of campaign contributions from Wichita’s Dr. George Tiller, perhaps the most notorious late-term abortionist in the nation. In addition to Dr. Tiller’s direct donations to her campaign, the governor has benefited from the Political Action Committees funded by Dr. Tiller to support pro-abortion candidates in Kansas.
In her veto message, the governor took credit for lower abortion rates in Kansas, citing her support for “adoption incentives, extended health services for pregnant women, providing sex education and offering a variety of support services for families.” Indeed, the governor and her administration should be commended for supporting adoption incentives and health services for pregnant women.
However, the governor overreaches by assuming credit for declining abortion rates in Kansas. Actually, lower abortion rates are part of a national trend. Our neighboring state of Missouri has actually had a steeper and longer decline in its abortion rate.
Governor Sebelius’ inclusion of public school sex education programs as a factor in the abortion rate decline is absurd. Actually, valueless sex education programs in public schools have been around for years, coinciding with increased sexual activity among adolescents, as well as increases in teen pregnancy and abortion. On the other hand, the governor does not acknowledge the significant impact of mass media education programs, such as those sponsored by the Vitae Caring Foundation, or the remarkable practical assistance provided by Crisis Pregnancy Centers which are funded through the generosity of pro-life Kansans.
What makes the governor’s actions and advocacy for legalized abortion, throughout her public career, even more painful for me is that she is Catholic. Sadly, Governor Sebelius is not unique in being a Catholic politician supporting legalized abortion.
Since becoming archbishop, I have met with Governor Sebelius several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions by which she has cooperated in the procurement of abortions performed in Kansas. My concern has been, as a pastor, both for the spiritual well-being of the governor but also for those who have been misled (scandalized) by her very public support for legalized abortion.
It has been my hope that through this dialogue the governor would come to understand her obligation: 1) to take the difficult political step, but necessary moral step, of repudiating her past actions in support of legalized abortion; and 2) in the future would use her exceptional leadership abilities to develop public policies extending the maximum legal protection possible to the unborn children of Kansas.
Having made every effort to inform and to persuade Governor Sebelius and after consultation with Bishop Ron Gilmore (Dodge City), Bishop Paul Coakley (Salina) and Bishop Michael Jackels (Wichita), I wrote the governor last August requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.
Recently, it came to my attention that the governor had received holy Communion at one of our parishes. I have written to her again, asking her to respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.
The governor has spoken to me on more than one occasion about her obligation to uphold state and federal laws and court decisions. I have asked her to show a similar sense of obligation to honor divine law and the laws, teaching and legitimate authority within the church.
I have not made lightly this request of Governor Sebelius, but only after much prayer and reflection. The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: “The church’s teaching on abortion is optional!”
I reissue my request of the faithful of the archdiocese to pray for Governor Sebelius. I hope that my request of the governor, not to present herself for holy Communion, will provoke her to reconsider the serious spiritual and moral consequences of her past and present actions. At the same time, I pray this pastoral action on my part will help alert other Catholics to the moral gravity of participating in and/or cooperating with the performance of abortions.
On the day of my return (Monday, April 21) from the exhilarating experience of participating in Pope Benedict’s pastoral visit to the United States, I learned that Governor Kathleen Sebelius had vetoed the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act (HS SB 389), which had been passed by significant majorities in both chambers of the Kansas Legislature. Last week, an attempt to override the governor’s veto failed in the Senate by two votes.
Governor Sebelius in her veto message claimed: “For years, the people of Kansas have asked their elected officials to move beyond legislative debates on issues like abortion.” From her veto message, I received the impression the governor considered it a waste of the Legislature’s time to pass a statute that attempts to protect some women by making certain they have the opportunity to be well-informed: 1) about the development of their unborn child; and 2) about abortion alternatives available to them. Evidently, the governor does not approve of legislators devoting energy to protecting children and women by making it possible to enforce existing Kansas laws regulating late-term abortions.
The governor’s veto message demonstrated a lack of respect to the members of the Kansas General Assembly who had carefully crafted and resoundingly passed the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act, as well as to the many Kansans who find it more than an embarrassment, in no small part due to several previous vetoes by Governor Sebelius of earlier legislative efforts to regulate abortion clinics, that Kansas has become infamous for being the late-term abortion center for the Midwest.
What makes the governor’s rhetoric and actions even more troubling has been her acceptance of campaign contributions from Wichita’s Dr. George Tiller, perhaps the most notorious late-term abortionist in the nation. In addition to Dr. Tiller’s direct donations to her campaign, the governor has benefited from the Political Action Committees funded by Dr. Tiller to support pro-abortion candidates in Kansas.
