Category: Perspective

Current Events, Media, Perspective

The EC-USA and Why the Book of Daniel Works (for them)

I previously commented on the TV series the Book of Daniel. I was able to watch the show thanks to my wife who caught it on the DVR.

The show is neither theologically or morally sound, but is does come off as the perfect farce. I found it very funny, and was most impressed by the fact that the farce of the show is perfectly in line with the farce of the church it represents, the Episcopal Church (EC-USA).

Over the weekend I read how the EC-USA supports abortion. I said to myself —“ this is interesting, how could this be true? I was going to comment on it, but upon doing some research, found that this support for murder has been a consistent policy of the EC-USA. I figured, why comment? Gene Robinson is merely the head of a very large serpent.

I need not comment further. The Pontificator covers it very well in the article: Living in the Darkness: Episcopalians and the Ethics of Abortion.

Perspective

Predictions for 2006

Oooooops!

Sorry, no predictions.

I’ve always had a problem with such things. Predictions, fortune telling, etc., besides just being whacky on their face, are an engagement in things that feed into our god complex.

I’m one for letting God be God. That He has our future firmly in hand, I am certain (time for a great discussion on predestination, Calvinism, Arminianism, Universalism, and where the PNCC and Roman Catholic Church differ —“ but not today).

All I can do then is pray that, come what may, we all be given the grace of final perseverance.

O sovereign and eternal God,
I thank You for having created me;
for having redeemed me by means of Jesus Christ;
for having made me a Christian by calling me to the true faith,
and giving me time to repent after the many sins I have committed.

O Infinite Goodness,
I love You above all things;
and I repent with all my heart of all my offences against You.
I hope You have already pardoned me;
but I am continually in danger of again offending You.

For the love of Jesus Christ,
I beg of You holy perseverance till death.

You know my weakness; help me, then,
and permit me never again
to separate myself from You.
Rather let me die a thousand times,
than ever again to lose Your grace.

Our Lady of Czestochowa, obtain for me holy perseverance!

Perspective

Oxymoron, Hypocrisy, or Error?

Back in November I was reading several articles centered around the biennial conference of the Union for Reformed Judaism (held in Houston) and statements by the group’s President, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie. I’ve been wanting to write about this for some time, and now is the time.

I couldn’t quite get my mind around two statements that came from the convention. The two statements were titled as follows:

Reform Judaism’s Leader Criticizes Religious Right for Intolerance;
Rabbi Yoffie Calls for Synagogues to Invite & Support Conversion

The press release (excerpted) regarding the Rabbi’s statements makes the following remarks:

HOUSTON, Nov.19, 2005—”From the heart of the Bible belt, the leader of Reform Judaism today criticized the Religious Right for its exclusionary beliefs and statements that say —unless you attend my church, accept my God, and study my sacred text, you cannot be a moral person.—

Problem 1: Morality is well defined as following the natural law. All people have that ability. The Jewish people, as the people of the Law have an even greater advantage as God personally elucidated the Law to them. The Rabbi is confusing morality with salvation.

—We are particularly offended by the suggestion that the opposite of the Religious Right is the voice of atheism,— said Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism. —We are appalled when ‘people of faith’ is used in such a way that it excludes us, as well as most Jews, Catholics, and Muslims. What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God and that anyone who disagrees with you is not a person of faith?—

Problem 2: Labels and misdirection. People who believe in the God of at least the Old Testament, are not atheists. No Christian or Jew is an atheist. No one in fact who believes in a higher power is an atheist. They may be a pagan, but not an atheist. See atheist. Bigoted? It would appear that the Rabbi is defining anyone who seeks to teach their faith to another as a bigot. But how can that be? The oxymoron to this is coming up.

Yoffie called for a major new effort to bring the voices of religious people who often disagree with the Religious Right to the public square. He announced that the Union would be reaching out to a wide array of such voices in a new forum to be co-convened in Washington by Yoffie and Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Reform Movement’s Religious Action.

Thought: Now it gets better. Let’s use our resources to convince people that what we think/believe is correct. So if I do not agree with the Union’s position how shall I be labeled? I wonder?

Now for the punch line:

Yoffie’s comments came during an hour-long sermon at the Union’s Biennial Convention meeting here this week, during which he also urged the 4,200 Reform leaders to change the face of North American Judaism by increasing the ranks of affiliated Jews and asking non-Jews who are involved in synagogue life to convert to Judaism.

Problem 3: That’s right, convert those spouses (or significant others)! Have them reject their salvation. When you read the text of the full sermon it gets better, because there’s quite the emphasis on assuring children in a mixed marriage are raised Jewish. But isn’t this bigoted? Isn’t this the methodology of the so called religious right? Let’s increase our ranks and actively make converts?

The specific statements from your sermon (emphasis mine):

Let’s talk now about welcoming of a very specific sort—”welcoming non-Jewish spouses and converts to Judaism.

There is no better place to raise these issues than in Houston, for it was in this very city twenty-seven years ago that Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler initiated our Outreach program. He declared that we would not merely tolerate converts; we would enthusiastically embrace them. And he proclaimed that we would not sit shivah for our children who intermarry. This was not an endorsement of intermarriage, but rather a refusal to reject the intermarried. We would welcome them into our synagogues, our families, and our homes. We would do this in the hope that the non-Jewish partners would ultimately convert to Judaism; and if not, that they would commit themselves to raising their children as Jews.

Another challenge that we face is the decline in the number of non-Jewish spouses who convert to Judaism. There is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that interest in conversion has waned in our congregations.

