Mystery of Church

The unfolding of the history of the Church remains a mystery.

This institution/community/herald/sacrament/servant which is charged by Jesus Christ with the responsibility of building the Kingdom of God on earth often seems inept, dysfunctional, and off track.

From the start there were conflicts. Mark's Gospel account records the contest between the sons of Zebedee and the other ten apostles (10:41). James and John wanted preferential treatment when Jesus came into his kingdom and the others took offense at their chutzpah in asking for it.

Paul and Peter got into it over requirements imposed on Gentiles who wanted to join the new way. Paul told the Galatians, "And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he clearly was wrong" (2:11).

And before the Church was 100 years old the extant letters of Clement, Barnabas and Ignatius were warning believers against false doctrine and practices. Clement was upset about a revolt against the presbyters (elders) in the Church at Corinth. Barnabas advised the Christians to avoid schism and to "pacify and bring together those who are quarreling." Ignatius lamented to the Church at Ephesus that "certain persons from elsewhere, who have evil doctrine, have stayed with you."

Christians in the fourth century were still arguing over whether Jesus was divine. It took a council of bishops at Nicea in 325 AD to settle the matter and declare that Jesus was indeed homousion tō patri (Greek for "one in being," i.e., consubstantial with the Father).

A really big break or schism in the Church occurred  in the 11th century when conflict erupted (not for the first time) between the pope in Rome and the patriarch in Constantinople. Politics (the papacy wanted to get out from under the control of the emperor) complicated the scene but in essence the Roman pontiff was declaring himself ruler of the Church and the Christians of the East resented the effort to reduce the authority of the patriarch.

A second really big break occurred in the 16th century --we call it the Protestant Reformation.

And some are suggesting that we may be standing on the cusp of yet another schism, not so much a public denunciation of Roman authority with the formation of a new sect, but a schism of indifference in which Vatican power and control are simply ignored.

Hopes were high in many Church quarters following the Second Vatican Council that there would be greater cooperation between the Vatican and conferences of bishops around the world. Those hopes were soon challenged and deflated. Many thought that the Curia (the Vatican bureaucracy) and John Paul II were making a concerted effort to close any windows John XXIII and Vatican II might have opened.

The Vatican's recent rejection of the English translation of the Roman Missal as developed by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (a mixed committee of bishops from English speaking countries formed to provide English translations for the liturgy) is a Vatican power-play.

The new translation imposed on most English speaking countries (South Africa seems to have a indult allowing use of the initial ICEL translation which the Vatican first accepted and then rejected) is an example not only of poor English but of reining in the authority of bishops' conferences.

The distorted translation, the disruption of Mass, the decision by many priests to disregard some expressions in the translation and retain the use of others are viral signs undermining unity and peace in the Church.

When those in authority use a too heavy-handed approach those affected by that authority tend to rebel, ignore, challenge, or walk away. It remains to be seen what the ultimate outcome will be.

Catholics who think of the Vatican and the pope as the exclusive authority in the Church will accept the new translation and subsequent efforts to close the window.

Catholics who recognize that bishops, together with the pope, have supreme and full power over the universal Church (cf. Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, #22) will wonder why the bishops' conferences simply gave in to a poor English translation and to the rejection of their authority.

It is doubtful that the Roman Curia and its departments serving the pope underwent the reorganization and modernization that the bishops at Vatican II called for (cf. Christus Dominus, #9).

Conflict, dissent, power plays have been part of the Church's history from the beginning. It is difficult to appreciate how this ongoing dysfunction would be allowed by the Lord who sent it into the world to build the Kingdom of God.

The mystery of God's will (and patience) tests our faith, but in faith we hold to the conviction that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church through and in spite of our human foibles.

The mystery of it all remains intact.

Merry Christmass

It amuses me that many people wish others a Merry Christmas without any awareness of what that greeting means.

The Spanish-speaking peoples say, "Feliz Navidad," which means "Happy Nativity." The Italians say much the same thing in their "Buon Natale." The French duplicate it in "Joyeux Noel." All three refer to the birth of Christ.

The Germans wish you "Frőhliche Weihnachten," which is roughly rendered, "Happy Consecrated (i.e., Holy) Night."

I like the sound of the Hawaiian greeting, "Mele Kalikimaka," borrowed directly from the English "Merry Christmas," but pronounced quite differently because there is no "r" or "s" in Hawaiian.

And that brings us back to the greeting English-speaking people use. It comes from the old English word crīstesmæsse, which means "Christ's Mass."

The celebration of Jesus' birth used to be called "the Christ Mass," and from that expression came our "Merry Christmas."