In her veto message, the governor took credit for lower abortion rates in Kansas, citing her support for “adoption incentives, extended health services for pregnant women, providing sex education and offering a variety of support services for families.” Indeed, the governor and her administration should be commended for supporting adoption incentives and health services for pregnant women.
However, the governor overreaches by assuming credit for declining abortion rates in Kansas. Actually, lower abortion rates are part of a national trend. Our neighboring state of Missouri has actually had a steeper and longer decline in its abortion rate.
Governor Sebelius’ inclusion of public school sex education programs as a factor in the abortion rate decline is absurd. Actually, valueless sex education programs in public schools have been around for years, coinciding with increased sexual activity among adolescents, as well as increases in teen pregnancy and abortion. On the other hand, the governor does not acknowledge the significant impact of mass media education programs, such as those sponsored by the Vitae Caring Foundation, or the remarkable practical assistance provided by Crisis Pregnancy Centers which are funded through the generosity of pro-life Kansans.
What makes the governor’s actions and advocacy for legalized abortion, throughout her public career, even more painful for me is that she is Catholic. Sadly, Governor Sebelius is not unique in being a Catholic politician supporting legalized abortion.
Since becoming archbishop, I have met with Governor Sebelius several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions by which she has cooperated in the procurement of abortions performed in Kansas. My concern has been, as a pastor, both for the spiritual well-being of the governor but also for those who have been misled (scandalized) by her very public support for legalized abortion.
It has been my hope that through this dialogue the governor would come to understand her obligation: 1) to take the difficult political step, but necessary moral step, of repudiating her past actions in support of legalized abortion; and 2) in the future would use her exceptional leadership abilities to develop public policies extending the maximum legal protection possible to the unborn children of Kansas.
Having made every effort to inform and to persuade Governor Sebelius and after consultation with Bishop Ron Gilmore (Dodge City), Bishop Paul Coakley (Salina) and Bishop Michael Jackels (Wichita), I wrote the governor last August requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.
Recently, it came to my attention that the governor had received holy Communion at one of our parishes. I have written to her again, asking her to respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.
The governor has spoken to me on more than one occasion about her obligation to uphold state and federal laws and court decisions. I have asked her to show a similar sense of obligation to honor divine law and the laws, teaching and legitimate authority within the church.
I have not made lightly this request of Governor Sebelius, but only after much prayer and reflection. The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: “The church’s teaching on abortion is optional!”
I reissue my request of the faithful of the archdiocese to pray for Governor Sebelius. I hope that my request of the governor, not to present herself for holy Communion, will provoke her to reconsider the serious spiritual and moral consequences of her past and present actions. At the same time, I pray this pastoral action on my part will help alert other Catholics to the moral gravity of participating in and/or cooperating with the performance of abortions.
Friday, March 07, 2008
More on Benedict XVI and Martin Luther
Phil Lawler, the editor at Catholic World News writes here
Read it all here.The Forum: Rehabilitating Luther: a London Times theory
by Phil Lawler
special to CWNews.com
Mar. 6, 2008 (CWNews.com) - "Pope Benedict is to rehabilitate Martin Luther," announces reporter Richard Owen in the eye-catching opening phrase of his story in the London Times.
Reports that appear in the Times often find their way into other news stories. That is unfortunate, because the Times has a track record of sensational and misleading coverage of Vatican affairs. This story provides one more example.
Here are the facts that Owens supplies:Can one logically conclude, from those two facts, that the Pope will "rehabilitate" Luther? No; not even close.
- In the Ratzinger Schülerkreis, the informal seminar that Pope Benedict holds each year with his former theology students, the topic for discussion at this year's August session will be Luther's teaching and influence.
- Cardinal Walter Kasper (bio - news) says: “We have much to learn from Luther, beginning with the importance he attached to the Word of God."
Cardinal Kasper certainly must be taken seriously. As president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity he plays a key role in ecumenical dialogue. But Richard Owen is not reporting on an initiative taken by Kasper's office; he says that the Pope will issue a statement at the conclusion of an informal seminar.
Ordinarily these summer seminars do not result in formal statements, much less papal policy statements. Yet the Times story leads readers to believe that this year's session will end with a very important declaration of Church teaching. Moreover, several months before the conversation between the Pope and his old students even begins, Owen tells us what conclusions that seminar will reach.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Pope Benedict XIV and Martin Luther
From today's Times Online, the web portal to the Times of London:
Read it all here.That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope
Richard Owen in Rome
Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices.
Pope Benedict will issue his findings on Luther (1483-1546) in September after discussing him at his annual seminar of 40 fellow theologians — known as the Ratzinger Schülerkreis — at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the move would help to promote ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. It is also designed to counteract the impact of July's papal statement describing the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as defective and “not proper Churches”.
