20 June 2005 If I can have a change of heart, maybe anyone can. A recent conversation with a seminarian of the Fresno diocese led me to reappraise my take on the type of men who are attracted to the priesthood and religious life these days. I am not a liberal, but I have had grave concerns about today's crop of vocations. They have struck me as a rigid, robotic and nostalgic for a time they never knew. Some of the newly ordained priests in recent years are not what our church needs. Their attraction to things Tridentine is a horror to me. Some of them strike me as far too comfortable with clericalism and Cardinal Stafford. These guys are preoccupied with cufflinks, vests, high collars and lace. It makes me puke.

But thanks to Jerry Torres, my prejuidices are under scrutiny. Perhaps I have painted with a very broad brush. It is comforting to know that some seminarians are as disgusted with the "high collar" kooks as I. Jerry didn't mince words about his conservative take on most things Catholic; and, I share his conservativism in most areas. He was helpful in articulating the context for the conservative trends among recruits. Most of that sounded reasonable and well-reasoned. In fact I found his idealism and enthusiasm contagious. Good for him and those like him; it gives me renewed hope in the future of the church. I hope Jerry sticks with it.

28 April 2005 Soon I'll get back to dumping on Catholic right-wing nuts, but today it's the whacko left that needs to be slapped. What do they want?

Reading the pre-conclave edition of America (a Democrat-pushing Jesuit publication), I was reminded of all the Catholic chatter about progressive "hopes and dreams" for John Paul II's successor. Over and over again, they whine that the church needs to be more inclusive of those marginalized by the late pope. The church must make room for gays and lesbians, pro-choicers, etc. ... all those who "loved John Paul II but didn't agree with him." (How many times did we hear that one?)

Those who make such demands are being less than frank with us. They don't just want a more welcoming, inclusive, "big-tent" church, they are intent on things far more fundamental. Yes, it all sounds nice, but let's not be deceived by the cuddly language. Of course, and let it be stated here clearly and unambiguously, all must be welcomed into the Body of Christ ... as we are ... sinners seeking forgiveness ... including gays, lesbians, straights, crookeds, etc.

Before we even speak of the earnest folks who are in a spiritual and emotional quandary about their place in the Church, it's important to note that a lot of this rhetoric has more to do with Catholic-bashing than genuine hopes for the Church. Indulging Maureen Dowd as she spills her detritus about John Paul and Benedict, is like taking seriously 50 Cent's critique of Bach. Yeah, let's be big enough to take seriously those who are serious, but let's not fall all over ourselves to placate the likes of her.

Now to the specifics. When it is said that the Church needs to be inclusive of gays and lesbians, I say fine. But is that where it ends? Of course not. The definition for inclusiveness here, for those who make this their cause, is not just a place in the pew or in the confessional line. No, it's about redefining marriage and ignoring biblical evidence. Simply stated, the church will never appear to be inclusive, regardless of outreach, compassion, mercy and fellowship, unless it ridiculously redefines marriage and, as if it could, erase the sinfulness of extra-marital sex (not just same-sex sex!). If we play by the rules of progressives, the Church cannot possibly come out looking good in this. It would be equally ridiculous if I, a born kleptomaniac, demanded that the commandment against stealing be lifted. How dare the Church look down on me by reminding us that stealing is sinful!

As for the pro-choicers, I heard it again, "All abortions are a tragedy." And their response, incredibly, is what? Declare it moral? Don't talk about the reality of it? Soft-pedal the horror? What is it they want? It's just fine to perform an abortion, get an abortion, fund an abortion, make sure that a teenage girl gets one without her parents' knowledge, and have an "abortion" even as they baby is delivered. And the Church should shut up about it and get with the times.

The game that progressives want the Church to play is a losing proposition, and we shouldn't bother playing it. If we do, we will indeed become useless and pointless. The irreverent, but humble disc jockey in New Jersey said it best, "I don't believe a lot of what the church teaches, but I certainly don't want the pope to teach what I believe."

19 April 2005 The choice was not a surprise, but it is bound to make many howl in disbelief and disgust. That has already started. We can only hope that the new pope will be a compassionate pastor (first and foremost), a convincing and effective teacher, and a wise leader. I am of the opinion that the new papacy would have been off to a smoother start with someone less controversial. Others will make the point that it is better to know exactly where the pope and the church stand, and not sugar-coat a message that can at times be hard to swallow. In some regards, it is an "in your face" selection, that may force many to turn away in anger. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI stated that it may be preferable to see a smaller Catholic Church in favor of a "creative minority," as he called it. That is dangerous stuff, in my opinion, and does not presage much in the way of a loving Holy Mother the Church, embracing her children to herself.

I need to get something off my chest before going on. One reason why the selection disappoints me has little to do with Ratzinger. It has much to do with his staunch American supporter: Francis George, cardinal of Chicago. It consoles me little to know that Cardinal George got his way. I saw him at the balcony of St. Peter's with a smug smile on his face after the new pope returned inside the basilica. Let's just say I was not of a very kind heart at the moment. The second reason is his assistant (in the photo). He has been the Master of Ceremonies for Ratzinger. It was he who prodded the Cardinal, during the funeral of JP2, to cut short the acclamation of the gathered faithful. I don't trust him.

