Archangel

POWER? NO, THANKS. I'D RATHER HAVE INFLUENCE!

2011-06-07T14:28:00.017-04:00

Mountains have from earliest times been associated with notions of divinity and mystery. The earth is seen as exploding upward from its foundations with an impulse of life, reaching upward to jagged peaks and heights as if somehow the sky itself is being sought. Mountains would be named after particular divinities. Mount Kailash in the Tibetan Himalayas was sacred to ancient Hinduism and Buddhism. Japan's Mount Fuji, named after a Buddhist fire goddess, has a Shinto shrine near its peak. Machu Pichu in Peru is the site of temples where Incan tribes worshipped their gods.

In Hebrew tradition there is Mount Sinai, where Moses received God's Ten Commandments. Mount Nebo, from which Moses viewed the Promised Land. The Temple Mount is sacred to Jews and Moslems. Jesus takes us to the Sermon on the Mount, the Mount of the Transfiguration, the Mount of Olives, Mount Calvary, and the mountain on whose peak Satan tempted Jesus with the aggrandizement of power.

Matthew's Gospel (4,1-11) places an extraordinary scene before us: the devil tempts Jesus with three proposals. What will Jesus base His appeal upon? The devil: Change these stones into bread: Bread for the masses. That's the way to go. Jesus rejects that approach. The devil then suggests that Jesus base his appeal on showmanship. Cast yourself down from pinnacle of the temple without getting hurt. Jesus rejects this and thus rejects using showmanship to attract people.

For his third temptation, the devil takes Jesus up into a high mountain and, with a 360 degree sweep of his arm, tells Jesus that He can obtain control and power of all this vision if He will embrace evil in the person of the devil. But any thirst for power and control is wholly alien to Jesus. "Come follow Me." "Blessed are the merciful, pure of heart, the seeker after justice..." The story of the wounded man on the road to Jericho; Jesus' spirited conversation with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well. At the time of His arrest, Jesus told Peter to put up his sword. "My kingdom is not of this world." This Jesus does not seek to control and command.

Has the Church of Jesus, on occasion throughout history, forgotten that Jesus was not a command and control type? Did His Church at times warrant the picture, as Dostoyevsky portrayed it in the "Brothers Kamerazov" as the Grand Inquisitor, who fails to recognize that it is Jesus he is interrogating? Reforms of the Church in history have often succeeded in departing from abuses of power and the attempted control of others. The Protestant Reformation, in shaking off the controls of church governance and priestly celibacy, did this. Our Church is very much in need of new reform. The greatest scandal in its history, priestly abuse of young people and the failure of bishops to punish miscreants, is still very much with us.

Astute commentators have observed that such abuse is a misuse of power - by the abusers and by tolerant bishops. Has our Church become an instrument of misused power? There almost seems to be a frenzy in the last two pontificates to centralize authority of the papacy and to aggrandize its power and control. In 2002, national conferences of bishops were stripped of authority by Rome's decree that any proclamation by a national conference without a unanimous vote must be referred to Rome. Attempted expansion of papal infallibility became evident in papal insistence on "definitively defined" items being accorded practically the same acceptance as that given to infallible statements. The International Commission on English in the Liturgy, established in 1963, its members appointed by the English-speaking bishops, was high jacked by JPII with his new philosophy of translation. In 2002, members and staff of the ICEL were replaced by others appointed by Rome. Their new, heavily criticized, translation of the Roman Missal was issued in April 2010 and simply imposed on English-speaking congregations. The CEO of Caritas, an international federation of 165 Catholic charitable organizations, was Leslie-Anne Knight. According to custom, she was to be reelected for another term. However, B16 and his curia wanted a somewhat different philosophy to furnish its direction. In May 2011, Michael Roy was elected Secretary General.

The centralizing and control-seeking form of our Church's governance raises questions. Why, with all its power and authority, did its much touted command and control authority fail to command and control an inner evil, only to be discovered by outsiders, that would destroy its credibility and trust? Why is it so different from the person and manner of Jesus? It also is different from the leadership practices of many CEOs, university presidents, museum executives, and other leaders. In writing about their leadership principles, they agree that listening is all important. Listening to employees, staff, board members, customers, and the public is accomplished through feed-back practices, meetings, and just being readily available. Constituencies must be made to feel that they share a mission, a product, that they are being heard, an overriding philosophy that they have helped to shape. One business leader, decrying command and control organizations, called attention to the difference between power and influence. "Power? Thanks. I'd rather have influence. As a person of authority, I'm a teacher-consultant more than a wielder of power".

Is Jesus a wielder of power or is He a seeker of influence? And Jesus' Church? Does it give first place to use power to keep its authority or does it first look to contact and communicate with others and thus have influence? Like Jesus with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well.

STARLIGHT AND STORM !

2011-05-31T11:33:00.006-04:00

The 90 year mark which I hit last February was a time to celebrate these long years of life and 65 years as a NY priest. Celebrations took the form of several not-so- small affairs, which provided opportunities to chat that would easily be lost in one large gathering. So we had a family party at niece Kathleen's; a priests' gathering at St. Ann's, Ossining, where I spent the first ten years of retirement as Weekend Associate; a Sunday afternoon brunch with residents of the Ruppert Co-op, 650 units of "affordable housing" of which I was the organizer; a Deering family party - children, grandchildren, and great-grand children of long gone NYFD Captain Ray Deering. Ray was a dear friend. We met through the proximity of his firehouse, a few blocks from the Chancery where I worked. Quintessential New Yorker with tons of stories, like the description of the garb of the folks fleeing a fire in Greenwich Village!

Beginning in 2007, my blog has been reporting many colorful and fulfilling experiences I have had as a priest. I have also reported on how church governance has failed in protecting innocent priests, in installing Cardinal Law, driven from Boston by his priests and people for reassigning miscreant clergy, in a prestigious position; in removing Bishop Morris in Australia for his views on women priests and how no bishop, who reassigned abusers, has ever been removed.

The litany of hierarchical maladministration could go on and on. But it becomes tiresome and frustrating to complain for reform, where, in the hierarchy, there is no will to listen. So I will leave the problems of church governance to others and turn to positive considerations of spirituality. I take, as a beginning theme, the title of a book, "Meditations on the Peaks: Mountain Climbing as Metaphor for the Spiritual Quest" by Julius Evola.

The challenger of the mountain needs a discipline of the nerves and body, clear-minded courage, and an indomitable will. The mountain presents the individual person
with enormous beauty and mystery. Despite the menacing dangers of violent storms and avalanches, the mountain challenges persons of intrepidity and valor to mount the heights. God is our mountain. We are challenged by the mystery and majesty of God to enter into these higher realms of beauty and subsequent tranquility, but also of storms and fears. This is a land of starlight and storm!

RESPONSIBILITY DIFFUSED!

2011-05-10T11:51:00.010-04:00

Since January 2007, I have posted 148 entries on this blogsite, Archangel. Some of these have celebrated bright accomplishments in the life and ministries of our Church as it tries to bring the heart and mind of Jesus to the world. Other posts have been candidly critical of many aspects of church governance. All that has been written here has come from a love of our Church and a desire that it be seen as a city on a hill. But two outrageous icons seem significant to me:

1) A few years ago, full page K of C magazine ads COME FOLLOW ME; then a photo of Benedict XVI and message, "Yes, we must come and follow Benedict".
2) Latest book by Benedict XVI on Jesus - cover photo of Benedict with caption, "THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD".

Heretical? I think so! Benedict twice steals the words of Jesus. Just a step away from Dostoyevsky's "Grand Inquisitor". Please, a humble Pope, a humble Church! Is this a problem?

Leadership tips from CEOs, university presidents, et al: "Listen to employees, staff, customers, boards of directors, the public"; "Make everyone feel they contribute to the organization, its culture, its product."; "Get feed back."; "Be collegial and consultative, not command and control types." "Have meetings, present goals, discuss tactics, don't have meetings where no one or few talk."

Some thoughts for bishops: "Be interfaith and ecumenical friendly; talk to fellow Christians, Jews, secularists, feminists, Unitarians; more importantly talk, to your fellow Catholics in Voice of the Faithful, Call to Action, and the like; don't keep them outside their church yards, meeting in Protestant and Greek Orthodox churches; send reps to their sessions; establish negotiable terms of discussion; they are not intruding on your turf - it's our turf; develop their human sense of belonging, don't think fences and walls"

Pope and bishops can no longer afford to diffuse responsibility as has been long a deplorable habit. Bishops are judged by pope alone; a more local judge is not available! For a bishop to be brought to justice is like a NYC cab driver able to be ticketed for a violation only by a US Supreme Court justice. The procedure kills the try for justice! The mantle of judicial immunity brings its wearer to a feeling of immunity from any criticism.

The bishops' National Review Board, consisting of outstanding Catholic lay personalities, in its February 2004 report was severely critical of the bishops: priests, but no bishop, were subject to punishment for violation of the Dallas Charter; the crisis was caused by the bishops failure to follow Canon 1395 ordering punishment, not therapy, for child abusers; damage to children was exponentially multiplied by bishops, who reassigned miscreants; bishops may well have had a conflict of interest in protecting themselves by agreeing to multi-million dollar payments and selling off church properties to pay damages; about the failures of bishops that brought grand juries and courts into the picture, the NRB report had this to say: "In the Board's view, any agreement between a diocese and civil authorities, in which the diocese gives power to the civil authorities to oversee the diocese, is a troubling infringement of the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion." History tells of many examples where Church and Pope steadfastly resisted such incursions, even to the point of deposing emperors.

These are serious charges, indeed,and it is understandable that some bishops were angered to be so taken to task. Our own Cardinal Egan, refused to offer the customary Mass for NRB members on their official visit to NY. Egan publicly disinvited Board members for a celebratory dinner held by chance at the time of their visit. In November 2004, Egan and three other bishops tried, thankfully without success, to delay and, perhaps, block the funding of the annual audits required by the NRB. In its report, the Board cited the violation by the bishops of Canon 1277, which requires the review and approval by the diocesan finance council for certain large payments. The Board pointed out that had the bishops complied with this canon, the large expenditures would have been questioned and their reasons disclosed to view.

Some board members have expressed dissatisfaction with the arrogance of some bishops. Former Oklahoma Governor, Frank Keating, described some bishops as "Mafia types". Illinois Supreme Court justice Anne Burke, after her term was up, has been giving lectures on the abuse crisis and the difficulties posed by many bishops to the Board in performing the duties entrusted to them. She said on one occasion that the NRB should be dispanded. I had been invited to provide a deposition to the Board. In Washington, I spent over three hours with Board member Robert Bennett, President Clinton's attorney in the impeachment affair. His questions showed a deep understanding of the crisis. He also observed that he could not understand the hostility and arrogance of some of the bishops towards him, given the time and loss of income he had experienced from his work on the Board. Out of frustration dealing with bishops, Anne Burke and Robert Bennett, with excelkent diplomatic connections, flew to Rome and met with then Cardinal Ratzinger with whom they discussed the situation. On their return, Bishop Gregory Wilton, Chief of USCCB told them they should have had permission for this trip, stating "even bishops need permission". Burke replied, "We are not bishops!".

With the abuse crisis very much with us, it would be appropriate to look again at the Feb 2004 NRB report. It is the most objective view to date of where accountability lay - in the past and, perhaps, into the future. Openness, not resistance , to criticism is a quality of the leadership needed to address the continuing crisis. In a recent Op-Ed in the Chicago Tribune, entitled "Can the Bishops ever be Trusted?", Anne Burke pointed out that the bishops had not followed the recommendatins of the Board. As subsequent events proved, the recommendations would have avoided some missteps that ensued and would be helpful in the future.

THE DANGERS OF FIXED IDEAS!

2011-05-04T15:50:00.006-04:00

Alan Greenspan, former head of the Federal Reserve Bank, was opposed to government regulation of business, believing that the free market would itself self-correct its problems. The financial collapse in 2008 and continuing on proved him wrong. It was caused by many factors, chief among them, Greenspan's fixed idea that regulation was a bad policy. Regulation should be treated as a no-no, "Don't even think about it!" A fixed idea to be honored above all was at the heart of the problem.

Church authorities, Popes and bishops, have a fixed idea about the Church. It is almost divine, incapable of doing anything wrong. It is to be honored and preferred ahead of everything else. Priests are abusing children and bringing dishonor on the Church. Oh, no! That can't be. Anti-Catholicism is behind this talk. Lawyers are drumming up such cases to make money. This abuse simply doesn't really exist. Popes and bishops tried for a long time to deny or cover up what, to them, was unthinkable. They put concern for the Church (and self-concern) ahead of everything, even the innocence of children.

But it was not unthinkable. It took the press, trial lawyers, district attorneys, and grand juries to show the brutal reality. But, even then, some would hold on to that image of Church. Cardinal Bevilaqua could still hold it after the 2005 Philadelphia grand jury findings and keep miscreants in ministry. And Cardinal Rigali, after the 2011 grand jury report, announced, "There are now no abusers in ministry." A week later, Rigali was forced to remove abusers still in ministry!

Pope John Paul held on to his fixed idea. When Cardinal Bernard Law, poster boy for reassigning abusers, was driven from Boston by his priests and people and, perhaps, to avoid a subpoena, JPII made him Archpriest of a prestigious church in Rome with a six-figure income and retained him in vetting candidates for appointments as bishops! Cardinal Bevilaqua and Pope John Paul II still "didn't get it", still maintained the fixed idea "Put the Church ahead of everything, including innocent children and, now more recently, ahead of falsely accused priests".

And now, Cardinal Rigali, under fire from press and the public for his mismanagement, was appointed on April 18 by Benedict XVI to be his special representative at a ceremony on June 18, 2011 honoring St. John Neumann in the Czech Republic. What is this all about? Does Benedict not understand how the faithful and the public will interpret this accolade for Rigali? Does he care? Does Benedict misunderstand child abuse as John Paul did when he rescued Cardinal Law from Boston? Do these two popes and two cardinals still accept the fixed idea at the heart of the problem: "My Church preferably right, but right or wrong, my Church!"

There is solid reason to think that the two popes "still don't get it". John Paul rewarded Cardinal Law, who exponentially multiplied the numbers of damaged children by reassigning abusers. Benedict conferred a special mission and honor on Rigali at the very time Rigali is shamed by the Philadelphia grand jury and calls for his resignation are being made. How unfortunate it is that these popes, with their fixed idea of a glorious and beneficent Church, can honor two cardinals, who, however unwittingly, caused injury to thousands of children. Both popes apologized for the sins of abusing priests. But the bad personnel management by many bishops has invariably been described by both popes in using the passive voice: "The matter was badly handled!" The harsh reality must be faced: the sins of abusive priests are outrageous; but the $2 billion of the faithful's contributions were paid out for settlements and court judgments for mismanagement by many bishops. When popes and bishops dispel the old Church-protective fixed idea, the way is open for salutary reform.

IS IT A CITY ON A HILL?

2011-04-15T14:09:00.005-04:00

The landscape on which our Church is situated is like a fog-shrouded moor in a Victorian novel. The lights have gone out at the top. Leaders in finance, education, and government tell how important it is to listen. To employees, management, board members, customers. One CEO favors large meetings because, he says, you have more people to listen to, who may come up with creative thinking. Being a leader involves having a vision of goals, communicating that vision to others, and instilling in others the notion that they have a real part in shaping the culture and the end product of the enterprise.

Our Church is not in a listening mode. It tells practicing Catholics, like those in Voice of the Faithful, Dignity, and Call to Action to go away. They are placed outside our walls. Please get off our turf. We are a command and control institution; not a voice that shares, accommodates, and persuades. We don't have to listen; we have the truth. The Vatican, with its appetite for control, increasingly centralizes church activities the better to dominate them. A few years ago, national conferences of bishops were emasculated by being required to show unanimous consent to authorize something in their own name; otherwise it must be refered to Rome. Under John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the old magisterium of the theologians has become the magisterium of the pope. This was a naked effort to broaden the scope of papal infallablity and it was used to disarm liberation theologians and saintly bishops like Romero of El Salvador, Arns of Brazil, and Sam Ruiz of Mexico. The Vatican a few years ago dismissed the board and staff of the English translators of the Missal and replaced them to change the direction of the translations. Opponents of the new English translation of the Missal in the US, South Africa, and Ireland are simply not heard. International Caritas has its CEO changed to accomodate a new direction of policies.

B16 has had his share of gaffes: a speech in Regensburg that angered Muslims; upsetting the Jews by reaching out to the Lefebre schismatics, one of whom denied that the Holocaust ever occurred. More recently, the CDF issued an announcement that placed pedophila and ordination of women as having equal gravity. This pairing created an outcry. And finally, the beatification of JPII is coming on express tracks in May. He is the pope who placed Cardinal Law as rector of Rome's St. Mary Major's Basilica with a six figure income after Law had been driven from Boston by his priests and people for his history of reassigning priests who abused the young. After meeting with US cardinals in Rome in the fall of 2002, JPII declared that the Church would help society in addressing the abuse problem. He seemed not to understand that the abuse problem had been brought to the attention of the Church by secular society in the persons of the press, district attorneys, and trial lawyers.

With the Church enshrouded in a fog-draped moorland, I shall turn my future blog notes to the brighter lights of some experiences and personalities I have encountered as a NY priest for some sixty-five years.

GOVERNANCE IS THE PROBLEM!

2011-04-01T14:34:00.004-04:00

The Philadelphia Grand Jury report of February 10, 2011 was profoundly upsetting to the public and to the Catholic community. Cardinal Rigali had pledged, together with all the other US bishops, to abide by their 2002 Dallas Charter, which required dismissal from ministry of any priest with even one credible allegation of abuse. This Grand Jury had found that a number of such priests were still in active ministry in Philly. Cardinal Rigali, in response, declared that no such abusers were still in ministry. Six days later, he removed twenty-one. Three priests and a lay teacher were charged with abuse and arrested. Monsignor William Lynn, Vicar for Clergy, was charged with endangering the welfare of children and was arrested. Will he be a sacrificial lamb to save the cardinal whose policy he followed?

The report also describes a similar Grand Jury report in 2005, which pointed out alleged abusers. But they could not be prosecuted because of statutory limitations. It had been thought that the 2005 report would have been a wake-up call. The 2011 Grand Jury found it otherwise and lodged severe criticism against Cardinal Rigali and his predecessors, Cardinals Bevilaqua and Krol, in that they knew of the abusers but did not oust them from ministry.

Both Grand Juries have indicated that the motivation of archdiocesan officials in removing or reassigning an alledged abusing priest lay in the danger of scandal. There appears no reference to possible danger to children as a cause of concern. Investigations by Church authorities as to what went wrong in Philadelphia will be anxiously awaited.

I suggest that the underlying problem to be addressed is one of governance. Not only have acts of abuse been covered up and miscreants secretly reassigned. The real cause is constantly covered up. It is not acts of abuse. It is the failure in governance of those bishops who did the cover ups and reassignments of miscreants. This cause is constantly pushed aside. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have invariably used the passive voice when it comes to who caused the problems. "The problem of priestly abuse was badly handled." "Priestly" is used; but "badly handled by bishops" has never been said by our two popes, to my knowledge. Not one cent of the $2 billion paid out was for the sins of priests, but in every case of court judgment or settlement, payment was for mismanagement by a bishop. $2 billion! JP II showed profound misunderstanding of the crisis in taking Cardinal Law, driven from Boston by his priests and people and, perhaps, to avoid indictment and installing him to a prestigious church in Rome with a six figure salary and a position on the entity that selects bishops. Law was poster boy for secret and multiple reassignments of miscreant clergy. He was protected and honored by JPII, who is now on the express train to beatification.

The bishops'own National Review Board understood the real causality that escaped mention by two popes. They used these words: "bishops engaged in massive denial."; "general lack of accountability of bishops."; "serious failings of some bishops caused the exercise of state authority over Church matters."; "the bishops'attempt to deflect criticism from themselves onto individual priests." This harsh criticism by the NRB angered many bishops as e.g. Cardinal Egan, who attempted to stop NRB funding at one point and explains his hostile attitude to them on their visit to NYC.
Board members showed their displeasure with the non-cooperation of many bishops: Chairperson Frank Keating, former governor of Oklahoma, termed them "Mafia types". His successor, Ann Burke, former Chief Justice, Illinois Supreme Court, on completion of her term, went on lecture tours, describing how many bishops interfered with their mandated work. I was invited to give a deposition before the NRB. In Washington, I was interviewed by Board member Robert Bennett, President Clinton's personal attorney. He candidly complained to me about his irritation at giving up time and income only to be met by anger from some bishops.

The hostility of so many bishops to criticism may be related to their immunity under canon law from judgment or supervision by anyone less than the pope and his CDF. When have we ever seen the pope crack down on a bishop for the mismanagement, which the pope himself described in nameless passive voice? When Dublin Archbishop Martin persuaded some bishops to resign for their involvement in the crisis, Pope Benedict refused to accept their resignations. Don't anyone step on my turf!

In the view of many, the Vatican's appetite for control seems excessive. JP II in his Synods of Bishops diminished the collegiality of bishops, so encouraged by Vatican II.
The USCCB was hamstrung, I think it was in 2002, by papal decree that decisions of national conferences had to be unanimous to have force. Otherwise, to Rome. Control is the name of the game. Rome hijacked the ICEL after decades of its work, appointed new members and imposed a questionable translation of the Roman Missal on the English-speaking faithful. Caritas, an international agency, of which our CRS is a part, was to have its highly regarded chair, a Ms. Knight take another term, as was customary. The Vatican made a different appointment. JP II, in his effort to expand papal control, tried, according to some, to expand the scope of infallibility by introducing a new phrase: the "magisterium of the Church".
In addition to reducing the clericalism and centralization of Church authority now abounding, a new way of thinking might well lead to an invigorated Church. Example: In November 2002, JPII and the US cardinals, after their meeting in Rome,issued a statement, which among other items, declared that "priestly celibacy" had nothing whatever to do with the abuse crisis. Obviously, an attempt to defend priestly celibacy at all costs! No studies had ever been made. But they had the conclusion. Very much like the time of Galileo. Church authorities had the Bible stating that the sun stood still. No need for research and study! Galileo was wrong! A priori thinking has its place. But it is no substitute for research and experience. Many feel it is too prevalent in Vatican thinking.

These thoughts are to encourage policies and thinking that can be helpful as we try to wend our way through today's maze. Back to the simple Christian faith; remove the encumbrances that block the view of Jesus. Just off the top of my head, indulgences and canonizations. How about some other examples? What do you think of the above observations? Other thoughts?

NINETY YEARS - AND COUNTING!

2011-03-18T10:26:00.003-04:00

February 7 was a milestone birthday - ninety years of age! I give thanks to the Almighty God for these lively years of life in a world of some dark clouds but an abundance of sparkling stars. I give thanks for sixty-five years as a priest of New York. It has been a fascinating journey with a multitude of enriching relationships, beginning with Harry Theodore Byrne and Marie Whelen. Dad is remembered for his buck and wing dance, his songs from Gilbert and Sullivan's "H.M.S. Pinafore", and from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", "I had as lief not live, as live to be in awe of such a thing as I myself." There was on the daily breakfast table, a box of corn flakes with a graphic of a slender woman, labeled "The Sweetheart of the Corn". I took it as an icon of my mother.

Brothers Bill and Jeb followed me at two years intervals, and then Mary, five years later. She was born in St. Elizabth's Hospital. On a visit to see the new family member, I recall, seeing out the window, the George Washington Bridge, then in construction. It was 1930. Mary died in 2003 in Calvary Hospital. By her side then, I could see out the window the Throgg's Neck Bridge. Bridges as metaphors at the beginning and the end of her life!

Great experiences at Murray Avenue School and Mamaroneck Junior High School and then at Iona Prep, lunchtime visits to the Blessed Sacrament. As altar boy at St. Augustine's, the tulip tree outside the sacristy window is a fragrent memory. So, too, sacristan Sister Jean Imelda! As a boy, I delighted in the high Masses, afloat in incense smoke, and the funeral Masses, three priests in solemn paces. Dignity, solemnity, reverence, then the jaw-dropping "Dies irae" with its soaring "tuba mirens spargens sonem per sepuchra regionem". And as the body is led down the aisle, "In paradisum deducant te angeli". Monday evenings with the Miraculous Medal devotion, its incense smoke, the "Tantum ergo sacramentum" and the direct sense of adoration were compelling, indeed. The only dark clouds in these early years relate to the Sacrament of Penance. Our parish priests were exemplary. Their example led me to this vocation. But they and most confessors in those early years were not helpful to boys as they experienced puberty. Ordinary experiences of a boy's developing sexuality incurred a sense of sin towards what was thoroughly natural. Confessors with a Jansenistic fear of sex reinforced that sense of sin by giving absolution and failing to point out the lack of any sinful quality in these normal functions. Silly advice was sometimes given. "Take cold showers; read spiritual books." Hey, padre,that don't work.

During the years of Cathedral College and St. Joseph's Seminary, we lived in a context of Catholic intellectual coherence. We heard Fulton Sheen's Catholic Hour on Sunday radio. In our reading we encountered G.K. Chesterton, Martin Cyril D'Arcy, Gerard Manley Hopkins, John Courtney Murray, and an array of French intellectuals: Jacques Maritan,Francois Mauriac, and Leon Bloy. Seminary experience was fruitful as to theology and liturgy. The strong statues of Peter and Paul in the chapel delivered a message, that was unforgivably lost when the statutes were taken away and a Madame Tausad's-like wax-work images were installed and the colorful scenes within the apse were painted over with blank white, yes, blank white.

First indications of leadership failure came to us seminarians from the performance of two professors,one sadly incompetent, the other, I believe, certifiably afflicted with a personality disorder. Complete failure on the part of leadership was evident in the lack of evaluation, no effort to seek student reaction, and no professional decision-making to explore reasons for terminating them. Aside from these two, our seminary professors were splendid.

Twenty years service in the NY Chancery followed three years of graduate study in Canon Law at Catholic University. Each of these chapters would require too much computer ink and blog space, as also would my years as pastor at St. Joseph's, E. 87th St. and Epiphany at E. 22nd St. On retirement at 75 in 1996, I served as Weekend Associate at St. Ann's, Ossining, a remarkably happy tour with a great congregation and pastor.

Now, in retirement, I have been working as a canon lawyer with priests accused of sexual abuse of minors. My earlier happier vision of our Church has become highly critical. My last post (February 28) described the unjust dismissal of an extern priest from ministry by a bishop, who also defamed him. And no appeal! This case, other examples, and a wide knowledge of the sex abuse crisis has lead to my views as to the causes of the crisis and the reforms of church structure that are needed. In my next blog post, I shall attempt to describe these.

THE DALLAS CHARTER - PLUSES AND MINUSES

2011-02-28T15:18:00.007-05:00

Justice is the force that keeps a community running peacefully through the whole forum of human activity. Government is charged with providing the protection of individual and corporate rights and interests by the rule of law. Government through its courts insures that the laws will be just and that those laws will be administered and enforced in a just manner. Each form of government has a judiciary component to insure that justice prevails within its jurisdiction. There are courts for towns and villages, counties, and states. Where federal law relates to the entire nation, district courts,circuit appellate courts, and a single Supreme Court insure that justice is maintained in the federal jurisdiction.

The Church has its structure and function of government. It, too, must assure the rule of law; and that the law, itself, and its administration is justly carried out. Over the centuries, church laws have been formulated and, in the face of their multiplicity, codified, most recently, in 1919 and 1983. The Code of 1983 deals comprehensively with relationships in the Church towards others, property, and the sacraments. There is an entire section dealing with punishments and processes to insure respect for truth and for justice. However imperfect it is and, indeed, it has many imperfections in content and administration, it is, none the less, comprehensive in its agenda for Church life.

In the spring of 2002, the abuse crisis burst on the Church and on society. The US bishops hastily gathered in Dallas in June of 2002 to respond to the crisis. They fashioned, with only a couple of days discussion, the Dallas Charter, a set of policies and practices to insure the protection of children. These have been judged successful in achieving their goal. But a serious flaw lay in its failure to protect the rights of priests. Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ severely criticized the Charter for this. (AMERICA,6/21/2004) Without going into the details, which are available in the article, it must be noted that the Charter established the bishop as arresting officer, procurator, judge, and appellate bench.An absurdity as to jurisprudential thought and history! No practical avenue to appeal a bishop's decision is available.

It soon became apparent that some bishops, perhaps embarrassed by the role of many bishops causing the crisis by secret reassignment of miscreants, may have been too quick in removing a priest from ministry. An example: Father X, an extern, had been working effectively in a parish. A woman had been stalking him for years to destroy his ministry. Through another diocese, she tried to locate him. That diocese wrote to the Metuchen NJ diocese so Ms. Z could contact X. The Metuchen bishop misread that communication, thinking it a warning about X, and abruptly revoked X's faculties in a context that made X appear to be an alledged abuser. X was required to leave the rectory immediately and was paid per diem for days worked. The local pastor informed some parishioners that X could never work with children. Bishop Paul Bootkoski of Metuchen refused X and myself, his canonical advocate, a hearing for X's defense. I secured a letter from X's own bishop, who certified that Ms.Z did stalk X and was herself mentally unbalanced, and that X had been unjustly treated by a misapplication of the Dallas Charter. This was not accepted by Bootkoski, who insisted that he could revoke faculties without cause. He was not moved by the case I had prepared with sworn testimony that he had defamed X. Nor was he moved by another bishop I approached, who wrote Bootkoski to ask his reconsideration.

Bishops can only be judged by the pope. Thus, every bishop is immune from judgment by any other bishop or bishops. Hence, the letter of X's proper bishop, which confirmed my canonical case establishing the injustice and defamation of X by Bishop Bootkoski, was totally devoid of any canonical authority and thus could be, and was, peremtorily disregarded by Bishop Bootkoski. To have the pope alone available to sit in judgment over the bishops of the world's 5000 plus dioceses is wholly disproportionate. In civil society, a multiplicity of courts is available to respond to the needs of the people. In the Church there is need for a multiplicity of judges to respond to allegations of unjust decisions by bishops. To have only the pope as a source of justice over a bishop's unjust action, especially in the new Dallas Charter cases, would be like requiring automobile owners throughout the US to purchase gasoline at a single gas station in Kansas!

The Dallas Charter must be revisited and some appeal process established against unjust decisions made by bishops, as in the case of X. It is now nine years since the Charter was established; seven years since Cardinal Dulles pointed out that the Charter failed to acknowledge the rights of priests. I have written as a canonist to Cardinal George, President of the USCCB,and the appropriate committee chiefs in 2007,2008,and 2009. I stressed the urgency of the matter, since many priests are being unjustly removed from ministry. Replies assured me that revisiting the Charter was scheduled for 2010! The November 2010 USCCB meeting did not have it on its agenda. Nothing was done. It is outrageous that our bishops can allow their priests to be at risk over these many years as a result of their flawed Charter.

The first draft of the Charter for the June 2002 USCCB meeting contained exactly what is now needed: an appeal panel of five with a majority of lay persons. The proposal quickly disappeared. Obviously, the bishops or the pope would not allow judgment to be made on them by lay persons, even if their priests were put in harms way. What has happened to the Church and the pursuit of justice? The Dallas Charter must be amended so that it may no longer continue to be an instrument of injustice!

Adieu, Goodbye, So long - Vatican Council II

2011-02-02T14:24:00.009-05:00

George Weigel in the current "First Things" writes about the transition from the collegial ethos of Chicago's Cardinal Bernardin - "seamless garment" "common ground" "collegiality" - to the "command and control" "highly centralized Church" of John Paul II. Weigel traces back these contradictory thrusts to the Council itself, where an old guard fought against the mind-opening and Church-opening mentality of the world's bishops gathered in Council. The new Vatican II voices won, at first. But as the Church in a second spring inspired its constituency with fresh energy and orientation, some few stresses and anxieties, that always accompany change, were seized upon by those, who felt they had lost a prized franchise, and used them to regain the turf that they felt had been lost.

Weigel, however well he described the transition from one mind-set to another, saw what was happening as quite appropriate as new stability marked the barque of Peter, while the anchors of the old culture halted progress under the new winds of change. Announcement of the pending beatification of John Paul II in May came like a victory shout at the end of a game!

John Paul indelibly marked his 1979 arrival in the US and one of his legacies at a gathering by silently ignoring the presence of Sister Teresa Kane, as she respectfully addressed him. In subsequent documents, John Paul would speak frequently of the "complementarity" of women's role, understood by many today as "different and unequal".

A curious phenomenon showed how JPII's actions reflected his attitude towards women and liberation theology. Bishop Sam Ruiz Garcia of Las Chiappas, Mexico - he died at 86 two weeks ago - was the champion of the disenfranchised Indians. They raised a violent rebellion against the government. Ruiz was charged with sympathy for the Zapatista rebels. But both sides selected him to mediate the conflict, which he successfully carried out. Ruiz attended all sessions of Vatican II and was influenced by it and by liberation theology, - "the preferential option for the poor" - which had captured the minds and efforts of many Latin-Americans. But, the hostility of Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul towards liberation theology was turned upon Ruiz. The pope in 1997 tried to persuade Ruiz to resign. Ruiz, strongly supported by the Mexican bishops and priests, refused. Ruiz had the Bible and catechetical materials translated into the Mayan language. He organized cooperatives of various kinds. He commissioned some 20,000 catechists to carry out a program of evangelization among the Mayans.In 2000, at the age of 75, Ruiz' required resignation was immediately accepted by John Paul.
[Google: Bishop Sam Ruiz for his remarkable story.]

Among Ruiz' legacies were some 400 married deacons, engaged in conducting communion services, baptisms, and marriages. Interestingly, when a deacon died, his wife frequently continued her husband's visits and services. A custom began to grow up. In 2002, John Paul's Vatican ordered Ruiz' successor, Bishop Arizmendi, to halt all deacon ordinations, reasoning that continuing them "would be equivalent to sustaining an ecclesiastical model alien to the life and traditions of the Church." As later with Sister Kane, the presence and service of women were lost on John Paul; but the words and counsels of the Gospels to the Mayan Indians were also lost!

It had been hoped that Vatican II, by its example and teaching of collegiality, would inspire more collegial activities of bishops. Paul VI had instituted the Synods of Bishops as a means to that end. But what may have been intended as a synod summary, became an "Exhortation" by JPII, a view of the synod through the lens of the pope. Pleas of some bishops in the Synod for Asia and the Synod for Oceania (both in 1998) to ordain married men, to insure availability of the Mass, were simply ignored. In the proceedings of the Synod for Asia, the propositions of the bishops were numbered and linked to the pope's responses. One proposition: the curia and the papal diplomatic service should be more international. JP II's response: the synod fathers expressed their gratitude for the fine work and help offered by the curia and the diplomatic service! Pardon me? A sharp conflict appeared when Japanese bishops insisted that liturgical books should be translated into Japanese in Japan under Japanese bishops and not by Japanese students in Rome.