In the early years of Outreach, Alex Schindler often returned to this topic. Alex told us: —We need to ask. We must not forget to ask.— And for a while, our Movement actively encouraged conversion. Many of our congregations began holding public conversion ceremonies during regular worship services, but such ceremonies are far rarer now.

The reason, perhaps, is that by making non-Jews feel comfortable and accepted in our congregations, we have sent the message that we do not care if they convert. But that is not our message.

Why? Because it is a mitzvah to help a potential Jew become a Jew-by-choice. Because the synagogue is not a neutral institution; it is committed to building a vibrant religious life for the Jewish people. Because we want families to function as Jewish families, and while intermarried families can surely do this, we recognize the advantages of an intermarried family becoming a fully Jewish family, with two adult Jewish partners. Judaism does not denigrate those who find religious truth elsewhere; still, our synagogues emphasize the grandeur of Judaism and we joyfully extend membership in our covenantal community to all who are prepared to accept it.

But none of this is a reason for inaction. The time has come to reverse direction by returning to public conversions and doing all the other things that encourage conversion in our synagogues.

Yes, and Christians emphasize the grandeur of Christianity and we joyfully and actively extend membership in the Church, and the gift of salvation to all who are prepared to accept it. Now, back to the press release excerpts:

Yoffie accused the Religious Right of refusing to acknowledge that there are religious perspectives different from its own, and of misreading religious texts sacred to both Christians and Jews.

Problem 4: Another canard. Anyone can acknowledge that there are other religious perspectives. Just look in the phone book under churches or temples and it is obvious. I can acknowledge that some people have a Hindu perspective while at the same time making an argument that it is not the perspective I think they should have. It would seem you agree, since the non Jew in a mixed marriage should be encouraged to convert and even if they do not, should agree to raise their children as Jewish. I cannot understand whether your perspective on this issue is the same or different from mine. Are you right? Am I in error? Are we saying the same thing, yet evangelizing from our own perspectives?

As to biblical exegesis, I am no expert. However, I think Christians and Jews can very easily throw the label of misinterpreting scripture at each other. Our points of view as to the Messiah and salvation are mutually exclusive.

Yoffie argued for a balanced approach to religion in public life and a religious discourse intended to educate and convince rather than exclude. —Religion should not be hidden from view,— he said. —But, no matter how profoundly religion influences you, when you make a public argument, you must ground your statements in reason and in a language of morality that is accessible to everyone—”to people of different religions or no religion at all.—

Agree (sort of): Depends what you mean by —you must ground your statements in reason…— God is not approachable by reason alone, but by faith. If you have scientifically proven God, I’d like to hear it. And, yes, not hiding religion, freedom to espouse and live your faith and convert others to it by information and argument, and the freedom to do so publicly is called preaching for conversion.

And the starting point for this discussion, he said, should be that —tolerance is an American value and a religious necessity; that religion is far too important to be entangled with government; that we need beware the zealots who want to make their religion the religion of everyone else; and that we all need to put our trust in America, the most religiously diverse country in the world.—

Problem 5: You shouldn’t make your religion the religion of everyone else? But didn’t you just say that people should be converted? Isn’t that zealotry? Religion is far too important not to be entangled in politics or any other area of life. We are called to live the way God intends, not just in our house, car, synagogue, or church, but in every aspect of our life, public and private. In the last two paragraphs cited it would seem that you wish a clear demarcation of religion and public life. You undersell your faith. Morality, the Law, and its gift to mankind is of essence and in reality from God. Do not forget who formed you and knew you before all others.

To read the Rabbi’s entire sermon go here: http://urj.org/yoffie/biennialsermon05/

Now, I would like to frame all of this in terms of the Jewish community’s Dabru Emet statement of September 2000.

The Dabru Emet statement: Is a statement dealing with Jewish-Christian relations. The title was taken from Zechariah 8:16 and means “speak the truth.” It was signed by over 150 rabbis and Jewish scholars from the U.S., Canada, UK and Israel. It was published in the New York Times and Baltimore Sun during 2000-SEP.

Some of the points raised in the statement are:

Jews and Christians: Both worship the same God: i.e. Jehovah, as described in the Tanakh (a.k.a. the Jewish Scriptures or, called by many Christians, the Old Testament).

  • Both seek authority from the Tanakh.
  • Both accept the moral principles of Torah — e.g. the sanctity and dignity of each person.
  • Both can respect each other’s faithfulness to the revelation that they received.
  • Should not be “pressed into affirming the teaching of the other community.”
  • Must work together to promote justice and peace in the world.

Seems to work for me…

Christian Witness, Perspective

Denial keeps flowing

A profound bow to Fr. Martin Fox over at Bonfire of the Vanities for his article “The Islamic Threat: same as it ever was

The words of Paul to Timothy are not ‘more’ true today, but just as true, because the human heart becomes blinded to its desire for the one true God and covers that desire with words that sound sweet but will taste bitter.

To wit:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.

We all want to believe in the good motives of people and want them to be able to relate to us. In doing this we often try to morph others into the person we think they should be. They become a ‘kind of Christian’. An examination of the basic facts often destroys that fallacy.

The basic fact is there is no alternate Christianity. There is only one Jesus Christ who is not Buddha, Mohammed, Siddhartha, or Lao-Tse. None of these are God, but Jesus Christ. None provides us with salvation, but Jesus Christ.

To be true to truth, to bear it and proclaim it, we are required to proclaim Christ as true God and true man who purchased for all, by his blood, eternal life in heaven. Of this we are certain, of this we are required to preach and baptize.

