Category Archives: obedience

February 14, 2013 · 9:58 pm

obedience – listening with the mind and heart

Prairie_Messenger_Header_Op

Forced assent is not true obedience. It is merely submission wrapped up in the need to enforce one’s power. True obedience is assent freely given. It requires the fusion of mind and heart to listen carefully, discern wisely and respond rightly to what is being asked of us, especially when what is being asked is difficult. 

Before this week’s shocker news of the Pope’s resignation, I was pondering the question of obedience. This article for the Prairie Messenger isn’t a theological treatise or a catechetical exploration. It’s a simple reflection from the heart of family life.

To read more…Obedience is lived truly when it is grounded in love

3 Comments

Filed under catholic family life, obedience

Tagged as , , ,

January 11, 2013 · 9:32 pm

Bourgeois receives official Vatican letter dismissing him from priesthood | National Catholic Reporter

Bourgeois receives official Vatican letter dismissing him from priesthood | National Catholic Reporter.

I wrote an article for the December 5th issue of the Prairie Messenger titled If a pure church is the goal, new evangelization is not needed. It was a reflection on the Vatican expulsion of Fr. Roy Bourgeois from the Maryknoll Order and the priesthood. His crime was neither paedophilia nor the cover-up of sexual abuse of children in the church. These crimes seldom garner such swift and mean-spirited ecclesial condemnation and punishment. His crime was the refusal to renounce his support for women’s ordination.

Well, Fr. Roy has finally received his official letter from the Vatican; three months after the initial announcement. The letter does not come as a surprise. The tone and message, on the other hand, left me gob-smacked.

First of all, the letter was written in an officious Latin. This, in itself, speaks of the mind-set currently present in curial halls. Latin, at one time, may have been a language of unity in worship and official communications. Today, it has become a symbol of ecclesial elitism and power that divides rather than unites. When a bishop stands up and addresses his fellow bishops in Latin, most are scrambling for the translation head-phones.

Here are some quotes from the English translation of the letter provided by the National Catholic Reporter.

The Ordinary of the place, as far as possible, should ensure that the new condition of the dismissed presbyter would not give scandal to the faithful

This would be laughable if it wasn’t so depressing. The faithful, in large numbers, are already scandalized by this event. Fr. Roy was well respected for his work for peace and social justice. His honest stance for women’s ordination was seen as an act of courage. Many Catholics, priests included, struggle to accept the church’s teaching on a male only priesthood. Few, though, have the courage and conviction to remain true to their conscience in the face of ecclesial reprimands. Scandal? That barn door has been opened and won’t be shut any time soon.

The notification of the dismissal and of the dispensation can happen either personally,through a notary or an ecclesiastical secretary or by registered letters. The dismissed priest must give back one copy duly signed as a proof of reception and at the same time of acceptance of the same dismissal and dispensation, and of the prescriptions, but if he does not do so, the effect of this Decree remain in its entirety.

Bourgeois has decided not to send back a reply as a protest. Signing the letter would be acknowledging acceptance of the punishment. There is also one glaring omission in the letter – no crime is mentioned. What is he being accused of? Why is he being stripped of the priesthood and expelled from his order? In any court of law, the crime would be named as the punishment is announced. The accused, and the people, have a right to know if the severity of the crime committed warrants the severity of the punishment.

Moreover, at an opportune time, the competent Ordinary should report briefly to the Congregation about the completed notification, and also, should any astonishment take place among the faithful, should give a prudent explanation.

Sadly, the faithful are becoming immune to astonishment. As the new year begins, I continue to cling to optimistic hope in the Year of Faith and its call for a new evangelization, but my optimism is wavering. Forgive me if I keep repeating myself, but we are getting conflicting messages.

We are called to focus less on rules and regulations and turn to the heart of our faith, to seek a personal relationship with Jesus and to embrace more fully the gospel message. Yet, we see church leaders who equate faithfulness with obsessive obedience and submission to doctrinal teachings.

We are called to enter into dialogue with those of other faiths and no faith. Yet, we are denied the right to dialogue within our own church.

We are called to love. Yet, we continue to see a glaring lack of love shown in mean-spirited judgments and denouncements.

Evangelization is all about the message. What message are we receiving from our church leaders? What message are they giving to the world?