JP II showed a pattern of expanding centralization of the papacy. In what has been perceived as an expansion of papal infallibility is "the magisterium of the pope", growing out of what had been "the magisterium of theologians". The International Commission for English in Liturgy, made up of appointees of bishops in English-speaking countries, had been at work for over a decade. In 2002, the composition of the ICEL was overturned and new members appointed. The Vatican had decided that a new philosophy of translation was to replace the philosophy of the existing appointees of the bishops. Benedict XVI in his 2010 visit to Britain, spoke of the collegiality of the English-speaking bishops in translation since 2002! Why did he not mention that the ICEL had existed for two decades before 2002, the year that JPII sacked the original ICEL and appointed a new one compliant to his wishes. Recently, Rome has announced the publication of the new English translation of the Roman missal and its imposition on the Church in the US. The USCCB unanimously accepted this imposition despite some harsh criticism by some bishops and English language experts. A clergy campaign, "Why Don't We Just Wait", and observe an experimental use of the new missal before its acceptance, was simply ignored.

Can as brilliant and prayerful a person as JPII fall into the trap of obscurantism? The word comes from the Latin "obscurans", meaning "darkening". It refers to the deliberate preventing of facts or full knowledge of some matter from becoming known. JPII is reported to have forbidden the discussion on serious levels of women's ordination or married priests and to have made these issues litmus tests in choosing bishops. Is this not a classic form of obscurantism?

Rome has been wary of a possible threat to its autonomy from a national body of US bishops, organized in 1919 as the National Catholic Welfare Conference, now the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. In 2002 (?), the Vatican ordered that only a unanimous vote of the USCCB will resolve an important issue, thus stripping it of an effective presence.

Finally, JPII has shown a rather total misunderstanding of the abuse crisis. After Cardinal Law was driven from Boston by his priests and people as poster boy for secret reassignment of miscreant priests, JPII assigned him to a prestigious church in Rome with a six figure annual income and maintained him on several Vatican commissions, including appointment and governance of bishops. JPII's failure to understand the crisis was further demonstrated in his April 2002 address in Rome to the US bishops, where he said "...the Church will help society to understand and deal
with the crisis...". This was said against the fact that it was the secular society -its press,trial lawyers, and district attorneys - that forced the Church to see and deal with its own problem!

JPII stopped the investigation of his friend, Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionnairies of Christ, later investigated by B16 and found living a double life of sexual excess.

Church tradition and law had historically required a time interval before canonization proceedings could be instituted. Fifty years had been a customary interval. JPII in 1983 established a five year period, with opportunity for waiver.
B16 provided the waiver to begin proceedings to canonize the pope who had preceeded him. Church? Old boys club?

Weigel in his article has seemed to have accurately signaled an end of an era, begun with Bernardin's and Vatican II's collegiality and terminated by, to use Roman, or perhaps, Germanic, imagery, a pope on horseback! JPII, with his forceful image and charismatic accomplishments, demonstrated a dramatic appetite for control and the expansion of his papal power, which hitherto have not been considered saintly characteristics.

PLEASE, HOLY FATHER, DON'T BLAME THE FAITHFUL!

2011-01-07T15:31:00.004-05:00

A few days before Christmas, Pope Benedict XVI presented "A Review of the Year" to the Vatican Curia. Central to that review was the sexual abuse crisis that exploded in the US in 2002 and, more recently, in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe. Benedict likened Saint Hildegard of Bingen's vision of Christ suffering from the sins of priests of her time to Christ suffering similarly in our time. "Christ's wounds",Benedict quotes Hildegard's vision, "remain open because of the sins of priests." He continues, "The way she...expressed it, is the way we have experienced it this year.. The face of the Church is stained with dust...We must ask ourselves what was wrong...in our whole way of living our Christian life... We must be capable of doing penance". But does the Pope have it right? Many say he does not!

Benedict echoes the same thought of Pope John Paul II, who addressed the US cardinals at Rome in April 2002 and declared, "We must be confident that this time of trial will bring a thorough purification to the entire Catholic community..." These two popes have misdiagnosed the cause of the abuse crisis as involving the whole Church. This is not true. It is a problem of Church governance. In a control and command system, those who give the commands and exercise the control are accountable for what goes well and for what goes wrong.

The captain of a ship is responsible for its operation and for management of the crew. So, too,stands the bishop with respect to his diocese. The buck stops there! Many bishops, when faced with sexual abuse of young people by some of his priests, covered up the miscreants and secretly reassigned them. All this, apparently, to protect the name of the Church. But those bishops violated the law! Canon 1395 orders such abusers to be punished, period. Not to be reassigned, not to be sent for rehabilitation! This is not to charge those bishops with moral fault, if, in conscience, they judged their actions to be morally acceptable. But the removal of moral fault does not remove accountability. A man, driving a car, makes a bad decision that results in the death of a pedestrian. However morally guiltless he may be, he remains, nevertheless, accountable. However morally guiltless, those reassigning bishops may have been, they remain very much accountable for the incalcuable damage to thousands of children and, ultimately, for giving dishonor to the name of the Church. Many public commentators feel that the US bishops, as a group, remain in a state of denial, unwilling to acknowledge their accountability and the humility that would be expected to accompany it. The US bishops' own National Review Board, in its report of Feb. 27, 2004 stated: "Church officials in the US rarely enforced Canon 1395. Nor have any bishops in the US been punished...for [this] failure...". The report, further, confirms the widespread public feeling that the bishops continue in denial of accountability, when it states: "The impression was created that the Dallas Charter and the Essential Norms were the bishops' attempt to deflect criticism from themselves and onto individual priests...the bishops were engaged in massive denial."

[For 2 page summary of key points of the cited NRB report, e-mail request to me.HJB]

A further indication that the "cover-up bishops" must be held fully accountable for the crisis is the $2 billion paid by dioceses as the result of court judgments and settlements. This money, essentially from the faithful, is not so much about deviant priests; it was paid because courts decreed or settlement meetings of lawyers declared that those cited bishops had failed to do their job and were accountable for resulting damages!

The NRB is quite unsparing in its criticisms of the bishops. The report points to another area of canon law violated by the bishops. Canon 1277 mandates that large sums (such as payments to victims) require review and approval by the diocesan finance council. If this were done, the crisis would never have grown to such great proportions. The report also faulted bishops who allowed the civil society, in infringement of the First Amendment, to intrude on some aspects of church governance. Yet another criticism of the bishops was voiced: "To the extent that a bishop avoids consequences for himself by agreeing to provisions that impose onerous financial or operational restrictions on the diocese (multi-million dollar payments, closing some parishes and selling property to pay damages) the Board has grave concerns about the apparent conflict of interest."

The cited NRB report then rachets accountability up to a higher level. Canon 1389 provides for a penalty for a Church official who fails to perform an act of governance. "Church officials in the US rarely enforced Canon 1395. Nor have any bishops in the US ever been punished under Canon 1389 for a failure to enforce Canon 1395." Only the pope or the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith can sit in judgment on a bishop. Is it a fair question to ask, where were the command and control figures, when these canon laws were being widely ignored? And while catastropic damages to young people and collapse of trust in the Church continued to be played out?

The severe criticism of the bishops by the National Review Board explains why some bishops were angered, some treating Board members discourteously on their visits; four of them unsuccessfully seeking to delay and, perhaps, block the funding of the Board. The first chairperson of the NRB, former Oklahoma governor Frank Keating, early on having referred to them as "Mafia types", had to resign. The second chair was Anne Burke, Chief Judge of the Illinois Supreme Court - she sharply pointed out that she was named merely "as acting Chair" - after completing her term, gave herself to lecture tours on which she was highly critical of the bishops. After that first critical report of 179 pages in Feb. 2004, little has been heard of the NRB, its annual reports now consisting of merely a few paragraphs.

To return to Benedict's pre-Christmas talk to the members of the Vatican Curia: "Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair...the injustice that has occurred...what was wrong in...our whole way of living the Christian life... We must be capable of doing penance..." As the bishops at Dallas, in the view of the NRB,"attempt[ed] to deflect criticism of themselves and onto individual priests", do we not see Pope Benedict and his predecessor, John Paul II, attempting to deflect criticism from themselves on to the entire community of the faithful? Please, Holy Father, you have said "Only the truth saves". The truth is that the crisis was caused by a failure of governance! A failure by those who governed; not by failure of the governed. Those governed are the ones who have been hurt, primarily the victims of abuse, the faithful, who have paid financially for the errors of bishops and pope and have suffered profound embarrassment in the public forum, and the priests in the field, their regiment disgraced by misjudgments of its officers.

There is a cruel irony in Benedict's calling on the faithful to do penance. The cited report of the NRB declared that Canon 212, p3 called on the faithful "to manifest...their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church". The Board gave examples of problems that would have been avoided had the laity been involved. Leadership manuals emphasize the value of two-way communication within an organization to make participants feel that they belong, are being heard and have a role in developing the culture in which they are working. Leadership experts call for meetings and wide outreach to garner feedback from board members, staff, employees, and actual and would be customers. Yet organizations like Voice of the Faithful, We Are Church, Call to Action, and others, which include faith-filled Catholics, who simply would like to be heard, are generally not only not sought, but are actually banned as intruders on bishop territory.

This great crisis calls for bold thinking and bold action. Perhaps there is need for wider dispersal of authority to provide local sources of information and local responses, especially about child abuse. Yet John Paul II killed such a would-be instrument, when he castrated the National Conferences of Bishops by demanding total unanimity to give a Conference muscle. Perhaps, the Pope should better deploy the resources of the Church. While the abuse crisis was festering unseen, the Vatican was condemning liberation and other theologians, insisting on translating liturgical texts, such as Japanese in Rome rather than in Japan, and canonizing hundreds of saints. JP II proclaimed more saints than were canonized in the entire history of the Church.

Our Church needs a major sit-down with new thinking, some new actors, and more restraint where ambiguity rules. Our authorities should do more listening than proclaiming, and be aware that control does not mean competence. The old actors and the old thinking have done many fine things, but, at the end of the day have caused, perhaps, the greatest disaster in church history!

"Fare l'atto di presenza"

2010-12-23T14:18:00.006-05:00

Someone walks into a room; nothing noticeable occurs, only an empty chair seems to have become occupied. Someone else enters, says nothing, does nothing, but the atmosphere becomes charged; his or her presence is like a power. That is where the Italian phrase in our title has place. "An act of being present has been made!" That is what the Christmas creche trumpets. This is no commonmplace birth, however peasant the surroundings, however earthy the cow and the dog. A power figure has made an act of being present! His coming had been foretold by ancient bearded figures, wearing the tallit and teffelin.

Later, John the Baptist, at Bethabara, a fording place where the waters of the Jordan River trickled over ancient stones, called out to prepare for the word of the Lord to be proclaimed by this infant, later grown to manhood. The widespread diversity of humanity that would later accept the message and the mission of this Messiah was indicated by those who listened to John at this crossing point of the Jordan. For centuries, caravans coming down from Moab would mix with other traders and travelers. John would have been heard by Jews, some in rough clothing, others in the silk and suede of the rich, but also Arabs from Transjordan, Babylonians with rings in their noses, copper-colored Abyssinians, and black Sudanese. Think New York subways! On the ears of these peoples would fall the words and values of this new figure, Jesus.

And our creche scene features the song of the angels, appealing both to the simple and to the wise - the rustic shepherds from local fields and the three wisemen from the East, sophisticated and exotic. Both types in following centuries would be found among the listeners to Jesus, the processions of simple folk on the streets of El Salvador and of literary and artistic types, who found place in their art for this power figure, whose power had nothing to do with political, economic, or military might.

Medieval and Renaissance artists in their depictions and interpretations of the creche scene frequently noted another deeper, dramatic, and mysterious feature about this power person, who had made the act of being present to us, by including, quietly and almost unnoticed, the apple from the garden of Adam and Eve, and, off to the side, a thorn bush!

This Jesus of the creche did not saunter casually into sight; he performed an act of being present to us. In His company, we his listeners are challenged to dismiss any casual pose and to make our own positive act of being present to Him, to His values, and to His sacrifice.

FLY THESE SPACIOUS SKIES!

2010-12-11T15:18:00.006-05:00

Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of - and wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sun-lit silence. Hovering there
I'v chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long delirious, burning blue
I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace
Where never lark or even eagle flew,
And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod
The untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand and touched the face of God.

John Gillespie Magee, Jr.
Killed in an aircraft accident
in England, December 1941

TWO CHAPELS AND A CATHEDRAL

2010-11-23T13:36:00.009-05:00

Most things are well here at the O'Connor Clergy Residence. Twenty-eight priests and two bishops are moving into Shakespeare's "lean and slippered pantaloon" with assorted pill boxes to stave off the inevitable. The green trees of summer have blocked our views of the nearby Hudson River. But now that the pelting rain and strong winds of November have stripped the trees bare, the river and the dramatic Palisades can be seen. Looking to the south at night, the George Washington bridge and its lights show the connection to New Jersey. The bridge is a metaphor for a different kind of bridge on which we make our way. And New Jersey is not to where it leads!

The residents here represent a mix of ministries that we, New Yorkers, have followed over the years: parish priests, educators, ecclesiastic bureaucrats, hospital, Army, and Air Force chaplains. These men have many stories and accounts of adventures that are, frequently, more than twice told. But that works out well. Fluid seating at meals provides the hope that at least one at the table has not heard your own colorful and fascinating stories.

As you drive in through the gates, a shrine to Our Lady provides an appropriate welcome. Shrubs and flowers are well maintained. Kitchen and dining room provide excellent food and service. An exercise room with treadmills and bicycles is at hand. We have a small library; a local public library is a few blocks away; a major library is a few miles away at St. Joseph's Seminary. Finally and importantly, there are three settings for our prayers.

A small chapel , the first of our three prayer settings, is the locale for concelebrated Masses each day at 7:15, 9, and 11. The intimacy of the small space is an excellent theater for private prayer. The concelebrated Masses suggest the fellowship of the priesthood that binds us together in our approach to Jesus. The rich colors of the stained glass windows give a dramatic dimension to the figures of Jesus and the eleven apostles, as at the table they are engaged in what we do centuries later at the altar. Together at the daily Mass, we are also part of a history that goes back twenty-one centuries, essentially bound in to the substance of what Jesus bequeathed to us, but ready to move ahead with new methods of communication, distribution, and structure and with new attitudes towards relationships.

A second chapel furnishes us with a somewhat different stage for our prayer. It is larger than our Mass chapel, with about 120 seats as contrasted to 25 for the other. It is used when our residents come together for a joint exercise, as in administering the Sacraments of the Sick, spiritual retreat exercises, and special instructional matters. The larger size is suggestive of a parish church, similar to those in which most of us have served. It suggests the wider community envisioned by Vatican Council II, in which the defining characteristic is Baptism in the Lord. That is the basis of this new community in which lay people participate and feel part of the enterprise and essential to its flourishing. All are made one by baptism as St. Paul proclaimed - men and women, married and divorced, gay and straight; the basic qualification is one's humanity. Business corporations, universities and colleges and wherever people management is a component seek transparancy, flow of information to all, and to make all feel that they are truly part of the body organic.

A third theater or stage for our prayer at the residence is not a chapel, but a cathedral. I open a door in my suite and step out on to a deck. The dome is the sky above, sprinkled with diamonds at night and with hundreds of cloud sculptures and paintings by day. Here is where, in solitude, mystery is encountered. The river and the Palisades to the west remind us of how those cliffs were carved in paleolithic times by ice, water, and wind. In that time sequence, we are a mere blip. Even the Hubell telescope could not find us, a tiny dot in the infinite reaches of space. Does it go on and on and on? Is there an edge, a wall, then what? This is the mystery, at the edge of which we pray!

After sixty-five years as a priest of New York, the O'Connor Residence is a great harbor into which come many interesting colleagues. One of us has said, "In the years I have been here, I have never heard a harsh word from residents or from staff." Despite a troubled world and a Church in crisis, we each try to put the pieces together in our own personal jig-saw puzzle. We are thankful that we have here three places to pray before a host of mysteries - a Mass chapel, a parish-like church, and a cathedral not built with hands!

STOP, LOOK, AND LISTEN !

2010-11-04T14:36:00.008-04:00

Large scale departures of Catholics from the faith have been the subject of the Pew research organization, articles by Cathleen Kaveny and Peter Steinfels in the October 22, 2010 COMMONWEAL, and the recent study "American Grace" by Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell. Many of those who left have established new religious identities with Episcopal, Lutheran, Pentecostal, and other Christian bodies. The numbers and causes of these departures and new affiliations, not the least of which has been the monstrous sexual abuse scandal, are appropriate subjects for study and analysis by our bishops, think tanks, and whoever. In this posting, I will examine what, in my estimation, is a substantial cause of alienation and, what, simultaneously, indicates a remedy: the institutional and personal refusal of the members of the Catholic hierarchy to "listen" and the remedy,"start listening".

An iconic image of the problem: Pope John Paul II in 1979 as he refused to listen to Sister Teresa Kane, when she rose to speak. As a seemingly fourth person of a new divinity, the pope failed to acknowledge her as a person, did not respect her as a baptized child of God. John Paul, also showed his isolation from the real world, when, in the smoke and mirrors of clericalism, he assigned Cardinal Bernard H. Law, driven from Boston by his priests and people for reassigning miscreant clerics, to a prominent church in Rome and continued him in church-governing positions! John Paul simply did not listen to Sister Kane, to the people of Boston, to the world.

After the November 2 election that devastated the Democratic Party, President Obama
declared that the governing party had simply not listened to the people.

Each Sunday's Business Section of the NY Times presents the CORNER OFFICE, an interview with a distinguished leader: a CEO from the business, academic, or various professional worlds to explore LEADERSHIP in their experience in corporate and people management. What is revealed about LEADERSHIP qualities is dramatically relevant to governance in the Church by pope, bishops, pastors, and others exercising church authority. They may have authority in faith and morals. This does not carry with it expertise in corporate management, people management, or public relations. Church authorities can surely benefit from the voices of experience in these worlds. As the following selected excerpts are reviewed, a comparison or a contrast can be made between the recommended qualities and the readers' personal experience of church governance, favorable or unfavorable, as it may be:

1. CEO, advertising, male: You learn a lot from the worst managers, the "command and control" types. One must make people feel they are part of a team. They need to feel their voice is heard and feel completely fearless in having a conversation with me... The ability to thrive in ambiguity is important. How people feel with something that is not black or white, but grey.

2. CEO, business, male: Leadership and communication are the same thing. We believe in communicating everything to every single employee. We're big on what we call the whole brain concept, which is simply to eliminate silos. We probably have more people than we need at each meeting. But, we get a lot of innovation that way... We talk a lot about a person's wake, like a boat's wake. Most people's wake is much larger than they can imagine as is the leader's... We talk about and emphasize foundational principles and how we apply them, and how that makes us cohesive and act as a team.

3. Hedgefund founder, female: Every year, I ask individuals to write a 360 on everyone in the firm, including me. Then, an outsider, a management coach, synthesizes things and says, "These are the directional comments that people have about you." ... At our all hands meetings, every six weeks or so, I tell people what is going on in our different areas."

4. CEO, info services based in the Netherlands, female: Peoples, cultures are different. How they interpret what you've said to them, and how you interpret what they have said, and the rules of engagement about how you are going to make a decision is very important. Remember, as a boss, everything you do is evaluated.

5. CEO, business, male: Are employees and associates more product oriented than customer oriented? Have I succeeded in making employees feel that they are a real part of the enterprize?...I'd like to ask once a year, anonymously, would you like to work with me for another year? Do you have faith in me? Employees, the board, shareholders, customers, my associates?

6. Ms. Drew Faust, President, Harvard University: Understand the context in which you are leading: an organization to which people have a loyalty and which has had a long history of loyalty. This can cause resistance to change. A willingness to change is to be sensitively cultivated. There are different constituencies, each to be dealt with differently. Communication with these constituencies is important to develop a sense of identity and cohesiveness of the whole, wherein each dean or school comes to appreciate the benefits from the larger organization in which it plays a part....If people feel that they are being listened to and their views are being taken into account, decisions will be more graciously accepted. Differences cannot be allowed to degenerate into enmities. Belief in the organization by its participants is essential. It can be secured only if they are being invested in the institution, being made to have a stake in it, as well as being asked to respond to its needs. We are in the people business!

My brief comment: Pope and hierarchy appear as "command and control" types, viewing outside suggestions and recommendations as invasion of their turf and more concerned about "product" than "customer". Neither seeking nor hearing the voice of the "customer" in a litany of issues, John Paul II, in 1998, in the judgment of some theologians and canonists, has attempted to reshape the "product" by adding a new category of doctrine: "whatever is proposed definitively as part of the magisterium". This has been criticized as an effort to widen the concept of infallibility and as part of the papacy's continuing effort to centralize and increase authority, power, and control. Is it another example of "control and command" governance?

A thoughtful recommendation: Pope and bishops should immediately establish relations with Voice of the Faithful, Call to Action, and other groups of practicing Catholics. These are not invading turf, but seeking to be real parts of the enterprise. The rejection by the hierarchy of such a role for the laity may well explain why many Catholics are seeking other religious identity, where they consciously become part of the enterprise of encountering Jesus.

CAN ISLAM BE PEACEFUL ?

2010-10-31T14:18:00.010-04:00

Juan Williams, an anchor at NPR, was recently fired from his job because of his remarks on Fox's Bill Reilly's program that he would feel uncomfortable boarding an aeroplane with some passengers dressed in Muslim garb. NPR, very politically correct, discharged him for remarks offensive to Muslims. Curiously, the roof fell in on NPR. Journalists and others condemned his being fired by NPR. Many others expressed the same sentiments about being with Muslim-dressed passengers. The NY Times, after packaged bombs from Yemen were found on a UPS truck in Dubai and on an aeroplane at Heathrow in England, featured a cartoon figure with Muslim passengers exclaiming, "I agree with Williams".

NPR and the initiators of the downtown mosque near Ground Zero, Imam Rauf and developer Sharif el Gamal found Williams' remarks offensive to the Muslim community. They hold that their brand of Islam breathes peace. That message and the proposed mosque near Ground Zero drew considerable support because Rauf and el Gamal succeeded in establishing the term of the controversy as one of religious tolerance rather than as the intrusion of outsiders in this New York graveyard, affronting the sensitivities of so many. The same word or words can be used and heard differently by different audiences: balogna can refer to a cured meat or to meaningless statements, as in "a lot of baloney". "Islam" and "muslim" can mean peace through discipline and sharia law to those of the umma, the world-wide Muslim community. But for contemporary Americans, those two words immediately bring to mind the terrorists of 9/11, suicide bombers, extremist jihadists, and, in yesterday's a report of an assault yesterday in Baghdad on the Syrian Catholic Cathedral. One hundred Catholics at Sunday Mass were taken hostage by an armed group, identified as The Islamic State of Iraq. Thirty-seven attendees and two priests were killed: fifty-six wounded. Legitimate Iraqi forces released the remaining hostages.

As "Islam" and "Muslim" are understood differently by different speakers, so, too, the proposed mosque will be perceived differently by different observers. Rauf and Sharif el Gamal would have observers here see it as a monument to religious freedom; but those in Muslim countries around the world will see it as a symbol of the 9/11 Muslim victory. It will be seen, in yet a third way, by many of us New Yorkers as an uninvited intrusion on the place of our communal grief.

The mosque proponents have a nomenclature problem. What is their Islam? Are they part of the "umma", Islam, the Muslim world-wide community, whose charter calls for world domination? How do they view modern Muslim nations, where there is no religious freedom, where sharia calls for amputations for thieves, honor killings, and death sentences for writings and cartoons deemed sacriligious? That is the Islam of popular understanding!

The local mosque people are of the Sufi component of Islam, peace loving, mystical. But there are questions. As Muslims, how do they relate to the larger Muslim world? Generalities about peace-loving are insufficient. New Yorkers need to be educated on the specifics that warrant that title. Do they publicly reject sharia's death sentences for conversion or perceived insults to the Koran? Do they accept the Qu'oran's permission for husbands to beat their wives, but "not beyond bloodshed"? What qualifies a person for membership in their mosque? What is its charter and mission statement? How are jihadists excluded? Some mosque members become radicalized as has occurred here and in Europe. How is such a member expelled from the mosque, as has frequently occurred here and in Europe?

Such questions are not asked gratuitously. New Yorkers are well aware of our peace-loving Muslim neighbors - professionals, livery drivers, grocers, and merchants. But the Charter of Islam is recorded in its Holy Writ and is exemplified in modern Muslim nations and in history. Muslim, Jews, and Christians effectively lived together in Moorish Spain with accomplishments in art, architecture, and the good things of life. But Jews and Christians were "dimmis" -"protected ones"- paying an annual tax and subject to many legal inhibitions, such as limited to riding donkeys, horses not permitted!

In buying a house or making an investment, full disclosure is required. With Islam, not only a religion but also a form of government, with examples in its history and in the contemporary world, full disclosure of a charter and mission statement of the proposed mosque is not an inappropriate request. The two uses and two understandings of the word, "Islam" makes it incumbent on the downtown mosque people to make clear which is their "Islam" and how it differs from the other "Islam". The same name with two meanings is, to say the least, confusing.

The necessity of full disclosure is further seen in light of statements the like of one by Abu Laban at the Ninth Congress of the Islamic Cultural Institute in 1995 in Milan: "They [westerners] accept Muslims in their midst... We, therefore, must pretend that we accept their religion and their individual freedom. But this is impossible. Islam can accept no one who does not adore Allah."

SOME INTERESTING CONFLICTS !

2010-10-22T15:47:00.008-04:00

Over the years, the ink has dried; magazine pages have yellowed; key figures have died. I, too myself, am playing in an end zone. What to do with the pile of periodicals containing articles I have written? Let's have a last look at some of these which tried to understand some puzzling conflicts.

AMERICA 2-9-85. "The American Pope" John Cooney (1984), a scurrilous book about Cardinal Spellman. Reminded me of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation: "You can have your own opinions; you cannot have your own facts." Cooney writes with acid ink, using more nasty adjectives than subjects and predicates. His opinions are contradicted by facts. OPINION: Spellman "had a history of working against the Israeli cause."FACT: When Israel's admission to the UN was up for a vote, Spellman called on UN delegates and officials of every Latin American country to vote for Israel. Cooney says he did it to please Charles Silver, his Jewish friend, and noted that Eleanor Roosevelt did it because she "firmly believed in the justice of the cause". OPINION: Spellman guilty of "heel-dragging on the issue of race". FACT: Spellman approved and funded a delegation of priests and nuns to the march on Selma, Ala. despite Alabama's bishop's unwelcome. Cooney:"By the mid-1960s, Spellman...had to do something for the civil rights movement." OPINION: Cooney: Spellman "detested unions". FACT: On arrival in NY, Spellman announced that all construction by the archdiocese would be by union labor. In May 1947, he announced a $25 million building program. The Building and Construction Trades Council of NY passed resolutions of appreciation. OPINION: Spellman "intended to chip away at the wall of church and state...until,it was leveled." FACT: John Courtney Murray, SJ fashioned for Vat II a new doctrine of church and state compatible with US constitution. Old timers at Vat II blocked Murray from the Council. Spellmanm brought him to Council as his personal theologian. Cooney's book is filled with distaste for Spellman and delinquent on facts.

AMERICA,Dec. 6, 1986 "Thou Shalt Not Speak". In August 1986,the NY Chancery issued a directive that persons, who hold positions contrary to church doctrine, should not be permitted to speak at church events. NY Assemblyman John Dearie, a sterling Catholic was banned from speaking at a parish affair because he had voted for Medicaid funding for abortions. My article criticized the directive because it could cause people to vote on a single issue, ignoring other favorable actions by the candidate. Could also lay clergy open to charge of interfering in politics. Also, it is a fact of life that American voters will never elect someone whom they view as politically subservient to a religious body! Many positive responses including Governor Mario Cuomo's; some negative including Cardinal O'Connor's. Story carried in NY Times.

AMERICA: Jan 5-12,1991 "A House Divided: The Pro-Life Movement". I described three points that divide the pro-life movement: abortion perceived as part of women's freedom,opposing contraception and abortion equally; use of excommunication to force a legislator's vote. Pro-life support is weakened if seen as part of anti-feminism, if contraception is opposed equally with abortion; if a legislator is seen as forced by a church penalty. Most comments positive; some insisted on condemning contraception equally with abortion.

AMERICA: Oct 5, 1985. "The Supreme Court and Parochial Schools." Title 1 legislation of 1965 succeeded in allowing federal funds to parochial schools for remedial reading, remedial math, and guidance programs. It was a triumph of LBJ, who brought proponents and opponents together to overcome what had been deemed to be constitutional barriers to any such federal aid to parochial schools. For the next nineteen years, this program was successfully carried out by public school teachers coming into the parochial schools to teach the allowed subjects. In 1985, the US Supreme Court declared the program unconstitutional on church-state separation grounds. My article reviewed previous Supreme Court decisions that dealt with governmental attitudes towards religion in public and parochial schools. Some items were declared unconstitutional: prayers and Bible readngs in public schools; direct aid to parochial schools. But many governmental assistance items for parochial schools were approved by the Court: bus transportation, loan of secular text books, providing computers, projectors, etc, vouchers. NOTE: In 1997 the Supreme Court overruled this 1985 decision. Public school teachers were now to be permitted to enter the parochial school to teach remedial reading and remedial math and provide guidance programs. Church-state jurisprudence had undergone a significant change. Mr. Paul Crotty, an Epiphany Parish parishioner and now a Federal District Court judge, had argued the case successfully before the Supreme Court.

AMERICA: Oct 2, 1999. "Courts Confused on School Choice." This article traced a changing attitude by the Court towards aid to parochial schools as different challenges were confronted: different types of voucher plans, reimbursement for required reporting expenses, computers and internet access, tax credits, sign language interpreter for a deaf student in a Catholic High School, school tuition for a blind student in a Protestant seminary. These varied cases wended their way through lower and appellate courts before arriving at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in affirming constitutionality of these practices was clearly experiencing an evolution.

AMERICA: Dec 12, 1998. "Growing Support for School Vouchers" in educational circles and court decisions.

AMERICA: jULY 25, 1987. "Church, State and Foster Care Children." My article reviewed the history of child placement in public and private facilities, some of which were religious. In that long history, NY legislation provided for "religion matching", which accorded priority to the wish of the child or parent regarding placement in a religious institution. Thus the child was assured of protection of his/her religious identity and of the comfort of religious symbols and devotions so important to young lives. The ACLU instituted a suit to bar religious choice and the providing of religious symbols and devotions in the facility. Catholic and Jewish opposition quickly arose. In view of the high emotions and the church-state complications, a
"Stipulation of Settlement", signed by NYC, Defendant in the case, and the ACLU, was accepted by a Federal District Court. Catholic and Jewish parties, having lost their case, appealed the court's decision. T Cardinal O'Connor said that if the "Stipulation" was upheld on appeal, archdiocesan congegate foster care would be withdrawn. I regret that I have not followed up this case to see how it played out.

A SHOWER OF DIAMONDS!

2010-10-14T15:40:00.004-04:00

Two trees at the south-west corner of our monastery-like building caught the early afternoon sun at an unusual angle. Each leaf reflected a tiny portion of the sun. The trees were transformed, appearing as though glazed by an ice storm or, as you looked again,each tree sparkled as though festooned with tiny white Christmas tree lights or as having received a shower of diamonds.

The Christian faith is like a shower of diamonds that makes the natural things of life reflect back something of God's power as the trees in the afternon sun reflect back something of the energy and heat of the sun. The shower of diamonds, which make our lives reflect back a greater than natural brilliance, are the words and examples of the more abundant life given us by the new Adam, Jesus,the light of the world. "I was hungry, you fed me; thirsty,you gave me a cup of cold water; a stranger, you took me in; in rags, you covered me; sick, you visited me; in prison, you came to me. As long as you did these things to one of these, my least brethren, you did it to me." How remarkably simple! Each of these acts is a sparkling diamond that the Christian is to wear as it reflects back something of God's light and power.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, the meek, they that mourn, they that hunger and thirst after justice, the merciful, the clean of heart, the peacemakers, they that suffer persecution for justice sake. Each of these qualities, described by Jesus in His sermon on the mount is a precious diamond, signaling the Christian's engagement to his neighbors and his fellows and, through them, reflecting back something of the mysterious life of God.

Like the trees in the afternoon sun, the Christian receives the shower of diamonds from the words and examples of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

A MESSAGE OF LOVE!

2010-10-07T11:37:00.007-04:00

My last post was about my long term partner in inter-faith weddings, Rabbi Joseph Gelberman. He infused his seminary students with enthusiasm and love of life, so evident in their own words, which they placed in a newspaper obit notice:

"Our beloved rebbe - a modern day prophet; gatherer of differences,pioneer of peace, physician of the soul. A message of love from your students: You showed us how to see each other through the eyes of the heart, as brothers and sisters connected in divine, loving unity. How to live life to the fullest; how to face resistence with love; how to always be giving of spirit; how to accept all living beings as part of G-d; how to study scripture and interpret it on our own; how to break down walls of hate; how to build foundations of love; how to always be on a journey inward; how to respect all beliefs and celebrate the miracle of life in concert with them; how to be resilient in the face of despair; how to sing and dance at every chance; how to be forgiving; how to wake up each morning, grateful for life, and, above all else, how to be joyful, always joyful. Yes. rabbi, we are ready for life, ready to do the good and beautiful. Our brother, you have brought us all together and have shown us these wondrous paths."

Rabbi Joseph Gelberman, died September 9, 2010 at the age of 98.

A BELOVED RABBI, MY GOOD FRIEND!

2010-10-01T14:09:00.005-04:00

The NY Times obit list recently noted the death on September 9 of Rabbi Joseph Chaim Gelberman, my long-standing partner in joining Jew and Catholic in the bond of marriage. Long-involved in interfaith weddings, I probably encountered Rabbi Gelberman by chance in the 1960s, when a couple picked both of us off a list of priests and rabbis available for interfaith weddings. Since then, whenever I was requested to officiate at such a mixed marriage, I would suggest Rabbi Gelberman as the rabbi; when he had a similar request, he would suggest me as the priest. Over the years, we officiated together many times.

He was somewhat short, featured a Van Dyke beard, and spoke with a light Hungarian accent. In the ceremony, I would take the marriage vows from the groom and bride; he would bless the rings, first asking the couple and the congregation to close their eyes, and then: "My dear young couple, and all you friends and relatives here,be aware there are others looking on from above; they can be seen only by our inner sight; look,there is Michael, the commander in chief of the angelic host, Raphael, the angel of healing, and Gabriel, the angel of courage. They are participating in this blessing of your rings, assuring you of sharing their heavenly treasures of goodness, healing, and courage to be with you in this new chapter of your lives." It was fantastic! He had almost literally created the presence of these angelic spectators. I could feel that presence myself! He was a master! He would then describe the symbolism of the rings in terms of the everlasting values that would characterize their lives. Rabbi Gelberman was a tough officiant to be partnered with. I worked hard on preparing my part. I was never a match for the beard, the accent, the Hebrew chant, and his ability to create angels on the spot.
Remarkable!