Christian Witness, Perspective

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

From today’s BBC:

Abortion ‘leaves mental legacy’

Some find abortion difficult to cope with An abortion can cause five years of mental anguish, anxiety, guilt and even shame, a BMC Medicine study suggests.

See the entire article by clicking here…

And from the ‘can’t see the forest for the trees’ department, the abortion (death) providers are astonished because very few people come back to them for counseling.

In their land of make believe women would normally say: “Look, I feel bad because I killed my child, so why don’t I go back to the scene of the crime so I can feel better about myself.”

Perspective

The Priesthood and—¦

Among the secondary reasons I joined the PNCC was the whole issue of the priesthood and what it stands for. I’m not talking theologically, because the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and PNCC priesthood are rather on the same page from that perspective.

What I considered important was what the priesthood represents at witness in the world, in the flesh. I think the vast majority (95%) of priests in the PNCC are married. To me this is essential. It is also why I believe the Orthodox have it right. I also want to give a hearty tip o’ the miter to Cardinal Husar of the Ukraine who said in an interview (read entire interview by clicking here…)

—QUESTION: Recently there have also been problems for your married priests who operate in Western Europe. The doctrine of —canonical territory— for which the Orthodox are being reprimanded, has surfaced in the requests of some European episcopates …

HUSAR: The Spanish and Italian bishops have written to us asking us not to send married priests to their countries for the pastoral care of our communities. But we don’t have enough celibate priests to send for pastoral service, now that the faithful of our Church are spread throughout the world. I understand the reasons of our brother bishops in the West. They are afraid of what appears to them perhaps as a bad example, given that in their Churches there is debate on this point. The attachment to cultural forms must be taken into consideration, but these must not be absolutized. One can calmly explain that married men are ordained priests not only in the Orthodox Church, but also in the Catholic Church. I come from a family of priests. My grandfather was a priest, many of my relatives are married priests. Some wonderful, others less so. At the same time, I know exemplary celibate priests, and others who are not indeed so. The quality of a priest does not depend on being married or not. In some cases, for one who tries to live his vocation, having a family may also be an advantage. But I don’t wish to be discourteous to my Latin brothers. I only wish our priests be treated in the West also with the respect that is shown to our brother Orthodox priests.—

Cardinal Husar is a gem!

I read Amy Welborn’s response to the leaked, upcoming document regarding homosexuals in the Roman Catholic priesthood. I can say that I agree with her on many/most levels, though not completely. Where I digress is indicative of my thinking on the subject.

View her entire post by clicking here…

Now for my comments on the areas I diverge (hey, what are blogs for anyway if not to present divergent views):

—Which is why the seminaries have to tend to the personal formation, the psychological and emotional makeup of the candidate. When I wrote that NY Times op-ed, the editor questioned the used of the word “formation.” I explained that “education” would not get at it, because that’s not what seminary is – it’s formation of the whole person, since priesthood is not just an intellectual stance, it’s the gift of one’s whole life to God and His people.—

Yes, the seminary is for formation of which education is only a part. When education takes primacy what you get is the typical intellectual or legalistic priest. When humanism takes over, you get a great social worker whose values lay in humanity, not in God, not a priest at all.

Yes, priesthood is a gift and with the option of being married it becomes not only a gift of ones self, but of the family unit. It is the modeling of the Christian family by Christian leaders, our priests. The married priest cannot lead a dualistic existence. He does not have a church face and a home face. The truly wonderful examples of married priests and their families show a joined and unified surrendering of life to the service of God and community. It is the element of sacrifice and surrender involved for the priest’s spouse and family. A Christian sacrificial love. It is a truly right ordered biblical understanding of the family relationship.

Formation is required in choosing right relationships. Choosing a spouse and the potential spouse’s choice of you, as a priest, has to be well founded and must be done with the clearest understanding of your joint mission. It is a life of sacrifice —“ but sacrifice within the construct that God intended in creating man and woman.

This leads to my deep disagreement with:

—Here’s what celibacy is supposed to be: it’s supposed to be a life of eschatological witness, an extreme sign of what, in the end, we are called to be, and will be in the fullness of the Kingdom: for God alone.—

It is frankly, in my opinion, a symbol of personal, chosen martyrdom for the purpose of self aggrandizement and pride. Sometimes, at the worst levels, it is a protective shield against the necessary commitment that comes with human relationships.

‘Look at me; I am alone, in pain.’ Look, I’m nailing myself to the cross as a symbol of what heaven will look like? ‘Look at me, I made a commitment to God, I might have sex with you, but I cannot commit to you too.’ I think not.

There is room for celibacy, if you are given that charism. The Roman Church does not offer you the opportunity to fulfill that Spirit given gift. It requires that you go to the Spirit and demand it.

The key word is —extreme—. It is extreme in that it takes the choice from God and makes celibacy an operation by law.

We are all called to be —for God alone— as our primary and ultimate. However, as implied here to be —for God alone— is extremism and the misuse of what it means to be for God alone. I actively work to set aside my sinfulness, to repent and make amends. I seek to live the life God intended. This does not mean that I must give up human relationships and my marriage. Check out the book Idols of the Heart: Learning to Long for God Alone by Elyse Fitzpatrick

If this apartness were so, the inspired writers of the Bible would have given us that symbolism. They did not, but for a few examples.
When they showed us sacrificial love, it was for the purpose of holding up self-sacrifice as a freely chosen offering.

We are not Christ. We are the humanity he took on. Humanity created to come together as family and community. When Jesus Christ took on our humanity it was not for the absence of deeply personal relationships but for their ultimate beauty. He calls us to be fully human in all its dimensions sans sin.