2 Comments

Filed under leadership in the church, new evangelization, obedience

Tagged as , ,

December 5, 2012 · 9:59 pm

the bourgeois story and the new evangelization

Prairie_Messenger_Header_Op

Here is my latest catholic dialogue column for the Prairie Messenger. The expulsion of Fr. Roy Bourgeois from the Maryknoll Order and the priesthood for his support of women’s ordination has made headlines around the world. Top-down, disciplinary actions and demands for doctrinal purity and unquestioning obedience seem to be increasing. How do these disciplinary actions affect the perception of our Church? What effect do they have on the new evangelization?

If a pure church is the goal, new evangelization is not needed

2 Comments

Filed under leadership in the church, new evangelization, obedience

Tagged as , ,

September 26, 2012 · 3:37 pm

UPDATE: German court: Catholics who don’t pay religious tax must leave church | National Catholic Reporter

UPDATE: German court: Catholics who don’t pay religious tax must leave church | National Catholic Reporter.

The above article on NCR adds more details to the story coming out of Germany about Catholics being refused the sacraments if they opt out of paying the Church Tax. As with all news stories, one must be cautious about believing sensational head lines. And this head-line, to our North American sensibilities, is sensational indeed. It raised my ire when I first read about it, but I kept hoping that perhaps there was some miscommunication…some cultural nuance that we were missing.

Well, recent statements by Archbishop Robert Zollitsch of Freiburg, president of the German Bishop’s Conference, leave no room for nuance…

“Clearly, someone withdrawing from the church can no longer take advantage of the system like someone who remains a member,“

The church is a ‘system’ that we ‘take advantage’ of? What happened to graces freely given and freely received? What about the institutional church taking advantage of the people she is called to serve?

“We are grateful Rome has given completely clear approval to our stance.”

What??? This kind of bullying tactic has the approval of the Vatican? This does not bode well for the “New Evangelization”. While bishops from around the world prepare to gather next month to discuss how to draw souls back to the the faith, some are intentionally alienating those who are struggling to stay in the midst of this mess. They just don’t get it!!!

The archbishop said each departure was “painful for the church,” …and “The Catholic church is committed to seeking out every lost person.”

OK, call me a skeptic…but is the pain coming from lost souls, or lost income?

“At issue, however, is the credibility of the church’s sacramental nature. One cannot be half a member or only partly a member. Either one belongs and commits, or one renounces this,”

I respectfully disagree – vehemently – with the good bishop. There are many good souls in our church who struggle with certain teachings or issues. In the midst of their struggles, some stay. Some need to take a voluntary exile to ponder and rethink their faith. Some just cannot afford to give large donations to the church. Some choose not to give financial support as a protest. Through it all, many still identify themselves as Catholics. After all, the sacrament of baptism is indelible. Do not judge our faith or our commitment based on the money we give. It is not only unfair. It is offensive.

In his opening address Monday to the bishops’ meeting, Zollitsch said the church needed “a long perspective, deep breath and patience” to cope with current challenges, as well as a capacity for dialogue with “social groups and circles alienated from the church.”

This really does have to be the kicker! Spot the hypocrisy anyone? This comment screams a lack of understanding. Yes, WE need to take a long, deep breath and have patience with these church leaders. Their actions and tone reflect an authoritative need for control and power, not a desire for dialogue. They need to take a closer look at the cause of the alienation of so many from our church. Perhaps a mirror would help in this regard.

Sigh….. Please forgive my own tone in this rant. Anger does little for dialogue. But sometimes I just need to let off some steam…

6 Comments

Filed under leadership in the church, obedience, priests and bishops, Vatican

Tagged as , ,

August 16, 2012 · 9:35 pm

how obligated are you by obligation?

On August 15, Catholics celebrate the Solemnity of the Assumption, commemorating our belief that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul. A friend of mine was grumbling that it was a holy day of obligation in the USA. Her grumbling was not about the feast itself, but about the obligatory aspect. At a time when many of us are frustrated with doctrine-spouting and rules-waving leaders, being told when and how to pray can leave us feeling less than spiritual.

The Code of Canon Law states the following (Canon 1246)

  1. Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church. Also to be observed are the day of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension and the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Mary Mother of God and her Immaculate Conception and Assumption, Saint Joseph, the Apostles Saints Peter and Paul, and finally, All Saints.
  2. However, the conference of bishops can abolish certain holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday with prior approval of the Apostolic See.

Here is an online calendar showing the present Holy Days of Obligation in the USA, Canada, England and Wales, Australia and Ireland. We Canadians are the most lax, with only two obligatory days outside of Sunday; Christmas and January 1st, the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. Of course, sometimes these fall on a Sunday rendering the extra obligation moot.