Rabbi Gelberman was always friendly, but formal. I was always "Monsignor"; he, "Rabbi". He had good advice. After a wedding, he asked if I had received an offering. No, I had not. "Monsignor, you simply must be more aggressive. After a ceremony, I say here is your envelope (the "ketubah", religious certificate of marriage). Where is my envelope?" Early on, when asked about my fee, I initially disvowed any fee. But I shortly changed that. "Since the rabbi and I do the ceremony together, it would be appropriate that I receive the same as the rabbi." Rabbis are realists; the fee, clearly made evident early on. Years ago, it was $200; when I stopped officiating, the fee had reached $600. Rabbi Gelberman was always solicitous for me. When he had received his $600 after a ceremony, he saw that I had not. "Monsignor, he thinks the $600 was for both of us. You'd better talk to him". "Rabbi Gelberman,he happens to be on the Jewish side. I'd be grateful if you might bring it to his attention". "Of course, Monsignor". He quietly went over to the father of the groom. I soon had my $600, even though the the giver seemed to be mumbling some words!

Both of us delighted in what we were doing, engaging with young people at a happy time. We dealt with all kinds of people, mostly normal family types. There were several where the parties had met through AA; another one, through a drug treatment program. One wedding was in Bensonhurst, where Jews and Italians live happily together. The Catholic groomsmen were on my left, lovely Jewish bridesmaids on my right. Rabbi Gelberman had the congregation under his spell. One of the Italian groomsmen leaned over to me. "Hey, father. This guy is going over his time. You want us to do anything?" "Relax, Aldo. Listen to the rabbi. He's got a good message."

Rabbi Joseph Gelberman died at age 98. May he rest in peace. And you angels: Michael,
Raphael, and Gabriel, you always helped him, when he brought you down to bless the rings. Take good care of him!

THE MOSQUE - A STRANGER TO COURTESY AND RESPECT !

2010-09-14T14:11:00.017-04:00

"Consider, O nation, those that are dead, slain upon the high places. The illustrious of the people are slain upon the mountains: how are the valiant fallen!...Be desolate, for there was destroyed the shield of the valiant. For they were swifter than eagles,stronger than lions. I am desolate for you. How are the valiant fallen!" 2Kgs,1;21

With all NY, I shared the desolation of that 9/11/2001 day. I was to officiate at the wedding of a friend's daughter, Amy Lane, to David Winslow on November 17. David went down in the rubble of Tower One. Across the street from my former rectory are the NYPD 13th Precinct and Emergency Service Unit One. The 13th lost Officers Moira Smith and Bobbie Fazio; Emergency Squad One, Officer Brian McDonnell. All married, with children. I knew them. I visited ESU 1 frequently as pastor before retiring and then after 9/11. On the post mortem visits, I found the men, on 24 hour tours, sleeping in their squad room, covered with soot and exhausted from their search for body parts and IDs. Women of our Gramercy Park area had set up, 24/7, hot food tables in the precinct quarters for the NYPD and ESU men and women. The NYPD had lost twenty-three officers; the NYFD 343 firefighters, depriving 607 children of their fathers. Cantor Fitzgerald, the financial firm lost 700 employees, depriving 1300 children of a parent.

Photographer Bolivar Arellano, my Epiphany parishioner, took a remarkable series of photos, one showing Fire Chaplain Father Mychal Judge, being carried out from the ruins, dead of a heart attack. Another showed an entire Ladder Company entering the south tower shortly before it collapsed. All perished! The firefighter, front and right in the photo, was my Epiphany parishioner Bob Foti, who had a child in our Epiphany school.

For months after 9/11, I participated in many memorial Masses and services held at churches and synagogues throughout the city. I felt the desolation of the congregations in their mourning. Where body parts had been destroyed in the cataclysm, a photo of the deceased or a helmet spoke of the loved one lost. The ESU officers had brought to Epiphany a quantity of ashes from Ground Zero. They were placed in an urn in the sanctuary. Father Walter, my successor at Epiphany, has since built a remembrance memorial in the plaza fronting on the church.

By coincidence on that first 9/11, I was scheduled for the noon-day Mass at St. Thomas More's, near the apartment of my first retirement years. By noon, the extent of the cataclysm had become known. The church was filled to capacity; the sense of grief, over-powering; the noon Angelus bells signaled prayer and faith. In those first months, I heard a great talk at a meeting of the NY Press Photographers, called to deal with the trauma they had experienced at what they had seen and photographed, the most horrifying, persons leaping from the flaming heights. Two photographers had been killed, one injured. Todd Maisel, a friend, who had asked me to participate with a prayer and a few words, leapt atop a table in the restaurant and gave an impassioned talk. Like a prophet from the Bible - Todd is Jewish, he spoke of an Old Testament time, a New Testament time, and now a Newest Testament time, when our lives have been changed and we live with a new awareness of evil, but, more importantly, with the affection, respect, and love that has brought us together in a remarkably new way.

On October 12, a funeral Mass was held at St. Patrick's Cathedral for Brian McDonnell of ESU1, our neighbor across the street. No casket; just a large photo and his helmet. Maggie, his wife spoke of how they met, their love at first sight, and their embrace that produced Katie, now age 8, and Tommy, age 3. Katie had been listed to do the second reading. Sobbing, she shook her head. A police officer did the reading. Father Mike McHugh, who married them twelve years ago, spoke briefly with the feeling that can only come from the heart. There was eloquent communication in the eye contact that each of us, priests, had in giving Holy Communion to each of hundreds of police officers, a contact that spoke of a coming together in grief and in faith. After the Mass, out to Fifth Avenue, lined with hundreds of police officers; the NYPD pipes and drums; the slow step and the muffled drum beat of the death march; taps, with Maggie raising Tommy's hand in salute; then the fly-over of the police helicopters.

These are memories felt by me and thousands on each anniversary of 9/11 in quiet grief and solemn ceremony. Until this year of 2010! Now the area was tormented by the hitherto unlikely spectacle of two adversary groups, demonstrating in harsh anger. Despite the turmoil unleashed by the site proposal of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, peace was kept, symbolically, by NY's Finest - the NYPD. Rauf's proposal had come like a bulldozer, tearing up the grass of a graveyard. Rauf was a brash intruder on our hallowed ground. He flew deceptive flags of our First Amendment and religious tolerance and, thereby, set the terms of the conversation. Surprisingly, Mayor Bloomberg and many sophisticated NYers accepted his defining of the issues and the playing field. These are not the issues! Of course, he has the constitutional right to build. Religious tolerance is a non-issue. This is New York with its hundreds of mosques, thousands of the peaceful Muslims we know and live happily with and they with us: professionals of all types, shop keepers, cab and livery drivers, my computer instructor, and even NY State Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam.

And religious tolerance? That's not a NY word. Tolerance sounds like "putting up with". We NYers rejoice in the diversity of faiths and we also get along quite well with those of no faith. We share and value many of the insights, perceptions and artistic creations of those of other faiths and no faith. We will not be lectured by Imam Rauf and his developer, Sharif el Gamal, as they proclaim that they will teach NYers about religious tolerance and that the resolution of their issue will be a "defining moment" in our history. This is nonsense! Defining moments have long ago arrived; the right to build and the right to religious liberty are enshrined in constitutional and statutory provisions. Rauf and company have nothing to teach us here. But there are other values that our nation lives by: sensitivity, courtesy, and respect. These are not capable of being protected constitutionally or by statute. They are, nonetheless, quite real and essential to peaceful living. They are the real issues behind the troubling controversy now at hand. Rauf's persistence on his site-choice constitutes a gross aggression upon the sensitivity of others; his and el Gamal's self-proclaimed postures as would-be teachers are a second brash assault on NYers. A more astute New York would not have allowed them to substitute the false First Amendment issue in place of the real issue: Rauf's brutal disregard of courtesy and respect to 9/11's mourners, to the NYPD officers, the firefighters of the NYFD, the personnel of Cantor Fitzgerald and other firms - all of whom lost associates and friends, still being mourned!

Rauf's tilting of the playing field caused the loose nuts to roll out. A drunk stabs a Muslim cab driver; a bizarre minister in Florida threatens to burn bushels of Qu'rans; similar burnings by the unstable or criminal occur. US General David Petraeus warned that these actions would further inflame Muslims everywhere and put our troops at risk. Rauf has, indeed, opened a Pandora's box. As the turmoil increases, Rauf, rather than accepting compromise as a true peace-seeker would, asserts his unyielding determination and couples it with a threat: if the mosque-center site is forced to move, even more Muslim anger will result with dire consequences to US troops. He appears quite aware of the tendency of Muslim anger to become explosive.

It is curious that Mayor Bloomberg and others would so enthusiastically accept Rauf on his own terms with no questions asked. The New York Post has reported that Rauf, as owner of a building, is to appear in a Union City, NJ court on September 15 to respond to a suit brought by his tenants charging fire safety and other buildings code violations; that a second Rauf building burned in 2008, one year after Union City had leveled twelve fire safety violations against it. In addition to further background checks, questions should have been asked: What is the nature of the civil corporation; its by-laws; who are board members and officers? What is its nature as a Muslim religious organization? Its mission statement? What are its criteria, tests and procedures to exclude or to expel a non-peaceful Muslim? Its ties to other Muslim organizations? How does Rauf differentiate his Muslim faith from that of others along the wide spectrum of Islam? Has he condemned the Islam goal of world domination, the fatwah against Salman Rushdie? The oppression of Christianity and Judaism in Muslim countries; the barbaric punishments under shahira, such as amputation of limbs and death by stoning? Recently the NY Times reported that a Saudi judge had requested two hospitals about performing a spinal-cord operation on a culprit to render him paralyzed as the culprit had paralyzed another in a fight. Has Rauf or his group made public protest regarding this? Rauf's insistence on the peaceful quality of his Muslim faith is made in general terms and his opposition, is equally vague, as to violent actions permitted by Islam, such as a husband permitted to beat his wife up to shedding blood or breaking bones. Does he condemn these things publicly and specifically? What about the status of women?

These investigations and inquiries seek assurance as to the peaceful nature of the beliefs of Rauf and his group. They are not an intrusion on an individual. Like it or not, the public is too much aware of the association of Islam with violence and that many mosques have been sources of jihadists. With that assurance of peacefulness, Rauf's group will be welcomed as neighbors. But their selected site remains vigorously opposed on the solid grounds of sensitivity, courtesy, and, eminently, respect. Values they appear sadly to be lacking!

THE MOSQUE - ITS TIES TO PERSONS AND TO MONEY?

2010-09-05T15:39:00.007-04:00

My last three posts expressed my reasons for opposing the site of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero. I have received many plaudits for this position, but also some negative comments from friends and individuals, whose intelligence and judgment I respect. They feel that the proposed builders' First Amendment rights trump other considerations.Therefore, some rethinking is in order. My first post clearly affirmed their right to build, but questioned the lack of sensitivity towards those for whom Ground Zero was an execution ground for their loved ones, the killers crying out in the name of Islam. The second post judged that it would be seen in Moslem countries as a symbol of victory, following Islamic tradition of mosque building at the site of their victory, as carried out at Jerusalem's Temple Mount and Spain's Cordova. The proposed site was initially named "Cordova House", but was recently changed to "Park 51", apparently after it was remembered that Cordova had become the capitol of Moslem Spain after the victory of Moslem armies in 711AD. Its cathedral was replaced by the Mosque of Cordova. My third post opposed the mosque site on the ground that Islam is much more than a religion: Islam, full blown, is an ideology and a form of government, a theocracy. Simply look at Saudi Arabia and other Moslem countries in their treatment of women and their denial of the freedoms of religion ,press, and the arts.

In reply to those who disagreed with my position, I observe that a deep-seated fear arises in many of us at the word, "Islam". Our minds have been conditioned by the word, "Islam", connected to the belief and motivation of the 9/11 terrorists, the suicide bombers so frequently in the media, and the fatwahs - death sentences - lodged against Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoonist for their depiction of Islam. US Army and Air Force chaplains with our troops in Saudi Arabia have told us of Mass celebrated under tight secrecy, of the disabilities of women, and the amputations of the hands of thieves under the shahira. All this is perceived by many of us as part of Islam. Today, newspapers report from Iran the ninety-nine lashes inflicted on an adulteress instead of her being stoned to death, a punishment deferred because of an international outcry. History records the elimination of Christianity in North Africa under Islamic rule in early centuries. In Moslem Spain, Christians and Jews paid a head-tax in addition to various legal disabilities. This is what causes fear; the peaceful Islam is overwhelmed in public consciousness by Moslem activities at present and in history.

This fear is not bigotry. We know the peaceful quality of our Moslem neighbors here in NY - health care and other professionals, shop keepers, livery and cab drivers, and government officials, including a NY State judge. We know them as peaceful citizens. We get along fine. This is NY! But some basic doctrines of Islam are invoked by the terrorists. The resulting fear and distrust are not signs of bigotry, although some such expressions have been triggered by the lack of good manners on the part of the mosque proposers. They are perceived as "in your face" intruders on a sacred space. Some respond similarly.

Accordingly, the mosque initiators, in their own self-interest, must educate the public in their "peaceful Islam". Generalities are not enough. How do you feel about the Koran's permission for husbands to beat their wives up to blood-shedding? Its proclaimed goal of world domination by conversion for all; The death penalty for apostasy? Amputations,flogging, and stoning to death as punishment? The replacement of parts of our civil law by portions of shahira, especially in domestic matters, as has been seriously sought in England? Given the emergence of jihaddists from mosques in England and recently in Newburgh, NY, what provisions are in place to insure the exclusion of extreme or border-line Moslems from this mosque?

One might think these question should be quickly dismissed as impolite and the correct answers obvious. Not so. They should be answered. The spectrum of Islam is wide, from the peaceful downtown mosque-builders to extreme fundamentalists. Where are the lines that separate one group from another? Who are the board members for this mosque? Where is the money coming from? Hisham Elzanaty, according to his lawyer was a "significant investor" in developer Sharif el Gamal's $4.8 million purchase of the proposed site. El-Gamal himself has refused to disclose where he obtained the funds. Elzanaty is listed as a 1999 contributor of $6,000 to the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, later shut down because of its ties to terrorism. In 2008, five of its leaders were convicted of giving material support to Hamas. Hamas recently endorsed the controverted mosque site!

Many of us look forward to these person and money trails being followed and are hopeful that somehow the above questions will be asked and responded to satisfactorily. Even if all trails and questions play out well, good manners would still require that the site be relocated!

DOWNTOWN MOSQUETIERS

2010-08-23T14:22:00.004-04:00

A new public face to the Downtown Mosquetiers has appeared: Sharif El Gamal, a developer. In an interview last Tuesday on NY ONE, he appeared as a smooth, articulate, and unbendable figure. He was the one who will see the mosque put into concrete and steel. No question about it. It will happen. Sensitivity to New Yorkers? Not to worry. This will be a "defining" moment for the country, for all fifty states! It will teach New Yorkers about freedom of religion, the constitutional right of all of us. As NYers ourselves, we will teach the real meaning of New York to all of you. The mosque will be an icon. People will come from around the world to see it. (Like the Hamas, who have approved the site!) Somehow the image of a Nazi gauleiter came to mind. Sharif is one of the best arguments to date against the mosques' location. Arrogance personified!

A Saudi judge asked several hospitals to cripple the spine of an attacker, who had left his victim paralized. (NY Times 8-19-2010) An eye for an eye! Muslim law! A judge in Iran recently sentenced a couple to death by stoning! Death is the penalty for apostacy! These examples, like the terrorists on 9/11, were based on principles from the Qur'an. The public has the right to ask of the developer and the imam and his wife how their Islamic faith differs from that of their co-religionists in the above examples. Their own peace-loving affirmations must be much more specific than their own generalized statements as to peace. Will they publicly disavow in writing the specific provisions of the Qur'an on which the above actions are based?

Similar peace-affirming Moslems have been content to offer general or incomplete answers. In August 2002, the University of North Carolina required new students to read Michael Sells' "Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Years". The book was intended to show the peace-loving spirit of the Qur'an. But it dealt with only the first thirty-five suras - all imbued with a peaceful spirit. The harshness of the sharia would appear only in the later portions. Thus the volume, pretending the essentials, failed in omitting the harsh portions.

After 9/11, a small group of Moslems distributed a flier throughout my neighborhood, distancing themselves from the Islam of the 9/11 hijackers.The flier was headed by a quotation from the Qur'an: "If a man slays another man...he slays all mankind. 5,32" I got a copy of the Qur'an, curious to see what had been omitted, as noted by the three dots. I found: "not in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land." Of course, "mischief" provides a blank check for murder. It is translated variously: "blasphemy", "indecency", or "degradation". Interpretations could vary: a billboard with a bikini-clad lady to publicly worshipping by a Christian or a Jew.

Many in the public would welcome the answers as to how the downtown mosque people differentiate themselves from the more violent. Please, let us know!

MOSQUES AS SYMBOLS OF MUSLIM VICTORY

2010-08-13T15:17:00.007-04:00

My last post opposed the mosque at Ground Zero because building bridges between neighbors, aside from law, does not begin by irritating your neighbors. But Islam is more than a religion. It is a form of government that aims at the committment of all its citizens to Islam, giving non-believers even less than a second-class citizenship and places them under Muslim rule of law, the shariah. When the devotees of Islam succeed in conquering a non-believing constituency, a monument is built as a symbol of its victory. When Muslim armies in 614 defeated the Jews in Jerusalem, a mosque was built on the site of the sacred Jewish temple. Today as Temple Mount, ruled by a Muslim entity, it is a symbol of that ancient Muslim victory.

In 711, a Muslim army from North Africa conquered a large part of Spain and established an Emirate in Cordoba. As a monument to its conquest, the cathedral was demolished and a mosque was constructed on the site. Cordova became a renowned center of Muslim art, architecture, and culture generally. Bernard Lewis, a scholar of Islamic history, wrote that had Islam offered equality to non-believers,"it would have been a theological as well as a logical absurdity". Christians and Jews were "dimmis", Arabic for "the peoples under protection of Islam". Dimmis were subject to a special tax, legal discrimination, and other indignities. A child born of a mixed marriage had to be raised as Muslim. The bishop of Cordova, obviously a realist, urged his people to tolerate their second-class status. Nevertheless, between 851 and 859 forty-nine Christians were decapitated for offenses against Islam. Christian education centers and monasteries were subjected to a process of closures. Cordova and its mosque were symbols of Muslim victory. To our amazement, the proposed Ground Zero Muslim Center was named the Cordova House. A monument built, not on the ruins of a cathedral, but on the ruins of the Twin Towers, a kind of modern-day cathedral? Why did Muslim extremist Hamas, yesterday, voice its satisfaction with the mosque site? Could they see the mosque, so near Ground Zero, as a happy reminder of a Muslim victory? . Perhaps the founders belatedly thought of this. Last week, they scrapped the Cordova name, replacing it with "Park 51", the street address.

It is argued, correctly, that Christians have their own history of bloody intolerance, the Inquisition and the Crusades, as examples. The difference lies in the evolving progress in the West in technocracy, education, tolerance, and democracy, whereas, according to Lewis' book "What Went Wrong", the Muslim world simply did not build on its earlier splendor and simply did not move ahead. For example, no European nation practices the death penalty while Muslim nations still do. Newspapers bring news of Muslim nations amputating the hands of thieves, the stoning to death of adulterous women, death in some places for conversion, and other offenses under extreme provisions of shariah law. And there are examples that once Muslims take over, as recently as in Northern Nigeria, the shariah is put in place. When nations are under Muslim rule, as eg Suadi Arabia, Jordan, Indonesia, Afganistan, and Iraq, the shariah rules. Christian and Jewish worship is forbidden. In Muslim Spain, various dynasties ruled in different parts, with varying degrees of tolerance. Modern Muslim nations, too, are characterized by varying degrees of tolerance. After 9/11, we are quite aware of the impact of extreme Muslim jihadists on New York and on the entire nation. And we are aware of the peace-loving Muslims, who are our neighbors. We welcome them - merchants, livery services, professionals of all kinds.

Given this wide spectrum of Muslim belief, political action,peaceful neighborliness, charitable activity, and also violence expressed in the name of their God, it is appropriate to ask our new neighbors to declare what precisely distinguishes them from their extreme co-religionists. The Koran limits a husband's beating of his wife to the point of bloodshed. In our society, domestic violence is a crime. Will the mosque founders and allies specifically reject this provision of the Koran? And also the specific provisions providing for a muiltiplicity of wives, death for non-believers, blasphemers, and women adulterors? How do our newcomers feel about the text in the Koran that authorized the fatwa - death penalty - against Simon Rushdie for what he wrote and the Danish cartoonist for his insulting drawings? These are harsh questions but they require specific answers. But they are justified by past history and current events! By the experience of mosques in England as a source of jihadists. A casual general affirmation that the present worshippers are peace-loving
is simply insufficient. The basic texts are at issue here.

The present mosque dispute is not the first instance in our history where the surrender of a religious principle was required for welcome. The Territory of Utah, predominantly Mormon, sought entry into the United States on several occasions but in vain. Mormon religious belief in plural marriages was the sticking point. In 1862
the US Congress passed legislation banning bigamy. It was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1878, declaring that "religious duty was not a defense against crime". Mormon elders signed the 1890 Manifesto, officially disavowing plural marriages.In 1896, Utah was admitted as the forty-fifth state.

Many of us remain opposed to a mosque at Ground Zero. This is not a question of freedom of religion. The Muslims are free to build under our law. But sensitivity to twin-towers' victims and now to country wide voices, a sensitivity which has not yet characterized the mosque people, would suggest that bridge-building would be helped by using a different site. However it plays out, the mosque originators should disavow specifically how they differ in principle from other less peace-loving
co-religionists. Something similar to how the Mormons of Utah became US citizens.

A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO?

2010-08-04T21:53:00.005-04:00

This week, the NYC Landmarks Commission refused to designate a building two blocks from Ground Zero, where the twin towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed by Muslim jihadists. This refusal partially opened the way to the construction of an Islamic Community Center on the site. It would provide outlets for Muslim educational and cultural programs, aimed, according to its sponsors, at building a bridge between cultures, by emphasizing what the sponsors term, the peacefulness of Islam.

The prospect of this Islamic Center at the area, where over three thousand Americans were killed by Muslim terrorists, has evoked spirited opposition, by some in anger and by others after peaceful consideration. Many view the project as an insult to those who lost loved ones in the 9/11 inferno; others, as a symbol of an Islamic victory. A law suit has been brought by opponents, claiming that the action of the Landmarks Commission was taken after unlawful pressures moved the process rapidly along. Many object on the basis of sensitivity to the feelings of survivors and to the nation-wide trauma felt at the destruction of lives and of buildings possessed of symbolic meaning. Mayor Bloomberg, candidate for governor, Andrew Cuomo, and other political figures are swept up in a flourish for support of the mosque in terms of our democratic values, especially, our treasured freedom of religion.

I come down on the side of opposition because of sensitivity. Friendly neighbors are guided not just by the law but by their sensitivity to neighbors feelings. The mosque people are showing a remarkable lack of the sensitivity that would be expected of friends and bridge builders. Japanese friends would hardly think of building a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbour. Plans to locate a Catholic convent next to Auschwitz were scuttled when sensitivity was factored in.

A priest in NY meets a lot of friendly people in the course of his ministry. The Muslims I have thus encountered, admittedly only a few, have been far from friendly. I have officiated at many Catholic-Jewish weddings, all marked by a friendly priest-rabbi collaboration. I've had only one Catholic-Muslim wedding. There was difficulty securing the services of an imam. After many attempts, they found an agreeable one from the UN. I telephoned him, as per my custom with a rabbi, to discuss how we would arrange the dual ceremony. "Don't worry about it", he curtly remarked, "Not a problem. I will come. I will do my ceremony. Then I shall leave. You can do whatever you want." Thank you, imam. Go build a bridge.

Another happening: A baby in the preborn nursery at Bellview passed away. Catholic mother and Muslim father wanted a ceremony, embracing both faiths. As I had anticipated, they could not secure an imam. A relative did a reading from the Qur'an at an evening service at Epiphany, attended by nurses and physicians from the neo-natal care unit. They had been so impressed by the little one's fight for life! A procession wended its way to the church plaza. Someone released a cluster of white balloons that floated upward in the night sky.

I hope the mosque people will exercise our freedom of religion, not known in Muslim countries, by building their mosque, but, with sensitivity to their neighbors, by building it in another part of the city. In my next post, I shall provide some other aspects of Islam that keep me from supporting the Ground Zero site.

BULLET-PROOF VESTS FOR BISHOPS!

2010-07-16T16:00:00.009-04:00

Yesterday, July 15, the Vatican did not help its already damaged reputation, when it declared a new set of rules dealing with both abusing priests and ordained women in the same document, suggesting, by juxtaposition, that both groups are involved with equally "grave" offenses. This Vatican document with its bizarre twinning of ordained pedofiles and ordained women shows a stupidity and absence of sound moral judgment probably unequalled in church history. To equate as "grave crimes" pedofilia and ordination of women has caused a great negative outcry from fair-minded men and women and an abundance of sharp criticism in op-eds, editorials, and letters to the editor. The ordination of women is a mere blip on the church radar screen. There are no victims; priests' abuse of children appears as a raging hurricane, leaving untold thousands of children psychologically and spiritually wounded. Have the curia people, who publicly juxtaposed these issues, lost all sense of moral judgment and personal embarrasment as they appear in public as though everything is just fine? It is not the emperor who has lost his clothes!

The new document deals with statutes of limitation, administrative processes, and canonical trials relative to priests; it says nothing whatever about those bishops, who quietly reassigned miscreants and thereby exponentially multiplied the number of victims. In the US, not one cover-up bishop has ever been arraigned before church authorities for his part in the scandal. On the contrary, Cardinal Bernard Law, poster boy for cover-ups and driven from Boston by his priests and people, was welcomed to Rome by JPII and given rectorship of a prominent church, significant curial posts, and a six figure income. The armor of clericalism shielded him from any accountability just as this present Vatican document continues to shield all bishops from any accountability. Our bishops' own National Review Board has tellingly declared, "The exercise of authority without accountability is not servant-leadership; it is tyranny".

This document also provides, that regarding the delicts mentioned, cardinals and bishops are to be judged, by mandate of the Pope, by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. But no item of a bishop's possible delinquent behavior, it's punishment, or any process for judgment is indicated, despite the long history of bishops secretly reassigning pedophiles "to avoid scandal". They have no warrant for the immunity they incredibly possess from harsh judgment and punishment. When reports of two government commissions revealed the extent of abuse by priests in Ireland, Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, apparently aware of the immunity of his fellow bishops, announced a policy of "fraternal correction". He called on five bishops to resign because of their complicity in reassignments of pedofiles. Four did resign. Later Martin emerged from a meeting in Rome with B16 in what the press characterized as a "chastened mood". Did the pope tell him that calls for resignations could only come from the pope? And in the present document, judgment of bishops is put in the hands of the CDF. A further example of the pope maintaining the immunity of bishops? And his own tight control?

This document shows the clericalism that is at the heart of our church's problem. The official church doesn't see women as equal to men! Remember JPII when he refused to acknowledge the existence of Sister Theresa Kane when she addressed him. And now putting ordained women in the same bag as ordained pedofiles! And bishops in their bullet-proof vests from which the bullets of genuine criticism and accusations bounce away, unnoticed! This is the clericalism that must be driven away by the forces of truth and justice! In the meantime, we Catholics are embarrassed at the ineptitude and ignorance of the real world displayed by our supposed leaders.

SOME DISCUSSION TOPICS!

2010-07-12T13:39:00.008-04:00

It was a bad news week for the Church we love according to the July 9th issue of the NCR."Papacy under Siege" was the lede for the story of the Belgian police raid on an archbishop's palace. The Vatican protested loudly. But Belgian police knew that the Church had never voluntarily surrendered records about the sexual abuse phenomenon. Disclosure in the US was forced by the "Boston Globe"; in Ireland, by two governmental commissions; in Germany, by the Suddendeuche Zeitung. Belgian officials decided to checkmate Church authorities and secure the records that might speak of crime.

The Leadership Conference of Women Religious supported the Obama health legislation while the bishops' opposed it. Cardinal George declared that the bishops had the prerogatives to teach and take positions on such legislation. He said it was a matter of church governance. The LCWR disagreed.

NCR editors included material on the Vatican investigation of women religious as to doctrinal matters and their way of life. The women religious regarded it as an affront, having had no participation in its planning and having been told they cannot see the final report, leaving them unable to voice any rebuttal.

An article describes the secrecy that keeps victims of abuse and the accused from knowing what was carried out. Delay in the Catholic court system is characteristic.

John Allen writes about discord between Vatican cardinals - Sodano and Schoenborn and the shakeup in curia leadership, which "completes the ascent of the pontiff's personal friends and theological proteges to the Vatican's top positions".

Most disconcerting to this blogger's mind is Allen's report on Benedict's "new liturgical movement" bent on "recovering elements of the liturgical tradition that he believes were too hastily set aside after Vatican II". I am of the view that JPII was and B16 is determined to substitute their own personal views in place of the determinations arrived at by the world's bishops under different popes. Nothing can be done about this distancing from collegiality.

John Thavis writes about the pope discoursing informally about celibacy. At a time when mandatory celibacy is being seriously questioned in terms of a more mature sexuality of the priest, its possible relation to priestly abuse, and the deterrent effect on priestly vocations, it seems to me thoroughly unpersuasive to argue, as the pope does, that "celibacy was a way for the priest to become more united with Christ and His mission in anticipation of the world of the resurrection". The pope and this type of mind will never move to optional celibacy. Very simply, it is a matter of control. Celibacy controls a priest's private, public, and social life, his residence, his income, his retirement. The clerical mind of the pope will never loosen this grip on control. But others pay the price, priests living with women out of social, psychological, and physical pressure, especially in developing countries. A Bishop Antonio Capdevila in a diocese of Honduras, with whom I spent several weeks, told me that he had thirty-four priests living out in mountainous areas. All save one were living with women. And he pointed out how these unions generally began in a very Christian manner. The priest, filled with ideals and conviction, lives alone in the mountains. He becomes sick. A woman comes in to care for him. End of celibacy!

Should a loving Church have concern for the conflicted and tortuous consciences of the couple? Or, as the priest lives in a poor rural area and struggles with many problems, will he be energized by the pope's challenge to "the anticipation of the world of the resurrection"? The pope lives with abstract concepts and the sanitized derivatives deduced from them. The priest lives out in the mountains amid muddy roads, precipitous cliffs, and simple folk who don't dress up for dinner. Logical deductive thinking will never pull the priest's car out of the ditch.

More bad news! Germans officially register with a governmental agency, naming the church of their choice. A portion of their income is allocated as a tax to their church. On formally leaving that church, the tax allocation ceases. In 2009, 125,585 left the Catholic church, up from 121,155 in 2008. The lowest number of departures - 84,389 - occurred in 2006. The sex abuse scandal is generally thought to have caused the increase.

Finally, the ethics committee of St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix of which Mercy Sister Margaret McBride was a member, permitted an abortion, which was deemed necessary to save the life of the mother. Without it, both mother and fetus would die and her other four children would be left without a mother. When Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmstead heard of the abortion, he declared McBride excommunicated. A torrent of criticism ensued. It seemed clear that the abortion was permissible and Olmstead's declared excommunication quite erroneous. In addition, the writer pointed out that when bishops declare Catholics excommunicated, they presume that these individuals had deliberately violated their consciences. St. Thomas Aquinas has declared that one must follow conscience, even when erroneous.

These are some of NCR's thoughts for the week. Each constitutes rich material for thought and spirited discussion.

WORKING TOGETHER!

2010-07-03T14:09:00.005-04:00

Vivian Harris was a tall, good-looking woman, fashionably dressed at whatever social or professional event she might be participating in. Vivian gave much of her time and wealth for the welfare of children. Last Monday I attended a memorial service for her, conducted by a woman rabbi. She had died a week previously.Family, friends, and associates came together to remember and honor this elegant woman.

Life is relationships and a priest in New York City is blessed with a great variety, many of his own faith community, many of other or none such communities. A relationship develops from working together in what are frequently spiritual enterprises. That's what brought Vivian into my circle, or me into her's. As pastor of St. Joseph's on East 87th street, I was faced with two five-story buildings, which had been a convent, now empty and up for sale.

Our parish school had been staffed for many years by the School Sisters of Notre Dame. Like all such communities, they were dying off, perhaps by the lack of recognition by their own Church of their distinguished history and capabilities for the future. The four remaining nuns moved into a nearby "affordable housing" development. The convent buildings were not energy efficient, expensive to heat and maintain. The four remaining sisters quickly adapted to their two apartments and became happy residents.

Enter Vivian. She was seeking to establish a Ronald McDonald's House, a hostel for children afflicted with cancer and their parents, here in New York. Her scouts had come upon our convent and thought it an admirable resource, with the Sloan-Kettering cancer center nearby. Negotiations were carried out and we sold the buildings to the RMDH. This was 1979 - the exact date too distant to remember. Soon twenty-four children with one or both parents were in residence, most from faraway places in the states or overseas. Proximity to our parish church enabled us to be of service to the many Catholic families and a gracious presence to all. On my appointment to Epiphany Parish, a new pastor and his associate, Father Peter Colapietro came to St. Joseph's. Pete, with his super-sized physique and remarkable personality, was also an accomplished chef. Each week saw him frequently at the House, preparing the best Italian pastas for the kids and entertaining them with his stories.

The demand for the use of the House increased quickly. Vivian was a gifted fund raiser and helping families with a sick child has great appeal. With financing underwritten by the McDonald Cooperative ( a three-state association of individual stores), a new House was built at 405 E. 73rd Street, with facilities for eighty-two families, communal kitchens,various playrooms, and a chapel. As a member of the Board of Directors, I had the opportunity to work closely with Vivian, the architect, and other board members, mostly top flight executives, doctors, and other professionals. Vivian was an enthusiastic supporter of the chapel and a Pastoral Care Department that I was able to develop. Chaplains from the beginning included a series of ministers from the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian denominations and a Reconstructionist rabbi.

From the beginning of the House on East 73rd street, I offered Mass each Wednesday evening. On one Ash Wednesday, I crossed the street after Mass, as was my custom, to Metaluna, a fine Italian restaurant. The maitre d' noticed the black smudges on the foreheads of my party. "Oh", he said, "we forgot about Ash Wednesday. Do you think you could give ashes to my staff? They would appreciate it." After Mass, I went back to the House, took a little dish of ashes, and returned. The maitre d' ushered me and his staff into the kitchen. After a very brief "service", all received the ashes - waiters, chefs, sous chefs, dishwashers, salad men, and hat check girls! As the pretty girls and handsome Italian waiters paraded out of the kitchen, the fashionable East Siders looked up, startled, from their steaks. Something had happened in that kitchen. Every forehead now had a black smudge!

The present chaplain is Catholic. She has arranged with local priests for Mass in the chapel each Wednesday. She has arranged, as needed, to have baptisms, First Holy Communions, and Confirmations ( by the local vicar). She conducts an interfaith service once a week. The Episcopalian chaplain was male; all the others and the rabbi were women! An indication of the availability and competence of women in pastoral care. Our beloved Church has so much to learn. Would it not make sense to have Cherilyn offer the Mass and hear confessions for these parents so far away from home, and, perhaps, the Church?

A priest learns to work collaboratively with his own people; and he learns to work collaboratively along a wider spectrum with all God's people!