—And they [priests] will embrace what the Church teaches, will teach it themselves, and will commit to helping, with compassion and understanding, Catholics live this out themselves.—

Yes, absolutely!

Perspective

News Items – Why being helpful isn’t always helpful

Excerpt from LifeSiteNews.com

Catholic Schism Being Revealed as Homosexual Priest Document Readies for Release

By John-Henry Westen, VATICAN, November 14, 2005 – As the publication of the new Vatican document on homosexuality and the Catholic priesthood is about to be published at the end of the month, several Catholic leaders including an American bishop have publicly stated their views against the long-standing Vatican position against ordaining men with homosexual inclinations to the priesthood. Rochester, NY, Bishop Matthew H. Clark, was the latest to come out in favour of homosexual priests in a column in his diocesan paper Saturday.

…and…

Rev. Timothy Radcliffe, the international leader of the Dominican Order from 1992 to 2001, last week slammed any suggestion of barring homosexuals from the priesthood, and suggested barring “homophobes” instead. “Any deep-rooted prejudice against others, such as homophobia or misogyny, would be grounds for rejecting a candidate for the priesthood, but not their sexual orientation,” he said.

Clark, in his column, relates the story of priests and religious in his diocese who have “come out” to him as being homosexuals. About receiving the revelations, the bishop writes “I know that I was deeply gratified that they entrusted me with that information . . . Their simplicity and honesty with me only deepened my regard for them . . . and (I) felt enriched by their trust and confidence.”

Clark says media reports that the upcoming Vatican document will restate the church’s position that those with homosexual orientations are unfit for the priesthood are “a source of great pain for them and for all of us who know and love them.”

However, as re-affirmed in 1961, the Catholic Church’s official disciplines have strictly forbidden the ordination of homosexuals, whether ‘active and open’ or otherwise. The fact that the Vatican’s instruction was largely ignored is evidenced by the current proliferation of homosexual men in the priesthood and subsequent need for another document reiterating the direction.

Nevertheless, Clark says, “The fundamental concern of formation for a life of celibate chastity is for sexual maturity, not sexual orientation.” He goes so far as to tell homosexual men, using the homosexual activist “gay” term, “to gay young men who are considering a vocation to priesthood. We try to treat all inquiries fairly. You will be no exception.”

————–

If you look at the original posting from Bishop Clark in his diocesan newspaper you will notice that his column portrays him as so very open. It has a very positive spin. He portrays himself as being fair minded and accepting of people’s ‘vocations’. It is a reminder to his flock that there is a process of discernment and review before anyone becomes a priest. He tells us that he is not closing the door.

The different take in the LifeSiteNews article reminds me of the old saying, sometimes it is not helpful to be helpful – and for us at least, we should not be helpful in the way we discern (on our own).

Churches have a process for discernment, whether it is in vocational awareness or in matters of theology or dogma. When we decide to impose our personal agendas on a matter that has undergone discernment under the ecclesial norms of the Church, then we are being helpful in an unhelpful way.

Like Bishop Robinson of New Hampshire, the office of Bishop can be easily hijacked by personal agendas.

It is far more charitable and helpful to be honest about a vocation. Perhaps, your vocational calling is not to the Holy Priesthood, but to the single life. A life dedicated to Christ in chastity. Whether hetero or homosexual —“ chaste. And no, phony marriage ceremonies or govenment allowances do not relieve you of the necessity of not engaging in sinful sexual activity.

As we approach the season of Advent, let’s pray that we watch in patience. God has given us all we need for our journey. We need to set aside activist agendas that fly in the face of the Gospel’s call to repentance, and not just repentance, but to set aside sin. Sacrificial living is hard.

For those who love irony, today’s Buffalo News has an article about a 60 year old widower and grandfather that was ordained to the Holy Priesthood this past weekend. In it:

—A long-postponed journey into the Catholic priesthood concluded Saturday with the ordination at age 60 of the Rev. Richard J. Cilano of Victor in St. Joseph Cathedral.

The Mass was celebrated here [in Buffalo, NY] because the Rochester native’s home diocese, but not the Catholic Diocese of Buffalo, deemed him too old.—

Yes, that’s Rochester, NY, Bishop Clark’s Diocese.

Christian Witness, Perspective

Nostra Aetate – Blowing Away the Cross

I was scanning the front page of the Evangelist, the official newspaper of the Albany Roman Catholic Diocese and was struck by the picture found there.

The picture featured a group of Buddhist monks creating a mandala – an ‘artwork’ made of grains of sand individually placed. These works are very intricate and once they are completed and viewed they are blown away, ‘dust in the wind’ so to speak. The creation and destruction of the mandala are supposed to represent the Buddhist concept that “the world is an impermanent place.”

OK, so they have their mandala. The irony of the whole thing was that the mandala was in the shape of a Jerusalem Cross. In addition it was being created in the chapel of the Doane-Stuart School, a joint Roman Catholic – Episcopal private school (that has a Buddhist meditation center in it).

I thought, wow, the Buddhists get it. Symbols – what many Roman Catholics and Episcopalians have forgotten. Symbols stand for something and invoke meaning. The Buddhists got it. In the middle of an institution founded in the name of two great Christian faith traditions they created and blew away the Cross.

In today’s Times Union, the Inter-religious Affairs Coordinator of Albany’s Roman Catholic Diocese noted this event in his Religion Page ‘Voices of Faith‘ article on Nostra Aetate’s 40th Anniversary.