Now to Ratzinger -- pardon me -- Benedict XVI. There is no reason to expect some sort of imminent and grand repression within the church. However, those who are already inclined to define and judge the "Catholicity" of others will certainly feel vindicated and press on with their swords of truth held high. It will have less to do with the pope, and a whole lot to do with the fanaticism of the already-existing and strong-beyond-their-numbers neo-counter-reformationists, who see the Second Vatican Council as the ruin of the Church. They will take heart from this election, gloating with a self-righteousness of the self-declared "Truth Squad." They are the dangerous ones. We have far less to fear from the Vatican.

On another note, I cannot understand how two-thirds of the Cardinals thought his association, however willing or unwilling, with the Hitler youth movement and the Nazi army will not be a major liability. They may have been too quick to dismiss it as unimportant. It will haunt this papacy for the duration, and it will be mentioned in every biography and historical account of this pope for generations to come. When ideology blinds us from reality it becomes very dangerous, and that may have been the case here.

The Nazi connection and his polarizing reputation will not afford any honeymoon. Right from the starting block, Benedict XVI is hobbled, and with him the rest of the Church. I hope and pray he proves me wrong.

Finally, I have no reason to doubt those who characterize Benedict XVI as personally very kind, humble and unassuming. I have no way of knowing. His exuberance on the balcony showed a man who is not a stone-faced, cruel agent of the Inquisition. I want to believe that he is a good and holy man who will show others, especially the Truth Squads, how to believe correctly and fervently but also love unfailingly.

 

17 April 2005 The conclave begins in about 24 hours, and I have reduced my pope-picks to ten. A few words about the process. First, forget anyone from North America; that brings us down to 100 from 115. Retired cardinals will not be elected; that reduces the possibilities to about 83. Then you can knock off any curialists, those guys running the Vatican; the rest of the cardinals won't have any of the 23 of them. Now we're down to 60. It is very unlikely that cardinals from eastern Europe will be chosen; remember, we had a Pole for the last 26 years. That brings it down to 50. Western Europeans (aside from Italians) are as unlikely; subtract another 12 or so. I'm hesitant about eliminating Iberian cardinals. The Asian cardinals won't be considered; that's another 9 knocked off the list. Now we are down to 29 pope-ables. The next pope will be in his early 70's and have been a cardinal for more than five years: that takes us down to fourteen. Here are my ten in alphabetical order: Amigo-Vallejo of Seville, Borgoglio of Buenes Aires, Etsou of Kinshasa, Giordano of Naples, Hummes of Sao Paolo, Poletto of Turin, Quezada of Guatemala, Scheid of Rio de Janiero, Suarez of Monterrey, and Tettamanzi of Milan.

08 April 2005 It surprised me that this cynic and skeptic became so absorbed in the events of the past week in Rome. For some reason I could not pull myself away from viewing the outpouring of affection, the gathering of the mighty and the weak, and the centuries-old traditions unfolding instantaneously before the world's eyes. One could not help but be touched by the common folks. In the end they made the celebration. Vested clerics and well-heeled international leaders could not possibly have surpassed the sacrifice, patience, prayer, devotion and acclamation of the ones who didn't have VIP passes. They were left to their own determination to find a place in the piazza, well behind the privileged. The ones who would not be restrained by decorum and protocol became the principle celebrants. Don't get me wrong, Cardinal Ratzinger exceeded by a long shot my expectations of his homiletic abilities, and it was wonderful to see the politically powerful gathered to pay tribute to the man who had nothing of material value to bequeath upon his death. The scripted ritual was beautiful, but it was the unscripted that moved, that inspired, that lifted the heart. The stiff breeze passing through the piazza ruffled the vesture of cardinals only to unfurl the banners waving among the faithful. The wind blows where it wills, for sure.

01 April 2005 To some extent it is pointless, at this early stage, to draw conclusions about the historical legacy of John Paul II. However foolish and brash, let's give it a whirl.

As journalists and commentators assess the pope's legacy they will employ the same conservative versus liberal categories that make talk-shows the food fights we have come to expect. That may be fun and tempting; it is also wildly simplistic. Those who have a stake in the ideological struggles within the church will draw the conservative-liberal battle lines in how they perceive the contributions of a passing papacy and what they demand of the next pontiff. And, most importantly, during this time of public grieving, ALL will claim the passing pope as their own, knowing in their hearts that their analyses is less about John Paul II and more about what they want in the next pope. Tears, eulogies and tributes should be taken with a grain of salt. Even mine!

What will John Paul II be remembered for in the Church? There is little doubt in my mind that he was instrumental in halting the slide of Roman Catholicism into the empty abyss of "mainstream" denominational western Christianity. In recent decades we have seen many "mainstream" denominations devolve into narcissistic parodies who stand for nothing but mindless experiments of humanistic whim. These are the historical protestant denominations that are quickly declining in numbers and meaning. John Paul II drew the theological line in the sand. Sometimes I thought too narrowly and closely, but in general it was absolutely necessary. He saved Roman Catholicism from the fate of historical Protestant mainstream denominations. In this he angered the Catholic left.