It is true that we do not know the date or even  the year of Jesus' birth. We conclude from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

St. Francis of Assisi, however, helped the Middle Ages think more of Jesus' birth when he put together a Christmas creche, the forerunner of the crib sets we see every year in our churches, in our homes, and sometimes in public places.

I hear that Members of the House of Representatives have been told that they may not say "Merry Christmas" anymore in their official mail if they wish to use the franking privilege, that is, if they want to get their postage paid at tax payer's expense.

And every year, between Thanksgiving and Christmas, there is controversy about whether retailers
will allow their clerks and cashiers to wish customers "Merry Christmas."

I suspect that in a few years there will be a push to give December 25 a new name.

We know that "Season's Greetings" is already a common euphemsism. Maybe the PCP (the Politically Correct Police) will being on enough pressure to designate December 25 as "Greetings Day" or "Peace On Earth Day" or "Winter's Holiday" (although that last one won't work in the southern hemisphere).

Well, whatever they try to foist off on us, it will still be for Christians the feast of the birth of Jesus Christ.


And even if the PCP are successful in coining a new name for it, many of us English-speaking Catholics will cling to our traditional "Merry Christmas!"

That greeting will make us smile because on that holy day we gather at Mass to celebrate the Incarnation --our faith conviction that God took on human nature and pitched his tent among us.

It will still be Jesus' birthday no matter what the PCP call it. And we will still celebrate a Merry Christ Mass.

And I happily wish you a Merry Christ Mass too!

Prevenient Grace

Prevenient grace?

At Mass on December 8, Feast of the Immaculate Conception, the Prayer over the Offerings used the term "prevenient grace" to describe God's intervention to keep Mary "untouched by any stain of sin."

Prior to our use of the new Roman English translation we prayed, "You kept her free from sin from the first moment of her life."

The expression "prevenient grace" does not fall trippingly off the tongue. The Council of Trent used the Latin "a Dei per dominum Christum Iesum praeveniente gratia" (rendered  "a predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ" in the English translation I use of Trent, session 6, chapter 5.)

The theology behind Trent's "prevenient or predisposing grace" is the Catholic Church's conviction that "actual justification in adults takes its origin from a predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ ...with no existing merits on their side" (ibid). Thus, those who had turned from God by sins are disposed by God's grace to turn back and become justified by freely assenting to that grace.

The term "prevenient grace" is probably more familiar among Calvinists and Methodists, who disagree with one another about the fine points of the concept. Calvinists hold that God's will alone brings salvation, rejecting the Wesleyan Methodist' belief that people must respond to the grace. Calvinists say that grace is either common or special,  and  special grace is given only to the elect and is irresistible. Wesleyans insist that prevenient grace can be accepted or rejected.

Further, Calvinists reject what they call "universal enablement," the idea that God offers salvation and justification to everybody.

The predominant use of the term "prevenient grace" in Protestant circles differs somewhat from the Catholic use of the term regarding Mary's Immaculate Conception.

The Catholic theology of the special prerogative given to Mary (to be "conceived without sin") does indeed imply a prevenient grace. This particular prevenient grace was given uniquely to Mary, given before and in anticipation of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I never dreamed the new Roman English translation of Mass prayers would lead to such a maze of theologizing.

I hope to be better prepared next December 8th to enunciate that peculiar phrase, but I suspect I will still be wishing I could say, "You kept her free from sin from the first moment of her life." That seems to me easier to say and understand, and for me a lot  more joyful and prayerful.

Once Upon a Time

Once upon a time there was a CEO who was painfully aware that his business was failing, but he was afraid to confront the reasons for the failure head-on.

Fear seemed to be prevalent throughout the company. The board was afraid of the CEO,  the CEO  was afraid of the board, and the management teams were afraid of both. Some individual site managers were afraid too; many were frustrated, disconsolate, or angry.

Customers were perplexed by the company's poor showing. It had a great product, the public need was as strong as ever, but consumption was down.

Recognizing that some top level response was needed, the CEO and the board issued a series of memos. The memos did not address the issues actually responsible for the decline. Instead they cited employees for failing to follow the policy handbook or they reiterated policies that had proved ineffective for decades.

One memo insisted that employees in their official business capacity should use a style of language which was awkward and in some cases simply odd.

Many managers, employees, and even some customers tried to understand and implement the company directives. Some responded half-heartedly. Some walked away.

The owner of the business showed remarkable restraint. He waited patiently for the fear to dissipate, for the board to review its mission, for the customers to return. He never gave up, but sometimes the customers and the site managers, the supervisors and the management team members wondered, "Where is he?  When will he step in and do something about the business he so deeply loves?"