Now Doane-Stuart is no longer a sectarian institution, has disavowed its Christian foundations, and is basically a public school with high tuition and two chapels, but never-the-less, should not the Christians there, the editorial board of the Evangelist, and the Roman Catholic Diocese’s Inter-religious Affairs coordinator have taken a bye on lauding this event. Can’t they see that by giving attention to the event they implicitly condone its message and its irony.

Nostra Aetate was indeed a pivotal document for the Roman Catholic Church. It discussed the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and other religions (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism). In a positive sense it set aside perceived doctrines of hatred. It stated that all humanity is created in God’s image and that each person has within him/herself the Divine calling to unity with God.

Indeed the PNCC said the same thing almost a century before Nostra Aetate in its Confession of Faith, especially in Principals 9, 10, and 12:

I BELIEVE that all peoples as children of one Father, God, are equal in themselves; that privileges arising from differences in rank, from possession of immense riches or from differences of faith, sex and race, are a great wrong, for they are a violation of the rights of man which he possess by his nature and the dignity of his divine origin, and are a barrier to the purposeful development of man.

I BELIEVE that all people have an equal right to life, happiness and those ways and means which lead to the preservation of existence, to advancement and salvation, but I also believe that all people have sacred obligations toward God, themselves, their nation, state and all of humanity.

I BELIEVE in immortality and everlasting happiness in eternity in union with God of all people, races and ages, because I believe in the Divine power of love, mercy and justice and for nothing else do I yearn, but that it may be to me according to my faith.

The Principals of the PNCC and Nostra Aetate created an environment of respect between Catholic Christians and members of other religions. What it did not create, at least in my estimation, is a license to disavow the Christian faith or to find salvation in other religions. They do not allow us to stand by as others take the stage to blow away the cross as a symbol of impermanence.

The great Christian Saints, the contemplatives and mystics, did not need labyrinths, yoga, tai-chi, a mandala, reiki, energy fields, or crystals. They had the great prayers of the Church, the Divine Office, the Rosary, and most importantly the Eucharist and the Gospels. They had Jesus Christ, the God-man within them. They spent hours, days, months, and years meditating on him long before the yogis and Buddhists were known.

The thought that the East has taught us something is a canard. Thomas Merton brought nothing back from the East that was not already present in the Church. People just had to look for it within the Deposit of Faith.

On the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, let us pray that Catholic Christians renew their own self respect and stand up to proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ crucified, the everlasting symbol of our salvation. Let us also pray that we remember that Principald 9, 10, and 12 must be seen in light of Principal 7:

I BELIEVE that the Church of Christ is the true teacher of both individual man as well as of all human society, that it is a steward of Divine Graces, a guide and a light in man’s temporal pilgrimage to God and salvation; in so far as the followers and members of this Church, both lay and clerical, are united with the Divine Founder through faith and life proceeding from this faith.

Someday, in God’s good time and through His graces we will be united as one flock under one shepherd, Christ the Lord.

Perspective

Our Eucharistic Need

There are many sources of information available regarding the reception of Holy Communion, the Eucharist, between the many Churches.

Many people are often confronted with a dilemma when they are in “another” church. These occasions may be based on proximity (it’s the closest church to me), moral imperative (I can no longer attend that church due to scandal), or for family reasons (we all want to attend together; we’re going to a wedding, funeral, other service).

Many Churches open the communion table to all attendees. Part of the reason for this may be their theological view of the Eucharist. ‘We’re sharing special bread/wine that is a symbol of Jesus.’ Such a sharing places the onus on the act of community and the reason for coming together. We are here as one to praise God together. The Eucharist is symbolic of our Christian action and mandate. It’s still just bread and wine albeit invoking a special representation.

For Catholic worshipers the story is different. We fully believe that the act of consecration changes the bread and wine. It is no longer bread and wine in any way except for its appearance and taste. The elements of bread and wine have been fully changed into Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus is truly present in every possible way, body, blood, soul, and divinity. He is there ready for us to receive Him. By receiving Him we are joined together not just in theory, but in reality by the action of Christ and the grace of God. When I receive I receive and am joined to my brothers and sisters throughout the world. By the Body and Blood of Christ we become the Body of Christ.

This is wonderful and mystical and the act of receiving has consequences. We are changed by God’s grace, we are joined together, we are confirmed in our Christian mission, we are nourished, and our desire to be so very close and intimately joined with Jesus Christ is increased.

In short, as the Rev. Ernest Falardeau, SSS. has said, “…it will be necessary to eliminate the idea that the Eucharist is some kind of reward for good behavior. It is the bread of life. It is a necessity.”

The Rev. Falardeau captures the key element of the Eucharist. It is the nourishment that fulfills our essential human desire – to be one with Christ and to be with Him forever. Jesus Himself advised us that the Eucharist is essential for our salvation: —Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have life in you.— (Jn 6).

God has put the desire for heaven in each of us. It is our soul’s longing to return to its origin. No matter the amount of masking today’s society attempt to do. No matter the level of covering up we engage in, the desire is there. The Eucharist allows us daily or weekly closeness to Christ.

As Catholic Christians we have two essential obligations.

The first is the Catechesis of the Eucharist. We musty teach our brothers and sisters what the Eucharist is, the mystery beyond symbolism which is the reality of Jesus Christ.

The second is the opening of the Eucharistic door to all who share in Eucharistic faith. This is commonly referred to as Eucharistic Sharing.

In our Church, the communion rail is open. What is required is proper disposition and the faith and belief that what you receive is the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance and taste of bread and wine.