"FRATERNAL CORRECTION": INSTRUMENT OF CHANGE!

2010-06-18T16:14:00.011-04:00

Benedict XVI celebrated Mass in St. Peter's Square with some 15,000 priests on June 11, the closing day of The Year of the Priest. He asked for forgiveness from God and from victims of priestly abuse. He pledged that "everything possible" would be done to prevent this abuse from happening again. But "everything possible" contains not one concrete action step. At the heart of the crisis is accountability. When things go wrong,the person accountable must be treated in a way that gives notice to all of dire consequences to follow.

Benedict has done nothing to establish accountability. Bishops remain in place even though they failed to comply with Canon 1395, calling for punishment of an abusing cleric. Benedict in his pastoral of March 20, 2010 to the Irish people expressed his "great concern" about what happened. But he did not announce a Church process for assessing responsibility and accountability of the Irish cardinals, bishops, and priests, who had been named for their mishandling of abuse allegations.

In the US, disclosure of abuse by priests and its concealment by bishops came from the media, district attorneys, and trial lawyers, but not from church authorities. And those bishops, publicly named, were never held accountable. None resigned, except
Cardinal Bernard Law,poster boy for reassigning abuser priests and driven from Boston by his priests and people. John Paul II, in probably the most egregious gaffe in papal governance and public relations in modern times, welcomed Cardinal Law to Rome, as he fled his own country to evade a subpoena. Law was made rector of a prestigious Roman church with a six-figure income and a position on the Commission charged with nominating bishops! He had been rewarded, not made accountable! Even more astounding,JPII comes off as perceiving Cardinal Law as not having done anything to be held accountable for! This pope was overwhelmed in a culture of clericalism in which pope or bishop could do no wrong! No wonder there is a crisis!This pope simply did not understand that for sex abuse, someone must be held accountable.

A bishop, who knowingly reassigned an abusing priest, should be punished under Canon 1389, which penalizes misuse of authority that injures anyone, certainly children. But if the pope doesn't bring charges, what then? A brilliant light in the gloom of today's Irish church has been Dublin's Archbishop Diarmuid Martin. An Irish government Commission, last November, named five bishops as culpable in handling abuse cases. Martin, pleading fraternal correction, asked the five to resign. Four did so. Martin publicly declared that if he knew a bishop who was guilty of cover ups, he would request that the pope remove him!

Similarly, Bishop Walter Mixa of Augsburg resigned last April after admitting that he had beaten boys in his earlier years. But it appears that two prominent archbishops had prevailed on Benedict to remove Mixa, noting allegations that he did more with the boys than beat them. An example of fraternal correction by bishops!

Our own bishops' National Review Board, in its report of February 27, 2004, made these comments: *"The exercise of authority without accountability is not servant-leadership; it is tyranny."
*"Bishops should be more willing to engage in fraternal correction and should appeal to the Vatican if a particular bishop appears unable or unwilling to act in the best interests of the entire Church."

Do we have here a short-cut to action via fraternal correction, bypassing the ponderous, creaking machinery that purports to be a judicial system? If so, the Church will be well served. Rome is too understaffed and too far away geographically and ideologically to complete proceedings while all the principals are still living. Local bishops are on the scene. The ball is in their court. Archbishop Martin and the two German archbishops, acting as leaders, seized the opportunity to help the Church. Did any of the US bishops fraternally correct Cardinal Law? Or advise the pope against giving him the red carpet treatment? If they have stepped in anywhere or will in the future,it should be publicly reported as an accepted method of intervention. But it must be thoroughly transparent, to prevent its becoming another symbol of the "old boys" club.

Fraternal correction comes from Matthew:18, 15-18. Jesus is the source of this powerful instrument. Can we do better than this?

CAN THE CHURCH IMPLODE?

2010-06-06T15:24:00.006-04:00

"Uncivil Society" by Stephen Kotkin (The Modern Library,NY, 2009)indicates its content by its subtitle, "1989 and the Implosion of the Communist Establishment". The Communist establishment is the "uncivil society" because of its harsh political and economic dogmatism backed by Soviet force. This rigidity brought about the implosion of these Communist societies when faced with the successful market economies and democratic societies of the West.The "civil society" consisted of parties and groups seeking release from oppression by the writing, publishing, and organizing activities of the intellectuals, labor unions, the common people, and, especially in Poland, the strong presence of a Catholic people, energized by the charismatic Pope John Paul II. But Kotkin, by his analysis of the experiences of East Germany, Poland, and Romania, demonstrates that the collapse of these communist entities was caused more by their own internal dynamics than by external forces.They
imploded!

Our beloved Church is in deep trouble. By its own inner priorities. Its sexual abuse scandal is so widespread as to appear systemic. Is it possible that the Church, like the Eastern Europe communist nations, is imploding because of something of its internal dynamics that must be searched out and eliminated. I suggest that the diagnosis made in November 2009 by the Irish Governmental Commission to investigate the Archdiocese of Dublin provides an answer, applicable not only to Ireland but also to the Church crisis in the US and Europe: "Pre-occupations...were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, protection of the reputation of the Church, and preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. [The Church] did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State."

There it is! The Church, by its own minions, has been put ahead of truth and justice; has been put ahead of Jesus! Is a comparison with Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor too much? A "Church first!" culture has taken over. Some time ago,a full page ad appeared in several Catholic magazines. The lede, "Come follow me!" Then a photo of Benedict XVI and a text, "Yes, we must follow Benedict XVI!" I am sure B16 would not approve. But did no one catch it? Proof readers? Publishers? Bishops? Did anyone cry out, "Blasphemy!"? Are priests, bishops, the faithful to accept this so readily? Is this an alien culture that has invaded the Church of Jesus? Putting "Church first", ahead of truth and justice? ahead of Jesus? This is the culture about which Bishop James Moriarty said, on resigning after the Irish report implicated him, "From the time I became auxiliary bishop, I should have challenged the prevailing culture." It is this still prevailing culture that must be challenged.

Regretably, Pope and Vatican encourage all this. Centralization of control and power continues, as does creeping infallibility. Ordinary doctrine becomes "definitively defined". Popes keep canonizing other popes. Please! That's more than a little much. Japanese bishops are told that liturgical translations will be done in Rome,not in Japan. English translators, disliked by Rome, were replaced, their years of work discarded. The highly criticized new English translation has been imposed. Collegiality forecast by Vatican II and encouraged by Paul VI was dead-ended by JPII. Check his synods of bishops. Rome's appetite for control seems insatiable. Desite Vienna's Cardinal Schonbrun's overtures, married priests can't even be discussed. Celibacy is a control mechanism: over a priest's private and public life, his income, residence, and retirement! Rome won't readily surrender that instrument of control. Does not the glass ceiling keeping women below male authority have some causal relation to the disappearance of nuns and the exit of many women, especially the young, from the Church? JP II's stone-facing of Sister Teresa Kane?

A humble Church, relaxing the tight fist of control, developing collegiality, transparency, priorities for truth and justice, listening to the faithful and helping them see the value they contribute to the enterprise - these are instruments against implosion! Control and command are to be replaced by conversation and persuasion. And sandals instead of Ferragamo shoes!

A "GRASS ROOTS" PARISH!

2010-05-29T15:02:00.002-04:00

NY Times columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof, has on several occasions disinguished between "the old boys, Vatican club" and the "grass roots Church" of priests and nuns on the front lines. A leadership quality has been described as "listening to people, making sure they know they are being listened to, and assuring them that they are making solid contributions of value to the life and progress of the enterprise." The "old boys" crowd are not widely known for listening. A successful pastor listens. Ed Byrne, pastor of St. Ann's in Ossining, listens to the parish council, his staff at weekly meetings, occasional general parish assemblies on major issues, and the Ossining community.

He has been successful in reaching out to the Hispanic community. When he arrived at St. Ann's some years ago, there was one weekend Mass in Spanish. Now there are three. One of these is at 10:30 on Sunday in the school building. The English-speaking Mass at the same time is offered in the church. A leader in the Hispanic congregation approached his pastor. "Father Ed, our 10:30 Sunday Mass in the school is outgrowing the size of the gym. We average about 400 each Sunday. We checked the 10:30 in the church. It averages about 200 each Sunday. We would like to have the Spanish Mass in the church and the English Mass in the school."

Hmm! The pastor has a problem. But Ed is known as a listener, the parishioners know that, and they know that Father Ed recognizes the value that each parishioner and each ethnic group brings to parish life. So he responds, "Rudolpho, you have a point. But we have a problem. St. Ann's was founded seventy-five years ago by Italian workmen and their families. Many of the younger folks have moved away and Italian parishioners have diminished. But they are mindful of their history here. If we were to put the 10:30 in the school, they would not be happy about it. Some might be so disaffected as to drop out of St. Ann's."

Rudolpho was an intelligent man and recognized the problem. He agreed with Father Ed and dropped his request. Ed had established a relationship with Rudolpho and with parishioners generally that made possible this kind of conversation - and its result!

The "grass roots" church!

PRIEST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD!

2010-05-22T13:12:00.005-04:00

In a recent NY Times, columnist Nicholas D. Christof wrote of two Catholic Churches, "the old boys Vatican club", on one hand, and "the grassroots church of priests and nuns" doing good things for people, on the other. It was the latter that he expressed admiration for. It is the latter to which I am proud to belong. I and many others have been alienated by a quasi-divinity cloak placed over the "old boys". It was well expressed a year or so ago in a full page ad in many Catholic magazines: Its headline, "Come follow me!" Then a photo of Benedict XVI, followed by, "Yes, we must follow Benedict XVI...." I was stupified. The pope superimposed over Jesus , whose words and invitation are placed in the mouth of a human being! Shades of Dostoyevski's Grand Inquisitor! Where are the Vatican heresy hunters?

That briefly explains the aliention of many from the Church of Jesus. And explains the culture cloak that covered, for undetermined time the abuse by priests of thousands of innocent children. In my next post, I shall try to analyze how Dostoyevsky's "Grand Inquisitor" comes to suggest the great crisis of our Church.

Today, I would like to reflect on how a city priest might minister in Kristov's "grass-roots" church. In a later post, I shall review the more spiritual and churchly ministries of the parishes I have served. Today, the Ministry to the Community. Various ways that I, as a pastor, have used to relate to the total community:
1.Establishment of a Social Action Committee.
2.Lunch variously at the rectory with Public School Principal, Precinct CO, Public Library Head, Elected Officials, Settlement House Chief,etc.
3.Establishing Tenants' Assistance office, open on weekly basis, staffed by social worker (provided by and salary paid by Lenox Hill Neighborhood House)Problems of Rent Increases, Evictions by developers of luxury housing,Unsafe and Unsanitary Conditions.
4. "Candidates Nights" prior to election eg Bella Abzug v Bill Green for Congress in 1970s. Both pro-choice: Bill Green supports bill for tax credits for parochial school parents; Bella, with the big hat and strident voice, opposes any aid to such schools. Good for the people to know all this.
5. Participation in neighborhood rallies for various issues: housing, local crime,etc. At a pro-choice rally,parish had a small group in opposition. I had the opportunity in 1970 of debating Assemblyman Al Blumenthal, sponsor of NY's first permissive abortion law.
6. Forum Presentations on various issues - housing, pro-life, parochial school aid.
7. Priest involvement in local affairs has generated respect for what the church does and generates A. invitations to positions on Boards of Directors: Doctors Hospital, Manhattan Community Board 8.
B. appointments to official bodies: NYC Rent Guidelines Board 1978-1982, NYC Charter Revision Commission of 1998, NYC Charter Revision Commission of 1999.
8.Opportunities to write in neihborhood and city-wide newspapers.
9. Formation and Chairman of Tri-Faith Housing Association, sponsor of Tri-Faith House 150 units, affordble housing, 86th St and First Ave; Ruppert House, 650 units of affordable housing 93rd St,Third Ave, 92nd St,Second Ave.

There is little grass in our city; but there is a grass-roots church hard at work!

BISHOP AS COP, DA, JUDGE, AND APPELLATE BENCH !

2010-05-05T11:08:00.013-04:00

In the spring of 2002, the "Boston Globe" uncovered the disastrous plague of sexual abuse of young people by clergy. Thousands of children, wounded; reputations of priests, impaired; trust and confidence in bishops, eroded. In response,US bishops gathered in Dallas, Texas in June 2002 and devised a Charter of policies and programs that have since proved effective in protecting young people. At the Dallas hearings, the bishops listened to other bishops, psychological, criminal, and law enforcement experts, and members of the lay faithful. But not one priest was invited to participate! In the Charter itself, a lack of protection for priests against false allegations was eventually noticed. Cardinal Avery Dulles in an article (AMERICA 6-14-2004) sharply criticized the Charter on this count and called for its revisiting. The National Review Board, a select group of prominent Catholic men and women appointed by the bishops to oversee implementation of the Charter, called in its February 2004 report for the Charter's periodic review. The Board asserted that, had the bishops enforced existing canon law against abusers, the crisis would never have happened. Neglect of enforcement,leaving priests without protection against false allegations, and other flaws led the NRB to declare that ".. the Charter was the bishops' attempt to deflect criticism from themselves onto individual priests". Other harsh criticisms of the bishops by the Board explains the hostility of some bishops to Board members. Four bishops tried, unsuccessfully, to block the USCCB from funding the mandaded audits of dioceses.

Instances of innocent priests being removed from ministry began to appear. Given the limited numbers of available canon lawyers, I and other retirees were asked to help. As a canonist, I represented an "extern" priest, Father X, who was removed from ministry by the bishop of Metuchen, NJ. Bishop Paul Bootkoski had received a communication from the San Francisco Chancery, seeking the whereabouts of Father X. A Ms.Z had stopped in there, seeking to locate Father X and seek retribution from him for an affair twenty years ago. But her charges were not canonically credible. She was referrd to a Chancery social worker, who wrote to Metuchen Diocese, where Father X worked at St. ABC Parish. The social worker's letter stated that Father X was being sought to provide funds for counseling and support. It contained Ms. Z's account of an affair with X.

Bishop Bootkoski, focussing on the affair, removed X from ministry, without any investigation of the complaint whatever and without advance notice to X so that he could defend himself. Both are canonical no no s. Father X was told to vacate the rectory in short order. St.ABC's pastor paid him on a per diem basis for the days he worked before he was removed. Father X was quickly turned from a respected parish priest into a pariah!

My informal efforts by e-mail and phone with Metuchen's Vicar General, who at first had seemed sympathetic, were not successful in clearing X. My request for a hearing of X and myself in Metuchen to present a studied defense was quickly rejected by Bishop Bootkoski. My investigations - Metuchen made none - disclosed that Ms. Z had been stalking X for many years. She was committed to punishing miscreant priests for reasons too lengthy for this piece but which I explained in full detail to Bootkoski. I pointed out that X's manner of immediate eviction from his residence and his final limited paycheck would not be acceptable in ordinary business practice. A Christian employer would not treat a dish-washer like that.It might even have been in violation of New Jersey labor law.Furthermore, the untrue allegation by St. ABC's pastor that X was barred from working with children, shows how quickly a dismissal in this context becomes distructive of one's good name, so carefully protected by Canon 220. Ms.Z's allegations as to the nature of their affair twenty years ago had no canonical significance. Both were adults, a consensual union, twenty years ago!

Bootkoski replied that his dismissal of X was based on a communication signed by an official of the San Francisco archdiocese. This is simply not true! I have the letter!It was signed by the social worker. Archbishop George Neiderauer of San Francisco has participated in this case. I have his letter stating that only the social worker was involved, only she signed the letter and that her sole interest was to help Ms. Z towards counseling and financial help. Neiderauer wrote that his office through the social worker's letter did not say, had no intention of saying, anything about X's fitness or lack thereof for ministry.

We reached overseas to the Philippines, to Bishop Camilo D. Gregorio, of the Prelature of Batanes. Gregorio sent a letter glowingly endorsing X.as "very well loved and respected by both the clergy and the faithful he has worked with in all these past twenty-six years... and has been subjected to a very painful experience
through...a misapplication of the Dallas Charter..." Gregorio knew Ms. Z and provided candid characterizations of her mentality and her stalking of X. He discounted the affair of twenty years ago as long absolved and repented for and not a reason to dismiss him from ministry. He concludes with this plea to Bootkoski and other bishops:

"Father [X] has been a victim of canonical injustice here which, we bishops need to look into with humility and to which we have an obligation to correct as best we can."

Well, there we are! Good case? I thought so. Bishop Gregorio thought so. Guess again.
Bootkoski is a bishop! He is in charge. Many roles, however conflicting! He was Father X's arresting officer, prosecutor, judge, and appellate bench - an absurdity in any jurisprudential sense! But he dealt with Father X in each role . There was no appeal! There is no appeal! The bishop has spoken! Father X's life has been interrupted personally, spiritually, economically, and in his priestly ministry for a year and a half. "I, the bishop, have spoken!" And Bishop Bootkoski had completely misunderstood the letter from Archbishop Neiderauer's Chancery and misunderstood who signed and sent it!

Father X is still blackballed. He cannot work here any longer as a priest! Say a prayer for Father X, Ms. Z, Bishop Bootkoski and that the Church will be blessed by having more Bishop Gregorios! And that the USCCB will revisit and repair the Dallas Charter!

CLERICALISM AS SMOKE AND MIRRORS!

2010-04-21T13:33:00.010-04:00

Last Thanksgiving Day, a Commission of the Irish Government issued its report on its investigation of child abuse by clergy in the Archdiocese of Dublin. Names were published and the Irish faithful were enraged at the disclosures and their extent. Four bishops resigned because of their complicity in the secret cover-ups of pedophiles. Bishop James Moriarty declared, on resigning: "I accept that from the time I became auxiliary bishop, I should have challenged the prevailing culture." The sex abuse crisis that is wracking our beloved Church will be long with us. To move beyond it will require a new mindset. Should the prevailing culture in which this corruption took root continue, problems, old and new, will continue to occur.

That prevailing culture was at the bottom of the abuse crisis that exploded in our country in early 2002, in Ireland, when two government commissions published their findings in May and November last year., and now in Germany. Sadly, Church authorities had been unable to diagnose and treat its own corruption . This was accomplished by outsiders: in the US, the "Boston Globe" and other media, district attorneys, and trial lawyers; in Ireland, two governmental commissions; in Germany, the "Suddeneutsche Zeitung". Evidence is now surfacing that this same culture was prevailing in Munich during the regime of the then Cardinal Ratzinger.

But is this troublesome clerical culture still present? Sadly, it seems present in Benedict XVI and in John Paul II. On April 15, Benedict, in lamenting the corruption, declared about the whole Church, "Under attack from the world, which is speaking to us about our sins, it is necessary to do penance..." But the crisis was not brought about by the whole Church, but by the malfeasance of many bishops. Benedict has consistently used, as also did John Paul earlier, the passive voice about the cause of the crisis. "Mistakes were made." Nothing was said about who made the mistakes! This is classic clericalism: protect at all costs the bishops and the reputation of the Church. This is precisely what caused the sex abuse crisis: protect the Church. This is the prevailing culture that Bishop Moriarty wished that he had challenged. JPII shows the same culture of clericalism prevailing in his thinking. In his address to the US cardinals in Rome on April 23, 2002, he spoke of "great harm done by some priests and religious" but no mention of secret reassignments of miscreants by bishops. When he comes to that: "many are offended at the way in which the Church's leaders are perceived to have acted..." Protect, protect, protect! And at what cost? Damage to innocent children in the past. And now? Serious injury to innocent priests by failure to protect their rights, as well described by Cardinal Dulles (AMERICA, June 24, 2004) Six years later, there has been no effort to address Dulles' criticism and protect the innocent - in this case, innocent priests!

John Paul, like Benedict, made an effort to implicate the entire Catholic community in blame-sharing. He called for "an urgently needed purification of the entire Catholic community". He showed a further misunderstanding of the situation, when he declared that "the Church will help society understand and deal with the crisis..." This in the face of the fact that it was society that helped the Church, not the other way around!This is the length that clericalism goes with its superiority complex that obstructs the search for truth and justice.

As these two popes tried to suggest that the whole Catholic community shared blame and its need for penance, the bishops too protected themselves by trying to shift blame on others. Their Dallas Charter pursued "priests or deacons" alleged to be abusers. No mention of bishops! There was zero-tolerance for an abusing priest. But as the bishops' own National Review Board of distinguished Catholic lay men and women declared, "... there is no equivalent policy of zero-tolerance for bishops... who allowed a predator priest to remain in or return to ministry...the impression was created that the Dallas Charter...[was] the bishops' attempt to deflect criticism from themselves and onto individual priests".

It is not pleasant to write so severely about some elements in our beloved Church. But unless the old "prevailing culture" of quasi-divine clericalism is abandoned and a new open-to-others mindset develops in the Church, attainment of truth and justice will be blocked in new situations as they were in the abuse crisis.

THE PEN AS FLAME THROWER

2010-04-15T10:22:00.009-04:00

Time out today for a different look at yesterday's NY Times! Not the domestic political or economic scene, not foreign policies discussions, not horror stories of child abuse! But unless you are swallowed up by celebrity stories of on and off married bliss and about celebrity pregnancies and other non-earth-shaking events on the Post's Page Six, let's take a look at some items that turned out to be entertaining. Yesterday's Times displays some flotsum and jetsum of ordinary NY life. In the Dining section, Julia Moskin writes about the struggle of Jewish delicatessins to meet today's challenges, not to move ahead but to go back to the better salami and the carefully brined and smoked pastrami of Jewish grandparents. Ideological and cultural challenges are sometimes faced. Non-kosher butter is the best for mixing with the chopped liver! The tensions between the neo and the retro are sometimes resolved; sometimes not.

The article's perambulations through the Jewish delis of Montreal, Los Angelos, Ann Arbor, and New York examine the various nuances in pickle and meat preparation. Reminded me of hearing a customer, ordering a pastrami sandwich, shout out, "Lean, lean!" And I recall my occasional trips south from my Epiphany parish to the revered Second Avenue Deli. Always crowded like rush hour on the subway, but infinitely more companionable! You share a culture! The waitresses, well beyond their prime, would salute you. "Hello, dolly. Waddiya wont?" Matza-ball soup and boiled beef with horse-radish sauce connected the dots for fine evening dining. One night a chap at an adjoining table called out, "Hey, waiter, come back. I wanna change my order." Waddah ya mean? Change your order? I already got it written down?" Jewish waiters are reported to be well schooled to manifest an even degree of surliness.

Jim Dwyer has a column about mortgage-fixer Sal Pane, Jr, who appeared on several TV channels with a persuasive pitch as an expert. After several individuals paid up-front fees (illegal), Mr. Pane proved difficult to reach after the fee-payers' houses were found to have foreclosure notices glued to the front door. Last Tuesday, State Supreme Court Justice Emily Goodman issued a permanent injunction against Mr. Pane's business and referred the matter to the district attorney. He has not appeared as an expert in any recent news channels. Life goes on! The good guys won!

Anthony Tommasini supplied his review of Rene Flemings' recent performance at the Met. I am not an opera buff, having once nearly crashed my car while listening to a WQXR Saturday opera broadcast. The soprano seemed quite hysterical. I've been unreasonably prejudiced against opera ever since. But I always read Tommasini's reviews, whether about opera, symphonies, or string quortets. His fine writing discloses insights and understanding of music that become contagious.

Back to the dining area! Sam Sifton, who succeeded Frank Bruni, better watch out! His caustic and humerous review of Nello might earn him a horse's head in his bed should there be a mafia connection. He writes of diner food at champagne prices, a dinner party of four with a check for $593.37 before tip, sawdusty chicken livers, pasta with truffles at $100, vitello that looks good but tastes like sliced shoe, stale desserts and so on. Nello is for the rich: black cars out front; at lunch, wealthy women dressed like their daughters, "air kisses and the tinkle of tennis bracelets against wine glasses". Siftton's flame thrower does not spare the customers: a small man in an ascot and green Tyrolean coat slapped the table with a grossly satisfied "AAAH" and then, repeating his signal of fulfillment, beckoned the waiter for another bowl of pasta. But one worries about the writer. He chats with the cigar-smoking owner, self-likened to Vlad the Impalar, who spits on the sidewalk and then enters his restaurant, with a "fierce almost predatory" expression. Sifton gave Nello's the lowest possible rating,"fair". Sam, please be careful.

There is another fine line in yesterday's Times. I cannot now locate it but it can stand on its own: "A thin lady who seems to have been held together by her jewelry."

Sam, we thank you for your words that express the tone and atmosphere of a curious example of the flora and fauna that lies beneath New York's surface. We now know better what "scorched earth" and "napalm blasted" means.

We thank the NY Times for a delightful post-breakfast morning: for fine writing and a richer understanding of our city.

THE MAN IN THE PAINTING

2010-04-05T13:40:00.007-04:00

The painting was in the living room of a rectory. It was untitled and carried no attribution to an artist. In the near distance, three crosses were atop a hill. Ominous clouds darkened the execution site. Beneath the crosses could be seen a few soldiers of Rome's Tenth Legion, a cluster of women, and a motley crowd of hangers-on. To the far left, a slight ray of sunlight escaped the otherwise clouded sky.

In the immediate foreground, a man was walking away from Golgotha, the hill. He was visibly grimed and sweaty, tired, apparently from strenuous labor that had begun in the early morning. He was going home, probably thinking of a shower and dinner with his wife and children. What is clearly evident is that he is totally oblivious to the high drama playing out on the hilltop. He had no awareness that a man, named Jesus, had been executed with two brigands in a setting whose culture was filled with violence.

The faithful people of St. Ann's Parish in Ossining, who participated in the solemn Triduum ceremonies were most unlike the laborer in the painting. They were aware of the cosmic activity going on and its implication for their own lives. Holy Thursday's Mass celebrated a new Passover supper with Jesus establishing His presence in the Blessed Sacrament, thence and henceforth. It established a new priesthood that would re-image in a new way Jesus' sacrifice that would occur the following day.

St. Ann's pastor, Father Ed Byrne, spoke of the coming collapse of the Jesus' project the following day. Jesus knew that one of His team would betray Him, another deny Him, and the rest run away. Yet He wanted to mark this Passover and give glory to God in their service to others and by being humble in this, of which He gave an example in washing their feet. Father Ed then likened the deteriorating state of today's Church with its sex abuse coverups to the deterioration of Jesus' team after their last supper, to be followed by giving glory and praise to God in the humble service of others. Ed recounted the plight of a neighbor, who faced eviction from his house on Good Friday. St. Ann's HELP Committee met and saved the day: an example of how in parlous times, the faithful give glory to God in service to others.

The Holy Thursday liturgy concluded with the the procession of the Sacrament around the church, accompanied by the singing, consecutively, by the Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Filipino, and St. Ann's choirs. Music for the week was provided by the choir and organist. Chris and Terry, cantors, sang a joyous Exsultet on the Easter Vigil and heartfelt Lamentations of Jeremias at each day's morning Mass.

On Good Friday, in addition to the customary Mass and adoration of the cross, there was a reenactment of the Way of the Cross by parish teen- agers in solemn and dramatic measure. In the evening, St. Ann's Hispanic celebration of the Way of the Cross wended its way around Ossining with procession and vibrant music.

Holy Saturday's Vigil of Easter featured the baptism of one person, reception into the Church for three, conferring the Sacrament of Confirmation on fourteen, and the marriage of the newly baptized to her groom! On Easter Day, a similar number of receptions and confirmations were carried out in a Mass in Spanish.

Easter Sunday was marked by splendid music and by the hats and dresses of little girls and the white shirts of the boys, all in tune with the yellowing of forsythia and the popping up of the crocusses.

The laborer in our opening painting was thoroughly oblivious of the drama of salvation being played out on a nearby hill. Participants in St. Ann's Triduum liturgies fully savored the meaning and impact of each of these dramatic days.

TO WHAT CIRCLE OF DANTE'S HELL?

2010-03-27T15:04:00.006-04:00

Some years ago, a small group of us, skiing at Hunter Mountain, included my fifteen year old niece. As she stood with three others, awaiting the oncoming chairlift, one of the attendants touched her firmly and improperly. She quickly jumped aside and, with a shout, stumbled back on her skis and sought an official. She, the official, and the chairlift attendant grouped together in animated conversation. The attendant was taken into the office, paid what he was owed, escorted to the gate and told never to return.

I was on the board of Camp Wabanake, run by Ralph Hittman, a dear friend. At a time when my nation-wide Church was undergoing the abuse crisis, I was chatting with him. "Ralph, you must have experienced this abuse problem with councillors at your Camp. How did you deal with it?" "Harry, once I knew that the allegation was sound, I called the councillor over. 'Here's five bucks. One of the staff will take you down to the bus stop. Get the hell out of here!'"

Wabanake and Hunter Mountain exist in a social culture that does not tolerate sexual abuse. What in heaven's name has happened to our Church? We tolerate what a ski resort or a summer camp would not. What is the mind set that has brought us to this? Our nation, Ireland, and now Germany and Europe continue to make the front pages with the same stories. On March 20, 2010, Benedict XVI directed a letter to the people of Ireland that was long on words of apology but short on specifics. He regretted that some in authority had made mistakes in judgments but he held no person accountable. The Murphy report by an Irish government commission had named the specific bishops responsible for the coverups. Four resigned because of their complicity.

Benedict's letter charged that a weakening of faith, neglect of devotional life, and misinterpretation of Vatican II documents played a part in the crisis. He aluded to mistakes and misjudgments by church authorities that had been made and urged "decisive action" in following canon law and cooperation with the civil authorities. But he gave no explanation as to why the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and the Papal Nuncio had never replied to letters from the Murphy Commission or why the nuncio refused to meet with a parliamentary committee. He concluded by calling for "concrete initiatives": offering Friday penances for a year beginning at Easter, fasting, acts of mercy, scripture reading, and prayer for the growth of the Irish church. Sure, we need all this. But in this real world, we need expert personnel management. We do not have it! Commentators in the Irish press were quick to point out that Benedict made no call for accountability - the key to acceptable personnel management. Unlike the Murphy Commission which had named bishops guilty of coverups, Benedict named none, even making no mention of the four bishops, who had resigned because of their complicity. Nor did he mention that he had accepted only one of the four resignations.

Prior to Benedict's letter and as all the Irish bishops were about to travel to Rome to meet the pope, Dublin's archbishop, Diarmuid Martin had suggested resignation by those bishops who felt "in their conscience" that they should do so. After the bishops returned, commentators reported that Martin was a changed man, no longer with talk of resignations. There was a general feeling that the pope had closed the door on such talk and his letter showed that he had no initiatives in mind to alter church structure or its prevailing culture in any significant way.

As new abuse crises arise in Europe and with the horrifying story and testimony of victims in the St. John's School for the Deaf in St. Francis, Wisconsin, the faithful can only be angry at what has become of their Church and seek how they can participate in establishing the oversight to rid us of this sickening corruption. What is the next step?

RELATIONSHIPS THAT WORK AND SOME THAT DON'T!

2010-03-15T15:06:00.016-04:00

Our Church is not a democracy; it is not a business corporation. It is a catalyst entity to bring people closer to Jesus, Savior and Redeemer. But, like a democracy, like a corporation, it possesses a network of individuals and groups that must work together, each having one or more of many functions towards achieving the common goal of relating individuals to the heart and mind of Jesus. And this assortment of individuals, whether in government, corporations, or churches, including our Church must be subject to personnel management techniques. A network of relationships must be operating harmoniously if it is to be successful.

The relationships within our Church are in a sorry state, as evidenced by the sex abuse crises that have wounded innocent young people and the Church's faithful in the United States with its outburst in early 2002, in Ireland with the tumult after the Ryan and Murphy reports in 2009, and, at present, as new revelations rock the German church. There, a Father Peter Hullerman in Essen abused a child, was sent to Munich from where he was sent for treatment in 1980 with the approval of Munich's Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Apparently having received treatment, he subsequently was assigned to pastoral work, where he, again, committed abuse for which he was civilly prosecuted and given five years probation. But he apparently then continued in pastoral ministry up to the present. It was only on Monday of this present week that Hullermann was suspended from ministry! Gerhard Gruber, Vicar General of Munich has assumed full responsibility for "the mistakes that were made". The Vatican is in full throated denial of then Archbishop Ratzinger's responsibility.

There is little question but that church personnel management has gone sadly awry: priests abuse children, bishops in authority fail to enforce Canon 1395 (punish abusers); the law (Canon 1389), to penalize failure to perform a required act of governance, is ignored. This appears to be what underlies the crises in the United States, Ireland, and Germany. Canon law was very much on target. The law, for whatever reasons, was simply not enforced by those in authority. Precisely this same diagnosis of the cause of the crises was made by the National Review Board, established by the US bishops, to oversee implementation of their 2002 Dallas Charter, in its February 2004 report. The Board further observed that Church officials in the US rarely enforced Canon 1395 and that no bishop in the US had ever been punishd under Canon 1389 for a failure to enforce Canon 1395. The Board also called for "greater examination by the Church of the role of, extent of compliance with, and consequences of celibacy ". I mention that , since celibacy as a possible factor in abuse, is now being discussed in Austria and other European countries as a result of the current scandals.

Why would bishops fail to enforce canon law? The November 2009 report of the Irish government Commission to Investigate the Archdiocese of Dublin provides its answer to the Dublin situation, which would seem also to explain the enforcement failures in the US and in Germany:

"The Dublin Archdiocese's preoccupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid-1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State."

Secrecy and efforts to protect the Church's reputation were the hallmarks of a clerical culture, widespread throughout the Church even to Munich, where the present pope was archbishop. Critics, anxious to score points against Pope Benedict, also jumped upon his avowal of secrecy in dealing with issues of abuse during his years as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. This secrecy, it is being charged, prevented disclosure of criminal acts to the civil authorities. Secrecy also had the unintended effect of blocking Vatican abuse directives in 1922 and 1962 from their intended recipients. Written in Latin and marked "secret", several Irish bishops testified, they were placed in secret archives with many successive bishops completely unaware of their existence.

This is the culture that enshrouded abuse corruption within the Church and blocked its disclosure and an honest response. Unable to diagnose and remedy its own ailment, the Church had to rely on outsiders to uncover its wounds and begin their treatment: the press, trial lawyers, and district attorneys for the Boston church; two governmental commissions for the Irish church; the Munich newspaper, Suddeneutsche Zeitung, for the church in Germany. This is the culture about which Bishop James Moriarty of Kildare, on being forced to resign for his complicity, declared, "From the time I became an auxiliary bishop, I should have challenged the prevailing culture".

Challenging the prevailing culture will entail new thinking and new relationships that involve the pope, bishops, priests, lay men and women, outside individuals in our secular society, and relationships, relationships, relationships! An enormous order, indeed! In my next post, I shall review what leadership means to some CEOs, presidents of colleges and universities, heads of Chambers of Commerce, and other key
individuals noted for ability to organize, manage, and motivate individuals. Those, whom I have studied, refer to relationships among all involved in an enterprise: officers, managers, stockholders, employees, customers, public opinion. Effective relationships require respect, listening, ability to learn more than to teach, seeking those with new perspectives, ideas outside the box, making individuals believe they are creating value and have a kind of ownership in the enterprise because they are listened to, be confident not certain, collaborative operations, communication, feedback. Tune in for the next posting. Not a thesis on the Wittenberg Cathedral doors, but a challenge for listening and for respect that move organizations ahead beyond "terminal niceness", as expressed by Xerox's CEO.