I struggled with the issue of Sunday obligations for many years. As children, we were taught that missing Mass on a Sunday was a mortal sin. If we did, we could not receive Communion until we went to Confession. This was a heavy burden on a wee soul. I could not understand how my missing Mass put me on the same boat to hell as a murderer. The teaching haunted me. It took many years before I could miss Mass without horrible scruples and guilt. (Google ‘missing mass and mortal sin’ and you’ll see that the question still exists for many.)

Today, like my friend, I resent the power and authority that often lies behind the word obligation. I cringe at the homilist who identifies the faithful Catholic as merely one who warms up the pew on a Sunday. I dread attending Mass in a parish where I know I will leave feeling depressed and angry rather than spiritually uplifted. Sometimes, when I’m in a bad head-space, it’s better for me to stay home, praying a lectio divina with the readings. On those days, I trust that God understands.

Perhaps going to church has become more of an obligation because we have lost the deeper meaning of Sundays and Feast Days. We no longer live in a culture where the spirit of the Sabbath is honoured; where work is laid aside for holy leisure time with God and family. We squeeze church time into our busy weekend. Feast Days are no longer communal celebrations, a much needed holy-day from labour. Gone are the actual feasts and festive traditions. Dragging ourselves into a half-empty church and sitting through a listless liturgy to fulfill our guilty consciences is not the same as filling the streets with processions and revelry.

How can we go beyond obligation, and return to a spirit of communal worship and celebration?

(Day of obligation or not, Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, sent out this warm greeting to all Christians celebrating the Assumption.)

2 Comments

Filed under catholic culture, liturgy, obedience

Tagged as

June 25, 2012 · 8:14 pm

would you, could you sign an oath of personal integrity?

Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland, CA has demanded that board members of the Catholic Association for Lesbian and Gay Ministry, or CALGM, sign an “oath of personal integrity” to Catholic teaching.

“In good faith, we have done most everything required of us to maintain a legitimate space within the boundaries of the institutional Church,” president Sheila Nelson wrote to members April 5. “Yet, this has not seemed to be adequate or satisfactory to the office of the bishop. We have repeatedly, abundantly and humbly submitted that our work is pastoral in nature and not political or primarily doctrinal.”

In a March 29 letter, Nelson wrote to the bishop, “That you would require such an unprecedented and extensive manifestation of our consciences suggests to us that, irrespective of our pastoral effectiveness, you wish to force an end to these, admittedly difficult, conversations.” The full NCR article and ensuing discussion board can be found here.

Perhaps it’s my baby-boomer sensibilities. After all, my generation is infamous for challenging authority. But, my blood pressure rises at the thought of having to sign such an oath because a bishop demands it. Perhaps it would depend on the oath, and the bishop? Maybe. But the actual demand bothers me.

I agree with Nelson’s interpretation of the action by the bishop. Demanding me to sign an oath of “personal integrity” not only shouts your distrust of my faith and my beliefs, but it closes the door to dialogue on those issues that I cannot fully accept in good conscience. It attempts to put Catholics into a small, tightly controlled box of orthodoxy. You are in, or you are out, sometimes based on a one issue doctrine. There is no regard to all your other good actions or beliefs. There is no room for honest questioning.

This action is reminiscent of past inquisitions. While confessions are no longer extracted under threat of torture or death, there is still a threat of negative consequences. There is a threat of being separated from the community – even if only by name.

I profess my faith in front of the praying community each time I meaningfully recite the Creed at mass.  I profess it even more solemnly when we are asked to renew our baptismal vows, at Easter or a baptism. As our church becomes more obsessed with doctrine, the Creed becomes more meaningful to me. The simple and beautiful profession of faith in God as Father/Creator, Son and Holy Spirit reminds us of our foundation. This is the belief that the Christian church is built on. This is our first and primary oath as Christians.

For the board members of CALGM, the issue is centered on church teachings around homosexuality. What if all Catholics had to sign an oath of personal integrity with regards to contraception? How many could?

Would you, or could you, sign an oath of personal integrity or obedience if it was presented to you by your bishop? Have you had to sign such an oath? I’d love to hear both your thoughts and your experiences.