The move to re-evaluate Luther is part of a drive to soften Pope Benedict's image as an arch conservative hardliner as he approaches the third anniversary of his election next month. This week it emerged that the Vatican is planning to erect a statue of Galileo, who also faced a heresy trial, to mark the 400th anniversary next year of his discovery of the telescope.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Our Lady of Guadalupe
I find this image of the Blessed Virgin Mary to be extraordinarily beautiful. The story behind it can be found (among many other places) on the Saint of the Day web site, where one reads the following:
The original image can be found to this day at the Basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico City. Only St. Peter's at the Vatican receives more pilgrims. This explanation of of the image is interesting:
Until this, the evangelization of the Aztecs and other natives of Mexico not been particularly easy or successful. Afterwards, we are told, the stories of this apparition led to an outpouring of baptisms and the people of Mexico would be Catholic -- though how well Mexicans were catechized is a matter of considerable debate.A poor Indian named Cuauhtlatohuac was baptized and given the name Juan Diego. He was a 57-year-old widower and lived in a small village near Mexico City. On Saturday morning, December 9, 1531, he was on his way to a nearby barrio to attend Mass in honor of Our Lady.
He was walking by a hill called Tepeyac when he heard beautiful music like the warbling of birds. A radiant cloud appeared and within it a young Native American maiden dressed like an Aztec princess. The lady spoke to him in his own language and sent him to the bishop of Mexico, a Franciscan named Juan de Zumarraga. The bishop was to build a chapel in the place where the lady appeared.
Eventually the bishop told Juan Diego to have the lady give him a sign. About this same time Juan Diego’s uncle became seriously ill. This led poor Diego to try to avoid the lady. The lady found Diego, nevertheless, assured him that his uncle would recover and provided roses for Juan to carry to the bishop in his cape or tilma.
When Juan Diego opened his tilma in the bishop’s presence, the roses fell to the ground and the bishop sank to his knees. On Juan Diego’s tilma appeared an image of Mary as she had appeared at the hill of Tepeyac. It was December 12, 1531.
The original image can be found to this day at the Basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico City. Only St. Peter's at the Vatican receives more pilgrims. This explanation of of the image is interesting:
The Image of Our Lady is actually an Aztec Pictograph which was read and understood quickly by the Aztec Indians.More about Juan Diego's tilma and the image on it can be found here. La Virgen de Guadalupe has certainly been subjected to the excesses of Marian piety. Yet she remains an extraordinary image of the Mother of Our Lord, the Bearer of God (Theotokos).
1. THE LADY STOOD IN FRONT OF THE SUN
She was greater than the dreaded Huitzilopochtli, their sun-god of war.
2. HER FOOT RESTED ON THE CRESCENT MOON
She had clearly crushed Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent moon-god.
3. THE STARS STREWN ACROSS THE MANTLE
She was greater than the stars of heaven which they worshipped. She was a virgin and the Queen of the heavens for Virgo rests over her womb and the northern crown upon her head. She appeared on December 12, 1531 and the stars that she wore are the constellations of the stars that appeared in the sky that day!
4. THE BLUE‑GREEN HUE OF HER MANTLE
She was a Queen because she wears the color of royalty.
5. THE BLACK CROSS ON THE BROOCH AT HER NECK
Her God was that of the Spanish Missionaries, Jesus Christ her son who died on the cross for all mankind.
6. THE BLACK BELT
She was with child because she wore the Aztec Maternity Belt.
7. THE FOUR PETAL FLOWER OVER THE WOMB
She was the Mother of God because the flower was a special symbol of life, movement and deity-the center of the universe.
8. HER HANDS ARE JOINED IN PRAYER
She was not God but clearly there was one greater than Her and she pointed her finger to the cross on her brooch.
9. THE DESIGN ON HER ROSE COLORED GARMENT
She is the Queen of the Earth because she is wearing a contour map of Mexico telling the Indians exactly where the apparition took place.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Pastor Zip Gets Quoted: Part 1
I've been quoted twice over the last month in articles by Peoria Journal Star Religion Editor Michael Miller in the Saturday "Faith & Values" section. In July (while I was on holiday in Los Angeles) I had responded via e-mail to questions he'd asked in the light of the recent statement on the Doctrine of the Church, and he used some of that to conclude his Religion Beat column, Vatican words rile some Protestants.
And, yes, the Lutheran Reformers saw the Holy Ministry (the Confessions speak repeatedly and approvingly of "priests" and the "priesthood," except where the office has been abused) and Apostolic Succession as indispensible to the Church. They hadn't defined them precisely as the Council of Trent would a few years later, but they didn't just throw them out the door like the more Radical Reformers did. As we confess in Article V of the Augsburg Confession:
Continued on next post.