AN IRISH STEW!

2010-02-25T11:41:00.003-05:00

"Nero fiddled while Rome burns; Rome fiddles while the Church burns." That seems to be the general feeling of abuse victims, columnists, opinion pieces, letters,and the general public as shown in the pages of Dublin's "Irish Times' and "The Irish Independent" and Belfast's "Irish News". (Thanks to the "internet".) After his meeting with the twenty-four Irish bishops, the pope's statement of February 17, 2010 was faulted as offering no authorative action on accepting or rejecting resignations, as to failure to pledge the nuncio's and the Vatican's cooperation with civil authorities, as to declaring child abuse a "crime" and a "sin", as if this needed papal proclamation, and alleging that "a weakness of faith" was a part of the crisis.

The nuncio, Archbishop Guiseppi Leandro, had failed to reply to two communications from the Commission and had refused an invitation to appear before a parliamentary committee to work out solutions to the crisis. He had declared that the Commission's two letters had "not gone through diplomatic channels". A letter writer suggested a similarity to an observer who, seeing a house on fire, and refusing to call 911, insisted on sending a registered letter to be sure the fire house got it! "Hey, archbishop, your Church is on fire!"

Benedict had urged the bishops to address the crisis with one voice. This pointed to a disagreement between a majority of the bishops with Dublin's Archbishop Diarmuid Martin. Martin, an apostle for a more open Church, had suggested the retirement of those involved; the others opposed such action. When Martin returned from Rome, observers noted that he appeared as a chastened man. Many took this as a sign that Benedict had sided with the majority and may even have expressed his displeasure at Martin's view.

Galway's Bishop Martin Drennan showed another reaction to the crisis. He declared that the victims should practice forgiveness and suggested that they were acting out of revenge!

It is not pleasant to address issues of Church governance in a tone that might appear ungentle. But the views of independent observers, victims, and even those hostile to the Church are ingredients for approaching the needed reform in our beloved Church. The Irish Church, the rest of us, and the world await Benedict's letter for his seasoned judgment.

THE "PREVAILING CULTURE!"

2010-02-17T13:17:00.014-05:00

My post of 12-28-2009, Sentire cum Ecclesia, described the anger amidst the faithful of the Church in Ireland after publication a month earlier of a report of a governmental investigation of the Archdiocese of Dublin about clergy sexual abuse of children. The report documented the secret reassignments of miscreant clergy by Dublin's three archbishops, prior to the present incumbant, Martin Diarmuid, and the involvement of five, then auxiliary bishops, in covering up the abuse. All were specifically named; the three archbishops, now retired, and the five, now bishops in their own right. Four of the five quickly resigned under public pressure and as suggested by the current archbishop, Diarmuid Martin. Bishop James Moriarty, on resigning, declared that the report "is about how the leadership of the Archdiocese failed over many decades to respond properly to criminal acts against children...With the benefit of hindsight, I accept that from the time I became auxiliary bishop, I should have challenged the prevailing culture". That "prevailing culture", described in the report, was to protect the Church and "to avoid scandal" at all costs, even to concealing criminal acts of the clergy that wrecked incalculable damage on children.

That "prevailing culture" appears to have held, and still holds, sway in the Vatican. The Commission of Investigation had written to Ireland's papal nuncio and to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, requesting whatever abuse documents were in their possession. Neither the nuncio or the CDF made any response. Later, a draft copy of the Report was sent to the nuncio for comment, since he was mentioned in it. Again, the nuncio did not reply.

After the Commission Report was published, the nuncio, Archbishop Guiseppi Leanza met on Dec. 8, 2009 with the Irish Foreign Affairs minister, condemned the abuse, and said that he should have responded but that he had thought that the correspondence was only for information purposes. The Irish Times of 2-4-2010 reported that the Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, piqued at the nuncio's failure to respond, had invited him to a meeting to discuss Ireland's "general relationship with the Vatican state and the nuncio's role here, including the issues that arose in connection with the Murphy report". On 2-12-2010, the nuncio advised the Committee that he refused to meet with it, saying that it was not the practice of the nuncio to meet with parliamentary committees.

On February 15-16, 2010, twenty four Irish bishops met with B16 and key members of the Curia. At the close of the two day meeting, Benedict issued a brief statement of some forty typed lines. Key items included the following:

*together all recognized that the failure of church authorities in dealing with sex abuse had caused a breakdown in trust in church leadership.

*the meeting, open and frank, provided guidance and support to the bishops for their dioceses.

* bishops reported that lay people, priests, and religious were outraged at the disclosures in the report.

*bishops reported that thousands of lay people were now involved in seeing that children were protected.

*The bishops were committed to cooperate with the statutory and other official regulations about children.

*For the pope's part, he condemned abuse as a crime and a sin and it "wounds the dignity of the human person".

*Benedict urged the bishops to address the problem "with determination and resolve...honesty and courage".

* The bishops should speak with one voice in identifying concrete steps to be taken.

* The "weakening of faith" is a significant factor in the abuse crisis.

* There is need for deeper theological reflection and adequate preparation of candidates for priesthood.

After the two day meeting, a Father Frederick Lombardi, a Vatican spokesperson, stated that "the meeting had had a good result" but, when taking questions from the Vatican press corps, his responses were hardly satisfactory. "Why did the pope not invite victims to come and see him?"
"There was no mention of victims because that was not part of the meeting. This is only a first step." "Why did the nuncio refuse to appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee?" "I'm not an expert in these matter. But the nuncio has rules that he must follow." "Why did the pope not call on Galway's Bishop Drennan to resign as had the other four bishops named in the report?" "There was no mention of resignations. That was not part of the meeting. Resignations go before the Congregation of Bishops. Ultimately it is up to the pope. I am limited in my answers as I was not present at the meetings."

After the Vatican statement was issued, the press reported widespread anger among victims' groups, the public at large, and in opinion columns. "It was a meeting resulting in empty words, nothing specific or concrete." "The pope punished no one. Resignations were not even mentioned." "A monument to the victims is already planned. We should invite the pope to unveil it." "We should get rid of the nuncio." There was particular anger at the pope's suggestion that "a weakness of faith was a significant factor" in the abuse crisis.

It seems clear that the meeting was a public relations disaster. The bishops pledged to cooperate with the civil investigation; the pope did not. He left unanswered why the nuncio and the CDF refused to cooperate and why he did not address the issue. The pope left unanswered why he accepted Bishop Donal Murray's resignation and not the resignations of Bishops JamesMoriarty, Eaman Walsh, and Raymond Field and why he said nothing about Bishop Drennan's refusal to resign. The pope called for unity among the bishops in addressing the crisis. This was aimed at the tension between Archbishop Martin and many of the other bishops. Martin, long in the Vatican diplomatic service, had the view that the Church must come to terms with modern demands for openness, transparency, and discussion. He wrote and spoke frequently of the need for these qualities in today's church.This differed significantly from the long history in Ireland of an autocratic church, sometimes brutally so, and did not sit well with all the bishops. The chief cause of the tension was Martin's suggestion that those bishops involved in the cover-ups should resign!

The pope's lack of specificity and concrete measures was evident in his generalized calls for "courage", "resolve", "determination", and "honesty". The emptiness of words was also in evidence in the statement of Cardinal Daly, the primate of Ireland, that the meeting gave the bishops "new courage"! It is clear that an opportunity has been lost. Bishop Moriarty, in resigning, said that he "should have challenged the prevailing culture". It is also clear that "the prevailing culture" that caused the abuse crisis in the United States, in Ireland, now bursting in Germany, and who knows where else, is alive and well in the Vatican of Benedict XVI. The only hero appearing amid the smoke and mirrors of the "prevailing culture" seems to be Dublin's Archbishop Diarmuid Martin.

A STRIKING SPIRITUALITY!

2010-02-03T13:11:00.005-05:00

Years ago, I visited friends on the island of Canna, four square miles of earth in the Inner Hebrides off the west coast of Scotland. John Campbell, Laird of Canna, and his wife, Meg, were both accomplished students of the flora, fauna, and folklore of Scotland. In their library, I found the journal of Father Allen MacDonald, parish priest of South Uist in the Outer Hebrides. He recorded communion calls he made across the barren windswept landscape and by boat through roiled seas to smaller islands for sick calls and funerals. In these middle 1800s, there was no telephone or telegraph. Communication between islands was carried out via a system of fire signals. So different from our times, there were no newspapers, television, or computers, no Facebooks, no Tweeters. Father Allen undoubtedly possessed a spirituality, unencumbered by these technical distractions, which occupy much of our waking hours. His spirituality must have developed a closeness to God in the silences of his life and the closeness to nature felt in the winds and waves around him. It was the spirituality of the parish priest, sharing the hurt and pain of his people in their sicknesses and separations from loved ones in death. He knew them in their happy times, the First Communions of the children, the social quality of Sunday Mass, and the tempos of their Celtic dances and songs at their weddings. His people were fisher folk, alienated from their lands by the sheep herds on the fertile fields of the absentee landlords. Father Allen stirred up the Protestant landlords and the government to make improvements for the largely Catholic people. A series of docks and jetties were built under his influence to protect the ships from the frequently raging seas and thus insure the people's livelihood.

Father Allan's spiritual life drew from his silent converse with a God made even more mysterious yet closer by the absense of the distractions that assail us - the wonders of technology, conflicts in politics, and the never fully resolved tensions that prove that our Church is alive and always, always in need of reform by the participation of all classes and ranks of the faithful.

Father Allan MacDonald proposes a challenge: to join him on a windswept island away from the distractions provided by the old and new technologies and to seek our God amid the sea birds and fishing ships and, eminently, amid gracious relationships with our fellow men and women. It is a challenge, especially to retirees, those who await the weaver "who severs the last thread".

FRIENDS EXTRAORDINAIRE!

2010-01-25T10:08:00.006-05:00

What better way to resume my neglected blogging than by celebrating friendship, a very special friendship! Ralph and Rose Hittman requested that I conduct a renewal of their wedding vows at an anniversary celebration. Unusual? Yes. Ralph and Rose are Jewish! The anniversary is their seventieth, Seven oh! Unusual, indeed!

I had cautioned Ralph and Rose when they made the request. Your family and probably most of your friends are Jewish. What will they think? A chap with a Roman collar conducting the ceremony! Not to worry, Ralph replied. That's the way Rose and I want it - by you, a friend of over fifty years! So a couple of Saturdays ago, roughly a hundred or so guests gathered at Xavier's, an upscale restaurant in the renovated old Hudson River Dayline pier in Yonkers. Ralph welcomed me: "What are you doing here? This is a Jewish affair!" A festive reception and lunch preceded the ceremony. Both responded briskly, "I do." Ralph at 90; Rose, with her grandmotherly Jewish accent, 89. The original blessing of the ring was recalled; the cup of wine, shared. My homily was eclipsed by Ralph's eloquence. He is a master architect of the spoken and the written word!

Back in the early sixties, I was a member of the Board of Trustees of the Boys Brotherhood Republic, founded by Ralph. The BBR was a center for athletics and education about democratic government. In the summer, it operated Camp Wabanake in the Bear Mountain region, the best looking camp in the area, spic and span with its fresh paint and flowery borders. I recall the youngsters coming down the hill for lunch, each one slapping Ralph's outstretched hands. Rose presided over the chef and kitchen. If a camper got sick, Rose was the Jewish mother with the chicken soup! As a Board member, friendships developed with my fellows. I recall an evening by the lake with Meyer Licht, a retired state judge, who acquainted me with the details of Moses Maimonides' different degees of charity. Back in the city, I encountered David Tagit at an urban affairs seminar. He looked at me in my civilian garb - suit and tie. "What's going on, Harry. You getting married?" No, David. I just like to blend in." "We don't want you to blend in. We want you to stand out!" Another Board member was Bernard Nussbaum, an attorney closely connected with President Clinton. Impressive Board, indeed!

Ralph advertised in Europe to enlist counselors for CampWabanake. Among those responding for the 1969 season was a young German, Gerhard Markov. He, now completing six years as conductor of the Symphany Orchestre of Ireland, flew in from Frankfort with his wife to attend this celebration. He described, how on arrival at Wabanake, he became ill. Rose put him to bed, gave him tea, and shepherded him to a quick recovery.

Our long friendship saw Ralph and Rose in regular attendance at Sister Rebecca's annual musical productions by the students of the Epiphany
School. They showed their delight in the performances of these young people, who once on the stage, would never be the same again, comparable to the way the boys of BBR and Wabenake would never be the same after their experience of the love and care of Ralph and Rose. I have been blessed by my friendship with this extraordinary couple and by what I have learned from their wise words and their dedication to the young. Amen! Alleluia!

SENTIRE CUM ECCLESIA ?

2009-12-28T20:03:00.005-05:00

"Think with the Church", "Sentire cum ecclesia" was a mandate drilled into us as seminarians. Its strongest exponent was Saint Ignatius Loyola, who made it a foundation stone of his Jesuit order. I have placed a question mark after this expression in the title, because there is a substantial question: what is the Church with which we are to think. Is it the thinking of Pius IX, who condemned freedom of the press and other "modern novelties"; Pius X with his committees for heresy investigation; John XXIII and his vision of a more open Church; Paul VI, who set up the Synods of Bishops to give reality to Vatican II's goal of collegiality; John Paul's use of the Synods to discourage collegiality?

I respectfully submit that thinking with the Church is to involve the Nicene Creed, the basics of the faith. Policies and practices of various popes and bishops can differ substantially. Cardinal Ray Burke, Chief Judge of the Apostolic Signatura, formerly of St. Louis, with some few other bishops, forbids Holy Communion to pro-choice politicians. A majority of our bishops do not. Different management styles and agendas of popes and bishops may well be subjected to and benefited by critiques of faithful Catholics seeking the Church's growth in spirituality and efficiency in administration.

The sexual abuse problem festered in our Church until it was exposed by trial lawyers, district attorneys, and the press. Would not wider openness, discussion, and listening have made the Church able to heal itself? Lay committees in a more transparent church would have immediately questioned why huge payments were being made. A way of thinking within a clerical culture produced the cover-up practices of many bishops that damaged so many young people and, ultimately, the Church itself. A good image of the institution was given priority over the welfare of children. Those bishops were good men, not evil persons. They sought the good of the Church but how tragic was the thinking that produced the catastrophy. How is this way of thinking and the culture in which it is still embedded to be changed? Transparency and honesty! The $2 billion paid in settlements and court judgments was not paid because some priests abused children but because some bishops, who in the judgments of the courts, failed to do their job! They had made mistakes in judgment. A man, who makes a mistake driving a car and kills someone, does not become evil. But he is none the less accountable and must face the consequences. So too, those cover-up bishops are accountable. Regretably, the most glaring denial of accountability was Pope John Paul's conferring honors and perks in Rome to Cardinal Law, driven from Boston by his priests and people for covering up priest abusers. A public relations disaster! People simply threw up their hands. They saw it as a denial of accountability. They saw the pope as thinking that because Law was a good man and a bishop, he therefore was not accountable for the consequences of his mistaken judgments. This is the clerical culture out of which the crisis rose and out of which other crises will develop. This is thinking with a fake church; we are to think with the real church!

The Church in Ireland is now experiencing a startling disclosure of its own transgressions and ill-health. A governmental Commission, headed by Judge Yvonne Murphy, on November 26, 2009 released a report on its investigation of the Archdiocese of Dublin. The Irish Church, like our own, was unable to expose and cure its own ill-health. This was accomplished by the Commission. Its disclosures, unlike ours, published the names of bishops who had failed in handling complaints of sexual abuse by priests: Bishops James Moriarty of Kildare, Donal Murray of Limerick, Eaman Walsh of Elmham, and Raymond Field, Auxiliary of Dublin, Martin Drennan of Galway. All served as Auxiliary Bishops in Dublin in the years investigated. Four of the five have resigned so that the Church might better go forward. Drennan of Galway has refused to resign despite enormous pressure from the public.

Much of the analysis by the Murphy Commission has remarkable application to our own situation: "The Dublin Archdiocese's pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the state."

Bishop Moriarity, on resigning, stated that "from the time I became an auxiliary bishop, I should have challenged the prevailing culture". He and the other bishops, who resigned, seemed to have made in their statements the distinction that I made above, viz. that they did nothing morally wrong but that their resignation recognized their accountability. It is this distinction that does not appear to have been accepted by our US bishops or by the Vatican. JPII and B16 in their statements have invariably used the passive voice: "It has been badly handled." I do not recall their saying by whom it was badly handled. In the US, no bishop has ever been removed for secretly reassigning a predator priest. Many feel that our bishops and the Vatican live in denial of their complicity. They are not asked to admit any moral fault, but simply to admit their accountability, as four Irish bishops have done and as the Irish Commission have helped the Irish Church to see itself.

The National Review Board, established by the USCCB, had it quite right in its report of February 27, 2004: There has been "a general lack of accountability for bishops for the reassignment of priests known to have engaged in the sexual abuse of minors....The exercise of authority without accountability is not servant-leadership; it is tyranny."

Sentire cum ecclesia. Let us think with the real Church as the Irish Commission has clearly done; let us think with the real Church as our own National Review Board has done. Let us break free of the clerical culture that has wrought damage on children in our nation and on the Emerald Isle!

ADVENT - IN THE 13th CENTURY

2009-12-14T10:20:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, the Third Sunday of Advent, was marked at New York's Cloisters, an assemblage of three medieval monastery chapels and cloisters, by a performance in the Fuentiduena Chapel of The Christmas Story, drama and music of the Middle Ages, by The Waverly Consort, in dress, Latin language, and with musical instruments of the period. The Song of the Sibyl (Spanish, 10th century) introduced a dramatic procession of the Prophets with their anticipations of a coming Savior. Among these appeared Jacob, Isaiah, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist, followed by a "conductus", "The old law passes on, the old rites pass away...the bonds of sin are broken, for born is the King of glory."

The story proceeds roughly in the form of a Mass. An angel announces the Savior's birth to shepherds and midwives, followed by a 14th century Kyrie and an exultant Gloria. The Journey of the Magi is sung as experienced, with an evident touch of humor, by Sir Ass, bearing the gifts and equipage of the three kings. In dramatic body language, an upward pointing arm of each points to the high star and slowly lowers to the level of the creche, where, again in solemn drama, the gifts of gold, incense, and myrrh are presented. The scene shifts to Herods' court, back to the adoration, and a solemn angel calls ominously to Joseph to take Mary and child away. Atonal and angry music signals the Slaughter of the Innocents, followed by Rachel's heartbroken lament and the efforts of bystanders to console her. An Agnus Dei, pleading for mercy and peace, is followed by a triumphant "Let us Bless the Lord".

Musicians and singers exit in a stirring procession to the music of a rejoicing "Te Deum" with the silver ring of the performers' hand bells at the end of each passage.

CONGRESSMAN AND BISHOP !

2009-12-07T10:11:00.002-05:00

Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island recently improperly chastised the Catholic Church for opposing health care legislation, which included abortion-funding provisions. Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Providence appropriately affirmed Catholic principles on abortion for opposing such legislation. But Mr. Kennedy, as a Catholic, may have erroneously accepted some pro-choice views as a matter of his conscience.

Bishop Tobin's role is to teach and persuade Mr. Kennedy and others. It is not his role to coerce Mr. Kennedy's conscience, however erroneous it may be, by denying him the faith-filled, prayerful, and spiritually rich experience of participating in Holy Communion.

Since their exchange of words, the House of Representatives passed a health bill with an amendment continuing the long-standing Federal policy of excluding abortion funding. It remains to be seen what the Senate will do with this highly charged issue and with the joint conference committee with the House.

BENEDICT XVI AND HARVARD'S BOSS!

2009-11-15T16:22:00.007-05:00

Sunday's New York Times is a challenge to be met by selective reading. Right after the news section, I turn to "Business", where, on page two, "Corner Office" carries interviews on leadership with university presidents, CEOs, and chiefs of large organizations. Their experiences and insights might well be helpful to our church leaders in honing their own leadership qualities in governing parishes, dioceses, and the world-wide church. Here are some insights on leadership, provided in a recent interview with Ms. Drew Faust, President, Harvard University:

Understand the context in which you are leading: an organization to which people have a loyalty and which has a long history of loyalty. This can cause resistance to needed change. So a willingness to change is to be sensitively cultivated. There are different constituencies, each to be dealt with differently. Communication with these different constituencies is important to develop a sense of identity and cohesiveness of the whole, wherein each dean or school (Law, Medicine, etc) comes to appreciate the benefits from the larger organization in which it plays a part. Everybody cannot be made happy. But if people feel that they are being listened to and their views are being taken into account, decisions will be more graciously accepted. Differences cannot be allowed to degenerate into enmities, as can happen. Belief in the organization by its participants is essential. It can be secured only if they feel they are being invested in the institution, being made to have a stake in it, as well as being asked to respond to its needs. We are in the people-business. and wide communication is needed to bring people enthusiastically into the organization. I have always been amazed at how many people are willing to help if the appropriate approach is used. For a leader, there must not be a code that others must use to enter into the conversation. The leader must be seen as he/she really is, not encased in a masque or surrounded by mystery. Finally, there is a benefit from bringing into the administration individuals with different points of view or parties. I have in mind Lincoln, who brought into his cabinet some who were strong opponents: William H. Seward as Secretary of State and Salmon P. Chase as Secretary of the Treasury. They were of enormous help to Lincoln.

Thus opined the President of Harvard. Simply read her managerial necessaries, transposed into terms of the management of a parish and of a
diocese into what has made a good pastor and a good bishop and what has characterized an ineffective pastor and an ineffective bishop. Think about it! I would simply conclude by looking to these people-management qualities in the light of Benedict's responding to dissident Anglicans and schismatic Lefebrists. He talks to them, consults with them, despite profound differences, to bring them into the unity of the Church, to bring them under his control! What about Voice of the Faithful, We are Church, Call to Action? Their members are, for the most part, practicing Catholics, going to Sunday Mass, receiving Communion, on the parish envelope system, baptized, married, and buried in their Catholic Church. What about you and your bishops talking to this crowd?

Well, Uncle Harry, sit down here. Let me tell you. They are already under my control. That is all that really matters! Unity under the Pope! Control by the Pope! They prattle on about women priests, married priests, civil benefits for gays. I don't need to bring them into the fold. They're already in! Their new ideas would upset the established order. Why should I or my bishops waste time talking to them? We have nothing to learn from them. All you need to know is in the holy magisterium. Its all there. Settled! Quite simple. And the nuns? We talk to them. Yes, I know, but we do talk to them, do we not? I know it's called an investigation, but its a friendly investigation! By one of my favorite dicasteries!

Anybody for Harvard's President as B16's Chief of Communications?

HAIL "MARRY" IN ALBANY!

2009-11-11T20:21:00.006-05:00

New York's State Senate met yesterday for a special session, called by Governor Paterson to respond to a projected $3 billion state deficit and to approve same-sex marriage. Big challenge, one day special session. But it began at noon! Our dysfunctional state senate accomplished nothing in its special half-day session!

NY City gay City Council Speaker Christine Quinn had emotionally called for passage of the marriage bill. NY Post's headline: "Speaker's Hail 'Marry' Appeal". But bringing the bill to the floor was postponed; the Senate's future approval is doubtful. Both sides are now in place for more lobbying.

This blogger urges the senators to vote for equal civil rights and benefits for same-sex unions. But please use the right word:"civil union", "partnership", whatever. Be creative, but do not use the word, "marriage". "Marriage" has a long history as a word, which denotes a union significantly different, as to anatomical use and function, from a same sex union.

A legislature has the right to confer equal rights and benefits; it has no constitutional or other right to reinvent the dictionary or to interrupt the history of linguistics on the origin and development of words. Can a legislature declare: "After January 1, 2010, the word,'marriage',has, by our etymological authority, been broadened to an additional meaning that includes same-sex unions and henceforth shall be so understood by all." I think not!

Under the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws, those who have entered a traditional "marriage" would enjoy the right to that named word as hitherto understood. A legislature has no right to discriminate against this class of citizens by denying it its exclusive use of "marriage". I wish our state senators well to equalize benefits but not to embark on a linguistic adventure.

IS A PAPAL FIAT ENOUGH?

2009-11-02T14:47:00.010-05:00

Members of the Traditional Anglican Communion have long sought a welcome from our Roman Church. Benedict XVI has opened his arms to them and seeks to work out the details of bringing them under his control. Yes, that's right, under his control! His recent Apostolic Constitution suggests a kind of Ordinariat as a component part of the Roman Church, within which they would retain much of their Anglican liturgy and traditional customs.

Major sticking point: priestly celibacy! Since 1980, our Roman Church has had a two-tiered priesthood. Celibate priests of the Roman dictat and married priests, who were married Lutheran or Anglican clergy, joined the Roman ranks, and then, under a special dispensation, were ordained Catholic priests. Until now, this has been a tiny flow of individuals crossing the bridge. Celibate Roman priests, many feeling the lack of fairness, tend to shrug their shoulders. But now, whole groups, parishes and even dioceses, can join us with their married clergy. A second tier of priests will emerge with their own apartments, houses, or condos and income, adequate to buy the Corn Flakes and send the kids to school. It will take more than a papal fiat to keep the Romans quiet, while solitarily watching their TV or playing pinochle with the buddies around a bottle of scotch, when the Reverend and Ms. G. Hendley Birmingham are shooting birds in the Scottish Highlands! Hey, Pope Benedict, don't you think that there will be more Anglican men knocking at the seminary doors than the Scarsdale or Bronx types like us Irish or Eyetalians? You might also pull in some Anglo Puerto Ricans. Think about it! You could also bring back some of our guys, who left to get married, but still have the call. Many would love to return. We could sure use them. Why not?

Dear Holy Father, please remember that celibacy is not just doing without sex. When one's sex life is controlled, his private life is controlled, his public life is controlled, as is his social life, his residence, his income, and his job. Some sociologists have suggested that control is the underlying purpose of celibacy. Celibacy for priests began long after Jesus and the apostles as a form of self-giving, resulting in monks and monasteries.Then it was thought a good idea for the parish clergy. Sorry, it never caught on! Priests were generally married until the eleventh century, receiving a tenth of the local apple crops or wheat fields. But many of the priests passed on the church-owned orchards and fields to their sons. Gotta stop that! How? Prohibit priests from marrying! Illegitimate offspring can't inherit!

So Pope Nicholas II (1058-1061) prohibited the then common practice of priests marrying. A Bishop Ulric of Imola contended that this unjustly denied a natural right and could foster a homosexual presence and activity among the clergy! With kids? Prescient? Ulric had overwhelming support from among his and other priests. But orchards and fields and Pope Nicholas prevailed. Thus began the tradition of mandated celibacy. Today sophisticated canon and civil laws protect church ownership of its property. Prohibition of marriage for priests is no longer needed to prevent the pastor from willing the church parking lot to his sons. Many feel that mandated celibacy is, never-the-less, retained as an element of hierarchical governance for its control effectiveness.

Can the hierarchy maintain the same control over incoming married priests that they have had over us Roman types? Will the hierarchy be able to quell the questions and stirrings of the lower tier of priests - the unmarried - in the face of the unequal and, seemingly, unjust differences of sex, freedom, and control? Much more than a papal fiat will be needed! Perhaps the lower tier will simply disappear!

KNOCK AND IT SHALL BE OPEN TO YOU - ONLY IF YOU ARE A TRADITIONALIST!

2009-10-26T20:35:00.008-04:00

In this present month of October, Vatican officials established special relationships with two religious entities, presently marching with no papal flags out front: the Society of St. Pius X - the Lefebrists - which, totally rejecting the prose and poetry of Vatican Council II, departed the papal fold; and the Traditional Anglican Communion, whose members, alienated by their Mother Church's ordination of women and openly gay individuals, have long requested entry into the traditional, safely patriarchal harbor of the Roman Church.

Married Anglican priests have been entering the Roman Church since 1980 as individuals and have been able to be ordained Catholic priests while remaining married, courtesy of a special dispensation from the traditional celibacy requirement. Now whole groups, parishes, and dioceses may enter, while retaining Anglican liturgical and cultural accoutrements.

Much could be said about these two landmark initiatives. I wish to offer these three considerations:

1. Today's first official meeting of Vatican and Lefebrist officials followed the recent removal of the excommunications of four Lefebrists, one of whom has denied the existence of the Holocaust. The Apostolic Constitution, shaping the new relationship, lists a number of topics for negotiation. One of these is "Vatican Council II", the collegial work of the world's bishops under John XXIII and Paul VI. My goodness! Has this initiative of the tradition-emphasizing Benedict XVI been undertaken unilaterally by B16 and his curia or has there been consultation with diocesan bishops, within whose territories the contemplated new "St. Pius X prelatures", with their own seminaries and bishops, will be located? What aspects of Vatican II would B16 consider negotiable with the Lefebrists? What aspects of Vatican II are vulnerable? Hmmm!

2. To situate incoming traditional Anglican parishes and dioceses within the Roman Church structure, a system of "ordinariates" is being contemplated. These, like the new Lefebrist structures, will be located within our traditional dioceses under their bishops? Here, too, the question could be asked, do our territorial bishops have, or have they had, any collegial, consultative role in the on-going process? Or is it a pope and curia-based unilateral operation?

Where do I go on Sunday? My beloved parish church with its embrace of all, like the first Pentecost Sunday, with its New York-like mix of Arabs, Cretes, Medes and Elamites and dark Sudanese with rings in their ears - remember that writer who said about our Church, "Here comes everybody? Or do I go a few blocks away to the Lefebre Mass in the Latin of celebrants in fiddleback vestments? Or to the nearby Anglican Traditional Church, where the priest hopefully may have the Wasp lockjaw accent and an ermine- trimmed chasuble? Both of these last two choices, absent altar girls, carry the assurance that women shall never cross the moat and breech the sanctuary gate. What happens to the notion of a community of faith? Benedict, have these two initiatives been thought through? And by whom? A good blueprint for ecumenism can be found in Vatican II without making the Church a twisted pretzel! That design was worked out by the world's bishops!

3. Finally, new dialogue to build bridges is refreshing and welcome. But must it be only with those outside the Church who, looking backwards, seek the traditional and women-diminishing atmosphere of our Roman Church? Great numbers of Catholics, who participate in Mass and the sacraments, who contribute to their parishes and wider institutional causes, have long sought and are seeking dialogue with our hierarchy. These faithful are looking forward to positive development, not like those looking backward to what has been tried, and frankly, is not doing very well. They are in organizations, such as the Voice of the Faithful, Call to Action, We Are Church, and others. But most bishops and pastors, looking over their shoulders towards Rome, have turned them away. New ideas and initiatives that could come from our own faithful might well help change some of the things that are moving people away from our Church. It would be a great idea for Rome and individual bishops to call for a convocations of these faithful people. Members of our communities of religious women could get together with the Vatican big hats for a chat, a discussion, a joint study. Sorry, sisters! No way! We chat with dissatisfied Anglicans and angry Lefebrists. Not with you, faithful Catholics. You are on our turf. Under our control! No conversation, no discussion. We shall have an investigation! The ball game was over before the first pitch!

FROM PRIEST TO PARIAH !

2009-10-14T13:54:00.010-04:00

Our bishops in their Dallas Charter established a battery of policies, programs, and oversight that quite effectively protect children. But the Charter is flawed, in its structure and its administration, as to protecting priests from false accusations. Priests are heard to say, "Once you are accused, you're dead!" Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ published a critique on this aspect of the Charter ( AMERICA Magazine, June 21, 2004). On my previous post, I treated how his concern about "Settlements" played out in experience by possibly victimizing innocent priests. In this post, I intend to show how Dulles' concern about "Misuse of Charter procedure" was justified by an example of the bitter experience of an innocent priest. My ultimate purpose in this and subsequent posts is to urge our bishops to revisit the Charter and amend it to protect the falsely accused without weakening any safeguards for our children.

Responding to our shortage of priests, Father Ramon left his native Philippines. Welcomed by the Diocese of Metuchen, he was appointed to St. Helena's, in Edison, NJ. He was to baptize a new infant of friends at St. Jane's, Bethesda, MD. on August 9, 2008. Shortly before that date, the baptism was cancelled. The pastor had been notified by the Vicar General of Metuchen that clearance could not be given because an allegation of sexual abuse had been lodged against Ramon through the San Francisco Chancery.

Emotionally and spiritually devastated, Ramon, on August 6, sought my assistance as a canon lawyer to try to correct what he felt was a great injustice. Ramon's story: Twenty odd years ago, he had a brief consensual affair with a Ms. L. Subsequently, she brought charges against him, alleging that the relationship was abusive: he a priest, taking advantage of his position over herself, a volunteer.

As a canon lawyer, it was my opinion that there was no viable case here of sexual abuse. Both parties were adults; the stringent rules for abuse of a young person, as in the Dallas Charter, were not applicable. Ms. L denied Ramon's claim that the affair was consensual, a denial practically impossible of proof after twenty years. Even were it provable, a five year statute of limitations (Canon 1362) would have estopped any action.

As Ramon's advocate, I attempted to to clear his record by telephone and e-mail discussions with the vicar general. The VG expressed his concern that Ms. L would charge the Metuchen Diocese for employing an accused sex offender, thus bringing unfavorable publicity to the diocese. On August 22, 2008, Metuchen revoked Father Ramon's faculties,"pending an investigation". He was directed to leave the parish rectory forthwith. St. Helena's pastor paid him, not on the usual monthly basis, but only for the actual days he had worked. At one stroke, he had been deprived of his residence, his income, his employability as a priest, and his good name. He had suddenly become a pariah!

In the opinion of many canonists and those who watch "Law and Order", the Charter had inappropriately constituted Metuchen's bishop as the arresting officer, the prosecutor, the judge, the sentencing judge, and the appellant bench! To purport this as an acceptable administrative or judicial structure is an embarrassment to our Church.

The only investigation undertaken, of which I am aware, was my own. Metuchen's Bishop responded to my inquiry that he had revoked Ramon's faculties because of a serious sexual matter about him, reported by an official of the Archdiocese of San Francisco. I had requested of both dioceses a copy of the cover letter sent from San Francisco to Metuchen. Metuchen replied that all the material received from San Francisco had been forwarded to me. This material consisted soley of correspondence and notes by San Francisco's social worker, whose job description was to aid victims of abuse.

San Francisco's archbishop wrote, stating that neither he or any archdiocesan official had made any negative judgment or issued any warning about Ramon but that they were simply trying to help Ms. L, a parishioner, to receive assistance by way of counseling, financial aid, whatever. I requested that the two bishops contact each other to resolve the confusion about San Francisco's communication. I have not had any indication that this was done.

It is my opinion that Metuchen had misunderstood San Francisco's communication and seized upon the assignation story contained in it, as a warning about Ramon.This it certainly was not! As I have shown, the story as an example of abusive behavior was a dead dog, twenty years dead. Metuchen appears to me to have followed, again mistakenly, Dallas Charter procedures.

