Praying What We Believe

There is a principle in theology which holds that the way we pray is the way we believe -- or lex orandi, lex credendi to be more precise.

Theologians Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler noted in their dictionary of theology that there was a similar statement recorded in the Council of Ephesus (431) when it was cataloguing authoritative statements from popes. It has lex supplicandi, lex credendi, which might be rendered "the law of supplication, the law of believing" (Denzinger, 139).

Rahner and Vorgrimler explained that the statement from the Council of Ephesus developed into the theological principle that "the liturgy is the norm of faith, a witness to the infallible belief of the praying church."

If you have stayed with me through these three paragraphs, please follow me into the Roman Missal (Third Edition) and to the second eucharistic prayer.

The new translation of that prayer includes the petition, "Have mercy on us, O Lord, that...we may merit to be coheirs to eternal life..."

It is the term "merit" that makes me question what it is we believe.

If we keep praying that we may merit eternal life, then does that not influence what we believe about grace, about eternal life as pure gift?

It is Catholic theology that no one merits heaven; it is a gift.

We follow God's commands, we suffer along with Christ, not so that we will merit eternal life but because it has already been offered to us. Doing things and being good in order to earn heaven is putting the cart before the horse.

Some children are taught that they should be good in order to receive presents at Christmas. Adults are urged to be good because Christ has already offered them.

The notion that we have to do things in order to merit God's love and eternal life is reflected in the older son in Jesus' parable of the prodigal. He thought he should have been rewarded for his loyalty and service, and was upset that his younger, profligate brother was being welcomed home with a party.

St. Therese the Little Flower, and later the French author George Bernanos, happily proclaimed, "Grace is everywhere."

Perhaps the second eucharistic prayer would be better translated "that we may inherit eternal life."

If we understood the prayer in this way, we are simply affirming that the law of believing is the law of praying, or lex credendi, lex orandi.

Re-ordering the Sacraments

The custom at Sacred Heart Church when I was first named pastor there in 1990 was to offer Confirmation to young people when they were in high school, in their teens.

Some parents thought waiting until high school was a great inconvenience because their children were expected to attend special classes to prepare for receiving the sacrament, and the times of the preparation classes often conflicted with other schedules, such as sports practice.

In response to the complaints, I asked the staff to individually research the matter, especially what was considered the best age for receiving Confirmation.

I was really looking for background that would support our custom of waiting until the youth were a bit older. Some liturgists and theologians were calling Confirmation "the sacrament of maturity."

When the parish staff gathered to share their findings and recommendations, we were all surprised to discover that each of us had come to the same conclusion --waiting until teenage years was not the best practice!

The clearest piece of evidence that waiting until teenage years was not a good idea was Canon Law (#891) which said that "the sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion."

Age seven is generally considered the age of discretion, the age when a child is capable of making informed choices.

Church law then was telling us that age seven not seventeen was the norm.

Canon 891, however, goes on to say that conferences of bishops may decide on another age. The US bishops had agreed to disagree about the age, and said confirmation was to be conferred between ages 11 and 16.

Our staff research also concluded that in the earliest days of the Church the traditional order for receiving the sacraments of initiation was Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist.

We had to admit that there were conflicting ways of understanding the theology of Confirmation: completion of Baptism versus sacrament of mature faith and adult commitment. We concluded, however, that historically Confirmation originally followed Baptism, and in fact was normally conferred at the same ceremony as Baptism.

Having assessed the theology, history, customs and law concerning Confirmation, we decided to move its conferral at Sacred Heart from freshmen year to second grade.

The bishop, however, had a different idea. He pointed to the ages set by the US Bishops Conference and allowed us to move the conferral to the middle years of grade school.

My argument that Confirmation is not a sacrament of maturity but rather a completion of  Baptism was not persuasive.

Last week, on March 8, 2012, Bishop Samuel Aquila of the Diocese of Fargo announced that in his diocese the ancient order of receiving the sacraments of initiation was being restored, that is, Confirmation before First Eucharist.

In his visit to Pope Benedict XVI, Aquila learned that the Holy Father was pleased that Aquila was restoring the sacraments of initiation to their proper order of Baptism, Confirmation, and First Eucharist. He had papal approval!

According to the story on www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishop-aquila the bishop said he made the change because "it really puts the emphasis on the Eucharist as being what completes the sacraments of initiation" and on confirmation as "sealing and completing Baptism."

Aquila also noted that the change distanced the Sacrament of Confirmation from "some false theologies that see it as being a sacrament of maturity or as a sacrament for 'me choosing God.'"

As I read Aquila's explanation I felt our parish staff's conclusion back in the early 1990s was more than justified.

