Recent Posts

Most Used Categories

Category: Perspective

You are Here :
Perspective, PNCC, Poland - Polish - Polonia

Then they formed the PNCC…

From the Telegraph.

First the Cardinal Archbishop said:

“I would hope those responsible for the Polish church here, and the Poles themselves, will be aware that they should become a part of local parishes as soon as possible when they learn enough of the language.”

Then the Polish immigrant said:

“How can he demand that we stop praying in Polish? Is it a sin? I feel my inner conscience has been violated, leaving me spiritually raped.”

Then the immigrant Polish priest said:

“If we lose our national identity, we lose everything.”

Now was this Cardinal O’Hara, a Polish émigré, and Father Hodur, in Scranton, circa 1897?

Nope, this is England today.

Cardinal O’Hara played by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the Polish émigré played by a Polish émigré, and Fr. Hodur played by Fr Tadeusz Kukla.

Now some thought that nativism was only endemic in the United States. But, the Roman Catholic Church’s chief representative in England (as the Young Fogey would point out, he is no lover of Catholic tradition – something the Poles go in for) proves nativism is alive and well, at least in “his” church.

When I saw this I nearly choked on my coffee.

Christian Witness, Perspective, ,

The Christ has come, we were unprepared

Yet He came to us anyway
To Provide for us

Icon of the Nativity

What it means for us

The iconographic portrayal of Christ’s birth is not without radical social implications. Christ’s birth occurred where it did, we are told, by Matthew, “because there was no room in the inn.” He who welcomes all is himself unwelcome. From the first moment, he is something like a refugee, as indeed he soon will be in the very strict sense of the word, in Egypt with Mary and Joseph, at a safe distance from the murderous Herod. Later in life he will say to his followers, revealing the criteria of salvation, “I was homeless and you took me in.” We are saved not by our achievements but by our participation in the mercy of God -God’s hospitality. If we turn our backs on others we will end up with nothing more than ideas and slogans and be lost in the icon’s starless cave.From Rescued for Christmas by Jim Forest as found at In Communion, the website of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship

My Wish for you

I pray that Christ’s coming will renew you, break down every obstacle, bring light to every aspect of your life, and reconnect all that is separate. He is our hope, therefore we rejoice with one voice.

Christ has come! Alleluia!

Christian Witness, Media, Perspective

The ABC on Philip Pullman

From The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams which I picked up from Why Pullman Killing God is no Bad Thing:

I read the books and the plays as a sort of thought experiment: this is, after all, an alternative world, or set of worlds. What would the Church look like, what would it inevitably be, if it believed only in a God who could be rendered powerless and killed, and needed unceasing protection? It would be a desperate, repressive tyranny. For Pullman, the Church evidently looks like this most of the time; it isn’t surprising that the only God in view is the Authority.

…

But this should not be read as a way of wriggling out of Pullman’s challenges to institutional religion. I end where I started. If the Authority is not God, why has the historic Church so often behaved as if it did indeed exist to protect a mortal and finite God? What would a church life look like that actually expressed the reality of a divine freedom enabling human freedom?

A modern French Christian writer spoke about “purification by atheism” – meaning faith needed to be reminded regularly of the gods in which it should not believe. I think Pullman and Wright do this very effectively for the believer. I hope too that for the non-believing spectator, the question may somehow be raised of what exactly the God is in whom they don’t believe.

Amen.

Christian Witness, Media, Perspective

The case of God Be Gone etal.

I ran across a blog called GodBeGone.

Looking at the writing there I drew an immediate comparison to the recent controversy over the Golden Compass movie.

Fr. Martin Fox pegged the objections to the movie in his article: Golden Compass author: ‘My books are about killing God.’

In it he saysHe attributes the citations in the second paragraph to research done by Jimmy Aikin as noted in Philip Pullman Is A Liar:

Parents can’t always keep up with popular culture—”and when a movie is promoted as a fun adventure, featuring children riding enchanted polar bears, all in time for the Christmas season, what’s not to like?