But be clear about it, he is also the bane of the far-right of the Catholic Church. They may make a public display of their fondness for him, but secretly they are brutal critics of this pope. Traditionalists privately disdain this pontiff for his own liturgical permissiveness and ecumenical largesse. Many of our own bishops' faces become tightly drawn in abject distress when they see the pope enjoying ethnic traditions incorporated into pontifical liturgies. While these bishops rigidly forbid anything that is not explicitly allowed in the sacramentary, the pope invites Mexican Indian women to purify and forgive according to their own ethnic traditions. He incorprated African dance into the liturgies at St. Peter's. The list is endless. These traditionalists cannot abide this pope having prayed with non-Catholics, both Christian and non-Christian, lending some sort of legitamacy to their religious convictions. When he called the leaders of all religions to pray together in Assisi, these right-wingers were fit to be tied.

More importantly, if one reads carefully and completely his many writings, you will find a theology that transcends liberal and conservative. Both the left and the right will find proof texts in his writings to uphold their own ideology; but, in truth and in the main, JP2 has taken us beyond those polemics. He had traditionalist instincts, but he knew that the Church of the future will not permit a european cultural pall to obliterate the Gospel. He was able to grasp the facts: Christianity is looking south to Africa, Asia and Latin America, where the Church is in a state of hyper-growth. And he knew that Europe had entered the post-Christian era and had long become the shrill voice of agnostic socialism.

His greatest failure, in my opinion, was in his selection of bishops. Most, though not all, of his episcopal appointments with which I am familiar have been disappointments, to say the least. Most have been canon lawyers, chancery functionaries and seminary staffers. Bishops are shepherds, but ironically many of his appointments have never been pastors or even ministered in parishes. They are safe, company men, presumably nominated by other bishops of the same ilk. All of that leads me to believe that JP2 left most of the administrative work and direction to Vatican operatives. I have it on good source that in 26 years he never really grasped nor desired to grasp the inner workings of the Vatican. He allowed the Vatican careerists and his toady Cardinal underlings to run the show, which brings us to his achilles heel.

JP2's greatest strength and most glaring weakness was the power of his personality. The first non-Italian in centuries, a Pole with experiences in Nazi and Soviet domination, an actor and poet, an extroverted intellectual and savy television-era publicist, this man knew that people are moved less by bureaucratic dictate than by the power of personality. In that he transformed forever what people will expect of future popes. They will have to travel endlessly and be comfortable in the skin of a celebrity. They will be subjected to the grueling rigors of instant public scrutiny. They will need to rise above the cynicism with a smile on their faces, knowing that their every raised eyebrow, pulsating facial muscle and ad lib remark will be sliced and diced for public consumption. He did it well; but he also allowed a personality cult to develop. We see that in the ways bishops are now inclined to preach. Often they are more inclined to quote JP2 than the Word of God! In the long run, that cannot be helpful or healthy. We see it in some of the men who believe they have vocations. They are "men of the pope," it is said. Really? Shouldn't they be men of Christ? JP2 may have been perfectly suited to fit the celebrity bill, but even if another can be found, is that really what the pope should be? Should our eyes be focused on the guy in Rome as we live out our Christian faith, or should we be led to look in our own hearts, homes and communities to uncover and live our Christian identity? Our obsession with celebrities in general is a distortion of reality and avoidance of our own purpose; making the pope a celebrity is not the remedy!

12 March 2005 I find it hard to believe that a man with as much education as Cardinal George can be so utterly and ridiculously stupid. Not only have the traditionalists recaptured the essence of the priesthood by allowing only priests to purify the vessels after communion (more on that later), but now they have persuaded the Vatican to back them on the insipid, meaningless, and mindless response, "And with your spirit." Cardinal George, ever the guardian of faceless and rigid worship, tells John Allen of the NCR: On liturgical matters, George said that English-speaking Catholics will indeed one day be saying "and with your Spirit" rather than "and also with you" when the celebrant says "The Lord be with you" during Mass. While there's room to discuss other proposed changes, he said, that one was specifically requested in the 2001 Vatican document Liturgiam Authenticum , and hence it's a foregone conclusion. This whole GIRM movement is a sorry, desperate move to do what? Recapture the essence of the priesthood and episcopal control, not to mention throwing scraps to wealthy traditionalists for huge donations to greedy bishops...that's what it is. "And with your spirit." What in the world does that mean in plain English? Tells us, Cardinal George. Does it mean peace to my soul, but not to my brain, my heart, or the rest of me? God forbid we have anything approaching personalism in our worship! And as for the essence of the priesthood...do you really think opening the tabernacle and rinsing the chalice is what ordianed ministry is all about? I heard another hierarch, Cardinal Stafford, declare, "With these changes in the liturgy priests can feel special again." Get a life.

There, it's off my chest. Well, not yet...not really. I just find it difficult to swallow that guys like these will be choosing the next pope.