The Vatican’s recent statement on the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church has riled some non-Catholic Christians in the ecumenical movement, but Catholic leaders and some Protestants are saying it’s nothing to be concerned about and certainly nothing new.For me the statement had come shortly after I'd attended a conference Freedom and Authority in the Christian Life sponsored by the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology. Among the speakers there was Dr. Margaret O'Gara, who has been an official Catholic representative in the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues in both the U. S. and internationally, and I had been struck by the tone of her address where it seemed she was minimizing particular differences between Lutherans and Catholics (related to her conference topic) so much that it sounded like the Catholic Church had become Lutheran—sort of along the lines of American missionaries of a few generations ago "going native" after spending so much time in a non-Christian culture. So that, along with the understanding that the Vatican's "Responses" statement was targeting that sort of ecumenism, was behind my reply to Miller and what he included of my response in the paper:
However, Kieschnick said that the LCMS looks "forward to the continuation of our theological dialogues with Roman Catholic leaders in discussion of this very important matter and to strengthening our common witness on such matters as the sanctity of life."If you haven't already, read it all here.
That "sanctity of life" movement is one of several where Catholics and other Christians participate on a grass-roots level. Another area of cooperation is the Cursillo renewal movement, which in the Diocese of Peoria has historically been marked by Protestant involvement. Such interaction will probably continue without a noticeable hitch.
That’s the feeling of the Rev. Steven Tibbetts, pastor of Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church in South Peoria. Tibbetts has been involved in ecumenical efforts since the early 1980s. He’s also a "non-Roman" spiritual advisor on Cursillo weekends and takes part in the conferences of the Center for Catholic and Ecumenical (sic) Theology.
"It is almost as if the pope is trying to get Catholic ecumenists to give a more consistent message to the various communions and groups with whom they have dialogues," said Tibbetts, whose church is part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
The statement’s impact will be minor, Tibbetts said, "because ecumenical relations aren’t really going anywhere beyond the committees having the discussions—at least formally."
"I think that, in this statement, the Vatican is challenging ‘Protestant’ ecumenists, and the churches themselves, to seriously deal with a doctrine of the church, of which the ministry-priesthood and apostolic succession are an indispensable part."
And, yes, the Lutheran Reformers saw the Holy Ministry (the Confessions speak repeatedly and approvingly of "priests" and the "priesthood," except where the office has been abused) and Apostolic Succession as indispensible to the Church. They hadn't defined them precisely as the Council of Trent would a few years later, but they didn't just throw them out the door like the more Radical Reformers did. As we confess in Article V of the Augsburg Confession:
That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sake.Lutherans need to remember who we are, so that we can remind Romans Catholics of who they are, so that we can together re-discover the Catholic Faith and be fully "Church" once again.
They condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works.
Continued on next post.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
The Long Lent Explodes in Los Angeles
I've been home the last week for my 30-year high school reunion.
The headline in Sunday's (Los Angeles) Daily News:
This has been the story in LA ever since. The Daily News' front page on Monday and Tuesday remained focussed on this $660 million settlement. Monday:
We're reading notes from an interview with Cardinal Mahoney (which apparently upset His Eminence), stories about victims, and questions about the Cardinal's future. That last links concludes ominously:
Meanwhile, LA's talk radio is blistering the Cardinal Archbishop, at least on KFI (where John and Ken seem to have nothing good to say about the Church) and KABC (where the usually common sense Larry Elder is beside himself over Cardinal Mahoney still having a job).
What the people of Los Angeles are not hearing or reading about is the outrage among faithful Catholics that dates to the beginning of the sexual abuse scandal, which blew open in January 2002 in Boston and then spread across the nation. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus of First Things was calling this the "Long Lent" back in 2002. At one point he wrote:
Bishops stopped acting like Bishops, and trusted secular counselors to fix priests who could not keep their vows. When they got caught, they let their defense and insurance lawyers stall and protect, rather than confessing their sin and doing their penance. (Which, it seems, is exactly what "saved" the original offenders.) The $660 million this has finally cost the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, after millions more paid elsewhere and even the bankruptcy of other Dioceses, is only the money side of the cost this has been to the Catholic Church. What about the cost to the faithful laity, clergy, and religious? And worse, the cost of (and to) those who lost their faith, or had it stripped away -- Catholic, protestant, and others?