Our Roman Catholic friends as well as those attending a Roman church might ask —“ what does this all mean? As a member of the Roman church you would have to look to the conditions found in the Code of Canon Law – Canon 844:2. For non Roman Catholics you would have to follow the “rules” published in the pew missal. It is all very legalistic and formal and in the end you would have to make a decision as to whether you would approach the Altar or not (all while getting quite conflicted regarding your need versus the rules).

The Canon states: “Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister” (Catholic meaning churches with valid Holy Orders such as the Orthodox, PNCC)

I highly recommend the article: Eucharistic Sharing: Recent Developments by Ernest Falardeau, SSS. as originally published in Ecumenical Trends, for a further exposition on this matter. See especially:

—One of the problems with the present legislation in Canon 844, and the other official documents of the Church are that initially these existing rules were interpreted very strictly. Any attempt to interpret them generously was resisted. At the present time, this is changing. The Guidelines of South Africa, India, Germany and Austria tend to interpret existing rules more broadly. The new Policy for Canada expressly recalls the general principle of Canon Law that privileges are to be interpreted broadly. And it understands Eucharistic sharing as a privilege.— (Eucharistic Sharing: Recent Developments, Ernest Falardeau, SSS., Originally published in Ecumenical Trends)

At face value, there is no clear, understandable, or easily discernable guide for anyone in approaching an understanding of Canon 844:2. Many Bishop’s conferences (setting Roman Church policies at the national level) give very broad latitude to the believer and interpret these concepts with great charity (South Africa, Canada as noted above). In the United States a very formal and legalistic view is taken.

To me, rules exist to guide people in making informed descisions. They are not meant as a roadblock to Jesus. As soon as we get away from minimalism and legalism, as soon as we stop loosing sight of our need for Jesus because we are busy interpreting a law, as soon as we stop treating the Eucharist as a personal possession that I may choose to give or withhold, and as soon as we focus on teaching Christ real and present, our road to God will open and we will be better fulfilling Christ’s direction.

Perspective, Poland - Polish - Polonia

Who stole the kiszka?

There is a very popular and funny Polka tune called —Who Stole the Kiszka—. The song was originally recorded by Polka Hall of Fame inductee Walt Solek.

A little history

Walt Solek started recording in 1939 with the Krakowska Orchestra organized by his brother Henry. After recording with them on the RCA Victor label, he organized his own band. Solek served in the U.S. Navy and after the war he re-established his band and recorded the —Julida Polka— on Columbia Records. That hit vaulted him right to the top of the Polka world. Solek’s band was booked throughout the Eastern United States, and he was billed as the —Polish Spike Jones.— When the polka business reached a low in the 1950s, his band made the switch to cutting records with English lyrics. This resulted in a new hit for him, and the perennial Polka favorite, —Who Stole the Kiszka.— During his seventy-five years as a polka musician, Solek earned the nickname —The Clown Prince of Polkas— by wearing funny costumes on stage. He also was noted for his motto: —Bringing people together through music!—

Why is this important?

Walt Solek died in April 2005 at the age of 94. He was survived by his daughter, two grandchildren, three great-grandchildren, a sister, two brothers and many nieces and nephews.

This quick review of his life shows the sort of indicators we all think about when we think of tradition. We think, Polka music —“ that’s traditional. We think, Wow a married man, children, family ties —“ that’s traditional. He served in the Navy —“ that’s traditional.

These few touch points set a sort of atmosphere that recounts for us happier times. We think of them as simple times. Time spent with family, going to church on Sunday, sitting by the radio and listening to Polka tunes on a Sunday afternoon. The family dinner. Going to bed at night while still singing —Who stole the kiszka—.

By the way —“ kiszka, polska kaszanka, for the uninitiated, is a type of sausage —“ very peasant in its origins. It’s basically made from buckwheat groats, leftover parts of pigs you wouldn’t want to think about, and blood.

A variant on the word kiszka is an informal term used to denote guts —“ kiszki (pronounced keesh-kee).

Well, somebody stole my kiszka!

What I’m speaking about is the slow trudging destruction of ethnic parishes in the R.C. church. I’ve been on the front lines of the protest against church closings, the removal of foreign language Holy Masses, and the removal of beautiful devotions and other spiritual exercises that enrich the community through prayer.

The worst situation I personally observed was the closing of Transfiguration R.C. Church in Buffalo, NY. My father was baptized in this church. In the rubble of what was left of the church I was able to see very clearly what was being done to my faith. Under the tossed about garbage and debris inside the church was the sacrifice of my parents, my grandparents and my great grandparents. There were the memorial plaques —“ this window donated by such and so, In memory of him or her. The baldachin or canopy under which the Holy Eucharist used to be carried in procession was on the floor under chunks of plaster and other garbage. In my mind’s eye I recalled the first time I saw a canopy being carried over the monstrance. I saw myself as a child and remembered gazing with wonder at the awesome respect we Catholics were showing Christ. The people fell to their knees, artists created the canopy and the magnificent monstrance in which the Body of our Lord was being carried. Mom said it was called adoration.

You might ask: Are you attached to your ancestors or to God? As a Catholic —“ both. God is the summit and the goal and we reach Him not through just our own prayer and faith commitment, but through the shared prayer and faith of the church militant and the church triumphant —“ the communion of saints.

transfig1.jpgThe sacrifice of our ancestors should not be in vain. They did not build magnificent monuments to themselves —“ but to God. Their sacrifice, their focus, their family was all about God and in praise of Him. We do not love these churches because they represent our ancestors but because they represent right ordered thinking about God. They represent a community working together to praise, worship and witness Him.