The Secularization of Christmas 10 December 2004 I am somewhat surprised by my own (tentative, though they may be) conclusions on this subject. As most other Christians, I am disturbed by the secularization of Christmas. My own hometown has stooped to calling their Christmas Parade "FrostFest Parade," for crying out loud! It makes me sick. That is my emotional reaction, but my reflections have led me elsewhere. Maybe we should admit defeat on the merits of the arguments.

That's right! There just doesn't seem to be a credible and reasonable argument against the secularists on this score, at least as far as the government is concerned. I don't want government involved with my faith, for starters. Secondly, if we do want the government to sanction only Christian displays, we cannot expect people of other faiths and no faith to flip the bill. And, by the way, if a liberal-leaning government at some point decides that Christianity looks more like, let's say, the United Church of Christ ... no thanks. So, stay out of it completely, please. With the UCC we would have nativity scenes with ... well, let's not go there.

If a religious Christmas is so dear to Christians, they can celebrate it at home and in their churches. Nothing stops them from placing religious displays on their property, reading the Gospels about the birth of Jesus, and singing religious Christmas carols. The sad fact is that many Christians are themselves secularizing their own celebration of Christmas: they go into debt with gift-giving, skip church and don't teach their children about the real reason for Christmas. Many try to recapture the Christmas of their own childhood, rather than the first Christmas!

American Catholicism Part 1 6 December 2004 Diarmaid MacCulloch, author of Reformation, observes (as I have noted in Open Book) that American Catholicism is a subset of American Protestantism. I cannot disagree with him; in fact, I am convinced that it is the essence of the struggle within the American Catholic Church and the primary tension between the Vatican and American Catholics. It underlies the acrimony and disaffection within the church. Traditionalists are obsessed with retrieving the Counter-Reformation, while most struggle to reconcile our American experience with our Catholic faith. More often than not the general response is quiet resignation and disengagement, throwing up our hands in despair of ever achieving that integration. The bishops, perhaps at the Vatican's behest, have increasingly sided with the traditionalists, dismissive of any movement towards that reconciliation. In the end, Americanism will prevail with or without Catholicism. No amount of money contributed by wealthy Catholic traditionalists will countervail. The urgent task ahead is to achieve a healthy and faithful integration.

To be more exact, it would be erroneous to assume that Protestantism in this instance refers to what has become known as mainline protestantism. Rather, it is evangelical Christianity that most nearly captures the spirit of American Protestantism. Mainline churches have devolved into a liberal, heterodox chaos, offering no clear ethical or spiritual framework. The evangelical churches are attractive because they successfully and seamlessly blend American culture with generally uncompromising Christian orthodoxy.

Our appreciation of this religious dynamic and struggle must also take care not to confuse culture and morality. Most of what we name "culture" is without moral quality; it is the shared lense through which we perceive our experience and come to know its meaning for us. It is not primarily about moral choices or ethical decision-making. Culture is about habits, pre-moral assumptions, language, routines, functions, aesthetics and conventions that give order to society. That is not to say that morality and culture are completely separate, but we tend to reduce culture to ethical choices. Culture may affect conscience-development and moral codes, but it is a far more general notion. With that understanding we are able to comprehend our culture with appreciation and uncover its many opportunities.

Let's be clear about this: the struggle is not about orthodoxy or doctrine. Unless one is insistent on wholesale adoption of Tridentine aesthetics, the liberal-conservative paradigm is not at issue. That battle is over; Catholic doctrinal conservativism has won, and the heterodox left has been vanquished, much to my relief. One speaker recently expressed his dismay that the catechism of John Paul II has failed to transform American Catholicism. He contends that the "truth" of the Catholic Church has been overwhelmed by religious experientialism. I could not disagree more. Aside from a handful of sexual ethical demands, American Catholics have accepted without question most, if not all of Catholic teaching, but they seek a personal validation, or experience of that truth. Ironically traditionalists subtly and perhaps unconsciously (which demonstrates that even they are thoroughly American!) counsel their listeners, "You'll feel good about possessing the fullness of truth." C. John McCloskey, of Opus Dei and "power class" evangelization, reminds his readers that they should evangelize their friends and families because, in part it will make them "feel good for having shared the faith with them." As traditionalist as he portends, he cannot escape the contemporary requirement that abstract, theological doctrine be subjected to personal validation. It is not enough for him to merely state that Jesus Christ, the Church or the pope said so. Personal validation of theological truth is here to stay; we will continue to insist that a truth must be personally experienced.

Perhaps that validation by experience is most clearly seen in the Christian notion of what faith produces: joy and peace. American religious experientialism is, if nothing else, quite literal and practical. Grim-facedly preaching about joy does not resonate; it does not compute. Such sober homiletic style is more convincing on the subjects of sin, death and hellfire. Joy and happiness must entail an emotional component, or it is meaningless. When folks hear that Jesus gives us peace, it cannot only be a quiet intellectual exercise. In fact we find it impossible to grasp the truth of joy and peace if there is no holistic experience of joy and peace. Thanks to American Protestantism, seen vividly in the Great Awakening and other Revivalist movements in US history, we have become convinced that we grasp the truth more when we experience that truth on an emotional, personal level. Perhaps St. Paul is the patron of American religious experience when he promises his readers that they will be able to experience the truth of his message, as in Philippians 4.4-9.