And in all this we cannot set aside that this Long Lent, which still continues, has been deftly used by anti-Catholic zealots who attack the Catholic Church because it indeed has some sort of accountability for this sort of thing, even when it is horribly misused and mangled by those who should know better. Meanwhile other parts of our culture, in both sacred and secular realms, this same sort of behavior does not get much attention, or where in the popular media it is even encouraged.
Who'll pay for that when those chickens come home to roost?
The headline in Sunday's (Los Angeles) Daily News:
Sins of the fathers to cost church $660 millionRead it all here.
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles will pay a historic $660 million to more than 500 victims who were abused by clergy during the past 70 years, sources said late Saturday.
In what would be the largest payout in the church's sex-abuse scandal, sources close to the archdiocese and a lawyer for the victims said Saturday that terms of a settlement are being worked out this weekend. If the agreement holds, each victim would receive between $1.2 million and $1.3 million.
The news came just two days before the first of more than 500 clergy abuse cases is scheduled for trial jury selection Monday.
Ray Boucher, attorney and negotiator for the victims, confirmed late Saturday that a settlement had been reached, but he declined to provide specifics.
He said a news release will be issued today (Sunday) about the formal announcement of the settlement, which will take place on Monday morning.
A source close to the archdiocese confirmed to the Daily News that an agreement had been reached but said details and legal language were still being hammered out.
This has been the story in LA ever since. The Daily News' front page on Monday and Tuesday remained focussed on this $660 million settlement. Monday:
Mahony's mea culpaRead it all here.
Cardinal offers apologies to sexual-abuse victims; claimants doubt sincerity
Calling sexual abuse by clergy a "terrible sin and crime," Cardinal Roger Mahony apologized Sunday to hundreds of people who claim they were molested by priests in the nation's largest archdiocese.
The apology came during a news conference following Sunday Mass and a day after the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay a record $660 million in a settlement with 508 victims.
"There really is no way to go back and give them that innocence that was taken from them," Mahony said. "The one thing I wish I could give the victims ... I cannot.
"Once again, I apologize to anyone who has been offended, who has been abused. It should not have happened and it will not happen again."
Mahony said he has met with dozens of victims of clergy abuse in the past 14 months and those meetings helped him understand the importance of a quick resolution to the lawsuits.
The cardinal is scheduled to be in court this morning to go over the final settlement. He said the church's decision to settle on the eve of the trials - which were set to begin today - had nothing to do with keeping him from testifying.
We're reading notes from an interview with Cardinal Mahoney (which apparently upset His Eminence), stories about victims, and questions about the Cardinal's future. That last links concludes ominously:
Meanwhile, with the civil case now settled, it appears a criminal case isn't out of the question. Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley issued a statement Monday afternoon making that clear.I can hardly wait to see tomorrow morning's paper.
"Today's massive civil settlement highlights the institutional moral failure of the archdiocese to supervise predatory priests who operated for years under its jurisdiction," he said.
Regarding confidential documents that could be released as a result of Monday's settlement, Cooley said, "If these documents reveal evidence of criminal activity on behalf of individual priests or anyone else, we will pursue them.
"The book is not closed on our investigation."
Meanwhile, LA's talk radio is blistering the Cardinal Archbishop, at least on KFI (where John and Ken seem to have nothing good to say about the Church) and KABC (where the usually common sense Larry Elder is beside himself over Cardinal Mahoney still having a job).
What the people of Los Angeles are not hearing or reading about is the outrage among faithful Catholics that dates to the beginning of the sexual abuse scandal, which blew open in January 2002 in Boston and then spread across the nation. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus of First Things was calling this the "Long Lent" back in 2002. At one point he wrote:
I have said it before: we have probably not yet felt the full fury of the storm aroused by the grave misgovernment of the Catholic Church in America. I do not want to write about this, and I wouldn’t blame you if you do not want to read about it. Since all this broke in January, I have given no less than thirty hours per week to the subject, talking with endless reporters, and doing radio interviews. (I’ve been turning down as many as half a dozen television interviews per day, because they take so much time in traveling to studios, and mainly because most of them provide an opportunity for no more than a few sound bites and a food fight.) Please, I’m not whining. It is just to say I’m weary of the subject, but recognize the probability that it will not let us go.That was in June 2002. In May 2004, Fr. Neuhaus wrote about "The Catholic Reform:
For weeks now, the media have been in a feeding frenzy. I do not say that in criticism of the media. Let it be stated unambiguously: the leaders of the Catholic Church, meaning mainly the bishops, are responsible for the crisis and for the consequent frenzy. Of course some reporting is sensationalistic, and of course it is amusing to see the New York Times, day after day, running essentially the same story on the front page, as though they’re afraid people are going to forget about it. But, regrettably, there are also new developments, and no doubt will be more, that legitimate the major attention paid.