Unfortunately, the film’s makers have an agenda. The film is based on the works of author Phil Pullman, who has written a series of entertaining stories called “His Dark Materials.” In his own words: “‘I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,’ says Pullman. ‘Mr. Lewis [C.S. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia] would think I was doing the devil’s work'” (from the Washington Post, Feb. 19, 2001). And, “I’ve been surprised by how little criticism I’ve got. Harry Potter’s been taking all the flak…. Meanwhile, I’ve been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God” (from the Sydney Morning Herald, Dec. 13, 2003)…

I read a review of the Golden Compass in The Atlantic, aptly titled How Hollywood Saved God.

That’s true in that Hollywood watered it down so as to make it meaningless.

Substitute any characters in the movie – plug Saint Francis in here or Bing Crosby in there, and we’d all be singing White Christmas as we process to church with little animals at our side.

Mr. Pullman got ripped off big time. Hollywood took his book and turned it into a movie that was 99% fluff and little substance. So much for the strength of his convictions standing before the all powerful Hollywood money machine.

What I was most struck by as I read through the Atlantic review and the GodBeGone blog was the lack of reasoned argument and scholastic integrity from the “there is no God” folks.

…and isn’t that it.

I fully agree with people’s right to believe or disbelieve as they see fit. I am confident enough that Jesus Christ and the Holy Church can stand up in any reasoned argument, but these folks rarely bother with reasoned argument.

Mr. Pullman is just repeating a mantra made up by someone else. He’s offering his literary skills as a mouth piece for that mantra without any real study of the points-of-view involvedOk, I could be wrong, so send me his CV – the one indicating his study of history, theology, and philosophy, etc. which just makes him intellectually dishonest.

Any debate or discussion that relies on unstudied diatribes (Mr. Pullman going off on the crusades, witch hunts, blah blah) and the repetition of accusations as a substitute for reasoned argument or scholastic integrity is meaningless. In the GodBeGone blog you find repeated shots at God through the improper use of the English language (let’s not capitalize Jesus or Christianity or anything else we find silly because, well that’ll get ’em).

Consider the historical parallels.

If we repeatedly accuse a group of folks of all sorts of bad things, supporting such with horrible literature, twisted history, and bad scholarship, and we use language in such a way as to make them inhuman (don’t capitalize their names – they’re not human anyway), don’t we set them up for inhumane treatment, concentration camps?

Scholarship takes more than sound bites. It takes more than blog entries. It takes time, study, an understanding of the core beliefs of your opponent, unadulterated by fluff and histrionics.

As the Young Fogey might point out, tolerant conservatism does not demand that you believe what I believe, nor does it force my beliefs upon you. It does demand that we be gentlemen about the process and that you respect my rights equally, including my right to be treated humanely and to profess my beliefs.

So have at it. Tell me how wrong I am.

Perspective, Political, ,

Patriot Act – messing up my Christmas

Well here’s a new one!

I was going to order a few Christmas gift baskets for relatives and friends. In the past I had purchased some items from a French on-line merchant BienManager, French Gourmet Food and Gifts.

On background, their website notes that they are located in Lozere, in the center of France. They work with 200 producers that match traditional know-how and produce quality products.

They also note that they deliver worldwide.

Because of past purchases I am on their E-mail list. I very much enjoyed what I had purchased, and true to their marketing the quality and variety were excellent.

The marketing E-mail I received from them a few weeks back had some very nice looking baskets with just the right things for the folks on my Christmas gift list.

I went to their website, filled my shopping cart and behold – they do not ship to the United States.

If I lived in Andorra, Gabon, Mayotte, the Gilbert Islands, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Tuvalu, Equatorial Guinea, Poland or any one of 115 countries I could buy their stuff. But no U.S. of A.?

Well, perhaps it was a website error.

I wrote to the company and received a very speedy reply from Mme. Aurelie Verlaguet advising me that even though they have an FDA registration number they can no longer ship to the United States due to the Patriot Act.

Past deliveries were unnecessarily delayed because of Patriot Act requirements and as such they could no longer guarantee the quality of the products they shipped here.

Sad really. I wrote back to Mme. Verlaguet to express my regret, not only that I could no longer engage in open commerce with a reputable company, but that our “involvement” in the crazy politics of the Middle East has brought about such problems.

I guess that free trade and international commerce only apply if you’re rich enough to take your corporate jet to the store, or rather, you import the stuff yourself and take yet another cut from the consumer.