Of course, the need to personally validate the truth or untruth of a doctrine corresponds to a vintage American disposition that is skeptical of institutions, particularly of the highly bureaucratic sort. There is a tolerance of institutions which accomplish their mission. However, should an institution fail its mission, Americans are quick to dismiss it. This functional view of institutions stands in contrast to the traditionalist, and I would suggest European view, in which those institutions possess an existence, value and authority all their own. Institutions are valued for what they are, perhaps more than for what they accomplish. Not so for Americans for whom institutions possess an authority that is tentatively bestowed on them by the constituents they serve and is subject to renewal of its license to operate by them. The institution's existence is contingent on performance. Not only is the American religious experience shaped by literalism and practicality, it is brutally functionalist, particularly as it applies to institutions.

More than any other factor, it is the cultural attitude about institutions that most severely troubles the waters of American Catholicism. To whom do we look as the authority to corroberate personal validation of experience, meaning and truth? A highly bureaucratic, hierarchical institution that has on numerous occasions been revealed for being more concerned about its own power and survival than the constituents it allegedly serves? Not likely. Yet again and unfortunately ecclesiastical hierarchs have recently shown their inability to grasp this cultural attitude in how they continue to handle the sexual scandals of recent years. No doubt lawyers have guided their every decision as they focus exclusively on the sexual abuse. The bishops have responsibly devised an onerous system of checks to minimize the chances of future sexual abuse. Thank goodness for that! But what they have failed to acknowledge is the pervasive disgust with the cover up of that abuse throughout many decades. Nixon's lessons seem to be lost on this bunch. Those cover-ups sought to protect the institution and its official agents over and at the expense of the people they were ordained to serve. The systematic cover-up and the inability to deal with that institutional flaw reinforces the cynicism about institutions.

American Catholicism Part 2 The American Evangelical movement avoids collective formal institutional authority, at times to its own detriment. Each local church is independent of the others except for a loose confederation of pastoral support and theological oversight. Evangelicals rely extensively on personal validation or religious experientialism. That is not to say, however, that they do not seek authoritative corroberation. True to the original spirit of the Reformation, the Scriptures are that authority, and there is nothing more in the spirit of America than biblical authority.

Near and Eternal Future 2 December 2004 My reading up on the Reformation has provided another opportunity to reflect on the Church today. It strikes me that we are in the midst of a revolution within Christianity. Extravagant as that may sound, it is nonetheless real. One element, among many others that are radical historical departures for both Catholic and Non-Catholic Christians, is that of the future. Christians have consistently looked beyond the boundaries of life on this earth to the celestial life for which we labor. The entire regimen of prayer, sacraments, preaching, evangelization, ministry, and apostolic endeavors had been directed to the attainment of salvation. "Through this vale of tears" we trod towards the Church Triumphant. What will happen to me as I stand at the judgment seat? Virtually everything about pre-modern Christianity embraced the pursuit of heaven. One just had to accept the realities, cruelties and vagaries of this life in a saintly way so as to enter through the pearly gates. The eternal future was our preoccupation.

There has been a radical shift in attitude over the past several decades. Even the most doctrinaire and orthodox of Christians, both Catholic and Protestants, tend to focus on how faith in Christ can transform my life here and now; my future can be brighter and better if only I understand this or that about faith in Christ. My following of Jesus will transform my family, my marriage, my job, even my prosperity! "God wants you to have blessings!" it is said, and not just the ones of eternal life in His Presence, but this promotion, that vacation, this relationship, that comfort, etc. We find it much more engaging to hear a sermon about relationships and how to effectively handle emotional struggles. How do we maintain hope in the midst of our daily trials, not so much to pass victoriously from this life to the next, but so we can at some near future point pick up the pieces and march steadily on to the next blessing that God is waiting to give us in this life.

I am among those who embrace this brand of faith, willing to leave the details of life beyond the grave to the mercy and love of God. I am convinced there is great wisdom in that, but there are also enormous dangers. Short-sighted? Possibly. But it is seems to be a mark of great faith, convinced that "nothing can separate us from the love of God that comes to us in Christ Jesus." Why worry about eternal life if I live this life well? That is remarkably bold and perhaps foolishly self-destructive.

This is very new territory for Christianity, and it is unclear to me where it will lead. The focus on the near future may be utter folly and the ruin of Christianity; on the other hand, it may well open a bright future. In any case, we would be well-advised to recognize this revolution among and within us. This is serious stuff!

Forget about Roe v. Wade! 07 November 2004 Calm down. Let's just take a look at a possibility for achieving our goals in a more productive way. What is the pro-life goal? Is it to win a legal battle? Or is it to prevail in a political game? I hope neither. I should hope that our goal is to reduce, hopefully drastically, the number of abortions. If that really is our goal, are we willing to think beyond the legal and political?