Witness To Jesus

Odd, isn't it, that perhaps the most talked-about and controversial witness to Jesus and the Christian faith in America today is a professional football player?

Tim Tebow, quarterback of the Denver Broncos, is praised by some and ridiculed by others for falling down on one knee and assuming a posture of prayer on the football field.

When he played for the Florida Gators he sometimes wrote a Bible verse on the black strip under his eyes. It is said that in 2009, during and shortly after a televised college bowl championship game, when Tebow wore "John 3:16," Google counted 92 million hits on that exact New Testament verse.

In 2010 the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) issued a new rule prohibiting players from wearing messages on their eye black. Some say the rule was inspired by Ohio State's Terrelle Pryor's putting on his eye black the name "Mike Vick," his tribute to the pro quarterback who was charged with the felony of promoting dog fighting and the gambling associated with it. Vick pleaded guilty.

Others say the NCAA rule was in response to Tebow's evangelizing on the field. NCAA officials denied that assumption, but many dub the decision "the Tebow Rule." The NFL already had a similar rule in place so Tebow did not carry his custom into professional play.

In 2010 Tebow won plaudits and condemnation from fans for appearing in two television commercials during Super Bowl XLIV. The ads were sponsored by Focus on the Family, an organization on the Christian right founded by James Dobson. Tebow was telling his personal story in a pro-life context, and several pro-choice groups condemned the ad.

A November 24, 2011, article on the Huffington Post website confirmed that teammates and coaches believe Tebow is honest and sincere, that his commitment to Christ is as real off the field as on.

Tebow wrote in his autobiography Through My Eyes, "For as long as I can remember, this was instilled in me: to have fun, love Jesus and others, and tell them about Him."

As a Christian I am proud of Tebow's witness. As a priest I am a bit embarrassed --not by his witness but by my failure to be as committed an evangelist.

Granted his "pulpit" is much bigger than mine, but his commitment to Christ and giving witness to Him is bigger too.

Climate in Washington

I just returned from preaching a parish mission in Seattle.

I asked myself on the plane ride back, "What did you learn from this experience?"

The most surprising bit of information was about Seattle's weather. I had the idea that Washington state had cold and very snowy winters. The residents of Edmonds, Washington, just north of Seattle, corrected my misconception.

They told me that they have relatively mild winters (compared to Ohio), and that they seldom get more than two inches of snow at a time. (They were quick to add that weather was different on the east side of the state. There it snowed more and got lots colder.)

I did a little research and found this puzzzling description: "Because the Cascade Mountains run parallel to the coast the entire length of the state, Washington is divided into two distinct climates. The western third has a temperate rain forest climate, while the eastern two-thirds of the state is warmer and drier."

Just a short walk into one of the parks in north west Washington confirmed that it was rain forest. The moss grows on all sides of the trees!

I hadn't expected Washingtonians (at least the people along Puget Sound) to be so concerned about snow, but as several said, "We gotta lot of hills around here, and it doesn't take much snow to make our streets treacherous and our roads impassable."

I'll remember that when the white stuff piles up on the Queen City. There will be a momentary experience of pride when I reflect that we Buckeyes can negotiate the icy conditions with more daring and success than our compatriots in the Evergreen State.

Though conversations about the weather were frequent and sometimes animated, and though I had to change my faulty perceptions about the climate, I did learn again (as so many times before and everywhere else), we Catholics are all trying to cope with similar situations, problems, and hopes no matter where we live.

It is common for us to ask, "Why? Why does God allow some people to suffer so much more than others?"

"Why does the Church (read 'Church leadership') so often fail us and focus on the institution rather than on the Kingdom?"

"Why are so many nominal Catholics choosing not to participate in Sunday Mass?"

"What can I do to grow in my spiritual life?"

Preaching a parish mission is an opportunity to probe some of the questions, acknowledge the human dimension, and offer encouragement and direction for our ongoing conversion.

The weather may differ in one part of the country from another. The people may be better educated in one setting than in another. The economy may be more secure in one region over another.

But in the basics, the people, whether they are Catholics in California, Florida, New York, Louisiana, or Toledo, Ohio, are very much alike.

Every parish I have visited has a dedicated core of members, taking on, whether as employees or volunteers, the mission of the Church in their locale. They welcome and share their faith with potential converts in the RCIA program. They teach religion to children and adults. They care for the daily needs of liturgy, building maintenance, fundraising, outreach to the poor.

They and many of their fellow parishioners are open to growing in their understanding of God and in their relationship with Jesus Christ.

If Washington's climate was one of the new things I learned during this recent parish mission experience, one of the old and consistent was that the People of God, no matter where they are, share a common heritage and hope.

More than a little rain falls in western Washington and the state deserves its "Evergreen" sobriquet.