Christian Witness, Perspective, Political

Prosecuting small Christian communities in Turkey

This just off the RSS feed from the BBC: Turkish Christian priest abducted

A priest from Turkey’s Syriac Christian community has been kidnapped in the country’s south-east, officials say.

Edip Daniel Savci’s car was reportedly found abandoned near Midyat town in Mardin province on Wednesday.

A local clergyman had received a phone call demanding a ransom for his release, the Anatolia news agency said.

Attacks on Turkey’s Christian minority have increased recently. A Catholic priest was shot dead last year and three Protestants were killed in April.

Five men accused of the attack on the Protestant missionaries went on trial in the town of Malatya last week.

Turkish police are working to secure the release of the missing priest, security officials said.

Turkey’s Syriac Christian community numbers an estimated 25,000 people and is based mainly in Mardin, in the largely Kurdish south-east, and in Istanbul.

Syriac Christians are one of the faith’s oldest denominations and are found in modern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

Touchstone had a great article about the Suriani in March 2006. It is a small community that has mostly fled the Middle East due to persecution.

This follows on the vandalism that occured at the Halki Chapel of the Transfiguration which is part of the Theological School of Halki (closed by the Turks so that no Orthodox clergy might be trained). See: Halki’s Chapel of the Transfiguration left in ruins from Asia News.

Forest guards began demolition work on the chapel without warning, Only the immediate protest of the prior of Haliki and Metropolitan Meliton avoided its total destruction. A Church in Kadikoy, ancient Calcedonia is also targeted by vandals…

Those Turks – such great democrats, such an open and free society, protectors of the rights of all minorities, and wonderful American allies who fight against participate in terrorism.

Christian Witness, Perspective, PNCC,

Heard of, commented on…

A few things heard out and about with my comments.

What would you do?

Let’s say that you have a small PNCC parish with Holy Mass in the Polish language every Sunday because some of your parishioners have requested it (you also have Holy Mass in the English language).

Your typical attendance at this Holy Mass is about 40 to 60 people.

Now let’s say that you have a neighboring Roman Catholic parish that’s predominantly Polish-American. It is a large parish, with several thousand parishioners.

There is a core group of people who attend this Holy Mass at your PNCC parish and there are others who come and go. One Sunday a woman you do not know shows up for this Holy Mass. You don’t pay much attention, you welcome everyone.

Several Sundays later almost no one shows up for that Holy Mass.

What happened?

Well, the woman that showed up one Sunday was a Sister sent over by your neighboring Roman Catholic pastor. She attended Holy Mass for the express purpose of taking down the names of all the folks attending your Polish language Holy Mass. Later she personally visited each person/family that had attended Holy Mass in your parish and expressly told them that if they continue to attend Holy Mass at the local PNCC parish they were going to Hell (yes, literally).

Two months later those folks begin to wander back to the PNCC parish.

Now in my opinion the local R.C. pastor is not all that concerned about the eternal salvation of those 40 to 60 people. Frankly the approach taken is bad theology and bad practice.

Such an episode would be sad and unfortunate. Thankfully it is becoming less and less common.

In my experience this attitude toward PNCC parishes exists among older R.C. clergy who are in predominantly Polish-American parishes. The letters I personally received, marked with the return address of the Albany R.C. Diocese’s chancery, were threatening in a silly manner.

As I said, thankfully this doesn’t occur so much anymore.

There are traditionally Polish R.C. parishes and PNCC parishes that get along great (most in Buffalo, N.Y. and in Hamtramck for example).

On the whole the R.C. parishes that surround my parish are welcoming, open, and positive. They have supported many of our events and we support theirs. Those I have visited for family funerals have welcomed me.

People may ask about the dialog between the PNCC and the R.C. Church. Oddball examples like the one noted above are one of the very reasons dialog is necessary. Unless we talk any good that exists will be drowned out by the loudness of such unfortunate events.

So to the question: What would you do? I say pray and talk.

That full, immediate, and universal thing

The Young Fogey had a post on Ecclesiastical bibs and bobs. In it he notes, as he has elsewhere, on non-compliance among R.C. Bishops with the Bishop of Rome’s recent Motu Proprio.

At a recent gathering I heard R.C. clergy confirm that. Their Bishop has said in effect ‘no Latin masses.’