5 Comments

Filed under obedience

Tagged as ,

June 7, 2012 · 10:04 pm

the acquiescence of silence

During some very dark days in our parish and in our diocese, my head rolled with those of many others. We suffered under an authoritative bishop whose destructive actions reflected a dysfunctional leadership style. Our pastor was one of his minions. When I locked horns with him, life became intolerable for me and my family. We had to leave.

Friends in the parish sympathized with us, and offered many a listening ear. They also shared their own hurts and frustrations, filling us in on the continuing saga of dysfunction after we left. We also had priest friends in the diocese who were struggling with the situation. They were supportive and compassionate to us, but did nothing. The faithful dutifully went about their tasks, while silence hung like a big, stinky elephant in the room. No one stood up for us or anyone else who had been black-listed. We felt deserted by the community, and the dysfunction continued.

The reason behind the silence was fear. The result of the silence was an enabling of the destructive behavior of priest and bishop. It didn’t change until the bishop retired, dying soon after. Yet, many of the hurts remain. Many who left at the time have not returned.

Today, silence has been broken in a public and courageous manner by two groups in the USA. Seven provinces of Franciscan brothers and priests have published a letter of support for the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) in wake of their Vatican rebuke.

We believe that your willingness to reflect on many of the questions faced by contemporary society is an expression of your determination to be faithful to the Gospel, the Church, the invitation from Vatican II and your own religious charisms. We remain thankful for and edified by your courage to engage in such reflection despite the ever-present risk of misunderstanding.

The second show of support came from the Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA) for Sr. Margaret Farley. Her book, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics was censured by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The community of theologians not only supported her and her work, but wanted to clarify the distinction between the role of catechists and theologians. They recognize the importance of taking a stand now to ensure that future theologians will be given the necessary academic freedom to address hard issues without fear of reprisal.

Such an understanding of the nature of theology inappropriately conflates the distinctive tasks of catechesis and theology. With regard to the subject matter of Professor Farley’s book, it is simply a matter of fact that faithful Catholics in every corner of the Church are raising ethical questions like those Professor Farley has addressed. In raising and exploring such questions with her customary sensitivity and judiciousness, Professor Farley has invited us to engage the Catholic tradition seriously and thoughtfully.

We speak often of courageously standing up to injustice in the world. We need to show the same courage in standing up to injustices in our church. And, yes, it takes courage. But silence is too easily interpreted as acquiescence. And acquiescence enables the injustice to continue.

 

7 Comments

Filed under obedience, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

January 26, 2012 · 2:26 pm

The unconscionable consequences of conscience exemptions | National Catholic Reporter

The unconscionable consequences of conscience exemptions | National Catholic Report

This Canadian woman spends too much time musing on American politics, especially when they intersect with the Catholic Church. This week’s news story on the Obama administration’s refusal to allow a religious exemption for health insurance coverage for contraception has me intrigued. I take universal health care for granted. What is available to one, is available to all – regardless of religious affiliation. Each person has the right to accept or refuse a procedure or treatment.

It’s not that Canadian’s don’t struggle balancing religious rights and civil rights. We have learned the hard way that tolerance needs guide-lines. With the passing of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, a Pandora’s box was opened to outrageous claims hiding behind the right to freedom of religion and expression. The courts have tried to uphold the basic belief that individual freedoms cannot endanger or infringe on the freedoms and rights of others. It’s not always easy or clear cut.

Abortion is still a hotly debated topic in Canada, usually during election times.  Abortion deserves serious attention and ongoing dialogue whether it has been legalized or not.  Access to contraception, on the other hand, is a non-issue in the public forum. And, it is a non-issue for most Catholics. I can’t recall ever hearing a pastor preach on Humane Vitae from the pulpit. That’s why I’m so fascinated with this American news story. Is this really a case of anti-Catholic behaviour on the part of the government? Are Catholics’ rights really being impeded? Are the bishops in tune with the majority of folks sitting in the pews?

Earlier this week, I mentioned a well written editorial by David DeCosse. He explains the model of conscience used by the bishops compared to the traditional model of conscience espoused by moral theologians. The former focuses on obedience and authority; no questions asked. The latter on personal freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. Now, Jamie L. Manson has added another valuable voice to the dialogue. It’s a worthy read!

Leave a Comment

Filed under catholic dialogue, dialogue and politics, faith and politics, morals, obedience

Tagged as , ,

January 23, 2012 · 12:05 pm

pelvic politics

A mighty debate is taking place in the USA between the Obama administration and the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The issue revolves around religious freedom and the right of Catholic institutions to exclude coverage of contraceptives in their health care plans. On January 20th it was announced that the religious exemption is not in effect. All nonprofits that presently do not provide contraceptive coverage will have one’s years grace to comply with the new regulation.