There is this difference: for the first time in years, I have the impression that most journalists are really trying to understand what is happening, or at least to find a story line that makes sense of what is happening. In other words, the story doesn’t conveniently fall into the conventional left/right, liberal/conservative boxes on which reporters usually depend. Recall that the story started out as a “pedophilia” scandal. The story has rightly moved beyond that now. The scandal is only very marginally about pedophilia. With very few exceptions, it is about adult men having sexual relations with adolescent and older teenage boys. So everybody has by now heard a great deal about “ephebophilia.” It is not necessary, however, that we learn a new vocabulary. There’s a perfectly good old fashioned word for same-sex sex. Homosexuality is very close to the center of the crisis. At the epicenter is the grave negligence of bishops. Not all bishops, to be sure, but too many. And, as in the case of Palm Beach, Florida, not only grave negligence but active complicity. Two months ago a lawyer and friend of the Church told me that before this is over we will see a bishop or two in jail. I thought that hyperbolic. Now I am not so sure.
The cover of the 150-page report of the National Review Board (NRB) is deep purple, the color of Lenten penitence, which is just right for this telling moment in the Long Lent that began with the Boston exposures of January 2002. It is titled “A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States.” Not the “Sex Abuse Crisis in the Catholic Church” but the “Crisis in the Catholic Church.” Long before there was a sex abuse crisis, there was a spiritual crisis, a moral crisis, a doctrinal crisis, and a crisis of misgovernance in the Catholic Church in the United States. All these crises finally come down to what the bishops did and did not do, what the bishops have and have not been doing for decades. The report is about priestly perpetrators and their victims; it is about seminaries and spiritual formation; it is about lawyers and the compromising of the Church’s independence. But, mainly and most importantly, the report is about bishops.Read it all here. Alas, the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles did not seem to get it in full. Phil Lawler says it like this in a special to Catholic World News:
When, in their panicked Dallas meeting of 2002, the bishops created a National Review Board of prominent Catholic laity, I was opposed to the idea. I said and wrote that the bishops should take the heat and the responsibility for what had happened. I thought it was a dangerous precedent to have lay episcopoi of the episcopoi, overseers of the episcopal overseers; that it would play into the hands of dissenting Catholics who challenge what, in Catholic teaching, is the divinely constituted structure of the Church governed by bishops who are successors to the apostles. I hoped the bishops would devise some means—perhaps a plenary council or a long collegial retreat—to honestly examine what had gone wrong and come up with a believable program for reform. I was wrong. It is now apparent that the bishops as a body, meaning the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), were incapable of doing what the National Review Board has done. It is inconceivable that the bishops and bureaucracy of the USCCB could have produced the forthright analysis and program of reform that the NRB issued in Washington on Friday, February 27. The NRB has done what the bishops should have done. The report is a great gift to the bishops and to the Church. Now the question is whether the bishops are capable of receiving the report, and acting on it. If not—and the initial responses are not encouraging—they will, as the report suggests, further undermine the confidence of the Catholic faithful in the authority, competence, and moral integrity of their leaders. That is the “Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States.” The report leaves no doubt that clerical sex abuse opened a window, exposing to sight a much larger reality of nonfeasance and malfeasance in the leadership of the Church.
Five years ago Cardinal Roger Mahony was reportedly encouraging Vatican officials to ask for the resignation of Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law. Using the same logical arguments that the American prelate presented in 2002, the Vatican should now ask Cardinal Mahony himself to step down.Thanks to blogger Steve Ray for that report.
The sensational cost of the sex-abuse scandal for the Los Angeles archdiocese far exceeds the devastation in Boston. The $660-million legal settlement announced on July 16 is nearly five times the total of the financial damages in Boston. Combining that settlement with previous agreements, lawyers' fees, and other associated costs, the overall price to be paid by the faithful Catholics of Los Angeles will approach $1 billion.
Yet the monetary costs, grave as they are, still do not reflect the most serious damage to the Catholic faith. Only rarely do I agree with an editorial in the Boston Globe, particularly when the topic is the Catholic faith. But today's Globe editorial is on target:In the eyes of victims, the scandal will never be fully resolved as long as bishops who put the interests of their fellow priests over the protection of children remain in positions of leadership.One could – and should – go further. This ugly chapter in Catholic history cannot be closed until the Church rebukes those prelates who put their own interests ahead of the needs of the Catholic faithful and the Catholic faith. Cardinal Mahony is the most conspicuous example.