But beyond the weather, the religious and spiritual climate seems to be as full of the mystery and searching and loving that must characterize the Kingdom of God.

They do not always have the answers, but I think it is safe to say that many are at least asking the right questions.

Their confidence in God allows them to say (at least on occasion), "Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow."

Happy But Disgruntled

I read two articles about priests recently and thought them at odds with each other. 

The first article was a review of Why Priests Are Happy by Msgr. Stephen J. Rossetti,  the  results of  the data collected from two surveys (the first done in 2004, the second in 2009) concerning the psychological and spiritual health of priests. 

The second article was titled "Push For Reform Grows in Austria," a report about the Austrian Priests' Initiative's "Appeal to Disobedience," pledging to challenge the Vatican's stand on such issues as ordination of married men, ordination of women, and giving communion to everyone who approaches the altar in good faith. 

Rossetti is a clinical associate professor of pastoral studies at the Catholic University of America. He concludes that priests as a whole are highly satisfied with their lives. 

Among Rossetti's findings are these statistics: 92.4% of priests are happy overall being priests; 88.8% have good morale; 76.6% have a good relationship with their bishop; 75.1% say celibacy has been a personal grace; 82.1% would choose to remain celibate if priests were allowed to marry. 

Two areas of concern, Rossetti said, are that priests have excessive workloads and that divisions over political and social issues may pose a threat to priests' sense of unity. 

The Austrian Priests' Initiative was founded in 2006 by Msgr. Helmut Schuller, former vicar general of the Archdiocese of Vienna and a well-known media personality in Austria. He is currently a parish priest in a small town north of Vienna. 

About 400 priests acknowledge membership in the API, roughly one in ten active priests in Austria. They are calling for reform in several areas of the Church's teaching and practice. Questioned about their pledge to be disobedient, spokespeople for the group reply that there is a higher obedience to conscience and to God. 

API members (plus some 12,000 lay Catholics who support the initiative) think that Rome is backtracking on the reforms and direction set by the Second Vatican Council. When members met with Cardinal Christoph Schőnborn of Vienna, the prelate countered their appeal to disobedience with an appeal for unity. Austrian media reported that Schőnborn told the leaders that anyone who thinks Rome is on a wrong track must leave the Catholic Church. 

A spokesman for the Archdiocese told Catholic News Service, however, that the situation is not as dramatic as the Austrian media make it seem. 

My initial response to these two stories was confusion. How can priests be so happy (the Rossetti study was American) and yet so upset with the Vatican (the API is European). 

Does the Rosssetti study reflect the smoke-screen of the dysfunctional family which to all appearances is happy and well-adjusted, but behind closed doors is miserable and broken?  Are priests reluctant to tell the truth about their feelings and experiences lest they scandalize the laity? Would they answer what they thought they should say rather than what they personally hold? 

Are the priests of the Austrian initiative unhappy rebels, self-centered pastors, pathetic examples of vocations gone bad? Are they reneging on their ordination promise of obedience to the bishop? If they misinterpret the role of the hierarchy, or their personal obligation to obey their own consciences, is the same thing true about the priests expressing similar concerns in Ireland, Germany and the United States? 

While I initially thought the two articles (and the two groups of priests) to be completely at odds with each other, I'm not so sure they are really polar opposites. 

Could a man be perfectly happy being a priest, and still be upset with the direction he sees the Church is going? Could a cleric recognize that one answer to the priest shortage is allowing older married men to say Mass and still have good morale? Could a priest think celibacy is a grace for him and still support ordaining married men? 

As psychologists and spiritual writers frequently note, people need not operate solely in a binary system of either/or. Dualism can give way, especially as we get older, to a unitive system, a non-dualistic mind of both/and. 

Episcopal priest/teacher Cynthia Bourgeault, PhD, has been encouraging people to develop non-dual thinking as a way of understanding the teachings of Jesus. She sees that mindset in the beatitudes, e.g., "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall see God." Blessedness and poverty seem dualities incompatible with one another, but Jesus sees it differently.

She advises her students to let the heart be an organ of spiritual perception. "The heart," she explains, "can pick up subtle signals from all levels of reality, not just from what's happening in the rational...When the heart-awareness becomes fully formed within a person, he or she will be operating out of non-dual consciousness." 

If I understand Bourgeault correctly there need not be a great disconnect in a priest happy with his priesthood but upset with the way the Church is going. 

I believe that to be the case among my priest friends and acquaintances. Even if they grumble about the new translation in the Roman Missal and think the Vatican is backtracking on Vatican II, it doesn't mean they are unhappy being priests. In fact, it may mean they take both vocation and Church very seriously.