As wrong-headed as I believe Roe v. Wade is, let's de-mystify it a bit. It does not compel women to have abortions; it does not require us to believe that abortion is good. It is not the final word on whether a baby will be born or not, and it certainly does not legislate a minimum number of abortions. It only declares that abortion cannot be illegal.

Relatively easy so far, I hope. Now for a more difficult task. Perhaps it is time to re-direct our energies away from the legal and political battlegrounds to ultimately render Roe v. Wade obsolete. I would suggest that, while holding that the decision is wrong, we focus primarily on the much harder work of preserving unborn human life, rather than distracting ourselves in uncertain political minefields.

Let's start by taking the opposition at its word. Many times over I have heard pro-choice folks say that "Abortion is always a tragedy," and "we need to find ways to reduce the 'need' for it." Even Clinton declared that abortion should be "rare". Of course, he said "safe and legal" as well, and did absolutely nothing about making it rare. No doubt we see glaring inconsistency in their beliefs and statements. But let's take them at their word. We can disagree with them on many things, but let's admit that we do potentially have common ground in reducing the number of abortions. Wouldn't it be better (admittedly not best) to make abortion rare, rather than digging our heels in on this legal/political battle as abortions continue at a clip of one-million-plus per year? Furthermore, can we admit that over-turning Roe v. Wade will not stop all abortions? Even if, against all odds, that decision is overturned, it will not bring abortion to a halt.

Is there a pro-life leader out there who has the courage to engage some moderate pro-choice folks in seeking common ground? Wouldn't it blow everyone's mind if a group of pro-life religious leaders, like our bishops, stepped outside the boundaries of the past 30 years, engaged the opposition, and together came up with practical plans to reduce abortion? Or have we so demonized the opposition that it is even sinful or heretical to dialogue with them on the praiseworthy thing we can agree upon?

In the end, politics and legal wrangling cannot convince others to be against abortion. For a real end to it, hearts and minds must be changed, and we do not have to go through another civil war to make that happen. If we are truthful we must admit that our political and legal efforts have not stopped one abortion.

Catholic Geometry? 24 August 2004 It is long past due to rethink our stewardship of religious and catholic education. For decades the church has wonderfully integrated immigrants into the mainstream of American society. The children of those immigrants educated in catholic schools need to remember and be grateful for that tremendous achievement. There is little doubt that assimilation and upward mobility would have been more difficult to achieve without it, knowing that anti-catholic bias would have been formidable. And no doubt, the church still offers this great service among recently arrived immigrants. Thanks be to God!

However, where the church has long ago accomplished this goal the faint hope, and only hope, lingers to provide quality Catholic education to the children of the well-established middle class. Give it up already! We can far better spend that money and energy on religious education. While we expend enormous amount of Catholic capital on the mythical subjects of "Catholic geometry" and "Catholic Earth Science" (you get the drift), we could be developing a more attractive, even magnetic religious formation program for all Catholic children, not just those who choose to attend Catholic schools.

We cannot compete with the public schools of middle class neighborhoods in science, computer technology, social sciences, etc. (We haven't even broached sports and other extra-curricular activities!) Trying to attract students to our Catholic schools on that turf is doomed. However, no one should be able to compete with us in the area of forming a catholic identity, passing on the faith and providing a personal ethical foundation. Why not focus on our strength rather than spreading out our battleground on a front that we cannot possibly win?

For all the money and human resources poured into Catholic schools (with dubious results, at that), we could be developing Catholic formation programs that are professionally executed with the needed resources to make them appealing to a much larger segment of our youth. Current programs are poorly attended because they are poorly resourced and even more poorly executed by a largely volunteer but untrained cadre of catechists. (They deserve great praise for their work, nonetheless.)

Will a bishop be bold enough to see the facts and step outside the 1950's nostaligia? Will a bishop dare report to Rome that he has decided to shut down Catholic Schools in favor of a strong, well-developed and broadly appealing formation program for all the children in his diocese? Will our people demand stewardship of our bishops to religiously educate excellently all the children?

Always Asking 24 May 2004 A number of people have asked why I am so critical of the Catholic Church. First it is because I love the church dearly, and I see that we are far less than we could be. Second, I see unprecedented challenges that are going unnoticed and unmet. There is rampant denial of reality, especially among the ordained class of Catholics, i.e., the bishops and priests. I cannot stand idly by and watch the church in the USA whither away. Lastly, we must face facts that are very disturbing. For example, for the first time in the history of the United States the percentage of Catholics attending church on a regular basis is LOWER than that of Protestants. I have seen no adequate analysis of this development aside from a glib reference to the recent clerical sexual abuse scandal. In my opinion that is only a minor factor. Bishops in particular and the clergy in general are quick to blame our society and culture thus absolving themselves of responsibility. Will anyone dare to explain why bishops would spend any time whatsoever on the question of how many people we should exchange peace with during Mass while the number of people coming to church at all is in a steep decline? Isn't there a ridiculous disconnect between the big picture and the insignificant details? That's just a minor example of why I will continue to raise questions and offer observations about the dysfunctional state of our church. There are even more sweeping and major reasons that shall be pursued in this column in the weeks and months ahead.