Those of us who participated in that staff study will now be waiting to see how long it will take other bishops to catch up! Forgive our chutzpah!

If John XXIII Had Lived

I wonder what the Church would be like today if Pope John XXIII had lived for all four years of the Second Vatican Council.

The Council met over a four year period, 1962-65. Pope John died in 1963 and was succeeded by Pope Paul VI.

It is pure speculation, of course, but I wonder how Pope John would have dealt with the recommendation of the Papal Commission on birth control.

Pope John had established the commission in 1963 at the suggestion of Cardinal Leon-Joseph Suenens. The Vatican II Council fathers were reminded on at least three occasions that this delicate issue was not to be debated on the council floor because the matter was being studied by this special papal commission.

Suenens, however,  caused a major stir when he suggested that it was time to review the old teaching on birth control and perhaps accept that the doctrine was due for "development." He further urged Pope Paul VI to reveal the names of the members of the papal commission. It is said that Paul was a little more than irked by Suenens' speech.

When the majority of the members of the papal commission on birth control recommended a change in the church's position, Pope Paul reserved the matter to himself, and in 1968 published his encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, electing to make no change.

It is pure speculation, of course, but I wonder how Pope John would have dealt with the question of episcopal collegiality, that is, how the bishops as a college relate to the pope.

General editor of the five-volume History of Vatican II Giuseppe Alberigo summarized the issue this way: whether the bishops constituted a single body, a "college," a fraternal union of persons dedicated to a common task, just as the apostles had been "the Twelve."

Alberigo wrote that nearly 130 of the bishops spoke to this matter, many of them stressing "the close association between the 'college' of the apostles and that of their successors, the bishops." Opponents of this "collegiality" feared that such an idea would undermine the authority of the pope.

Further there were bishops who proposed that the Church should be run by a committee of bishops in union with pope, replacing the authority of the Curia, the Vatican Bureaus.

It is said that Pope Paul had misgivings about these proposals, so on his own initiative he announced that he was going to establish "the Synod of Bishops," but it would be an advisory body with no authority beyond what the pope would give it.

Church historian Father John O'Malley assessed the papal document (Apostolica Sollicitudo) as "a preemptive strike." Paul did not even use the word collegiality. He stressed papal primacy.

Synods of bishops continue to meet periodically with the pope in Rome today, but the Vatican sets the agenda. The proposals for a collegial rule of the Church have been ignored.

It is pure speculation, of course, but I wonder how Pope John would have dealt with the question of optional celibacy for priestly ordination in the Roman branch of the Catholic Church.

The issue of clerical celibacy came up in 1962 at a preparatory commission meeting  about what to do about priests who had left the ministry. The question was whether such men should be relieved of the obligation of celibacy. The commission thought the matter too complicated for open discussion and suggested the matter be left to the pope. Pope John XXIII took the matter off the table.

Although priestly celibacy was not an issue in 1962, by 1965 a small minority of bishops  thought the rule should be revised, at least for some regions of the Church. When a number of Brazilian bishops wanted to bring the matter to debate on the council floor, Pope Paul VI intervened and took celibacy off the agenda.

In his book What Happened At Vatican II, Father O'Malley summarized the situation: He (Pope Paul) believed such a discussion highly inappropriate...The bishops, even most of those who talked about possible change in the discipline, agreed that to open the matter on the floor of St. Peter's would probably generate more heat than light, send the media into a frenzy, and result in inadequate treatment because the time left to the council was so short (p.271).

Although it would be pure speculation to wonder about what would have happened in the areas of collegiality, contraception, and celibacy if Pope John XXIII had out-lived the council, there is no doubt that some Catholics think "things" would be different now.

The issue of episcopal collegiality versus Curial rule festers yet today. Contraception remains an area of dispute for many Catholics. Clerical celibacy is still a stumbling block, especially in the light of the Church's practice of welcoming married Episcopalian priests into the Roman fold.

The Second Vatican Council may be 50 years old, but its direction continues, its hopes abide, and its controversies linger.

Celebrating Vatican II

Not everyone in the Catholic world is eager to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

Writing from Rome, Drew Christiansen, SJ, editor of America magazine, said in the February 20, 2012, edition, "I have been here a week and seen no reference to the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, even in the tourist shops attuned to every other observance."

On the other hand the newly-formed Association of US Catholic priests (AUSCP) has planned a conference for June in Tampa, Florida, with the theme, "Keeping Alive the Vision and Passion of Vatican II." And Catholic University of  America, Washington DC, is sponsoring a four-day conference in September titled "Reform and Renewal: Vatican II after 50 Years."