As you can imagine, internet discussion boards and editorials are heating up on both sides of the issue. Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter wrote an especially scathing piece titled J’ACCUSE! Why Obama is wrong on the HHS conscience regulations, going so far as to withdraw his vote for Obama. The ensuing discussion board makes for an interesting read – though an extremely l-o-n-g one. A rough survey of responses shows more people siding with the right to a woman’s access to contraception than those who stand up for the teachings of Humanae Vitae.

The best responses, I believe, are those that look beyond the polarizing rhetoric of good Catholic-bad Catholic. The core issue is whether we believe in our personal freedom of conscience. I believe in it, but it comes with responsibilities. (see an informed conscience…please!)

Bishops’ conscience model makes light of practical reason by David DeCosse is a well-written and logical appeal to respecting the gift of conscience,

At present, the model of conscience used by most bishops is problematic in two ways. First, it emphasizes obedience, law, and hierarchical authority and thus departs from the Catholic tradition’s close linkage of conscience, practical reason, and freedom. Second, on account of this departure, these bishops needlessly lapse into using a sectarian model of the Catholic conscience ill-suited to the Church’s mission in a democratic pluralist society like the United States.

An emphasis on obedience and law can provide an easy, black and white paradigm of morality. The Church says this…therefore if I do this and don’t do that, then I am good. But,

the bishops’ emphasis on law as the pre-eminent category of conscience means that they leave little room for practical reasoning to help the conscience figure out what to do in the face of complexity.

Almost all women and men know the “face of complexity” when it comes to conception. Discerning when to have children, and how many is not an easy issue. It has huge practical consequences that cannot be written off with a naive and pietistic pronouncement to be ‘always open to life’.

Our parents came from the generation that saw the dawning of effective birth control, but were preached to by priests of their intrinsic evil. The choice given to them was simple. Be open to raising large families, or suffer the guilt of mortal sin and eternal punishment. Raising children in a larger family is a gift. But it is not a gift to all. How many families faced physical, emotional, and economic hardships out of obedience to the law.

I also heard stories of compassionate priests who would counsel couples to “follow their own conscience” in the matter. And, God bless them!

5 Comments

Filed under faith and politics, morals, obedience

Tagged as , ,

October 11, 2011 · 3:19 pm

what if the people of God were silent?

Liturgical rules and rubrics continue to make head-lines in the Catholic news. The Phoenix diocese issued a statement Sept. 21 placing new restrictions on the reception of Holy Communion under both species. It claims that it is in keeping with new standards and will promote unity in the celebration of the Eucharist around the world.

Our diocesan materials on the implementation of the revised Roman Missal stress the importance of showing unity in our prayers and liturgical gestures. An acknowledgement is made that the changes might be difficult at first, but we should put our personal misgivings aside for the greater unity of the Church.

It all seems so petty, but the underlying message cannot be ignored. There is something troubling about this constant call to `unity` – with no questions asked, and no dialogue allowed. It`s the George W. Bush logic; if you`re not with us, you`re against us. In church terms, if you don`t give your whole-hearted consent to each and every teaching, writing, and declaration coming from our leaders, than you are weakening the unity of the Church. This is the classic either or false dilemma. There is no room for `cafeteria Catholics`, picking and choosing the teachings we want to follow. A good Catholic eats all that is put in front of her, without question. If you`re not with us, you`re against us.

This kind of black and white thinking does not allow for a dialogue to take place in that grey area of the in-between; a hallowed space where truth is often found.  And true unity is never achieved through blind or submissive obedience.

The people of God had no say in the latest revisions of the Roman Missal. We were not asked to share our thoughts on the present version. We were not asked if we wanted change, or what kind of change would inspire us. It was assumed that our faith and prayer life was lacking, and that it would be miraculously brought to life and uplifted through the use of words with `deeper theological meanings`.

We had no voice. As usual, our role during the process was to be silent. Our role now that the process is a fait accomplis, is again to be silent.

If we have no opportunity to speak out, perhaps we should embrace the silence that is already ours. Perhaps the best protest action is no action. What if, on the First Sunday of Advent, we responded to that first `The Lord be with you` with…..silence.

What if we just said…nothing!?

5 Comments

Filed under catholic dialogue, liturgy, new roman missal, obedience

Tagged as , , ,