As these ethnic churches, created as masterpieces to the glory of God, from the sacrifice of our immigrant ancestors, are closed, as traditions are rethought and cast off as irrelevant, as respect for the Holy Eucharist and the beliefs of the Church wane, we need to ask, who stole our kiszka? Who is ripping out our kiszki? And why?

What I see is a slide toward a new stigmatization and subtle persecution of people. These are people like me, attached to faith, with family centered and ethnic values, and who hold that tradition is not just a longing for something long dead. These values have at their core the bulwark of the Church. The church as the center of the community is remarkably able to support and reinforce the Christian way of life. It happens in the time tested way —“ through prayer, sacrifice, and community centered action.

The press has recently highlighted the struggles of the members of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish in St. Louis Missouri. In this particular case the struggle is between an Archbishop bent on resting singular control of $9.5 million in assets from the parishioners of the Church. The actions of Archbishop Raymond Burke, a Vatican trained Canon Lawyer, appear at face value to be legalistic, minimalistic, petty, and in direct contradiction to the actions of all previous Bishops and Archbishops of St. Louis.

Other struggles are not as well known. A quick search of the Internet will reveal the struggles that have taken place between the people of Assumption BVM Parish of Oil City, PA and the Bishop of Erie, PA., the people of St. Casimir’s in Albany, and many others. While these struggles to maintain the sacred, historical, and spiritual home of Catholic Christians are better know, the real story is closer to home. Buffalo, Detroit, Hamtramck, Chicago, Boston, Albany, large cities and small towns and the list goes on; have seen traditionally ethnic parishes close one-by-one. Of course the Bishops cite statistics and form committees that provide a veneer of credibility. They talk about fiscal problems, lack of vocations, declining census figures, and non payment of minimum diocesan assessments all as justifications for their actions.

Isn’t Tradition just old stuff ?

It depends. Some people practice traditions like they practice their faith —“ in a cold, separated sort of way. We do it because grandma did it. They never make it their own.

Like anything, tradition must be made alive by our taking ownership of it. We must make a conscientious effort to do these things because they are important to us and our children. It’s like our faith. Unless we accept Christ in faith, and invite Him into our lives, we are just going through the motions. In the same way, we must integrate tradition with our lives. Think of any traditional ethnic dinner during the holidays. At Christmas it may be Wigilia, Pronzo delta vigilia, or le reveillon dinners. How do you make it your own? Have you added your child’s favorite dish, pictures of your ancestors on the table, other meaningful objects (grandma’s crucifix or manager)? It is no longer just tradition but is alive because of your additions and modifications.

In the same way, our attachment to these churches is not just a cold, aloof, I go there because I have too faith. It is something real, meaningful, and visceral for us. It is alive, like Christ. It is felt not just in our minds and hearts, but in our guts, our kiszki.

What’s the problem…

What is the central problem and how does is represent a continuation of the repression of the Catholic faith, tradition, values, and of ethnic parishes?

The Struggle —“ Traditionalism versus Liberalism

First there is a constant struggle within the Roman Catholic Church over traditionalism versus liberalism. The American Church tends to exist in the liberal camp. While there are exceptions, the vast majority of Bishops do not care for traditionally minded Catholics who find great inspiration in beautiful liturgies and certainties of faith. The faith handed on from generation to generation via language and tradition is denigrated. It should be noted that in American circles Pope John Paul II was often viewed as a traditionalist, old-world leader —“ and as such was irrelevant.

As noted above, one of the basic tenets of Catholic faith is that faith is handed on from generation to generation. Faith starts with mom and dad in the family. There is a —Communion of Saints— and a progression of life and faith. Tradition, language, and customs are more than quaint side shows that are brought out at Christmas and Easter. These things create a continuity of faith through our ancestors, back to the Apostles. They are especially founded upon their realization within the family unit —“ and not just the nuclear or modern disconnected family —“ but in the extended, tribal family.

Per the Catholic News Service, Bishop Howard J. Hubbard of Albany called Jan. 6, 2005 for a commitment to revitalization of the parish despite the sex scandals, vocation crisis, pressures of secularism and other challenges facing the church. He stated, “We have a beloved pope who is melting away before our eyes, as a recalcitrant Curia seeks to steer the bark of Peter back to the 19th century.” Bishop Hubbard made the opening presentation to the annual Diocesan Leadership Symposium sponsored by the National Pastoral Life Center in New York.

Perhaps the Bishop should be reminded that just because something existed in the 19th century does not in and of itself make it evil. What existed in the 19th century were his grandparents and the seeds of faith that established his family. In addition, it would seem highly uncharitable to paint the Roman Curia with such a broad brush. Maybe a better approach would be found by a simple reference from the Bible: —Test all things; hold fast to the good, but abstain from every false coinage.— (1 Thess 5:21-22).

American R.C. clergy (not all) and its leadership (not all) seem to be looking forward to a revival of the new openness. Newness and openness are more important and in fact vital to them and are opposed to the old and the traditional. Those ethnics that hold on to and publicly represent tradition must be repressed.

The best way to do this is to destroy centers of tradition, divide, conquer, and integrate. The problem is that you cannot ethnically cleanse someone’s soul, spirit, and memories. But, you can do it to future generations. Our children and grandchildren will not have a connection to the past. They will only look sadly on their poor parents and grandparents who have had the wind knocked out of their sails and who have had their faith damaged. Why doesn’t grandma go to church anymore? they will ask.

What’s really sad is that the children will not pray for the dead. The dead are old news, part of a tradition that is not relevant. What is old and dead is dead. Their connection to that Corporal Work of Mercy, burying the dead, will be lost. Their connection to the communion of saints will be a one liner from the Nicene Creed.