Metuchen's bishop responded that he has complete discretion as to accepting or dismissing an extern priest. Canonically, that is true (but whether it is good law is something else). But as Dulles has pointed out in the above referenced article that "When a priest is treated as guilty, he has lost his good name". In Ramon's case, it is my opinion that his reputation was defamed in the understanding of the Bethesda pastor, the baptismal party, St. Helena's parishioners, and Ramon's close-knit Filipino community.

As Ramon's advocate, I petitioned Metuchen to declare my client free of any charge of sexual abuse and to undertake rehabiliation of his name, which, in my opinion, had been defamed in violation of Canon 220. I presented our documentary proof. I requested a hearing before the bishop in Metuchen for Ramon and myself. Our request for a hearing was summarily denied and our petition rejected.

Ramon and I then contacted his bishop in Batanes, P.I., Camilo D. Gregorio. Bishop Gregorio knew about Ms.L and her stalking of Ramon. He wrote to both the bishop of Metuchen and the archbishop of San Francisco on July 15, 2009 (Cc to me): "Unfortunately [Ramon], has been subjected to a very painful experience by being removed of his faculties through what I would call a misapplication of the Dallas Charter on him. The poor priest has suffered the loss of his good name and has been deprived of his canonical rights... Allow me to say candidly that [Ramon] has been a victim of canonical injustice here which we, Bishops, need to look into with humility and to which we have an obligation to correct as best we can." What a beautiful relationship has been shown here between a bishop and one of his priests.

To date, I am not aware of any response from either bishop to Bishop Gregorio's letter. There the matter rests: Ramon, deprived of his residence, his priestly faculties, employability, and his income. As a canonist, it is my opinion that Metuchen misunderstood the communication from San Francisco, mistakenly followed the loose Dallas Charter procedures, violated Canon 220 (the right to one's good name), and failed to observe the canonical presumption of innocence.

Such abrupt dismissal, per diem wage payment, and loss of residence and employability, like Ramon's, would never occur at the hands of a considerate employer and would not be tolerated by a labor union. Was it even Christian? Priests, including externs from other countries, have rights. They, too, have lives to live!

May Ramon's treatment be a strong call for a revisiting of the Dallas Charter! The Charter needs fixing!

( Your comments, please!)

LIGHTS AND SHADOWS IN OUR CHURCH !

2009-10-10T10:22:00.004-04:00

A BRIGHT LIGHT: Father Don Johnson, a retiree with us here in Riverdale, has been a Chaplain at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital for many years. Each year, a heart surgery team drawn from hospitals around the country travel to San Salvador for a week to perform heart surgery on children. Most of the team do not speak Spanish. Don, in addition to his priestly work, serves as a translator for team members and the parents of the children. The Church at work!

SHADOWS: Our US bishops responded to the great sex abuse crisis, one of the greatest dark spots in our Church's history, by assembling in Dallas, TX in April 2002 to put together a series of programs on reporting abuses, vetting and training staff, and developing programs of awareness, education, and oversight for the protection of children and young people.

Their Dallas Charter has been judged successful in achieving these goals. But the Charter is seen as seriously flawed in its failure to protect the rights of priests. (Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ in AMERICA, June 14, 2004.)
The bishop is constituted as arresting officer, prosecutor, judge, and appellent bench. There is no practical source of appeal from the decisions of this one individual in any of his contradictory roles. As a purported judicial instrument, the Charter is an embarrassment! Dulles criticizes the Charter in its "zero tolerance", lack of a legal definition of sexual abuse, its neglect of the presumption of innocence, abandonment of statutes of limitation, and settlements of cases.

Each week, I shall consider one of these targeted criticisms. Today - Settlements: A bishop may prefer to settle an allegation to avoid the expense or publicity of going to trial. But a settlement makes no judgment about the truth of the allegation. The alledged abuser may well be perceived as guilty and thus loses his good name. Secondly, if little or no investigation is made, the settlement payment may well have been uncalled for and thus an unfair expenditure of the diocese's money and of the contributions of the faithful. Does this happen?

In November 2002, the Diocese of Manchester, NH made a settlement of $5 million to pay 62 alleged victims of abuse. The Nashua Telegraph of November 27, 2002 reported that Peter Hutchins, the attorney for the plaintiffs, declared that, "He did not encounter resistance from the Diocese of Manchester...either through lengthy legal procedures or a refusal to accept victims claims...Some victims made claims in the last month...and gained closure in just a matter of days". Hutchins thanked Bishop John McCormack for handling negotiations so quickly.
Just a moment, please. No investigation? Was any priest's name put in jeopardy by quick settlement? Were contributions of the faithful too easily given away by quick settlement? These questions go far to explain the lack of confidence in the system and its administration. The Charter must be revisited!

REMEMBERING 9/11 !

2009-09-13T11:38:00.006-04:00

Two days ago marked the eighth anniversary of the historic 9/11 ! Destruction of our twin towers by our own instruments of power in terrorists' hands! I was living in my East 93rd Street apartment and out for a morning walk. A doorman alerted me to what was happening downtown. I had been helping at nearby St. Thomas More's. Providentially, I was scheduled for the noon-day Mass. When I arrived, the church was filled to its capacity. The mood of the people was unusual - somber, mournful - but with an evident touch of fear of the unknown.

Among the roughly 3000 lives lost in New York, 23 were from the NYPD - Moira Smith and Bobby Fazio of the 13th Precinct and Brian McDonnell of Emergency Squad One - all neighbors from across the street from Epiphany rectory, my former home.
A local firehouse near my apartment lost nine from 22 Engine and Ladder Company 13. The Fire Depatment lost 343 firefighters, depriving 607 children of their fathers. Cantor Fitzgerald, a financial firm, lost 700 employees, depriving 1300 children of a parent. A wedding I was to perform in November did not occur. The groom, a bond trader in the South Tower was gone.

In the weeks and months following, countless memorial services and funeral Masses - portraits, helmets, but no bodies present - were held. A text that I frequently used was from the Second Book of Samuel:

"Consider, O Nation, those that are dead, slain on your high
places. The illustrious of the people are slain upon the
mountains: how are the valiant fallen...Be desolate for there
was destroyed the shield of the valiant. They were swifter than
eagles, stronger than lions. How are the valiant fallen!"

There are far too many personal stories and dramatic incidents for this limited space. Let one suffice: An evening in a West Side bar and grill; a gathering of the NY Press Photographers Association to deal with their trauma - they lost two dead, had several injured, witnessed terrifying scenes of people falling from the burning towers! A friend, Todd Maisel, a Daily News photographer, who had asked me along to pray with them, jumped up on a table top, and, like a biblical prophet, tearfully spoke of heroism and destruction. He termed these times, not Old Testament times, nor New Testament times, but a Newest Testament time, in which we confront a new face of evil!

SENATOR TED KENNEDY: AN IMPERFECT HERO?

2009-08-30T20:03:00.008-04:00

It was theatre on a grand scale, not in the Roman colosseum or in a Greek agora, but in the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help on Boston's Mission Hill. Yesterday the Mass of Christian burial for Senator Ted Kennedy took place there, "weaving together memory and hope", in the words of homilist, Father Mark R. Hession, and connecting the senator's public committment to social justice with the faith life of "a vibrant and caring family", whose narrative "is woven throughout the history of of the nation for the past half century". As the military ceremony ended with the reverent folding of the flag over the casket, the religious ceremony began with four women carefully draping the pall where the flag had been. The senator's wife, Victoria, was there, tenderly aligning the pall and smoothing out its wrinkles.

Hession's homily touched on Kennedy's prayerful visits to the basilica at the time his daughter, Kara, battled the disease that she survived but that took away her father. Hession, the pastor of the church that served the Kennedy compound on the Cape, told of offering Mass there and praying with the dying senator. The scripture readings were clearly related to Kennedy's vision of social justice: Wisdom 3, 1-9: "The just shall shine and run to and fro like sparks among the reeds." Responsorial: Ps.71 "He shall deliver the poor from the mighty; and the needy that had no helper." Romans 8, 31-39: "Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, the Lord.". Matthew 25, 31-40: "I was hungry and you gave me to eat, thirsty and you gave me to drink, a stranger and you took me in, naked and you covered me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to me."

Kennedy was not canonized yesterday. The homilist adverted to more than mere imperfections. Ted Kennedy, Jr spoke of his father's trip as one of redemption. President Obama, too, made gentle mention of "personal failings and setbacks". The president's eulogy resonated with Catholic belief and tradition and featured his great gift of language. "He was given a gift of time that his brothers were not. And he used that time to touch as many lives and right as many wrongs as the years would allow." He was a "veritable force of nature... the baby of the family who became its patriarch, the restless dreamer who became its rock." And those left behind, "grieve his passing with the memories he gave, the good he did, the dream he kept alive".

A columnist , David Horney, characterized the day: "How very Catholic it all was. These events often feel much less religious, with liturgy a mere glaze over a civil ceremony. Kennedy, though, was a deeply Catholic man." In his recent letter to the pope, he "connected virtually all his objectives as a legislator to the social teachings of Roman Catholicism".

The day showed great adulation of Senator Kennedy by the movers and shakers of society and by the people on the street caught by TV cameras for their brief comments.

My own view as a blogger: It was a day of reflexion! Life and death seen on a grand scale. Inner coherence of Catholic belief and tradition. Great honesty. Have we ever heard a eulogy for a priest or bishop as forthright as yesterday's? Who put all this together? The Kennedys! Cardinal O'Malley had a minor role. The Basilica is run by the Redemptorist Order. They had practically no role. The Kennedys called the shots. They even had the sidewalk repaired the day before, since it was in bad shape!

Interesting aspect: The senator was pro choice. He had a prior marriage. Victoria, too, was divorced. Local Right-to-Lifers put enormous pressure,
happily unsuccessfully, on Cardinal O'Malley to be absent. How could the Church go along with this? Prominence of Kennedys? No. Could this ecclesastical acceptance of this couple be ultimately a recognition of the right of conscience? Both were people of deep and genuine Catholic faith and apparently regularly receiving Communion at Mass. I think most of us know couples married after divorce, who regard themselves as, in conscience , truly married and therefore participating in the sacraments. Should this be looked into with a possible acceptance of divorce as our Protestant and Greek Orthodox and Jewish brothers and sisters do? Is the life long marriage contract like a title of ownership to a car that is now a clunker in an auto junk yard?

The pro choice situation does not lend itself to such a solution. The life of the unborn is inviolable. But an erroneous conscience must be followed. Some of our fellow Catholics, politicians and others, after thoughtfully weighing a multitude of considerations, even prayerfully, seemed to have reached a conclusion in conscience, however incorrect, of accepting pro choice positions. Can the Church accept a health plan with an abortion flaw in light of many benefits that flow from it? Can the best be the enemy of the good? Tough considerations; tough questions. Can our Church accept imperfect members in the hope of persuasion and development? Has it already accepted Senator and Ms. Kennedy in today's dramatic action of redemption? Can the Church give up its passion for total control? Is Senator Kennedy a hero, however imperfect? This is the point of the polarization in our Church today.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

BOOKS TO HOLD ON TO!

2009-08-16T16:49:00.006-04:00

I left my aerie in the sky - the 39th floor of my 93rd street apartment - on the last day of May. I had finally cut the cord that linked me to Manhattan. Nieces and a nephew, in a worldwind of young vitality, stripped my pictures from the wall: a Picasso reproduction, a 1737 view of Manhattan from the end of Fulton Street in Brooklyn, two symbol-filled paintings I had bought in Venice, and a wall, full of family photo portraits. Most of my books had been given away earlier. But some could simply not be abandoned. Packed separately, they now hold their places and their memories in my bookcase in Riverdale. Here are the ones that I cherish.

I Fascinating in content and its grace-filled writing is "Poets in a Landscape" by Gilbert Highet. It is a trip back 2000 years to the homes, villas, and haunts of seven Roman poets. The landscape includes the springs and ponds of the countryside, its orchards and gardens but also the personages with whom the poets interacted. The volume is enriched by the author's visits to the places where the poets lived and out of which their poetry was born. Substantial excerpts of each poets' works adds to the interest of this volume.

An example: Catullus poignantly expressed his sorrow at the death of his elder brother, his delight at his sexual experiences with many women, but especially with Clodia, who broke his heart with her infidelity. He served in Rome's foreign affairs mission in Asia Minor, capturing in words the beauty of the Greek lands and islands and the virtues and the vices of those with whom he worked. Other poets visited: Horace, Vergil, Ovid, Propertius, Tibullus, and Juvenal.

II "The Heart and Mind of Love" by Martin Cyril D'Arcy, SJ is a study of Eros and Agape, the two faces of love, the self-seeking and the selfless seeking the benefit of the other. This is a heavy going but rewarding treatise of the natures of love in the thinking of ancient and modern philosophers, writers , and poets. I cherish this volume because of the many notations I made in its endleaves in 1947!

III "The Faith and Modern Man" by Romano Guardini. The author is an Italian priest, raised in Germany because of his father's service in the Italian Foreign Ministry. Its twelve essays treat insightfully of basic elements of religion."Adoration" examines the nature of God and aspects of His power. He is adored not just because of His power, but because He is worthy of that power because He is possessed of Truth and Justice. "Dogma" is "like a wall built about a sacred source to keep the contents from running out, or an iron band surrounding the mystery to hold it intact". "'God's Patience' reveals itself in His relation to the world and to mankind...Material things...begin, develop, reach a peak and then decay. This process of becoming goes on through long, often immeasurably long stretches of time...Why does becoming have to take so long." The way God works!

IV In "Surprised by Joy" CS Lewis tells the reader of his search for joy, which first led him to atheism and then to Christianity. He describes how his early life was shaped: the influence of his parents, teachers and professors, Oxford and its personages. He expertly characterizes the personalities he encountered.He visits also the physical settings of his life, the architecture of buildings and the contours of the countryside.

V "The City in History" by Lewis Mumford is a monumental work, a study of the development of cities in many cultures: ancient forms, medieval cities and monasteries,industrial centers, and on into the nuclear age. It is a study of the development of the human race and how its economic, religious, political, and cultural influences came to shape the cities where people, lived, worked, and articulated their hopes and dreams, their happiness and their fears in painting, music, sculpture, poetry, drama, and varied literary forms.

VI "Fin de Siecle Vienna" by Carl E. Schorske was given to me by an Austrian priest friend who teaches art history at the University of Vienna. It brought me into a kaleidescopic world of politics with aristocratic, socialistic, Zionist, and anti-Semitic currents. Towards the end of that century, art, drawing, and painting exhibited what many thought was a descent into an irrational world at the core of which was the bizarre sexuality of Oscar Kokoschka and Egon Schiele. This era of change is well characterized by Ravel's Le Valse, beginning with a stately walse, moving to ever more rapidly spinning circles, and finally ending in a cacaphony of mere noise! Sigmund Freud belonged to this age, perhaps to try to save it from itself.

VII "The Spirit of St. Louis" Charles Lindbergh. The epic story of the famous flight over the Atlantic, its careful planning and the preparation of the tiny plane, then the actual flight. Lindbergh was at first puzzled by so many moving stars, then he realized that only one was fixed, the pole star,and could be confidently used for his navigation. He was bothered by the bucking of the plane, until he realized that it kept him awake and alert.

VIII "Meditations on the Peaks" Julius Evola. Its subtitle tells it all: "Mountain Climbing as Metaphor for the Spiritual Quest." "The mountain is spirit in all that it involves: discipline of the nerves and body, clear-minded courage,desire for conquest, and the impulse to engage in pure action in an environment of pure forces...The mountain can be destructive and is awesome in its greatness, its solitude, its inaccessability,its silence, the primordial nature of its storms, its immutability through the succession of seasons and the constant formation and dissolution of the cloud banks - all these should be regarded as intimations of immortaliity." A volume to which I frequently return.

IX "Starlight and Storm" Gaston Rebuffat. A story of the conquest of many mountains by a master climber. Remarkable in this book, as in the one above, is the depth of understanding of human life and its spiritual accompaniments that come out of these men of the mountains as they reach for what is quite beyond their grasp and face the brute force of rock and ice, heights and storms. Rebuffat extols the fierce bond of friendship that comes from the rope that links climbers together so they can save one another. Some snatches: "this snow and this cold are obstacles, not enemies." "driving[the piton] into the rock, hearing it sing as it went in, and confiding my whole body with all that it contains of hope and love, to this one iron peg..." "first the joy of anticipation, then the delight of action." On mountain guides: " their confidence, resolution, coolness.." After climbing out of an avalanche:"the happiness of being together again cheered us once more." "one of those autumn days which are a last gift of heaven..." "a world of high summits and elemental forces..." "Confronted by the joint forces of mountains and elements, he feels born in himself a power, a balance and reserve that normally lie dormant,
withdrawn, but which reveal themselves in time of need." Another book I visit when new perspectives are needed.

These are seven books, from which I could not part when I left the 39th floor!

"HATE ENGULFS CHRISTIANS IN PAKISTAN"

2009-08-07T11:19:00.007-04:00

Today's title is from a headline in last Saturday's NY Times.The story describes how a mob of some 20,000, enraged at a spurious rumor that a copy of the Koran had been desecrated, engulfed the tiny Christian enclave in Gojra, Pakistan. An accompanying photo shows a man and woman, heartsick, sitting in the ruins of the Hameed family home, six of whom were burned to death, a seventh, an aged grandfather, shot in the head. Some one hundred others were seriously wounded.

Although local police did little to defend those attacked, Pakistani authorities subsequently arrested some of the ring leaders. The laws on blasphemy have been described as so loosely interpreted and publicized by mullahs as to inflame public opinion and incite mob action.

It is clear that this and similar persecutions of Christians in Islamic lands flows from the basic Muslim division of the world into two parts: the Dar al-Islam - the House of Peace, ruled by sharia - and the Dar al-Harb, the House of War, not ruled by sharia now but destined ultimately to be so ruled. It lies behind the total banning of Christianity in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. It lies behind the edict on Valentine's Day 1989 by the Ayatolla Khomeini: "I inform the proud Muslim people of the world the the author of "The Satanic Verses" book [Salman Rushdie], which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Koran, and all those involved in its publication, who are aware of its content, are sentenced to death. I ask all Muslims to execute them wherever they find them." Rushdie went into hiding and has been guarded by the British police ever since.

Pim Fortuyn's "Against the Islamization of Our Culture" warned that his country, the Netherlands, which generously subsidized Muslim families, mosques, and schools, failed to challenge the freedom-denying values of the Muslim culture, the values that are irreconcilable with Western democracies and freedom. Fortuyn ran for the Dutch parliament. He was attacked not only by Muslim voices but by the intelligentia and the media as lacking in sensitivity to the newcomers in their society! On May 6,2002, he was murdered by an assassin, who testified that he had killed Fortuyn because of his views on Muslim immigration.

Theo van Gogh, a Dutch intellectual, celebrity, and TV personality, had seen his city, Amsterdam, become a quarter to a third Muslim. He produced a film "Submission",
treating the oppression of women in Muslim culture. A similar theme was featured in a televison movie he produced. A few weeks later, on November 4, 2004, he was assassinated by a man, who later declared he had killed van Gogh because of the hostility to Islam in his TV production.

As van Gogh fell to the ground having been shot, his killer pinned a note to the dead man's chest, threatening to kill one Ayaan Hirsh Ali, a young Somali woman writer and member of the Dutch parliament. As an outspoken feminist, she outraged the Muslim community on a second count. She had been a Muslim. Disenchanted, she became an atheist. Her life threatened, she was given police protection. Various pressures induced her to resign from parliament. She came to the United States to work for the American Enterprise Institute.

These few examples demonstrate the denial of freedom of speech in Muslim culture. In each incident, with the exception of Salman Rushie's fatwa, there were always voices of academicians, writers, and assorted artistic types asserting that host nations and cultures should be more accomodating to the "sensitivities" of the newcomers.

I, too, have experienced a chilling of my own free speech through similar misplaced sensitivity. After the horrors of 9/11, I prepared a short essay for the newsletter of our Ruppert House development where I was livng. The main theme was David's lament on the death of his friend, Jonathan. "How are the valiant fallen!" I called upon "our Jewish, Christian, Muslim and other neighbors" to join in heartfelt prayer for a new spirit of peace. The Chairman of our board called me. "We decided not to have your piece in the newsletter." Startled, I, incredulous, asked why. "Well, the Muslim group here (a small number of families) prepared a piece. We don't want to run it. So if we ran your entry, we would have to include theirs." Astonished, I remonstrated. I was the founder of this development. We had welcomed these newcomers to our neighborhood. They enjoy this housing provided mostly by government funds. And on and on. It was not a calm discussion. But he prevailed. As was happening in Europe, my free speech rights had been denied for a false sensitivity. A cloud of this other culture had fallen across our path of freedom!

To date, I have seen no statement by Muslim clergy or Pakistani diplomats here decrying the devastation of Christians in Gojra simply because they were Christians.

THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT!

2009-07-28T20:58:00.005-04:00

So many good things are happening in our Church! Especially thriving parishes like St.Ann's, Ossining, where I was Weekend Associate for the first ten years of my retirement. I go back at Christmas, Holy Week and Easter, and for special occasions like the feast of St. Ann, last weekend. New life from the Mass; new life from the people at Mass. The Saturday different language Masses were combined into one at 6 PM. Mostly English and Spanish were used for the readings; where in Spanish, the little booklet carried it in English; where in English, the booklet told it in Spanish. Responses to the Prayer of the Faithful were in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Tagalog.

An offertory procession saw two ladies come down the aisle with the long cloth that they unrolled and spread over the altar. Then a pair of parishioners with flowers; followed by a couple with the chalice and the paten; then the Roman missal, the bread and the wine. Throughout the procession, choir and congregation sang "Come to the Feast". An authentic sense of the worshipping community was evident in the singing at that point, at the acclamation after the Consecration, and during the Our Father, the people holding hands, even across the center aisle. Genuine, authentic! After the Mass,the parishioners enjoyed food and drink and conversation on the patio beside the church. One could easily imagine St. Paul and his worshipping community of Ephesians. But they would have had the ouad and other Greek music devices, not the five Ecuadorian instrumentalists of St. Ann's. "This is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad therein!"

THE CHURCH AND JURISPRUDENTIAL MALFEASANCE

2009-07-16T15:33:00.007-04:00

The most important aspect of the US bishops' 2002 Dallas Charter is the protection of children. Another aspect, protection of an accused priest against defamation of his name (Canon 220) and unjust removal from ministry, has been totally neglected in the Charter’s conception and administration. Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, in “Rights of Priests” (AMERICA, June 21-28, 2004) pointed out that the bishops had contradicted in their Charter the very principles embraced in their November 2000 statement on criminal justice: the dignity and presumed innocence of the accused and that punishment must fit the crime.

Dulles wrote that the Charter totally rejected the canonical statutes of limitations (canonically “prescription”), had ignored proportionality (a pat on someone’s posterior to be treated the same as serial rape), had failed to define precisely “sexual abuse” (leaving it to different bishops to make their own various definitions ), and had failed to respect the presumption of innocence (removal from ministry without due process or admission of guilt).

It is no gentle irony that the bishops, having jettisoned all canonical statutes of limitations in their Charter, have consistently pleaded to retain the very similar statutes in civil law, most recently with the New York State legislature, advancing the reasons therefore that the passage of time threatens disappearances of witnesses and the conscious or unconscious manipulation of memory. These are the very reasons that validate statutes of limitations in canon law. The bishops oppose suggested changes in existing civil statutes because that would open the window to more civil law suits based on the failure of church authorities to properly supervise clergy, who sexually abuse minors. Is there a problem here of intellectual honesty and jurisprudential consistency? Please! Some explanation!

Canonists are being sought by priests, possibly unjustly removed from ministry, sometimes even without prior notice and an opportunity to defend themselves. The bishop has become arresting officer, prosecutor, jury, judge, sentencing judge, and appellant bench – a jurisprudential absurdity!

In the interest of justice and intellectual consistency, the Dallas Charter should be promptly amended on the issues herein described.

FRIENDS FROM THE PAST!

2009-07-04T14:40:00.005-04:00

The recent closing of my apartment on Manhattan's Upper East Side resulted in an outpouring of photos, letters, clippings, and memorabilia from the past. My most recent blog post took me back to my long friendship with Ilah MacDermot, my visit to the Inner Hebrides, and my meeting, via his personal journal, with Father Allan MacDonald, parish priest in the Outer Hebrides in the last half of the nineteenth century. Remembrances of other significant personalities in my life tumbled out of closets and desk drawers. Each had significant influence on my thinking and vision.

There was Edith Spivak, one of the first woman lawyers in New York and one of the first to be employed by the city, was a dear friend. She died in August 2005 at the age of 95, having been the the city's longest serving employee. She entered the NYC Corporation Counsel's office in 1934. Fiorello LaGuardia was mayor, the first of ten mayors under whom she served and under twenty three Corporation Counsels as well. She was a fiesty and articulate individual, with views she was never reluctant to voice, except when she knew they were seriously at odds with those of the listener. I had lunch at her invitation many times at the annual luncheon of the NY County Women's Bar Assosciation. Wearing the Roman collar in that crowd, I felt like I was waving a British flag at a St. Patick's Day dinner. But I assured Edith that I was pro-parental-choice when it came to government support of parochial schools! She was happy to remind me that she had handled the city's appeal in the landmark Walz case before the US Supreme Court. Walz had sued, alleging that the city violated church-state separation by granting real estate tax exemption to religious institutions. Edith was proud that she was part of the city's victory in the high court's 1970 vindication of the city's position.

I had come to know Edith through her husband, Bernie Goldstein. They had met at Columbia Law School and married in 1933. Bernie was a prominent real estate lawyer, author of the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on real estate law, and co-author of a text book with Patrick J. Rohan, then Dean of St. John's Law School. We had met as members of the Advisory Committee of the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Bernie, a gentle person, more laid back than Edith, was known for his well-written legal documents. He had an adversion to "legalese". Our mutual liking for good writing was an element that had brought us together. Bernie and Edith hosted small dinner parties at the Princeton Club, where judges and city officials provided interesting insights into this slice of our city's life. When Bernie died in 1998, I was priviledged to be one of the speakers at his memorial service, together with Paul A. Crotty, parishioner of Epiphany from which I had retired in 1996.

Paul, now a Federal judge since 2005,had been the city's Commissioner of Finance and then Commissioner of Housing Preservation and Development under Mayor Ed Koch. In 1994, he was appointed Corporation Counsel by Mayor Rudy Guiliani. On leaving city government in 1997, he became president of Verizon. While I have titled this post as "Friends from the Past", Paul is very much a friend of the present.His wife Jane, has been a prominent community figure. Their sons graduated from The Epiphany School, another indication of the family's active role in Epiphany Parish. A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1985 had declared unconstitutional the then existing practice of the city supplying public school teachers in reading, math, and guidance to parochial schools. In 1997, the high court reversed that earlier decision and restored those public school teachers to the parochial schools. It was Paul Crotty, who represented the city in successfully arguing the case before the court. Paul has also written and lectured on the church-state aspects of the First Amendment.

These are some of the friends, who have been an influence in my vision of governance, politics,society, and religion. To be continued.

A PRIEST IN THE DIOCESE OF ARGYL AND THE ISLES

2009-06-17T20:16:00.003-04:00

My last post came from closing out my Upper East Side apartment two weeks ago! 1996-2009! Closing activities were not a Pandora's Box but a cornucopia out of which spilled photos, letters, gift books with messages from the givers, and other magical items connecting me with long-ago relationships that gave color and/or meaning to my life. My last post introduced Meg Campbell, whom I had the priviledge of ushering into the Church. The wife of John Campbell, Laird of the Isle of Canna in the Inner Hebrides off the west coast of Scotland, she was an American Protestant, transferred to the tiny island by marriage and had been impressed by the Catholic faith of her husband and the other twenty-eight islanders. She wished to join them in this other than a geographic community. On a visit to New York, she had been introduced to me by my friend, Ilah McDermot. At St. Thomas More's on East 89th Street, she entered more than the physical building.

An invitation to visit Canna was followed by plane to Glasgow, the North Highlands Railway train to Malaig, and then the once a week inter-island ferry to the islands of Eig, Rhum, and then Canna. On your computer, type in Canna on the Google slot.You will be brought to descriptions of the island and its flora and fauna. You will find mention of John and Meg Campbell as scholars of Gaelic language and folklore and some photos of the island, looking like a green outpost of another planet. Their quite magnificent house was lighted by what came from their house generator. No stores, no street lights, no streets,no advertising, no automobiles. The rather eccentric Laird - he announced each evening meal by a bugle call - resisted modernity and had his telephone down by the dock at what was called a bothy.

In the extensive house library of these two scholars, I found some hand-written journals of a Father Allan MacDonald (1859-1905). Through these I entered a brief, but meaningful, relationship with a fellow priest in a world so different from mine on the East Coast of Manhattan. There were glimpses of his prayerful spirituality underlying his life of priestly service to his people, marked by a sensitive compassion for the difficulties of his people, their poverty, their neglect and exploitation under absentee landlords, and the harsh climate of the windswept barren islands. On your computer, type in his name for a great story!

He had made studies for the priesthood in Salamanca, Spain. On ordination, he was assigned to a parish in Oban, the see of the Diocese of Argyl and the Isles. Subsequently, he was sent to South Uist in the Outer Hebrides - the Western Isles. They had names strange to us: Barra, Benbecula, Eriskay! He encouraged his people to vindicate their rights. But they were always fearful of being evicted from their land if perceived as trouble makers. The population of Eriskay consisted of many families, who had been evicted from the more prosperous islands. Father Allan was instrumental in having a jetty built in his town for the safety of the fishermen, in having legislative protections enacted for his people, in having the telegraph extended to their island, and in beginning the construction of a church on Eriskay, where he served the last years of his priesthood. He did not live to see it completed, dying of pneumonia at the age of forty-six.

His journals are colorful and filled with the humanity and humor that clearly belonged to him. Communication between islands was somehow made through a series of
signal fires. He writes of a fire from a nearby island that in some way was a signal that he was needed to attend at the death of a parishioner. He arrived in his boat and found the husband of the deceased woman distraught, overwhelmed by his loss. After the funeral, he describes in touching words his solicitude for the broken heart of the husband and writes how he took him, desolate, back in his boat and put him up at the rectory for a few days until he could become more of himself!

Father Allan writes of bringing Holy Communion to two elderly sisters in their thatched cottage on a point of land, swept with a cold, pelting rain. The sisters, to protect their cow from the storm, had brought it into their living room. He thought it looked rather sickly. The ladies, after receiving Communion, fetched him a cup of tea. Would father like milk for his tea? He wrote, "I looked at the cow and said, 'No, no, this is fine. I'll take it plain.'"

He wrote in a prose so appropriate to its splendid content. His priesthood resonated with what I hope mine has been. Sacraments and service. Not jetties, but housing! Responses not by words alone but by deeds! Not by abstractions, but by experience! Not by severity, but by humanity and humor! Thank you, Father Allan!

LIFE IS RELATIONSHIPS !

2009-05-31T21:30:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, I turned in the keys to my thirty-ninth floor apartment at 222 East 93rd Street. I was deeply involved in the building of this 650 apartment complex:two seventeen story buildings and a forty-two story tower. But that's another story. My move out unearthed an accumulation of photos of family and friends, letters, newspaper clippings,and articles and book reviews that I had written. Leaping out of this memorabilia are the remembances of significant individuals, who helped me find meaning in the swirl of life and whom I may have helped to the same end. There were my parents and siblings, a roster of Brooklyn relatives of my mother, priests and nuns,and an assortment of men and women in that limited circle of those whom I could call close friends. We shared insights, supported one another, and I had, among those in the circle, one or two who, unknown to them, were frequently my moral guides. Faced with a difficult decision, I would ask myself, "What would Jim Colbert think if I were to do such and so?" We had been altar boys together, classmates at Iona '38, and fellow travelors - literally, intellectually, and spiritually. He became a distinguished physician, president of two medical colleges, and the father of eleven children, one of them, Stephen Colbert of TV's Comedy Central. Jim always said the Pope is right. A lot of my memorabilia brought him to mind.

Another personality, who emerged from the past, was Ilah McDermot, a parishioner at St. Thomas More's, my residence during my chancery years. She was the proprietor of Wakefield, Young Books at 65th and Madison, patronized by the financial and social elite of Manhattan's Upper East Side. She traveled to Europe occasionally, seeking objects d'art for her shop. I was invited to spend a week at Villa Santa Bonda, just outside of Siena, where she and her daughter had taken a wing of the 16th century villa. The local pastor, Father Galante, who was also the Curator of most of Siena's art treasures, spent an afternoon and evening with us. In a dreadful mix of Latin and body language, he and I conversed. "And where", with effort, he asked, "is Mr. McDermot?" He had died long before I met Ilah, a tragic death of TB, bitter towards his fate and faith, and towards his wife and daughter. Ilah had managed a book shop on a Cunard liner. Ashore at Tel Aviv, she met an officer of the British marines, whom, in time, she married. It was an unhappy parting!

Ilah had a remarkable influence on others and was a leader in my St. Thomas More's study group. She introduced me to a Meg Campbell, who was desirous of becoming a Catholic. We went through the basics and I received her into the Church. Meg was married to John Campbell, the Laird of the Isle of Canna, a small island off the west coast of Scotland. He and all twenty-eight inhabitants of the island were Catholic. The Outer and Inner Hebrides, to which Canna belongs, and the Highlands of Scotland have remained heavily Catholic after Britain became Anglican. After Meg returned to Canna with Ilah, I was invited to come to visit. Perhaps at this point, it would be well for me to acknowledge that, what Father Galante may have suspected, there was no romantic element in play - none, nada, nil, zero, zip, tout au contraire! I was a young priest; Ilah an elderly woman. It was an extraordinary friendship, and only that. (I write all this, not so much for others, but for my own sense of being and identity!)

In moving out of my apartment, what brought Ilah to mind? She has been long dead. But I found three books she had given me as Christmas gifts: in 1956 "A Christmas Garland" by Max Beerbohm; in 1959 a leather bound "The Complete Works of Shakespeare"; "Selected Poems of Siegfried Sassoon" a magnificent volume by the famed Stanbrook Abbey Press, no date but with this inscription: "Dear Father, You have been such a very real comfort to me and to mother and Patricia and I have found nothing to express my love and gratitude adequately but this book of poems, being perfect in form and print and meaning, that might express some of my feelings and might, I hope, give you pleasure. Ilah."

MOVING FROM THE UPPER EAST SIDE TO RIVERDALE

2009-05-11T10:34:00.003-04:00

Managing a blog is like having a tiger by the tail! Good heavens. I'm way overdue for a new post. The reason: I'm giving up my apartment on East 93rd Street! Quite traumatic! On retirement from Epiphany Parish in July 1996, I lived there in Ruppert House, a governmentally subsidized middle-income co-op. I had been the President of its non- profit sponsoring corporation whose board members included Rev. Clarke Oler, Rabbi Dan Davis, and a designee by each one of us.