I previously noted that the Bishop of Rome’s exercise of full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction is a problem in ecumenical circles. No one, excepting the R.C. Church, believes that such power exists.

Thinking on this it occurred to me that the negative “non serviam” reaction of U.S. and Western European Bishops (the Central and Eastern ones will catch up soon) is a huge ecumenical problem as well.

The Bishop of Rome actually does believe and teach as his Church believes and teaches, but his brother bishops do not accept such teaching. They do not believe what they proclaim vis-í -vis the Pope.

How does this play out?

For sake of argument say that a Church were to come into union with the R.C. Church. That Church would have to accept that the Pope has full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction (unless the R.C. Church redefines itself – not likely). That Church might even see that, as some Roman Catholics posit, the Pope’s full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction is a rock against a changing world. That full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction is a protective and positive thing.

The Church coming into union with Rome accepts all that. Thus the dilemma.

If the Church coming into union accepts all that, then that Church will quickly find that a majority of its brother Bishops actively reject what they themselves have accepted. They will be in conflict (at least in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Western Europe) with their fellow believers. They will be stuck between their neighbors day-to-day dismissal of the Pope and their adherence to what they proclaimed in achieving unity. Further, if they were to rely on the protection of the Pope as to the terms and conditions of their union, they would quickly find that the Pope could do little to help them. Their neighbors day-to-day actions would wear them down while they await the Pope’s protection (the bureaucracy would tie that up for two to three Papacies).

On the other hand, if the Church coming into union rejects all that, except on paper, expecting to live from day-to-day like the majority of its fellow R.C.’s do, then that Church lied to attain unity. That’s simply disingenuous and not a basis for any real unity.

The argument could be made that there are always a few bad bishops. I can accept that. But in the case of the U.S. and Western Europe it would seem that those who stand as adhering to the Pope’s decrees are far fewer than those who give a wink and a nod.

Even among those who live in active unity with the Pope, someone like Archbishop Raymond L. Burke from St. Louis, what is the extent of their unity. Is it unity because they personally like the Pope’s direction? What if the Pope were to tell Absp. Burke that Masons are great and to lift the excommunications from St. Stan’s? In all cases, unity with the Pope is only as good as the person’s humility before his full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction.

The argument could be made that so many disagreeable bishops should not be the yardstick by which unity is measured. After all, look at the extent of the Arianism. It could not withstand the power of the Church.

True, but that was a Church governed by Councils, with universal agreement, and further backed by the political means to suppress disagreement.

So for unity, what value in proclaiming and confessing if the majority of those you are coming into union with do not actively believe or live that which they verbalize (beyond the Bishops look at the congregation)?

None really. Thus the problem and dilemma of full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction. Thus the major hurdle to unity.

So we pray for unity and catechize.

We all need to teach and to try to reform what is broken. Maybe that is the first and best move toward unity.

Perspective, PNCC,

…and more on married clergy

As posted at Rorate Caeli in Cardinal Etchegaray: The issue of the ordination of married men “may come about” and linked to by the Young Fogey – by the way, his comment on the posting is knowledgeable, balanced, and respectful.

It is unfortunate that so many, who claim some kind of knowledge of the Church, reduce these discussions to mindless ranting based on the perception of a race (in this case the French), a particular clergyman, or their deeply held conviction that unless everything stays as is (the man made disciplines of the Church) the world and Church will fall apart.

That argument has proven false by the mere fact that the Orthodox, the PNCC, and so many other Catholic as well as Protestant Churches can support a priest/minister and his family, not extravagantly, but modestly, and in keeping with the norms of the local community.

As the Young Fogey pointed out, no one goes into the ministry expecting to be rich (success “Gospel” evangelicals and princely priests not withstanding) or to live luxuriously. They are there to minister, to bring God’s grace through sacramental and pastoral action.

Neither the Holy Priesthood nor the Church will disintegrate if the local priest marries.

If you truly think that, you have lost faith in the promises of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church, or you never believed in that in the first place.

Oh, and on the Bishop of Rome solemnly confirming something, great for his diocese, but within the Roman Catholic understanding, did it rise to the level of an ex-cathedera statement proclaimed infallibly? I bet that a lot of folks would argue that it didn’t, and that only those wishing to see it as such see it that way.

All Right Reserved © 2005 - 2023