Undoubtedly Church officials in Rome will in some measure commemorate the council's anniversary, but will they celebrate it?

I suspect they will use the occasion to repeat their interpretation that the council is fully in continuity with tradition as opposed to those who interpret the council as a rupture in the history of Catholicism.

The distinction between "continuity" and "rupture" arose when a symposium held in Bologna in 1996 used the term "event" to describe Vatican II. Some theologians and members of the hierarchy rejected the idea that the council was an event because in historical sociology an "event" is understood to be a detachment from the ordinary or traditional.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) weighed in against calling the council an event, saying, "There is no "pre-" or "post-" conciliar Church...There are no leaps in its history, there are no fractures, and there is no break in continuity. In no wise did the Council intend to introduce a temporal dichotomy in the Church."

Cardinal Camelo Ruini criticized lay theologian Giuseppe Alberigo, a participant in the "Bologna school," for describing the council as event, noting that his use of the term "event" was a borrowing from secular social science and implied a rupture, a change from received norms and ways.

In his analysis of this controversy, church historian John O'Malley writes, "I do not see that Alberigo and others who have used 'event' as an instrument to interpret the council have given it the radical meaning that their critics attribute to them."

Commenting on Alberigo's five-volume history of the council, O'Malley continues, "Nowhere in the Alberigo volumes is there the slightest suggestion that 'new beginning' meant in any way a rupture in the faith of the Church or a diminution of any dogma."

Listening to the two sides of this controversy, one might well conclude that Rome is rightly concerned that no one should think of Vatican II as a dogmatic break with the past, and it wasn't. At the same time there is reason to acknowledge that something new did occur in this 21st ecumenical council that makes it different from the previous twenty.

As cardinal and now as pope, Joseph Ratzinger has cautioned those who are enthusiastic about Vatican II to remain faithful to the letter of the council and to be leery of embracing the so-called spirit of the council.

O'Malley points out the inadequacy of simply appealing to the spirit of the council since your spirit of the council is not necessarily my spirit of the council. At the same time he acknowledges that there was in the council a certain orientation or direction that can rightly be called its spirit.

The work and influence of Vatican II are far from over. This upcoming golden anniversary commemoration is pregnant with possibilities for reviewing the letter and releasing the spirit.

Not everyone in the Catholic Church is eager to celebrate Vatican II, but, God willing, all will commemorate it and re-discover Pope John XXIII's dream for "a new Pentecost in our time."

The Value of History

I have been reading M. Edmund Hussey's new book Archbishop Purcell of Cincinnati. Father Hussey is a priest of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Archbishop Purcell, from 1833 to 1883, was the second bishop of Cincinnati.

John Baptist Purcell was born in Ireland in 1800, came to the United States in 1818, entered Mount Saint Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, in 1820, and was ordained a priest in 1826 in the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, France.

Upon his return to America, Purcell served as a teacher and then rector of Mount Saint Mary's, his alma mater. In 1833 he was consecrated bishop and was formally installed as bishop on November 14 of that year.

The record of Purcell's 50 years as ordinary of the diocese is overshadowed by what has become known as the "1878 Financial Failure of  the Purcell Bank." Rather than entrust their savings to area banks (which frequently went bankrupt) many Catholic Cincinnatians entrusted their funds to Bishop Purcell's brother, Father Edward Purcell, for safekeeping and for earning interest. Having invested these funds in church building projects, the Purcells faced the day when there was a "run" on the Purcell bank and neither the bishop nor his brother could meet the demand. One of the kindest criticisms was the observation that "Edward Purcell's record keeping was casual to say the least."

With 20/20 hindsight we can see another shadow cast over the Catholic Church during the Purcell years, namely the Church's attitude toward slavery.

It was common practice not to assign bishops favoring abolition to dioceses in the southern states.

Although Ohio as a whole maintained opposition to slavery, Father Hussey notes, "southern Ohio resented student abolitionists and also the growing number of free Negroes who were competition for unskilled white laborers."

Just five years after coming to Cincinnati Purcell had publicly noted the inconsistency between the existence of slavery in America and the American principle that all men are created free.

After the bombardment of Fort Sumter Catholic bishops north and south tended to give loyal support to their respective regions. On one occasion Purcell suggested that the South could convert their abolitionist foes if only it would agree to end slavery over the next 50 or 100 years. In the face of backlash to Purcell's remark, the Catholic Telegraph, the diocesan newspaper, explained that Purcell was not saying that the federal governemnt had the right to demand abolition.

Hussey believes that the Catholic Telegraph "tried to balance two somewhat inconsistent editorial policies, one stressing the interests of white workers" (there was the fear that emancipated slaves would move north and take jobs) "and the other upholding African American rights against white prejudice."