Bishops stopped acting like Bishops, and trusted secular counselors to fix priests who could not keep their vows. When they got caught, they let their defense and insurance lawyers stall and protect, rather than confessing their sin and doing their penance. (Which, it seems, is exactly what "saved" the original offenders.) The $660 million this has finally cost the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, after millions more paid elsewhere and even the bankruptcy of other Dioceses, is only the money side of the cost this has been to the Catholic Church. What about the cost to the faithful laity, clergy, and religious? And worse, the cost of (and to) those who lost their faith, or had it stripped away -- Catholic, protestant, and others?
And in all this we cannot set aside that this Long Lent, which still continues, has been deftly used by anti-Catholic zealots who attack the Catholic Church because it indeed has some sort of accountability for this sort of thing, even when it is horribly misused and mangled by those who should know better. Meanwhile other parts of our culture, in both sacred and secular realms, this same sort of behavior does not get much attention, or where in the popular media it is even encouraged.
Who'll pay for that when those chickens come home to roost?
Friday, July 13, 2007
ELCA Presiding Bishop Responds to Pope
And so I received an e-mail from ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson:
Yet our Presiding Bishop simply cannot let it go there. No, he must (as is his wont with those he addresses) lecture the Pope: "I encourage you not to pull back from your own personal commitment to ecumenism." A colleague who has been involved in the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogues notes of Bishop Hanson (who is also, not so incidentally, President of the Lutheran World Federation), "For a Lutheran leader who was absent from Pope John Paul II's funeral, did not attend Pope Benedict's installation and who has not lifted one finger toward improved Luth/RC relations or the further implementation of JDDJ and who presides over Synods (eg. New England) that welcome persons to the Eucharist without the prerequisite of baptism to instruct the Vatican in the way he does is more than disingenuous."
And that comment is telling. For it points to the Faith that we Lutherans have claimed, since the Augsburg Confession itself, to share with the Catholic Church and notes one place (of, alas, many) where we in the ELCA seem to be stepping away from that Faith. Which makes ecumenical dialogue so much more difficult.
Not to say anything of the purity of the Gospel proclaimed, or how rightly the sacraments are administered, in the ELCA.
Dear sisters and brothers in Christ,So, setting aside for the moment Bishop Hanson's ubiquitous and smarmy "Living in God's Amazing Grace," I clicked the link to find this:
Grace and peace to you.
This is to inform you I have recently released a response to the Vatican Statement, "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church" (July 10, 2007). You will find the response at http://www.elca.org/bishop/messages/m_070711.html
Living in God's Amazing Grace,
Mark S. Hanson
Presiding Bishop
Response of Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson to Vatican Statement "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church"As with so many episcopal epistles in the ELCA, this statement offers a wee bit of help within a whole pile of presumption. Where our Presiding Bishop is helpful is in reminding us in the ELCA that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has not said anything new. Furthermore, I see within ++Hanson's message an acknowledgment that, despite the "anguished response of Christians around the world," the Pope's statement is a reminder of the context of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogues, and of the entire ecumenical enterprise, for the last 40+ years. In other words, nothing has changed from the Catholic perspective.
July 11, 2007
The Vatican's statement, "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church" ("Responses to Questions"), does not appear to change previously stated positions. It does, however, restate known positions in provocative ways that are before us in the ongoing U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic bilateral dialogue.
It is no surprise that the Roman Catholic Church asserts that in it subsists the Church of Christ; surely every Christian church body makes the same assertion, for it is only because Christ's Church survives in and lives through the community we call "Church" that we preserve and promote the apostolic faith. However troubling such exclusive claims may be, we recall the Second Vatican Council's "Decree on Ecumenism" which affirmed that the separated churches and ecclesial communities are used by the Spirit of Christ "as means of salvation" (Unitatis redintegratio 3.4). The statement, "Responses to Questions," does not minimize this affirmation.
As Lutherans we uphold the Augsburg Confession, which states that, "The Church is the assembly of saints in which the Gospel is taught and the sacraments are administered rightly" (AC VII). Therefore, although our witness is wounded by the division that exists among Christians, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America recognizes no deficiency in our self-understanding as "Church."
The anguished response of Christians around the world to the Vatican's statement, however, clearly indicates that what may have been meant to clarify has caused pain. Now is the time for our thoughtful and measured response. The question all Christian people should reflect on today is how best to exercise forbearance and love for one another. With Roman Catholics, we trust that, ". . .the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, he has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians" (UR 1.1).
"Responses to Questions" does not alter the commitment to ecumenism of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. It will not cause us to step back from our U.S. or international relationships or promises. We remain dedicated to the ecumenical task described in "Ecumenism: The Vision of the ELCA," which stresses that, "Ecumenism has as its focus and goal clarity of understanding among Christians and a greater realization of unity among Christ's people. As such it is closely related to the mission of the Gospel to all the world." That singular focus and goal has led to numerous breakthroughs with the Roman Catholic Church, including the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" in 1999, which resolved a bitter 500-year dispute. We will continue to celebrate and build upon the deepening relationships fostered by that "Joint Declaration" even as we long for greater visible unity itself.