Living alone is not the greatest. When the flu or something else would hit, a neighbor had my number to call in the morning. If no answer, call 911. I did not accomplish much as a cook. Although I have had many friends, one has to become a social engineer to arrange dinner dates and and fill the gaps at restaurants with the prettiest waitresses. I never once resorted to fast food deliveries altho between 6 and 9 the streets were filled with Hispanic and Oriental bicyclists. In the event of a crash, the street would be littered with fancy topped pizzas or chop suey. When our clergy retirement residence - Thank you, Cardinal Egan - opened in 2003, I moved here. The place is spectacular. Riverdale is like Westchester. FLIC food service is excellent. Fellow residents - pastors, educators, military and hospital chaplains - are hail fellows well met. We have all experienced grumpy pastors. There must be a screening process because, happily, they are not here. I'm glad to have passed the test!

I kept the apartment in the following years as a happy base on Manhattan's Upper East Side. I was a Board Member of The Ronald McDonald House, a home-away-from-home for parents of children who had come to New York for cancer treatement. I instituted a Pastoral Care Department there. For many years I offered Mass in the RMD House chapel each Thursday evening. I also was and continue as Chaplain to the Respect For Law Alliance, an organization of lawyers, judges, and criminal justice people. Evening meetings and activities of the RMDH and the RFLA together with other forays into Manhatten could be followed by a convenient overnight at my apartment. I shall miss this!

The process of moving uncovers files and photos of interesting events and personalities. I have enjoyed reliving many of these and plan to share some of them in future postings on this ARCHANGEL blog.

HOLY WEEK ON THE HUDSON

2009-04-21T13:31:00.003-04:00

Last Good Friday evening: Route 9 had been blocked off; red lights were flashing on several police cars; a huge crowd had assembled on the roadway. But there was no emergency; no signs of hostility in the crowd, estimated at a thousand by the police. They were parishioners of St. Ann's parish. It was the start of the Way of the Cross procession, Hispanic style. Fourteen Stations of the Cross had been set up around the Village of Ossining. A police car led the way, followed by a flatbed truck on which each Station was re-enacted in sound, costume and action as truck and procession arrived at each of the Stations. Many of the men, women, and children carried lighted candles; their voices sang out in Spanish hymns as the procession wended its way around the village.

Earlier in the day, the Mass of the Pre-sanctified and the Homage to the Cross were celebrated. At another point, a group of costumed teen-agers reenacted each Station of the Cross in the church. Great reverence and devotion marked the young people's demeanor, and a great tenderness at the scene of Jesus encountering His mother along the way and, at the twelfth Station, as her Son's body was draped across her knees.

Holy Thursday evening saw a church, completely filled, heavily Ecuadorean, reflecting the parish's chief constituency, the eyes of the many little children bright in awe as the procession of the Blessed Sacrament moved slowly through the church in candle light and rising clouds of incense to the singing of the Pange Lingua and hymns in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Tagalog. The congregation, with its exotic ethnic mix, appeared transfixed in silent reverence and devotion.

Each day of the Triduum began with Morning Prayers and the singing of the heartbreaking Lamentations Of Jeremiah, the song from the tragic days of the Jews in exile, centuries before Jesus.

Holy Saturday evening saw the new Easter fire enkindled on the portico and then brought into the church on the Easter candle and the lighted candles of the people. The joyous Exsultet was exquisitly sung by the two women cantors of the parish.
In the course of the lengthy ceremony, one young man was baptized and another twenty men and women were received into the Church. On Easter Sunday afternoon, in an exclusively Spanish ceremony, another twenty-four individuals were received into the Church.

Easter Sunday saw the bright liturgy of Easter with its triumphant music, a dramatic finale to the drama of the preceeding days.

For the first ten years of my retirement, I had the privilege of being the Weekend Associate at St. Ann's, surrendering three years ago, when, by some mysterious techtonic process, the hill between church and rectory had suddenly become much steeper. But I do return for special occasions to experience the faith, devotion, and warm friendliness of the people and of the pastor. Without becoming overly sentimental, it has been pleasant to have become to the parishioners, "Uncle Harry". But this, however, does not gentle the sense of aging. St. Ann's and its pastor, Father Ed Byrne, are truly remarkable. I shall use a subsequent post here on my Archangel blog to describe something about Father Ed and what he and his people have accomplished. St. Ann's has always been for me a truly religious experience!

THE PRO-LIFE HOUSE IS DIVIDED!

2009-04-09T10:15:00.007-04:00

In Canada in the 1970s,the abortion debate between pro-choicers and pro-lifers heated up. But, curiously, a rift developed within the Catholic camp. A group, termed "revivalist Catholics" by the media, bitterly attacked not only pro-choice doctrine but also the personages who favored it as evil. They also attacked the Canadian bishops, who favored a different tactical approach. Some responses to my last posting about Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama, indicate that Catholics are similarly divided today.

My post said nothing about whether it was wise or prudent for Notre Dame to have invited Obama. It questioned what to do about the invitation already extended. I proposed some answers to the questions of retired bishop John Quinn. Would retracting the invitation reduce the number of abortions? What would be the effect on the image of the Church? I think the answers are quite obvious.

The issue comes down to the legitimacy of dealing with a thoroughly pro-abortion Obama. Our bishops in their "Faithful Citizenship" document explain how a Catholic, clearly opposing the "pro-choice" position, could in light of other considerations vote for such an individual. Obama holds many positions in thorough accord with Catholic social justice doctrine. Pax Christ,a Catholic organization headed by Bishop Gabino Zavales, auxiliary bishop in Los Angeles, has just commended Obama for his Passion Sunday address in Europe,in which he said we will seek US ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

A couple of responses I received chastised me for sharing Obama's views on abortion, which I certainly do not, and for other items unworthy of a priest. I have written articles condemning abortion in several publications.(Two that I can cite off hand: AMERICA magazine for 1-12-1991 and 6-21-2001.) In 1969, abortion-permitting legislation failed in the NY legislature by one vote; in 1970, it succeded by one vote. Assemblyman Al Blumentahl, the bill's sponsor, campaigned in early 1970 to win public support for his bill. At a "town hall" forum near St. Joseph's, where I was pastor,Blumenthal held forth. I was able to take the floor and debate calmly and effectively with him. A couple of extremist anti-abortion chaps screamed and yelled. They made a bad impression on the crowd; my approach received respectful attention.

Example of a pro-life tactical mistake: Prior to the 2000 election, pro-choice Hillary Clinton and pro-life Rick Lazio were campaigning for the NY seat in the US Senate. Catholic Charities of Rockville Centre arranged for nineteen Candidates' Nights throughout that diocese. Pro-choice Clinton and pro-life Lazio or their representatives would contend at these Candidates' Nights. Bishop James McHugh, the then RVC bishop and the Chair of the Pro-Life Committee of the USCCB,scuttled the arrangements because he did not want pro-choice advocates speaking on church premises. An opportunity was lost for voters to hear where each candidate stood and thus add to the prospects of Lazio.

Another example: In that 2000 election, politically astute Michael Brown and his Conservative Party endorsed Lazio and threw him their votes. The not-so-politically-astute Right-To-Life Party put up a John O. Adepope as its unwinnable candidate, thus siphoning off its voters who otherwise probably would have voted for Lazio.

Another example: In the two pastorates that I was privileged to serve, St. Joseph's on East 87th Street, and Epiphany on East 22nd Street, Candidates Nights were a regular feature, open to the entire neighborhood. In, I think, 1978, big hatted Congresswoman Bella Abzug, said to have been "born screaming", was unseated by Bill Green. At a Candidates' Night" at St. Joseph's, she bitterly attacked a tuition tax credit pending before Congress that would have benefitted parents of parochial school students. Green, spoke in support of the bill. I had become friendly with Bill and had discussed the bill with him. He clearly gathered votes that evening. For many reason, probably including his support of the tax credit bill, he prevailed over Lady Abzug in the election. (I will check details and dates.) Bella and Bill were both pro-choice. But it was helpful to have them present. The audience, heavily parishioners, came to know where each stood on the tax credit and other bills.

Final example: In 1992, Congressman Bill Green faced a challenge from Carolyn Maloney. At Epiphany, we held a Candidates' Night. A third minor candidate, whose name I do not recall,was on hand. All were pro-choicers and they knew where we stood. In the middle of the evening's discussion, the doors burst open. A group of extremist right-to-lifers rushed in, brandishing jars containing fetuses! We had to call the police in order to continue the evenings discussion. The well-intentioned intruders succeeded only in bringing discredit on the cause that we shared with them. Outsiders and parishioners were appalled at their behavior. Maloney prevailed in the election.,

As we face the Notre Dame situation, we can well reflect on the questions posed by Bishop John Quinn, which were summarized in my previous posting.

EXTREMISTS ATTACK NOTRE DAME!

2009-04-05T14:13:00.008-04:00

The President of Notre Dame has kicked up more than a dust storm by inviting President Barack Obama to give this year's commencement address. A Virginia-based Catholic watchdog group has announced that 54,000 on-line signatures have been collected, urging that Notre Dame rescind the invitation and not confer on him an Honorary Degree. This is not the first time that extremist abortion opponents have shot themselves in the foot. But this time they are shooting our Church in more than its foot.

Retired San Francisco Archbishop John R.Quinn has posed a number of significant questions to be reflected upon by the petitioners and those puzzled by the controversy. Quinn's questions, in summary, are these: If President Obama is forced out, will that diminish the number of abortions in our country? Will it further our pro-life efforts? Will it increase cooperation between the Catholic Church and the administration or will it create tensions and deepen hostility? Will it cause more people to join the pro-life effort? How will it impact on the image and mission of the Church? Might the banishment of the first African-American president from Catholic college campuses be seen as grossly insensitive to our nation's heritage of racial hatred? Will it be used to paint our bishops as supporters of only one political party? Will our Church be seen as not sincerely seeking dialoge but only acquiescence?

The obvious answers to these questions indicate the grave consequences of how this issue plays out. Until recently our bishops have resticted themselves to making judgments about policy, but not about political personages. That has changed. Some bishops have banned pro-choice candidates from Holy Communion; other bishops have told them not to approach the altar. This moves our bishops from confronting issues to confronting personalities. It is an historic move. It neglects the role of the personal conscience of candidates, most of whom are good people, but who erroneously give a priority to the freedom of women over the right to life of the unborn. It is a practice that is the basis of the charge that the Church puts a "don't vote" label on a pro-choice candidate by putting this public spiritual penalty on them without any inquiry process whatever. It is also contrary to our bishops' "Faithful Citizenship" document that counsuls broad consideration of many issues, not a narrow focus on one.

Despite radical differences on "pro-choice", NY's Cardinal Egan invited Obama, the then presidential-candidate, to speak at the 2008 Al Smith dinner. Cardinal O'Connor was a personal friend of pro-choice Mayor Ed Koch. He even wrote a book with him! Soon to be NY's archbishop, Timothy Dolan, has invited President Obama to his installation on April 15. Obama recently said it well: "We do not govern out of anger." We may well understand the outrage of the extremist anti- abortion people, but we Catholics cannot permit their anger to shape our relationships and the relationships of our Church.

Archbishop Quinn's questions, mentioned above, might well be suggested reading for those petitioning for the exclusion of President Obama from Notre Dame's 2009commencement exercises.

(My next post will review some counterproductive actions by extremist right-to-lifers that I have personally experienced.)

B16 NOW A B29 AND DROPS A BOMB!

2009-03-19T11:22:00.005-04:00

My last posting commented on President Obama's statement when signing his directive on stem cell research: "We make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." I observed that decisions of every kind were based not only on facts, but on values and principles that have developed out of our human experience. Furthermore, decisions purportedly based on facts alone, invariably are selected and placed in a context according to an agenda or ideology of the decision maker. Obama cannot insist that facts alone can shape decisions. But he was right on target when he pointed out that exaggerated dependence on ideology can ignore, deny, or contradict the facts.

Regretably, Pope Benedict XVI provided a graphic example of how his ideology denied and even contradicted the facts. On his recent flight from Rome to Africa, he was questioned about the legitimacy of condom use to prevent AIDs. He responded by stating that condom use, not only did not prevent AIDs, but actually increased its risk. It was as though B16 had become a B29 as the bomb he had dropped exploded in a storm of protest from the scientific, media, non-Catholic and Catholic populist ranks. Immersed in his long and foresquare opposition to condom use for what he judged were moral reasons, he was found to be, not only denying facts,but actually twisting them to support his position. The storm blew back to the Vatican, where damage control efforts hurriedly got underway, reaching even to some twisting in Vatican editing and translation of the pope's remarks.

This phenomenon is encountered frequently in human affairs. It is not unknown that research scientists can be so convinced of a conclusion that they reject or distort incompatible facts. It has not been unknown in the history of our Church, most notably when pope and Vatican curia accused Galileo of heresy for denying that the sun revolved around the earth. After all, they said, the Bible tells of how the sun stood still to allow Joshua more daylight to fight on to capture Jericho. Scientific facts from Galileo's telescope were rejected for a misplaced deductive reasoning process from a misunderstood biblical passage.

Denial of facts by force of ideology is unfortunately too commonplace in our Church. In the condom dust-up,B16 insists that the African tribes practice sexual abstinence as the only effective way to combat AIDs. The pope has not even been able to succeed in having the African clergy successfully walk on the hot stones of celibacy. Remember the scandal of a decade ago when the religious superiors of nuns in Africa demanded that Rome do something about priests sexually abusing and even raping members of their congregations of nuns! Is Benedict not living in an unreal world when he dismisses scientic facts to support his moral view about condoms? The much- needed reform in our beloved Church will come only when those in charge accord experiential reality its due recognition and acceptance instead of worshipping before
the constructs of their own deductive processes. Like "Jesus was a man; therefore only men can be priests." Please!

PRESIDENT OBAMA AND IDEOLOGY!

2009-03-14T13:56:00.003-04:00

Earlier this week, President Obama signed a presidential directive overturning President Bush's restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research. Such funding is now possible for research using live embryos and their harvesting. It results in the deaths of the embryos. That is why it is opposed together with abortion by pro-lifers. It is supported by those who favor the hope that such research may advance the treatment of certain diseases.

In signing his directive, the president stated that his purpose was to ensure that "we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology". Ideology can be defined as a body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of individuals or groups.It can also be seen as a body of beliefs, principles,and values constituting the foundation of political, religious or other organizations. How does Obama understand "ideology"? As using scientific facts alone as the basis for decision-making? Was this what he had in mind? Critics quickly pointed out that a "naked science" - facts alone - could never be the sole basis for action. Science and its array of scientific conclusions exist in a larger universe than its own. Values and principles have developed over centuries from from our human encounter with the world of facts and science. Values and principles stand guard over our world of facts, prevent their misuse, and help us towards bettering the human condition.

President Obama cannot declare himself free from ideology. He has his own ideology that gives priority to the unrestricted freedom of women to choose. We Catholics have an ideology that declaims, with the Book of Deuteronomy, "Choose life!" Obama brings his ideology into his administration. Ed Gillespie, former counselor to President Bush put it quite clearly: "Administrations come into office with a point of view - not because they are quashing dissent or not being scientific, but because this is what helps their thinking."

Our president will come to realise that he is as much guided by an ideology as are the rest of us!

OUR PRESIDENT AND A FUTURE POPE !

2009-03-01T14:28:00.004-05:00

President Barack Obama, faced with a never-before economic crisis, summoned up his youthful vitality, his analytic and synthesizing intelligence, his articulate genius and, with advisors, put together a series of programs to bring some solution to the the nation's crisis. As in his campaign, he sought the support of the nation's people by calling for "the audacity of hope", "change we can believe in", and the "si, si puede" - "yes we can" - spirit that brought him to the presidency. He saw that the old constructs of governance and management had not only failed but had, indeed, been the very agents of the collapse.

In the fanciful future year of 2035, a new pope, Appolinarus I, became the navigator of the barque of Peter, storm-tossed in a secular mileau by a shortage of vocations, both male and female, and by a catastrophic epidemic of sexual abuse of children, caused by many bishops disobeying Church law - Canon 1395. That single canon was at the heart of the scandal. It called for punishment of abusers. Instead, many bishops covered up and reassigned them, exponentially multiplying damage to children. Civil society charged them with malfeasance and set a price of more than $2 billion for damages, paid, not by these bishops, but by the faithful. These bishops received no punishment whatever, or even a specific reprimand, from their Church.

Pope Appolinarus was aware of how President Obama had approached the crises of his country. He felt that the same spirit was needed for a Church in crisis - "the audacity of hope", "change we can believe in", and "yes, we can". He established a commission to study what to do if a bishop does not follow canon law, esp Canon 1395.
Canon 1389 provides that a bishop who misuses his power by failing to perform a required act of governance, e.g.by not punishing an abuser, is to be punished even by removal from office. Why had this not occurred? A Metropolitan Archbishop has authority over his subordinate dioceses but it is limited. If he finds abuses, he is to inform the pope. (Canons 435 and 436) This is not likely to happen. The pope is far away. Bishops protect bishops. Some management technique was required to make the Metropolitan accountable for his responsibility. Avenues of appeal must be opened up for visible input from other bishops, lower clergy, and laity. Not an easy task for the new commission.

Appolinarus was worried about the shortage of priests. He was well aware that mandatory celibacy deters the average young male from the priesthood but would be more acceptable to gay men. He knew that most of the many priests, who had left, had done so to be married. He knew how celibacy was not universally practiced in many parts of the world, yet curiously accepted as a reality by previous popes. He was aware how JPII stressed the natural right to marriage. In a spirit of audacity, he established a commission to study mandated celibacy and its implications. He was preparing himself for a new construct in church discipline.

From his extensive reading, Appolinarus remembered a 16th century Muslim scholar commenting on how the exclusion of women left the Muslim body half paralyzed. The comparison with a half paralyzed Catholic community - the Body of Christ - from the exclusion of women was immediatetly evident. He was appauled at the prohibition of women from giving the Mass homily, even when an imported foreign priest could only stumble through his homily in undecipheral English. And this at a time when women were state governors, legislators, judges, CEOs, and held other prominent roles in society. The glass ceiling existed only in the Catholic Church. Appolinarus was being prepared for another new construct in church discipline.

It would not be long before Pope Appolinarus would replace the old constructs of church managment and discipline, having shown themselves as part of the problem, with new constructs that would make canon law enforceable on bishops, especially the long neglected Canons 1395 and 1389; with new constructs replacing mandatory celibacy, which no longer existed as an ascetical practice or simply prohibitive of priests, as in medieval times, from passing church holdings on to their children; and with new constructs breaking the glass ceiling that kept women beneath it.

Yes, Pope Appolinarus will need "the audacity of hope", "change we can believe in", and the spirit of "si, si puede' - "yes.we can".

A WAKE-UP CALL FROM OUR PRESIDENT!

2009-02-13T14:42:00.008-05:00

The nation has been enlivened by the stunning election of an African-Amercan as its president. Barack and Michelle Obama and their two charming daughters now call the White House their home. Elected on an enthusiastic wave of emotion, stirred by the keywords "Audacity", "Hope" and "Change you can believe in!", the new president faces an enormous economic crisis and other domestic and foreign policy challenges. He has pledged to address these issues with wide-ranging consultation for new and energy-charged ideas and with a non-partison spirit that would be different from the existing Washingtonian political culture. He has appointed Republicans to posts in his administration, including two members of his cabinet.

We church people were quick to perceive a similarity between the nation's crisis and the crises in our church: vocations, sexual abuse and $2 billion shot for maladministration, financial, gender discrimination, lost confidence in leadership . And we quickly perceive a dissimilarity between presidential leadership and ecclesiastical leadership. George Weigle, had this to say: "The last several weeks of curial chaos, confusion, and incompetence in the wake of the lifting of the excommunications of four Lefebrist bishops have made clear just how dysfunctional the curia remains in terms of both crisis analysis and crisis management." Weigle, a well known papal enthusiast, may have disguised his dismay by charging the curia, rather than the pope. as the problem. Other critics have not let Benedict off so lightly.

The de-excommunication of the Lefebrist four, one of whom has denied the existence of the Holocaust, has triggered outcries from the international Jewish community. Pope Benedict's apology and restatement of Vatican II's document on Catholic-Jewish relations came as a lame effort at damage control. While we Catholics share the distress of Jewish people, many of us are disturbed that it is another sign of Benedict's lack of respect for Vatican II. The Lefebrists broke away precisely because they rejected all of Vatican II, fashioned by the world's bishops under the guidance of John XXIII and with the approval of Paul VI.

Benedict's regime has threatened to excomunicate Maryknoll Father Roy Bourgeois unless he disavows his belief that women should be ordained. The three women, who participated in an imitation Mass at which Bourgois delivered the homily, were excommunicated. Unlike the Lefebrists, they accepted the hegemony of the pope and Vatican II, but were not invited in for a discussion. Members of the Voice of the Faithful and Call to Action are devout Catholics, pope and parish centered, and regularly receiving the sacraments. Their goal is to build on the reforms of Vatican II. But there has been no outreach to them. They have been banned from church property by many bishops and have been declared excommunicated by Lincoln's (Nebraska) Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz.

Pope Benedict's reaching out to the separatist Lefebrists, while excommunicating practicing Catholics, seems to be part of an effort, together with his return of the Tridentine Mass, indulgences, further centralization of church governance, and diminution of lay particiation in liturgy, to put the machinery of Vatican II in reverse.

President Obama has put forth a vision of hope, a concern for new and productive ideas, for "audacity", and for "change one can believe in". He intends to use widespread consultation and efforts to engage individuals and groups of varying identities to address the crises challenging the nation. How refreshing would be a call from our church leadership to echo those words to take bold and creative steps to continue the work of Vatican II.

Instead we find censure and excomunication and, remarkably, a notice last month that the Vatican's Cardinal Franc Rode will head an apostolic investigation of Institutes of Women Religious in the United States to ascertain why their numbers have diminished and what is the present quality of life in their communities. Hello there! Where are you? Hey, Cardinal! It's all over. The stage curtain is down, the house lights have been turned off, the audience has left the theater. We're going to the wake! One of the greatest chapters in our church history has come to an end! The role of our religious sisters in education, health care, ministry with its absurd glass ceiling! The Body of Christ has been left half-paralized! Have we an icon as a symbol for the story? How about Pope John Paul II sitting in stony silence on his 1979 trip to America as Sister Teresa Kane tried to be heard through three feet of plate glass!

SPEAK UP! AND PERISH!

2009-01-31T10:34:00.004-05:00

In my last blog post, I tried to make the point that as Catholics we accept the voice of the Pope on the narrow range of basic matters of faith and morals, but feel free to comment, or even to disagree, on his selected priorities and on polices and practices that he has established on his own human terms. At issue was his canceling of the excommunication of four schismatic bishops, who had rejected the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II, with one of them espousing anti-Semitic views. I was unhappy that Benedict XVI had received back the four dissidents without their rejecting anti-Semitism and and agreeing to accept the documents of Vatican II. The response to my blog was, for the most part, favorable. A few respondents, however, were dismayed at my criticism of Benedict. After all, he is now our Pope! We must go along with the current pope in all matters!

Is that really true? In that blog, I pointed out that John XXIII had assembled bishops from around the world in Vatican Council II, which, in its document "Nostra Aetate", was a landmark in forging congenial relations with the Jewish community. John had endeared himself personally to the Jews by many of his actions. He had greeted a Jewish group, saying, "I am Joseph, your brother." As a papal nuncio prior to becoming pope, he had authorized the issuing of Catholic baptismal certificates to help Jews escape the Nazi death traps.

John Paul II had established good relations with the Jewish community from his days in Poland and on through his papacy. Among other things, he had established diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Israel; had visited Israel and prayed at the Western Wall. He was not the collegially minded John XXIII, but was noted for dominating the many Synods of Bishops, to the diminution of the influence of the gathered bishops. He has also been perceived as unhappy with some of the Vatican II reforms. He has, to some degree, diminished the role of the laity in the liturgy. He has weakened the collegial influence of the national conferences of bishops, requiring unanimous consent by the bishops to its policy conclusions. Without unanimity, the matter goes to him!

My blog post pointed out the different policy position of these three popes on relations with the Jews and on their different attitudes toward collegial policy-making. I suggested that the faithful were quite free to choose which of the popes they preferred in light of their relationship towards the Jewish community and on their attitude towards the reforms of Vatican II, especially regarding collegiality.

Yesterday in his N Y Times column, Peter Steinfels, took my thought a big step forward. He reported the anger of much of the Jewish world at Benedict's recent reception of four dissident bishops, one of whom has public espoused anti-Semitic views. He reported the concern of many of the faithful that the four dissidents, each of whom had separated from the Church by rejecting Vatican II, had been un-excommunicated without making any change in their dissenting views. Steinfels suggests that this dissident, ultra-conservative group has received a welcome that has not been and will not be extended to the non-schismatic faithful, who espouse liberation theology or the ordination of women. The columnist goes on to say that "the further problem, for the Catholics, no less than for the Jews, is puzzlement about the pope and his leadership".

Steinfels goes further. He wonders why not one of our 433 bishops have voiced some misgivings about Benedict's action. Bishop Wilton Gregory, a USCCB official, has merely said that Catholics were "embarrassed" by this episode. But Steinfels continues, "No bishop, it appears has added a public word of doubt about the wisdom of Pope Benedict's action or wondered out loud how it came about".

Sic dixit Steinfels! He gives facts and his opinion. But the larger question lies ahead:"Why?" Is a bishop like a corporate officer or a branch manager, who can say nothing critical about the boss? Where is the much touted, but ignored, collegiality? We know that bishops are regularly promoted to bigger dioceses and power positions, if - an important "if" - the boss likes them. Crude? Yes. But that's the answer to why bishops don't speak up. It's in the structure and in the atmosphere. What to do about it? Comments welcome!

PICK A NUMBER, PICK A POPE!

2009-01-26T09:57:00.004-05:00

We Catholics accept a Pope's declaration on matters of faith and morals. Some Catholics will accept anything the Pope says or does as unquestionably "dignum et justum" - appropriate, just and true. For example, when John Paul II appointed Cardinal Bernard Law, driven from Boston by his priests and people for his history of covering up and reassigning pedophile clerics, such papal enthusiasts quickly justified his act, despite its calamitous public relations effects. After all, he's the Pope; he's the boss! Think with the Church!

A few days ago, Benedict XVI removed the excommunication of four schismatic bishops, an excommunication placed on them by John Paul II. The schismatic bishops had not changed their views; the policy of Benedict changed the policy established by John Paul II. If a papal enthusiast, whom do you applaud, Benedict or John Paul? If Pope's disagree, which one do you accept and precisely why?

Benedict's welcome back to the dissidents dismayed those Catholics who had been energized by the reforms of Vatican II. These Lefebrist dissidents had totally rejected that Council and had shown no signs of a new acceptance. Benedict's welcome back without requiring their repudiation of their views says something about Benedict's attitude towards the Council. George Weigel, a strong "pro pontifice nostro" type has observed that "It is not easy to see how the unity of the Church will be enhanced unless the Lefebrists accept Vatican II's teaching on the nature of the Church, on religious freedom, and on the evil of anti-Semitism, explicitly and without qualification." Benedict has shown other indications of his movement away from the words and spirit of Vatican II. He has been following the line of JP II in diminishing the role of the eucharistic ministers. Women are still prohibited from being formally installed as Lectors. He has authorized in strong terms the use of the Tridentine Mass, encouraging the faithful to request it from their bishops, and if denied, they may appeal to Rome.

Benedict's welcome reception of these four dissident Lefebrists, one of whom, Bishop Williamson, has denied the existance of the Holocaust of the Jews and others from the Lefebrist group, who have manifested anti-Semitic attitudes, prompted strong objections from major Jewish figures. The Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish spokespersons contrasted Benedict's attitude towards the Jews with that of the more brotherly John Paul II, who had established diplomatic realtions with Israel. Benedict had already raised the ire of the Jewish community by restoring a Holy Week prayer that called for "the enlightening of the Jews". John XXIII established cordial relationships with the Jewish community. In the 1960s, he greeted a Jewish delegation, saying "I am Joseph, your brother".

These three popes have a commonality in the truths of the faith. But each has his own priorities. Benedict seems intent on doctrinal unity and has expressed a desire for a smaller Church, but one more intensely Catholic in its identity. He has harked back to the Catholic identity of the old Europe and would seem to favor its restoration. He seems unconcerned about broad public reaction to his views as seems the case here with the Jews and in 2006 with Muslims, when in an address he quoted a medieval scholar, who said that Islam brought things "evil and inhuman". He had not anticipated the angry Muslim response and later apologized. Does he fail to consult with others who could broaden his view of the world to which he speaks? Cardinal Walter Kasper, the liaison for Vatican-Jewish relations, said that he had not been consulted by Benedict about the welcome of the Lefeborists, and thus seemed unprepared for the strong Jewish reaction.

John Paul II was not a practioner of listening to others. In his "Exhortations", summing up the work of the many Synods of Bishops during his regime, he clearly projected his own vision of the Church, not that of the assembled bishops. This was most notable in his "Exhortations" after the 1998 Synods for Asia and for Oceania. Most notable for relying on others was the beloved John XXIII in his convocation of the world's bishops for Vatican Council II. It produced documents that touched every phase of church life and that would reenergize the Church. John's successor, Paul VI attempted to follow through on the path of consultation and collegiality by establishing the Synods of Bishops. But his successor, John Paul II, as has been pointed out, did not see things that way. He and Benedict, despite their glowing statements about Vatican II, have clearly been attempting to bypass its words and challenge its true spirit, thus consolidating a single voice that needs little input from outside. Each stands as a single figure and sits in solitary judgment over the work of the world's bishops, united with their Pope.

Three popes, a common faith; three popes, different priorities. The faithful share that common faith. But many of us would choose John XXIII and his priority: listening to the voices of a diverse world-wide Church! Feel free to pick a Pope!

RICHARD JOHN NEUHAUS

2009-01-13T21:04:00.003-05:00

As a Lutheran pastor, Neuhaus served in a predominently black neighborhood in Brooklyn. He was known for his sermons and writing, his interest in social justice issues, his involvement in inter-faith activities and his opposition to war, at that time, the Vietnamese war. Somewhat curiously, later in life he endorsed the preemptive war in Iraq, begun by President George W. Bush. He became a friend and counselor to Bush, as he had been to Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bush 1. He brought a special quality to the circle of neoconservatives that included Midge Decter, Michael Novak, and George Weigel.

Neuhaus was, indeed, a leader in our time. As a Lutheran, he brought Christianity into the public square; as a Catholic, Catholicism. He was a prolific writer of books and articles, always available to the print and TV media, the founder of the Institute of Religion and Public Life and the monthly journal, "First Things", with it's heavy, scholarly articles and his own eminently readable, frequently ironic, and always entertaining musings on the public and ecclesiastical squares. He was religion editor of the National Review. He debated pro-abortion types like Peter Singer of Princeton and a variety of individuals, who would exclude faith from the public square. In addition to his own many lectures, he brought many eminent speakers to wide audiences, including the then Cardinal Ratzinger.

Neuhaus became a Catholic in 1990 and attended daily Mass at Epiphany Church, where I was pastor. He was ordained a Catholic priest the following year. I was privileged to be a member of a committee, established by Cardinal O'Connor, to discuss and then recommend to O'Connor what preliminaries should precede Neuhaus' ordination. Some on the committee thought that he should spend at least some period of time in our St. Joseph's Seminary. Most thought otherwise. I suggested that Neuhaus had a theological knowledge and understanding that equalled, if not surpassed, that of the seminary faculty. O'Connor accepted our recommendations: Neuhaus need not attend St. Joseph's.

One night I received a frantic call from Neuhaus. He lived a few blocks from Epiphany. He was in extreme pain, caused by an intestinal blockage. I told him to call 911 and have the ambulance take him to nearby Cabrini Hospital. I would meet him there. Surrounded by doctors and nurses, his life was in danger. In his book, "As I Lay Dying", he recounts the incident. He wrote

"Monsignor Harry Byrne from Epiphany, the church around the corner, came to administer Last Rites...Father Harry and I have been long friends for many years, a friendship marked but not marred by disagreements over his liberal propensities, both political and theological. But this was all priestly business, and he is a priest to his fingertips, a priest of the grizzled, no-nonsense Irish type who does what he is ordained to do and trusts to God that the doing of the thing will do what it's supposed to do."

Thank you, Richard. He continues

"Then there was confession and, yes, I will amend my life if there is a life left to amend, then unqualified forgiveness, for everything, without exception, followed by the anointing with sacred oil and the prayers for healing, if that be God's will, and finally receiving the Body immeasurably more battered than mine, which is called Viaticum, meaning 'food for the journey'. There now. That just about does it. All the loose ends all tied up. It was very straightforward, just as it ought to be. I was drifting into sleep. 'Goodnight, Harry. I'll see you' Sometime. Somewhere."

'

SANTA CLAUS - ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE

2009-01-10T13:48:00.005-05:00

Santa Claus has gone back to the North Pole; his reindeers put to pasture in Alaska. But he lives on in the minds of children and some adults. Here is how that genial writer of the 1930s, G. K. Chesterton, reflected on Santa Claus:

"We believed that a certain benevolent person did give us those toys for nothing. And...I believe it still. I have merely extended the idea. Then I only wondered who put the toys in the stocking; now I wonder who put the stocking by the bed, and the bed in the room, and the room in the house, and the house on the planet, and the great planet in the void.

"Once I only thanked Santa Claus for a few dolls and crackers. Now I thank him for stars and street faces and wine and the great sea. Once I thought it delightful and astonishing to find a present so big that it went only halfway into the stocking.

"Now I am delighted and astonished every morning to find a present so big that it takes two stockings to hold it, and then leaves a great deal outside. It is the large and preposterous present of myself, as to the origin of which I can offer no suggestion except that Santa Claus gave it to me in a fit of peculiarly fantastic goodwill."

HOW WAS THE HOMILY?

2009-01-02T14:52:00.006-05:00

Restaurants frequently provide cards seeking comments from customers on their dining experience: how was the food, the service, the ambience, the noise level? It might be instructive to make such response cards available at our Sunday Masses inquiring about the homily experience. Here are a few imagined responses that might be received:

"Very interesting, Father, about Jesus, how He was truly God and man. Some of the words were theological terms but you did shed light on them. But the homily was definitely too long. Ten minutes is a good outside figure. But the homily had a difficulty coming to an end. Perhaps too many points were attempted and some would have been better dropped. Sometimes an airplane has to jettison some fuel to make a safe emergency landing. Dropping some of your points would have lightened the load and you could have landed on the ground more quickly instead of circling the airport too long a time."

"Great talk, Father. That story about Timmy and the boat, which he had made and then bought back after it had been lost, was so simple. It effectively delivered the deeper meaning that was your intent. Stories seem to catch interest and are more easily remembered than abstract terms. Congratulations!"

"Whoa, Father! Your talk had little positive to say. It was so harsh on homosexuals. Really over the line. No distinction between homosexuality and homosexual behavior. Last Sunday, I attended with my daughter and my brother, who is gay. Your condemnations almost appeared to be directed at him. My daughter suggested that we leave. I began to gather up my things. My gay brother reached over and tapped me on the shoulder. "Don't leave, Maria. This is our church, my church, not his! We stayed, but now I go to another parish"

"Congratulations, Father. You must have been in the theater. That distinction between stage business and dramatic action was powerful. Stage business: what you see on the stage - the settings, the costumes, the entrances and exits - the stage business. On the other hand, the dramatic action is something else: what happens among the characters - how they come to perceive each other and how they respond - from affection and love or to anger and rejection; how they perceive themselves in relation to others, to the society around them, to their country and to their God. It applies to the sacraments: part stage business, part dramatic action. Gave me a lot to think about. Thanks!"