The Telegraph's April 15, 1863, editorial sounds patronizing and derogatory, suggesting that Negroes cannot compete with the white man ("It is not in his blood or muscle or brain"). Then affirming its opposition to restoring slavery (Lincoln had issued his emancipation proclamation), the editorial turned again, saying, "We do not wish to see the black man in competition with the white. We desire to see them far apart; there ought to be no partnership between the two races...The natural superiority of the white race ought to be carefully observed."

The inconsistencies between Purcell's statements and the editorials of his newspaper make it difficult to discern his true convictions regarding slavery and the black race versus white supremacy.

After the war the Catholic Telegraph sometimes advocated leniency toward the South but declared itself opposed to Negro suffrage. The paper stated that it was the Christian thing for whites and blacks to live side by side but the editor was vague about particulars.

Hussey's history of Archbishop Purcell is available for Nook and Kindle readers for only a dollar.

Hussey did not write hagiography, but tells the story of a real person living in difficult times.

Purcell's story serves as a reminder that human beings are often a bundle of contradictions, that all of us must work through our fears and prejudices, that we are capable of heroic action and fallible choices.

It would be the height of hypocrisy to condemn the man because of failures. At the same time it is worth noting the caution we ought to place upon our own judgments and those of others. History is our teacher.

Philosopher/poet George Santayana put it succinctly: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

A Climate of Fear

Fear is an emotional response to the threat of danger. It often induces flight or excessive caution. Sometimes it paralyzes.

"Do not be afraid" is frequently heaven's advice in encounters between God and human beings.

Fear or inducing fear is a common tool used by those in authority to maintain control over their subjects. Israel's God uses it with people, parents use it with children, court judges use it with those on trial, bishops use it with priests.

The Book of Proverbs teaches that fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (1:7). The Hebrew word for fear is yare. Depending on context it can also be rendered reverence, but there are psychological and emotional differences between fear and reverence.

Bishops deserve reverence. They take the place of the apostles. We give them the title "Most Reverend."

But are bishops to be feared? They themselves agreed that "in exercising his office of father and pastor the bishop should be with his people as one who serves" (Vatican II, Christus Dominus, 16).

Lumen Gentium, 28, explained that priests should see in their diocesan bishop "a true father and obey him with all respect," while the bishop "should treat the priests, his helpers, as his sons and friends, just as Christ calls his disciples no longer servants but friends."

The relationship between bishop and priest, between bishop and people, between priest and people, then, is to be marked by reverence, not fear.

Should bishops be afraid? The relationship between bishops and the pope is difficult to comprehend. And without doubt we hold that the college of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff as its head. Nevertheless it is also clear that bishops are not to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff (Christus Dominus, 27). They have authority too.

Bishops owe the pope reverence but should they be afraid of him or fear the Curia (the Holy Office, that is, the Vatican bureaucracy)?

It is well-known that the bishops at Vatican II were eager to reform the Curia. For example, Bishop Maximos IV (more correctly known as His Beatitude Maximos IV Saigh) proposed the establishment of a central government of the Church composed of pope and bishops from around the world rather than pope and Roman-oriented clergy. He urged a rotating membership. He said he wanted the central office to reflect the doctrine of collegiality.

Not much came of his intervention. Historian John O'Malley noted that the proposal to create a body superior to the Curia was well-received by most in the assembly, but Pope Paul VI stepped in and created the less effective Synod of Bishops as an alternative.

How the Church was to be run was a fundamental issue at the Council. Would it continue its highly centralized mode of operation or would it accept management with broader consultation and sharing of responsibility?

Saigh's proposal to reform the Curia or create a superior body for oversight of the Curia's work did not produce much fruit. In many areas it seems as if Vatican II never happened.


The collegiality of conferences of bishops around the world has been stifled; for example, the US Bishops' Conference's translation of the Roman Missal was rejected by the Vatican and the current translation was substituted.

Pope Benedict XVI has permitted use of the Tridentine Liturgy (the reformation of which was the primary focus of the liturgical renewal envisioned by the Council).

The Vatican's handling of the pedophilia crisis, the silencing of Church representatives who discuss ordination of women, the secret disciplinary meetings reprimanding bishops and priests, the refusal to include in catechetical texts the writings of Trappist monk Thomas Merton on the spiritual life --all seem contrary to the direction of Vatican II.

Further, these policies and disciplines create a climate of fear. Priests are afraid of being reprimanded or disciplined by their bishops; bishops fear censure by the Curia.