I encourage you not to pull back from your own personal commitment to ecumenism. I agree with Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, that in order for the ecumenical movement to bear the weight of change for the future, it must be rooted in an ecumenism of life. This is ecumenism at the local and personal level through joint prayer, Bible study, and service with Christians of other traditions.
Difficult and important matters of ministry and ecclesiology remain to be discussed in our ongoing U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue. Since "Baptism . . . establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it" (UR, 22.2), Christian unity already exists through baptism into Christ, which serves as a continuing sign of hope that our churches will not always remain divided.Most high and holy God, pour out upon us your one and unifying Spirit, and awaken in every confession of the whole church a holy hunger and thirst for unity in you; through Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord. Amen
- Evangelical Lutheran Worship
Yet our Presiding Bishop simply cannot let it go there. No, he must (as is his wont with those he addresses) lecture the Pope: "I encourage you not to pull back from your own personal commitment to ecumenism." A colleague who has been involved in the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogues notes of Bishop Hanson (who is also, not so incidentally, President of the Lutheran World Federation), "For a Lutheran leader who was absent from Pope John Paul II's funeral, did not attend Pope Benedict's installation and who has not lifted one finger toward improved Luth/RC relations or the further implementation of JDDJ and who presides over Synods (eg. New England) that welcome persons to the Eucharist without the prerequisite of baptism to instruct the Vatican in the way he does is more than disingenuous."
And that comment is telling. For it points to the Faith that we Lutherans have claimed, since the Augsburg Confession itself, to share with the Catholic Church and notes one place (of, alas, many) where we in the ELCA seem to be stepping away from that Faith. Which makes ecumenical dialogue so much more difficult.
Not to say anything of the purity of the Gospel proclaimed, or how rightly the sacraments are administered, in the ELCA.
Friday, April 06, 2007
The Stations of the Cross
The Stations of the Cross is an ancient devotion that brings the walk along the Via Dolorosa from Jerusalem to local churches. The traditional 14 Stations (which, while dating to the 4th century or earlier, were fixed only in the 15th Century) begin with Jesus being condemned to death, then follow him through the streets of Jerusalem to his Crucifixion, then his burial. A mixture of biblical and traditional episodes, the Stations are particularly part of Lenten devotions, offered particularly on Fridays in Catholic churches, and well as Episcopal/Anglican and Lutheran churches that appreciate their Latin Catholic heritage. American Protestants have only recently begun to be exposed to this devotion, particularly through its use in Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ. But any time you walk inside a Catholic Church, you will find the Stations of the Cross on the walls of the Nave.I discovered several years ago (when we were investigating the possibility of posting the Stations in Zion's Nave as a memorial -- no, we haven't accomplished that) these Biblical Stations of the Cross that that Pope John Paul II first used in 1991 for his annual Good Friday celebration of the Stations. If ever I am able to place them in a church, this is the version I would use. Not that there is anything terribly wrong with Jesus' falling three times or St. Veronica, but they are "a way of reflecting more deeply on the Scriptural accounts of Christ's passion" (as the US Catholic Conference describes it).
Following papal custon, for Good Friday His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI celebrated the Stations of the Cross at the Colosseum in Rome -- see the Reuters news report here for a moving description. And then take a few moments to follow the devotions used by the Pope for the Stations. I was particularly struck, and gladdened, to see him following the Biblical Stations:
1. Jesus in the Garden of Olives,As you follow them, you'll notice Latin in the English version of the Stations. The opening versicle and response of each is:
2. Jesus is betrayed by Judas and arrested,
3. Jesus is condemned by the Sanhedrin,
4. Jesus is denied by Peter,
5. Jesus is judged by Pilate,
6. Jesus is scourged and crowned with thorns,
7. Jesus takes up his cross,
8. Jesus is helped by the Cyrenean to carry his cross,
9. Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem,
10. Jesus is crucified,
11. Jesus promises his Kingdom to the good thief,
12. The crucified Jesus, the Mother and the disciple,
13. Jesus dies on the cross,
14. Jesus is laid in the tomb.
V/ We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you.
R/ Because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.
After the meditation for each Station -- and the paintings are part of that, too -- comes the Our Father, followed by a stanza of the Stabat Mater, or the hymn "At the Cross, Her Station Keeping."
Thanks to Canon Kendall Harmon at titusonenine for pointing us to this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