Old Europe Catholicism 21 May 2004 On this 22nd anniversary of ordination I am not particularly hopeful about the Church's future in the northern hemisphere. More and more I notice that there is more concern about liturgical minutiae than about church vitality. Leaders are pre-occupied with exclusion, failing to recognize that people are drifting away from an increasingly distant and aloof church. Among its younger clerics ignorant nostalgia appears to be leading them to a wholesale abdication of genuine pastoral ministry.

I admit to a certain despair, but my hope for the future of the Church is not completely absent. It is becoming more apparent to me than ever that the future for the Church is the southern hemisphere. Reluctantly but certainly the European stranglehold on church development will give way to a church that is increasingly African, Asian and, to a lesser degree, Latin American. It is in the southern hemisphere that the church will grow and proliferate. In fact, it is already obvious in Rome. Rarely did I see a young nun of European decent; they were nearly exclusively of the developing world. Even in the Basilica of St. Francis in Assisi the friars who were working with the public were Asian and African.

Unfortunately, it is the old-Europe church that continues to dictate how the church shall be manifested. Perhaps more antecdotal than pervasive reality, in the Capuchin Generalate in Rome, non-Europeans are nearly the majority, yet the Old Europe contingent pervails in friary life. Although the old-Europe church is in shambles and decay, old Europe insists that their failed models of church and religious life are better than any other. They refuse, along with some US hierarchs, to realize the consequences of those failed models: a withering and quickly disappearing Catholicism. If the Church is to survive even thrive, it is high time to abandon Old Europe models, structures and systems that have produced an ecclesiastical failure.

11 May 2004 Nearing the end of my European journey, I am even more convinced of the impending crisis in the church. The very old and an extremely tiny number of younger uber-catholics are all that's left of the church I've seen in Europe. It is hardly encouraging. Unfortunately, catholic officialdom is more and more irrelevant. In Britain, Belgium, Italy and Austria the scene is depressingly shameful. In countries where the heritage of Catholic Christianity is relegated to works of art and architecture, the church appears to be on its last legs. The european disaster area, however, is held up us the center of Catholic identity. To think that clerical leaders who have failed miserably in their own native places to revive the living faith are the very ones who are directing how Catholicism will be shaped in other countries, where leaders are far more successful in invigorating a much larger and growing flock. As long as our bishops defer sheepishly to the Roman bureaucracy and our seminarians and young priests are formed in that lifeless place, we will follow the lead of European Catholicism: to oblivion.

09 April 2004 It was done perfectly, too perfectly. There were 2,000 people in attendance, but there could have been 2 or 2 million; it really didn't matter. They weren't supposed to sing; they didn't respond. All they did, it appeared, was stand when the Cardinal stood and sit when the Cardinal sat. I was not taken by Holy Thursday worship at Westminster Cathedral. Don't get me wrong. They choir was good ... good for a concert! The minsiters looked good ... good enough for pictures. The movements were all according to the rubrics. And, to be honest, it seemed like the Cardinal is a down-to-earth kind of guy who is a prisoner of this distant, depersonalized, spectator-style of worship that saps all the energy of what it could be. And I think the great percentage of those in attendance love what they saw. It's too bad. From what I have seen, the staff of the cathedral is fond of this style of worship. Perhaps they think they must or that they are in competition with the Church of England. I have no doubt that a great many people earnestly prayed. Thanks be to God! It could have been a community at prayer rather than 2,000 people in private prayer. One of the areas I am reflecting on during this year of sabbatical is the kind of worship that America wants and needs, and it is, at least on first reflection, a great strength of our Franciscan and Capuchin heritage that can provide it. Our style, while some may criticize, is more at home with imperfection, solidarity with the sinners in the pews, a desire to make God's word come alive. We can live with joyful chaos. We can improvise and bring it near. It doesn't kill us to smile during worship; and it's not the end of us if our worship does not look like a cathedral experience. In fact, I imagine most of us are bit uncomfortable with that. "A night of great joy," so the Cardinal said, but I didn't see one smile on any of the 2,000 faces present.

01 March 2004 John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter makes some great points about the quest for Catholic identity. Is he the first to use the word "identitarian?" If he is, it is a great handle. It is not unusual for groups and individuals to define themselves in contrast to other groups and individuals. That is the process all of us went through in our teens. Every healthy child will, sooner or later, seek an identity apart from his/her family, especially parents. No doubt, identity-by-contrast is helpful to establish one's unique status and reason for existing apart from others, but it also holds some dangerous possibilities that, left unchecked, are self-destructive. It sems to me that among some UberCatholics there is a singular focus on identity-by-contrast. The litmus test they pose is dangerously narrow, at times excluding even the Pope! They appear to have no interest in articulating Catholicism's common ground with other Christians. Moreover, they seem to be in earnest about excluding a growing number of Catholics as well. Although we may have passionate and conscientious convictions about specific and perhaps many issues, we would do well to be reluctant to rely solely upon identity-by-contrast that leads to hasty and needless exclusivity.