As a result many if not most bishops are reluctant to accept any innovative ways of evangelizing or overseeing their dioceses lest they offend Roman sensibilities. Bishops routinely require letters of acceptability from other bishops before allowing speakers into their dioceses. An Ohio priest was reprimanded by his bishop for publicly criticizing the new Roman missal translation.

Reverence is never out of style, but there is a great deal of fear in the Church climate of 2012.

As I look at the Church I think things are not as they should be, and I know that reform has always been part of the Church's self-assessment (reformans et reformanda). 


I need to remind myself frequently that Jesus remains the life and spirit of his Church, no matter its confused state. I need to pray for the ongoing reform of the Church. I need to hear, "Do not be afraid."

AUSCP - A Voice for Priests

Fifty priests from nine dioceses in five states gathered in Columbus, Ohio, on January 24, 2012, for a regional meeting of the newly formed Association of United States Catholic Priests (AUSCP).

Their agenda included two talks, the first by Father Don Cozzens (Cleveland) on the consequences of making a commitment to the priesthood, the second by Father Jim Bacik (Toledo) on the "dialectical virtues" required of priests if they are to follow Christ faithfully. Small group discussions and organizational business items interspersed the day-long meeting.

This regional gathering reflects the AUSCP's efforts to organize a collective voice for the Roman Catholic priests across the country.

AUSCP began in August of 2011 when 27 priests from 15 dioceses in 11 states plus one Religious Order priest met to found an association with two major goals: 1) to offer fraternal support to priests and 2) to create a collegial voice.

Most priests (many laity) know that there is a division among priests in the United States, basically three groups or "cohorts" of priests modeling their theology and ministry on Pope John XXIII/Vatican II, Pope John Paul II, or Pope Benedict XVI.

In his presentation Father Bacik clarified the difference between Vatican II priests and JPII priests under two operative models of priesthood: servant/leader (inspired by Vatican II) or spiritual father (inspired by Pope John Paul II).

The servant/leader model tends to see a priest in terms of ministry shared with the laity, of witness to social justice issues, of exploring how the Gospel is to be translated into today's world.

The spiritual father model tends to see a priest in terms of directing the laity in their service to the Church, of piety in prayer, of maintaining orthodoxy.

(The distinction between JPII priests and B16 priests is still being clarified, but the major difference may be that the latter are far less influenced by the letter and spirit of the Second Vatican Council.)

With rare exceptions the members of the AUSCP (some 350) are the seniors (over 55 years) of the US presbyterate, heavily influenced by the changes initiated by Vatican II.

One of the major topics of discussion at the regional meeting was the perception that the Curia and the last two popes have been pulling back on the reforms and vision articulated during the Second Vatican Council.

The most recent example of hierarchical backtracking is the newly required English translation of the Roman Missal.

Whereas Vatican II proposed that "the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops' conferences" (Lumen Gentium 22.2), the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments rejected the U.S. Bishops' recommendation of an English translation and devised a different one. The United States Bishops submitted.

One of the priests attending the AUSCP regional meeting said he was reprimanded by his bishop for publicly criticizing  the new translation and ordered by the bishop not to write any further about the liturgy.

Many members complained of the awkwardness of the Roman Missal translation, and acknowledged stumbling over some phrases and omitting others. Some thought the language harkened back to a theology of our "meriting" God's love rather than the theology of seeing God's grace and salvation as gift.

Still other priests acknowledged an atmosphere of fear in the Church, priests fearing their bishops, and bishops fearing the Curia.

Some lamented the inability to communicate with the hierarchy without fear of reprisal, and others acknowledged the threat to their personal integrity and the anxiety of following one's conscience vis-a-vis Roman control and certain diocesan policies and practices. All seem eager to preserve the legacy of Vatican II.

The regional meeting also surfaced the priests' love for their people and their deep appreciation of  their role as presiders at liturgy.

Despite the expression of caution and concern, there was agreement on the hopes and dreams engendered by Vatican II and its aftermath.

AUSCP will hold its first national meeting in June of 2012, including presentations by Father Anthony Ruff, OSB, St. John's Abbey, teacher of liturgy at St John's University School of Theology-Seminary; by Richard R. Gaillardetz, University of Toledo, theologian in ecclesiology; and by Father Donald Cozzens, teacher at John Carroll University and author of The Changing Face of the Priesthood and Faith That Dares To Speak.

Also in attendance at the national gathering will be the St. Louis Jesuits (the Catholic composers well-known in the 1970s and 80s) and Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland, OSB, retired archbishop of Milwaukee.

Further information about the AUSCP is available at info4@uscatholicpriests.us   or  724-850-1616.