Literal or Spiritual?

What I find most odd, especially as illustrated in the case of St. Stanislaus in St. Louis, MO is the difference between the Roman Catholic Church’s views the interpretation of scripture and how it views the interpretation of Church made laws.

The Roman Catholic Church has not purported to be literalist in terms of Biblical understanding, at least within the past hundred years. The Roman Catholic Church is founded on Scripture and (oddly enough) tradition. The Church classifies Biblical books in different, figurative, ways as stories, poetry, and mythology. Each book has a message and an interpretation, but must be viewed based upon its historical milieu and based solely on the judgment of the Church. Who was the book written for, what were the circumstances, what was the message? While the Bible is treated with such careful interpretation, re-interpretation, study, and message-crafting, the laws of the Church, namely Canon Law and the Catechism, are interpreted literally (although conceptually they should be interpreted broadly and charitably).

If this were not true it might be a funny irony. Instead it becomes a Machiavellian reality show. Legalists tend to apply the law more harshly toward others than toward themselves. The legalist concentrates on his own strengths and the weaknesses of others. He refuses to pull the plank out of his own eye before he searches for the particle in someone else’s eye.

By way of additional Biblical reference, the scribes and Pharisees were ready to stone the woman guilty of adultery (John 8:2-11), yet they were insensitive to their breach of the law by taking advantage of the helpless (Mark 12:40; cp. Jas. 1:27), the neglect of their responsibilities to their own families (Mark 7:10-13), or their persecution of the righteous (Matt. 23:29-39).

Legalism has no interest in reducing burdens or assisting those in need (even if the need would assist people on their way to heaven). Instead, this continual reliance on the codes and laws of the Church produces burdens and refuses to assist anyone upon whom they are imposed.

Jesus contrasted Himself with the scribes and Pharisees with respect to burdens:

—And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger— (Matt. 23:4).

—Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My load is light— (Matt. 11:28-30).

Peter criticized the Jewish Christians of his day when they sought to place the burdens of Mosaic Law on others. Peter said, —Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?— (Acts 15:10).

Perhaps treating people as people, and looking at the complexities of the human heart would serve the Church better. Unfortunately, the ethnics may be too complex and deep. Perhaps they cannot be easily herded.

Those who are attached to their ethnic parishes and their heritage are in need of a shepherd, not the shepherd’s dog. The dog acts on instinct, the shepherd acts with forethought —“ —Will I hurt the sheep if I yank them by their neck?— In St. Louis, the reliance on legalism is directly challenged by a people who fought for over a thousand years for freedom. The Polish people who emigrated for freedom, who withstood communism, fascism, and imperialism all in the cause of human freedom, are to the legalists and minimalists a threat, and must be repressed.

In the end it is a choice of focus. What is essential is that in spiritual matters we remain united. That we accept the spiritual heritage handed down to us, by Christ first and foremost, by the Fathers of the Church, and by the catholic synods of the first 1,000 years of Christianity. The enrichment of our spirits through our knowledge of Christ and His salvific sacrifice trumps mere legalism and minimalism.

Accommodation versus Absolutism

—There seemed to be a consensus among us that the best way to accommodate immigrants to the United States is to integrate them into existing parishes rather than the previous pattern of establishing national parishes.— — Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, NY writing on the topics discussed by New York State Bishops during their 2004 ad limina visit with Pope John Paul II.

Absolutists, dictators and such create absolute laws that serve their own purposes. It is the perpetuation of power for the sake of power. They act like the child who, when he does not get his way, picks up his toy and goes home. The Archbishop of St. Louis did exactly that. He picked up his priests and went home. He then placed a personal and interdict on the leaders of the St. Stanislaus parishioners. I would urge those reading this article to do a Google search on —interdict.—

It’s another not so funny irony that a medieval remedy is being used by those so intent on purging tradition.

When the Polish immigrants of Scranton and other U.S. cities sought Christ and their faith traditions, they were met with the same absolutism. They were met with strictures that were self serving in the perpetuation of power and class. They were met by nativist philosophies that trumped Christian love and charity. In the New York Times of August 24, 1901, James Cardinal Gibbons, prelate of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States was quoted as having said: “The country, it seems to me, is overrun with immigrants, and a word of caution should be spoken to them.”

The bishops it would seem have perpetuated this line of thinking right through today. Don’t let ethnics establish anything of theirs, integrate them.

When Bishop Francis Hodur sought a just hearing from the Vatican he was redirected. He petitioned Rome for a Polish-American bishop or Apostolic Delegate, for the suppression of “games” and “lotteries” directed by priests in the name of the Church” and for lay influence in parish affairs. He sought democracy so that his ethnics could find a clear way to God. They sought accommodation, not of evil, but of slight variances in the manner of leadership and management of the civil affairs of the Church. —Please give us someone who understands our culture and language, so we can learn more about the Catholic way to God.— —Please let us have a voice and a vote over the civil business of the Church.—

Of course this was met by excommunication.

So…

In the end we all have choices to make. How do we preserve our heritage, our traditions, and our path to God. How do we seek God in a true way, unencumbered by onerous discipline meted out by self appointed keepers of the business? I found it in the Polish National Catholic Church. It is a place where I can feel secure in faith, tradition, and identity. It is a place where no one will close my church. Best of all, it is a place where the Eucharist, the role of Mary, and the centrality of the Holy Mass keep me connected to the communion of saints.

My kiszka is safe and my kiszki are feeling fine…