23 February 2004 James Dobson, an evangelical and director of Focus on the Family, recently spoke of the combined power of Catholics and Evangelicals. I don't think I have ever heard an evangelical join the two. It is a breath-taking statement. For the entirety of evangelical history, evangelicals have stood in angry opposition to Roman Catholicism. Dobson was responding to the criticism of Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. He noted that Hollywood has ignored the demographic of Catholic and Evangelical Americans. I have long maintained that Catholicism and the Evangelical movement have much in common. There is enormous agreement biblically and morally. Many evangelicals are adopting very 'catholic' approaches to specific aspects of worship and biblical interpretation. It is a partnership worth pursuing. I would imagine that 'behind-the-scene" Catholic leaders are very reluctant to engage evangelicals, primarily for political considerations. Evangelicals tend to be politically conservative and republican; whereas Catholic leaders, particularly bureaucratic operatives, are quite liberal and democrat. Aside from partisan political considerations, the partnership could save the USA Catholic Church. The evangelicals have much to teach Catholics; they are experts in evangelization and organizational flexibility. Evangelicals have an uncanny ability to quickly analyze and incorporate cultural aspects from which and to which the gospel is able to speak. On the other hand, Evangelicals are increasingly interested in the sacramental and hierarchical aspects of Catholicism as biblically authentic. The intransigence of Catholic operatives, stubbornly holding to political liberalism, does not serve the church by condescendingly ignoring the evangelical movement. Evangelicals appear to be letting their bigotry behind; will Catholics do the same?

18 February 2004 The initial reporting on the John Jay Study has been merciful. Perhaps more shall be made of it upon its final presentation at the end of the month. As a public relations strategy, however, preparing the public by announcing the wider dimensions of sexual abuse may in the end work in the Church's favor and image. Yes, maybe the bishops will have dodged a hit, but they would be tragically remiss should they miss the underlying dysfunction. They would do well to attend to the causes of the scandal which has brought the church's leaders a healthy dose of humiliation. There must be no doubt that the scandal is only symptomatic of a deeply entrenched disease: clericalism. That ecclesiastical disorder is a scandal in its classical sense: an obstacle to faith, and clericalism needs to rank head and shoulders above any other supposed or real cause. Why did bishops conceal the abuse and protect the abusers? Their intent was not malicious or even primarily driven by compassion for the abusing priests. Virtually every victim of abuse or their parents report that they were asked or instructed by ecclesiastical authorities to remain silent about the abuse they suffered so that the church would not be hurt. Bishops decided that the church would be hurt if abusing priests were not concealed and protected, held harmless from public and criminal punishment. To damage priests or the priesthood was synonymous with damaging the church. Incredibly few, if any, concluded that the church was already damaged when a layperson was in fact abused, and the church would be further damaged when the abusing priest was reassigned to another unsuspecting parish or environment that offered up its children to his abuse. The attitude which equated ordination and ecclesial identity is clericalism in its rawest and most vile form. The fact that bishops and priests did not comprehend the horrendous hurt to the church when any one of its members was sexually violated and even more incredibly by a priest, attests to a clericalism that has not only robbed the vast majority of Catholics of their rightful place in the Body of Christ but has also tragically twisted the shepherd's ministry to a parody of itself. If there is a rampant and dangerous heresy in the church today, clericalism is certainly that. It is also one of the biggest obstacles to a more promising future of the Church in the USA, but that is another column for another day.

09 February 2004 According to John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter the LeVebrites have observed that John Paul II has unraveled the church's raison d'etre. And they're right. Their assessment strikes me as right on target; although I disagree with their conclusion. They charge the pope's ecumenical efforts have undermined the imperative for being Catholic. That is exactly what I have stated for several months.

10 January 2004 The seminal cultural-theological revolution of the past 2000 years is the notion that it is relatively easy to get into heaven, in contrast to centuries past in which it was firmly held that it was very difficult to achieve salvation. (We are either privileged or condemned to be its witnesses.) Perhaps the only significant religious persuasion remaining to acknowledge an exacting God is the Muslim faith, and maybe only the most orthodox among them.

Uber-catholics, neo-counter-reformationists and certainly al-quaeda catholics can hope to retrieve a clear and disciplined Catholic faith only by convincing the faithful, at least a faithful remnant, that it is indeed easier 'for a camel to go through the eye of a needle' than it is for a human being to enter the kingdom of heaven. Without the motivation of salvation there is little incentive for Catholics to recapture the oppressive discipline of the past.

Theologians, pastoral ministers and hierarchs have avoided the very goal of a life of faith, i.e., ultimate salvation (heaven), but the faithful haven't and won't. They have clearly understood the teachings and actions of the church's leadership at its very highest levels: salvation is not the exclusive domain of the Roman Catholic Church. Ratzinger and McCloskey can rant all they wish, but they cannot undo what John Paul II has said and done. The pope along with most other preachers and teachers in the church have consistently described a God of compassion, love and mercy. They acknowledge a God who welcomes the prayers of Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. According to them, our God is one who seeks to save rather than condemn or destroy.

It is mind-blowing to the viscerally catholic, and one can only ask, "What is the imperative for being a Catholic?"