"Please, Father. Must abortion be brought into almost every one of your homilies? We Sunday regulars are convinced that abortion is the taking of a human life; that it is wrong; that our society has gone down the wrong road. But, really, should a preacher become almost apoplectic in condemning it? Outsiders see our opposition to pro choice as just another part of the patriarchal attitude of our Church towards women. The soundness of our pro life position would engender more respect if our voice came out of a Church that treated women more fairly than it does. And to tell us how to vote is just not acceptable. A politician's bag has some bad pro choice stuff and some good pro life stuff. The voter has a difficult task sorting out the complex mix. In the 1960s, the two bishops of Puerto Rico told Catholics it would be sinful for them to vote for Luis Munoz Marin for governor because of his state promotion of birth control. New York's Cardinal Spellman quickly issued a public statement that Catholics were free to vote as their own conscience dictated. To tell me otherwise from the pulpit is not acceptable."

"We are grateful to you, Father, and to the other priests who have come to us from Africa, India, and other countries to fill in for shortages of our own priests. But, Father, I could not understand a word of what you said! Many of us think that priests should have a basic proficiency in English before being accepted here. The parish priest is not a sacramental machine. He is to preach the gospel; he is to counsel his people in the Sacrament of Penance and in other settings. But I have a suggestion. Our religious sisters could be a supply pool; among them, educators, theologians, and public speakers. Since for reasons many of us cannot comprehend, they cannot be ordained as priests or deacons. But they could readily be commissioned to preach the homily at Sunday Mass where the priest is simply not up to it. It would be nice if the bishop would pick up my suggestion."

THE MEASURE OF A WORD!

2008-12-23T09:34:00.005-05:00

Former Mayor Ed Koch, in his weekly e-mailed "Commentary", yesterday, presented two interesting views. He accepted President-elect Obama's choice of evangelical minister Rick Warren, an opponent of same-sex marriage, for the Inauguration Day prayer. But he added a strong defense of moving same-sex unions to the level of marriages, both in law and in terminology. I forwarded to him the following response:

Dear Mr. Mayor,

You have provided a persuasive rationale why same-sex marriage advocates should not pillory President-elect Obama for selecting Rick Warren to offer the prayer at his inauguration.

Beyond that issue, I would like to suggest that the same-sex marriage controversy is really a matter of a word: "marriage". If "domestic partnership" and "civil union" do not bring all the civil effects of "marriage" as you indicate, let's advance the law to incorporate what civil effects of marriage have not yet been embraced in the law.

But on the etymological level, the meaning of the word "marriage" is not to be twisted out of shape to exclude one of its defining elements, viz. procreation. That is beyond what statutory or constitutional law can do. But the dictionary and traditional and popular use presuppose that defining element. Let's advance the law and advance etymological development to find a new word to describe the end result. If there is to be a new juridical entity, let's find a new juridical term to define it.

I hope I am not overreaching on the nature of your wise and stimulating commentaries and reviews. Thanks for making us think.

Sincerely,

Msgr. Harry Byrne

A BAND OF BROTHERS?

2008-12-12T13:45:00.005-05:00

I spent a happy Thanksgiving weekend with my brother, his wife, and family in Alexandria , Virginia. That Sunday saw us at the local Church of the Good Shepherd, where a vibrant liturgy featured participation of the people as Eucharistic Ministers, Lectors, and welcoming ushers. A well-prepared homily gave the congregation a sense of satisfaction at where they were and a challenge as to the direction for their journey. The weekly bulletin showed a panoply of educational and social action programs. An example of where our Church is strongest.

But we do have problems. Last Saturday, a Mamaroneck priest, was picked up by the police on an allegation by an adult woman about his sexual improprieties with her four years ago! He was being held without bail. The local newspaper offered, as many do, its readers the opportunity to make their comments on line. Our bishops would do well to examine comments on such articles. Instead of the echo chambers of congratualtions they so frequently hear from higher authorities and the faithful, they would be startled to find evidence of deep animosity to them and to our Church by actions they took or failed to take. Several comments in this case accused the bishops, quite unfairly, of inadequate supervision. These comments may well have been stirred by remembrance of how so many bishops in the past secretly reassigned abusers. But that hostility was exponentially multiplied when Pope John Paul II assigned Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law, the poster boy of reassigning abusers, to a prestigious church in Rome with a six figure salary. Did anyone dare to tell the Pope what a disastrous mistake that was?That damaging public relations gaffe will never be forgotten. There was never any effort to correct it. The "group think"of clericalism has approved it once and for all!

Similar gaffes continue. The common feeling voiced among our New York priests is that once a sexual allegation is made against you, you are dead! The case of Msgr. Charles Kavanagh is on all our minds. Six and a half years -procedures in New York, trials in Rome and in the Erie diocese! No decision? Let it be swallowed up in time, an old Roman stratagem! What about the old maxim: justice delayed is justice denied? The presumption of innocence is gone as far as church authorities are frequently acting. Take the Mamaroneck case. The priest is jailed, after a woman's allegation made four years after the alleged event! Okay. Maybe there's something we don't know about. But four years after? Then the spokesman for the archdiocese and the spokesman for the Salesian order disown the man! He is not one of us! What happened to the fraternity of the priesthood? What happened to the band of brothers? What is the relationship of bishop and priest? We quickly recall mobsters at arraignment. Well-tailored lawyers stand by them. They are off and away in ten minutes!
Last Thursday, I was at lunch with the Larchmont Lions Club. They were discussing the nearby Mamaroneck case. The one non-Catholic among the eight members present was saying how appalled he was that the archdiocese and his order had disowned him. I had already arranged to visit the priest that afternoon. When I arrived at the County Jail at Valhalla, I was met by the Catholic chaplain, who has been most supportive, and the warden. Both expressed their dismay at how the priest had been disowned by church authorities. He was given a lawyer from the Legal Aid Society. At his bail hearing on December 11, he was given a court-appointed attorney. Bail was set at $50,000. His pastor, Msgr. Jim Healy, and the prison chaplain, have been working to get him his own attorney. Both have been very supportive. Say a prayer for Father Richard Ordonez, one of our brother priests.

THOU SHALT NOT ORDAIN WOMEN ?

2008-11-21T16:00:00.002-05:00

Maryknoll Father Roy Bourgeois, well-known peace advocate, recently published an open letter, which he had sent to the Vatican Congregation of the Faith in response to its letter to him giving him thirty days "to recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in the Church" or he would be excommunicated. If Bourgeois accurately describes the content of the Vatican's unpublished letter, one can only be puzzled as to how the Vatican could demand the recanting of one's belief. It could demand that he cease his public statements on that issue, but it is a far reach to demand recanting one's belief. Belief, Bourgeois insists, is a matter of sacred conscience. He provides examples of this in Franz Jagerstatter' refusal to serve in Hitler's army and Rosa Park's refusal to sit in the back of the bus. The Nicene Creed professes faith in the one God in three persons and other matters de fide. It does not proclaim the belief that a woman can not be ordained a priest. Pope John Paul II tried to make it a matter of divine faith, but did not succeed. Nice try, Your Holiness, but no cigar! If you or your predecessors did not succeed in making it a matter "de fide", how can your successor try to make it "de fide" for Bourgeois?

An observer will see this Vatican exercise as a further illustration of the patriarchal ethos of our Church, maintained by its higher authorities. At the lower levels, parish priests and the faithful, more exposed to actual experience and distrustful of abstract deductions, have substantially moved away from this ancien regime mentality. A priest friend at his two Masses last Sunday, commenting on the pending excommunication of Bourgeois, asked his congregations how many believed that women should be ordained. Two thirds of each congregation raised their hands!

BLACK, WHITE, AND GRAY!

2008-11-10T13:28:00.007-05:00

The title does not refer to race. It has to do with how one sees the real world. Many of us feel comfortable with our country, despite the campaign-touted crises in the economy, energy world, health insurance, education, and two wars, one preemptive and thus not acceptable, the other forced upon us. We feel comfortable at the election of an African-American as our President and the coming residence of a family of color in the White House. Our nation has come a long way since slavery, police dogs and fire hoses in Birmingham, and back seats in the buses. There was Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Brown v Board of Education in 1954, the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the march on Selma, the Bill Cosby show and other TV shows that brought loving black families into our livingrooms, and the white, black, and brown faces cheering Barack Obama and, then, those same mixed constituencies carrying him to victory on Election Day.

"Change" was the welcome motto after two terms of the George W. Bush presidency with its expansion of the Imperial Presidency, weakening of business regulations, its "go it alone" foreign policy, tax breaks for the rich, and a disastrous war. But all is not black or white. There were bright colors in faith-based initiatives, pro-life views that carried over into presidential executive orders, and the recent stimulative and bail-out measures as the economy plunged.

All is not black and white as Obama's presidential sun rises. He has an extremist pro-choice ideology that extends to accepting partial-birth abortion and a "let them die" view, when a "reproductive health" abortion is unsuccessful and startles its engineers with a really reproductive result - a live infant. It is to be hoped that, as he begins, he will have the mature wisdom to not remove the GWB executive orders banning funding for stem cell research and for over-seas activities that support abortion. The pro-life position has taken on a new politically acceptable status from the powerful fundamentalist Christian presence in the public square. Obama would be ill-advised to alienate a substantiual portion of the nation's citizenry by succumbing to the pressure of the ACLU, NOW, and Planned (non)Parenthood.

Obama's social values about immigration, education, health insurance, energy, the environment, and war are seen by many as more in accord with our Catholic ethos than those that the Republican party has favored. And this to the point, as has been suggested in the November 2007 statement "Faithful Citizenship" by our bishops, even to overriding the high priority we Catholics give to pro-life principles. Nicholas P. Cafardi, former chairperson of the USCCB's National Review Board and former Dean of Duquesne University Law School, and Douglas Kmiec, former Dean of Catholic University's School of Law, are devout Catholics and announced their support for Obama. In the face of criticism by some less discerning Catholics - one such priest, to his deserved embarrassment, and later apology, refused Holy Communion to Kmiec -
both law professors articulated their reasons for supporting Obama.

There are many who see things as all black or all white; no gray area. Bishop Joseph E. Martino of Scranton is one of those. He saw no compromise as possible and, openly disagreeing with the USCCB statement, ordered all churches in his diocese to have his letter read at all the Sunday Masses, in effect telling Catholics not to vote for Obama. A small number of other bishops followed his position. The well-balanced USCCB statement, approved by 98% of the bishops, leaves it up to the voter to make the decision as to what priorities are to followed. It seems conclusive that a bishop's role is to teach doctrine and to leave the sorting out of priorities to the individual's conscience. Perhaps the best illustration comes from John F. Kennedy, campaigning in 1960 for the Presidency. After he described his church-state philosophy to a group of Baptist ministers in Houston, a minister questioned him. "Mr. Kennedy", he said,"you said that if you found a conflict between your church and the constitution, you would resign the presidency..." Kennedy interrupted. "No", he responded, "I said that, if I found a conflict between my conscience and the constitution, I would resign the presidency." How well said, indeed!

CONFIDENCE IN THE RULE OF LAW?

2008-10-31T15:39:00.012-04:00

"Judicial temperament" is an essential qualification to look for when an individual is being considered for a judgeship. It's definition, taken from various sources, uses the words: openmindedness, compassionate, sensitivity, courtesy, an understanding that what is at issue is important for those involved, an attitude of respect towards all whom the candidate will encounter, and patience.

Our Church has experienced three chapters in the abuse crisis: first, the damage to thousands of children, the numbers exponentially multiplied by secret reassignments of miscreants; secondly, $2 billion of contributions of the faithful for failure of responsible oversight; and thirdly, the injudicious handling of allegations under the flawed Dallas Charter, where a bishop simultaneously holds the incompatible roles of arresting officer, prosecutor, judge, sentencing judge and appellent bench. A revisiting of the Charter by the USCCB should be made immediately to preclude more innocent priests being removed from ministry.

Our Church might well revisit its present jurisprudence from the Charter level on up to the top: its structure and its characteristics. Is "judicial temperament" a consideration in the appointment of canonical judges? Would every bishop qualify for the multifold role given him by the Dallas Charter, a role from which there is no realistic appeal. Let's take a look at Archbishop, now Cardinal, Raymond H. Burke, who served as Bishop of LaCrosse, Wisconsin, then as Archbishop of St. Louis, and, recently, as Chief Judge of the Apostolic Signatura - the highest court of our Church. Its task is to insure that its decisions and those of lower courts are just, dispassionate, and cognizant of all interests at stake. and marked by the "judicial temperament" of the judges. What does the history of Cardinal Burke reveal ?

When bishop of LaCrosse, Wisconsin, Burke wrote to a number of legislators. One of them, Catholic Congressman David Obey (D, Wisc.), wrote, "...he wrote to me, threatening to use his ecclesiastical authority to punish me if I did not conform my voting record to his view of what Catholic dogma required. I told him I could not do that". Burke directed his priests not to give Holy Communion to politicians who espoused pro-choice legislation. He would later say he would deny Communion to presidential candidate, John Kerry. In the widespread discussion about Holy Communion around the 2004 election period, he disparaged those bishops who disagreed with him as causing confusion. He ordered Catholics not to walk in the annual hunger walk, sponsored by Church World Service, because some of its proceeds provided condoms in developing countries.

As Archbishop of St. Louis, he ordered a Catholic medical center to disinvite singer Sheryl Crowe from performing at its annual fund raiser becaue she supported stem cell research. When the center's board rejected Burke's order, he resigned from the board. He ordered, successfully, a Catholic high school, to disinvite State Senator Clair McCaskill from speaking at her daughter's
graduation. He ordered, unsuccessfully, to have St. Louis University discipline basketball coach Rick Majerus, for his speaking at a pro choice rally. He ordered the Catholic Aids' Ministry not to participate in their annual AIDs' Walk because of its acceptance of sin. St. Stanislaus Koska parish had long been incorporated with a mostly lay Board of Directors. Burke's predeccessor archbishop had long fought to gain control of the church's property and mission, but within the circuit of the civil law and courts. Enter Burke with the thunder of interdict and excommunication. Sister of Charity Louise Lears, an effective pastoral associate at St. Cronan's parish, participated in a Women's Ordination Group ceremony, ordaining three women. Burke quickly leveled an interdict on her - prohibiting her from the sacraments - and banned her from any kind of activity in his archdiocese. He explained that this was done, "In the interest of the faithful faced with animosity and hatred shown toward the Apostolic See and a bishop". He said to her, "You will place in danger the eternal salvation of your soul and the souls of others". In the present political season, Burke has launched the thunderbolt, "The Democratic Party is the party of death".

Further qualities of a judge include a lack of intense emotion, reluctance to shoot from the hip without a judicial process, courtesy towards all, awareness of the rights of conscience, care not to be perceived as in favor of a particular political candidate, sensitive to the uncertain line between church and state. Well, there we have it. The Supreme Judge of the Church's Highest Court! He will see to it that bishops, acting in the competence given them by the Dallas Charter as cop, prosecutor, judge, sentencing judge, and appellent bench serve the cause of justice well because he too has exercised those roles and presently continues to be entrusted with them.

"Judicial temperament" and confidence in the rule of law, not the rule of men! God save this Honorable Court!

THE DALLAS - OZVILLE CHARTER

2008-10-17T22:45:00.007-04:00

ACT I
Scene: Bucolic street in Ozville; early afternoon; autumn day. Police Officer Kafka, Father Tom Jones
Kafka: Are you Father Tom Jones?
Jones: Yes, officer, I am.
Kafka: I am Police Officer Franz Kafka. Father, I must arrest you. A man claimed that you kissed him sexually twenty years ago, when he was in fourth grade.
Jones: That’s ridiculous, officer. What is his name?
Kafka: That will be told you in court. It’s not part of my job description.

ACT II
Office of the DA; June 14. Court bailiff; Father Jones.
Bailiff: Father, this way please. I would like to introduce you to District Attorney Franz Kafka.
Jones: You! Franza Kafka. The District Attorney? You were the police officer who arrested me. How can you be the DA?
Kafka: The Mayor of Ozville, Father, felt that the case would have better continuity if the police officer was deputized as DA. Be at the courthouse in a week.
ACT III
The Courthouse; June 21. Priest; judge.
Kafka: Good morning, Father Jones!
Jones: Good morning, Officer Kafka! Where is the judge?
Kafka: Father, I must apologize. I have been deputized to serve as judge. As I told you, the mayor likes continuity.
Jones:Well, that’s curious. Let’s get on with the trial. Where’s the jury?
Kafka: There is no jury, Father. You get ordinary people together, they might contradict the judge. That causes confusion. Unanimity is important.
Jones: Don’t I have a right to defend myself?
Kafka: By George, you’re right. Sorry, Father, I forgot. Of course, I will now hear your defense. Speak up.
Jones: The boy was in fourth grade. He had been bullied by older boys. He was crying. Sister Principal told him to see Father Jones in the Parish Center. He came over, quite upset. I gathered the little chap in my arms, maybe kissed him on the back of his head. Nothing sexual about that!
Kafka: The complainant claims it was sexual . How can you prove it was innocent?
Jones: How can he prove it was sexual? After twenty years, how could it be proved one way or the other? What about the presumption of innocence?

Kafka: Remember, Father, the Church is not a democracy. Separation of powers and presumptions belong to democracies. Sometimes the guilty are freed. We deputies screwed up in the past by hiding those guilty of abusing children. Now we must show the DAs, the media, and the trial lawyers, who caught us in the past and found us personally liable – to the tune of $2 billion of our citizens money – for not supervising and for covering up sexual abusers, that now we mean business! To demonstrate this, I now pronounce you guilty of causing an allegation nasty enough to cast a shadow on Oz. Although it is irregular, I also sentence you: You are hereby removed from priestly ministry!
Jones: Judge, I now appeal to the Appellant Bench.
Kafka: Very good. I approve the appeal. But I note in the interest of continuity, I am also the Appellant Bench and I affirm the judgment of the lower court.
Jones: Judge, I now appeal to the highest level, the Wizard of Oz.
Kafka: Good try, Father, but the Wizard of Oz is a long way off. To travel to the Wizard requires my approval of your advocate. I shall schedule hearings sometime next year to consider the

suitability of your Canonist Advocate.

Bailiff: Hear ye, hear ye. The Honorable Police Officer Kafka, District Attorney Kafka, Judge Kafka, Appellant Bench Justice Kafka, and Sentencing Justice Kafka have completed the work of the day. God help this Honorable Court!

* * * * * * * *
Mr. Tom Jones, age 56, is now a cashier at Wal-Mart’s in Oklahoma City. The Oz story is his true story with a fictitious name. The Archbishop of ____________was his arresting officer, prosecutor, judge, appellant bench, sentencing judge, and, as Tom reported, his executioner, placing the toxic needle in his arm.

* * * * * * * *

The USCCB must quickly revisit the Dallas Charter as to prosecution of alleged offenders, who may be innocent. It must create a visible source of independent appeal to replace what now ludicrously purports to be a judicial process.

PAROCHIAL SCHOOL KIDS NOT SECOND CLASS!

2008-10-12T10:31:00.006-04:00

Last April and August, Governor Paterson and the NY State Legislature made "across the board" cuts in the state budget. Private and parochial schools are reimbursed by the state through the Mandated Services Aid (MSA) program for their expenses for administering state programs and complying with state mandates. Some 18% was cut from the MSA funding for private and parochial schools. Public schools did not experience any cuts. On the contrary, an additional increase of $1.8 billion state-wide was made for the public schools.

The state budget will be revisited in November. It furnishes an opportunity to let your state Senators and members of the Assembly know that you would like them to approve A11075 and S 8197. These bills restore MSA funding to last year's figures. Below is the e-mail I sent to my representatives in the Assembly; a similar message was sent to my representatives in the State Senate.

11075, S 8197 - a MANDATED SERVICES AID PROGRAM

LADIES/GENTLEMEN,

As a retired two time pastor, I know how helpful the MSA was to my two parochial schools . I urge you to restore the severe cuts made in this year's budget. Public schools were not subjected to any cuts. On the contrary, they received an overall increase of $1.8 billion statewide

The NY Times (October 10) reported the concern of public school folks that, because of today's severe financial crisis, more private schools will be shutting down and flooding the already overcrowded public schools. Parochial schools get more value out of each dollar than do the public schools. To help in all this, please return to last year's budget figure.

And please bring A 11075 to the floor with the cuts restored. Thank you!

Msgr. Harry J. Byrne

CONSCIENCE: A WILD CARD!

2008-09-22T21:35:00.002-04:00

This letter was published in today's New York Times:

September 22, 2008
Letters
Abortion: One Issue or the Issue?
To the Editor:

Re “Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholic Votes” (front page, Sept. 17):

Catholics are divided on how to vote: for John McCain and Sarah Palin, who are pro-life, or for Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., who are pro-choice.
The bishops say either way is O.K., that Catholics may vote for a pro-choice candidate if they are doing so because of the candidate’s positions on other morally grave issues. The economy, education, health care, immigration, and energy may well constitute those reasons.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Mr. Biden were criticized by bishops for their pro-choice views. Mr. Biden and Ms. Pelosi, like most of us, find tensions between our Catholicism and our life views: contraception, homosexuality, divorce, priestly celibacy, papal views on women or “creeping infallibility” in doctrine.
As Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Biden travel through life, they try, according to their consciences, to reconcile closeness to Jesus, by faith, prayer and the sacraments, with any aberrant views.
The wild card of conscience trumps the bishops, not as to teaching, but as to receiving Jesus in holy communion.

(Msgr.) Harry J. Byrne
Bronx, Sept. 17, 2008
•

CROSSING THE BAR

2008-09-06T20:01:00.007-04:00

Alfred Lord Tennyson compared the voyage of life to that of a ship crossing the sandbar between the harbour of life and the mysterious ocean of death in his poem, "Crossing the Bar". He wrote it in 1889 after experiencing a serious illness while on a sea voyage. The rhythm of his words capture the serenity of his vision. The third verse:

Twilight and evening bell
and after that the dark
and may there be no sadness
of farewell when I embark!

Priests encounter a variety of scenes on the occasion of death, quiet scenes: individuals in bed at home, in the hospital, on the street after an accident. Many scenes have been dramatic. Here are a few:

*St. Jerome's, East 138th Street, the Bronx. An NYPD patrol car rolled up to the rectory. I was waiting after the officer's call. Two blocks to the south were a cluster of cops and working men. Ushered up a ladder, I climbed to the railroad track level of the bridge. The Third Avenue El then went all the way to the Bronx. Between the tracks lay a little boy, eleven or twelve. He was dead. Apparently he had been swimming in the Harlem River and was going home across the bridge. His wet body had touched the third rail. In paradisum deducant te angeli! May the angels lead you into heaven, little boy! The mourners were the cops, the priest, and the passengers staring from the El trains as they slowly moved by on either side.

*St. Thomas More, East 89th Street. Middle of the night, bitter cold. Sirens, bells, crashing glass. I quickly dressed. Young priest! Some years later, I would have rolled over and gone back to sleep. "If there is need for a priest, they will be in touch." Around the corner, the apartment house was dark. Power gone. Water that had extinguished the roaring blaze was still cascading down the outside steps, freezing in an instant. A fireman said, "Come this way, Father. Third floor". Shadows danced on the dark walls from the torches of the firemen. The middle-aged man was a grim sight. Words of absolution were murmured, oil, from which the freshness of the olives was long gone but, nevertheless, imparted the sacramental symbolism and power deriving from Jesus, was gently applied. The mourners, the priest and three firemen, kneeling with their helmets in their hands.

*St. Joseph's of Yorkville, East 87th Street. Just before the noon Sunday Mass. An usher comes to the sacristy. "Father, there is a man in one of the rear pews with his wife. Doesn't look too good. We called 911." I went back. He didn't look good at all. He was dead. Kneeling upright, dead! The two medics from the ambulance were Hispanic, like the deceased. "Sorry, father. we can't do anything. You have to wait for the morgue wagon." After a little discussion, they realized the delicacy of the situation, put the deceased in a wheel chair and out to the ambulance and the last rites. His wife came out. "How's he doing, father?" It took a moment or two to find the right words! One of the ambulance men kept repeating, "What a way to die! Kneeling up in church!"I offered the Mass, started a little late, for Raphael Hernandez.

*Epiphany, East 22nd Street. Sunday, during Masses. Our receptionist reports a call from 120 E. 22nd Street. "They would like a priest. A young man is dying." I gathered up my book, the oils, and the Sacrament for Viaticum. Young man, probably AIDS. The apartment door was open. Soft rock was playing. There were twenty or twenty-five people in the apartment. Someone inside the door said, "I don't know who would have called for a priest." The lady from the apartment across the hall had followed me. "I called the church," she said. Inside, the young man, barely conscious, was surrounded. A little boy and girl were sprawled on the bed covers, trying to talk to Uncle Charlie. A young woman lay on one side, her arm around his shoulders; on his other side, his companion. Soft rock still playing. I asked Charles, "Would you like to receive the sacraments of Jesus?" He was barely conscious. His mother behind him said, "Say yes, Charles." And he did.

How do I hear Charlie's confession with all these people here? I looked around. I said, "As your friend is about to receive the sacraments that bring the presence of Jesus and His grace to Charles, it is appropriate to have so many of his friends and relatives here to participate in something so meaningful to him. First, we have the confession of sins, expression of sorrow, absolution, then the sacrament of the sick and then Holy Communion. All those who would like to participate will please join me in an expression of sorrow for how we each may offended God. Have we sorrow for these offenses?" Looking around the sea of faces, everyone nodded. I continued, "Through the ministry of the Church, I absolve you from your sins. In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen!" Then from the pyx, I took the host and broke off a tiny piece. As I reached, it slipped and fell to the sheet. His companion looked at me. "Can I give him Communion?" I nodded, and he gave Charlie his last Communion. The soft rock, still playing, seemed so appropriate, so reverent.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE; SPEAKERS TO THE SPEAKER

2008-08-29T10:19:00.012-04:00

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, recently addressed the tension between her challenged Catholicity and her pro choice views. She described her Catholic upbringing and her "ardent" belief in the Catholic faith. She asserted that in history, some Church figures, eg. St. Augustine, differed as to the time of "ensoulment" and, therefore, today's teaching on the moral status of abortion is not absolute.

Four bishops quickly responded to correct " for the record" the Church's opposition to abortion from the first moment of conception, despite some minor theological disputes in the past. Bishops Justin Regali and William Lori, for the USCCB, Cardinal Edward Egan of New York, and Bishops Charles Chaput of Denver and Donald Wuerl of Washington affirmed the traditional Catholic doctrine. Wuerl affirmed the right of elected officials to speak on public policy issues; Chaput, acknowledged Pelosi as a gifted public servant with many professional skills with the exception of her knowledge of Catholic teaching. Chaput has said that a pro choice Catholic should not seek Holy Communion; Egan declared that one, who rejected the physical evidence of the beginning of life in the womb, lacked integrity and honesty.

Before offering some thoughts about pro choice Catholics somehow reconciling their Catholicism and their pro choice views, I want to state firmly and clearly my own total belief that life begins at conception and that abortion is immoral! Having said that, I affirm that abortion is an evil, but that its proponents need not be characterized as evil. As a chancery official and as a parish priest, I have worked on community affairs with pro choice government people and pro choice ordinary men and women, who have various or no religious affiliations, and have found most of them to be good people with concern for the good of the community, despite their wrongful pro choice views. They have given a priority to a freedom for women that incorrectly brings with it this so-called freedom to choose. Perhaps many of our bishops, immersed in a patriarchal Church, do not accept society's contemporary view of women and thus fail to understand the underlying motive for the widespread acceptance of pro choice views - the freedom of women. Perhaps many of our bishops do not associate, professionally or socially, with pro choice officials, friends, and others and thus fail to understand their otherwise integrity and goodness. Not NY's John Cardinal O'Connor! He saw the good character and the dedication to the common good in Ed Koch, pro choice Mayor of New York. They became friends, socialized together, wrote a book together.

What about pro choice Catholic politicians? Just political expediency? Perhaps, but not necessarily so! Unlike the bishops, they are surrounded by a culture and many individuals, whom they know to be otherwise good people and dedicated public servants. They cooperate with them in socially beneficial programs. Perhaps they come to see pro choice as less the evil than it really is. Secondly, they may have little confidence in their bishops, who are the enforcers of the patriarchal Church on the other side of the glass ceiling. For twenty-five years, they have heard the voice of John Paul II extol the "complementarity" status of women. They remember, how in 1979, he sat in silence and visibly ignored the very presence of Sister Theresa Kane, when she dared to speak to him. The sex abuse crisis, brought about essentially by the secret reassignments of miscreant clergy by two thirds of our bishops, has also caused widespead loss of trust in Church leadership. A low point was reached when Cardinal Bernard Law, driven from Boston by his priests and people, was appointed to a prestigious church in Rome at a six figure salary and continued in his positions on nine governing agencies of the Vatican. Anger of the faithful still burns. Voices of pope and bishops are not heard with the same acceptance and respect as in the past.

The pro choice Catholic politician, surrounded by otherwise virtuous pro choice colleagues and with little regard for authoritative voices of Church leaders, faces the tensions in his/her conscience - the court of last appeal! Conscience may well have, however incorrectly, integrated their Catholicism with, however reluctantly, a pro choice view. That is why Holy Communion should not be denied in such a situation. Conscience is a wild card, a legitimate wild card.

Nancy Pelosi has said that denial of the Eucharist would be "a severe blow" to her. She added that a prohibition depends on each diocesan bishop. (Such a "resolution" of the Holy Communion prohibition shows it's vacuity. Cross a boundry, you lose a right!) She added that fortunately this has not been an issue for her. Joe Biden, candidate for VP, is a regular member of St. Joseph's on the Brandywine in Wilmington diocese, according to its pastor, Msgr. Joseph Rebman. When Rebman was asked about Biden's pro choice views, he replied that it was a matter of dialogue between them.

There we have it. The wild card of a prayerful conscience trumps the bishops, not as to teaching, but as to receiving Holy Communion! Amen!

CHEERS AND JEERS !

2008-08-19T14:49:00.005-04:00

My two previous postings, DISHONORING MY REGIMENT and MAKE THE DALLAS CHARTER FAIR brought out the largest numbers of comments on my blog postings. The first dealt with the failure of B16, JPII, and many bishops to understand the evil of child abuse, a failure that led to acceptance of the secret reassigning of abusing priests. Such transfers kept the miscreants within the ranks, exponentially multiplying damage to children and corrupting the presbyterite by their presence.

Cheers were loud and abundant in response to this blog post. There was praise for the blog "calling it as it is". Many other comments showed a deep-seated anger, a "towering inferno" of rejection of the whole institution, allowing no distinction of rank: pope, bishops, priests were equally excoriated in some comments, popes and bishops for failures in governance; priests by failure to report what they, according to the critics, must have known. "How dare you", some comments read, "worry about your honor when your entire institution, showing no concern for violated children, is guilty?" One comment put it that there should be no concern about honor of the regiment and its members because it was Jesus that was dishonored. Reference was made to the millstone mentioned by Jesus.

MAKE THE DALLAS CHARTER FAIR elicited many "hurrahs" and"alleluias". There was praise that important items were publicized, viz. that the bishop was simultaneosly arresting officer, prosecutor, judge, and appellent bench and that the Charter allowed no distinction among the different degrees of sexual offenses. But negative criticism of the posting was also abundant. Many comments held that, when it was necessary to choose between danger to children and protection against false allegations, one must chose to protect the children. One could respond that one goal does not exclude the other. Both can be successfully achieved. Most negative comments opposed the blog's support for statutes of limitations, both canonical and civil. Several urged the modifying of such statutes in the civil jurisdiction.

The blog was correctly criticized for opposing notification of the disrict attorney where a statute of limitations precluded prosecution. That judgment belongs to the DA. Such notification can also
uncover additional allegations, as it has in a recent incident.

Responses to these two blog postings came from laity and clergy, survivors of abuse, individuals deeply angered, proponents for lay involvement in decision making, and some who have left the Church because of the abuse crisis. A number of responders forwarded these two blog postings to other web sites. Among the positive responders were a former President of Georgetown University, Jason Berry, noted for his book on the crisis, and several other writers. Negative critics manifested a depth of anger and loss of trust and confidence in Church authorities. Positive critics urged a revisiting of the Dallas Charter and instituting appropriate amendments, especially as to the conflicting roles of the bishop as cop, district attorney, judge, and appeals court.

MAKE THE DALLAS CHARTER FAIR!

2008-08-04T16:10:00.007-04:00

New York priests were shocked to find in today's papers that one of our distinguished priests had been removed from ministry for an allegation of an event twenty years ago! I called a lawyer friend who deals with police cases. What would happen", I asked, "to a police officer with an alcohol content over the legal limit who shot a knife-wielding man?" His reply: "He would be removed from duty, given a desk job, and under the union contract would have an administrative hearing within thirty days." I continued: "Suppose some one alleged that he had been assaulted by a cop twenty years ago and wanted the cop punished, what would happen?" My attorney friend laughed: "The cop would probably sue the accuser for libel!"

Police have a union, protective contracts, attorneys; teachers have a union, protective contracts, attorneys. They face different individuals with different functions - arresting officers, prosecutors, judges, and appeal levels. Priests have zero protection! Their fate is in the hands of one individual - the bishop, who is simultaneously arresting officer, prosecutor, judge, and appellent bench. No separation of powers! The so-called process is guided by the bishops' Dallas Charter, successful in its programs to protect children; a total failure as to treating the accused fairly. No statute of limitations, no provision for appeal, no proportionality - a pat on the ass treated equally with serial rape! Rejected by Cardinal Dulles and universally by canon lawyers! Who composed the Dallas Charter? A bishops' committee after consultation with other bishops, psychiatrists, victims of abuse, and representatives of the laity. Not one priest was invited to participate in the hearings!

According to today's media, the archdiocese reported our colleague's removal from ministry to the district attorney. Why this? New York's five year statute of limitations precludes any competence on the part of civil authorities! The DA rejected the submission!

Canon 1362, p.2 also sets a five year limit on prosecution of an allegation. The Dallas Charter abandoned this limit. Statutes of limitations are fundamental pillars in our civil and canonical jurisdictions. After the elapse of time, memory can be faulty, creative, or imaginary; witnesses not available. Motives can be suspect. A pastor discharges a choir director, a priest evicts a tenant with cause from a house he owns. Retaliation can come swiftly.

Our friend's name has been blackened. "He was removed from ministry..." Even my word processor flashes "no,no", like a misspelling, when I use this passive voice. Who removed him? Who unwarrantedly publicly reported him to the district attorney? My understanding is that his case has not yet gone before the Archdiocesan Advisory Board. Why not?

Essential Norm 8 of the Charter states that a single act of sexual abuse of a minor requires permanent removal of the abuser. The John Jay College of Criminal Justice was employed by the bishops to provide data on which the bishops could make further determinations. John Jay reported in March 2006 that its research had established that where there was a single allegation of abuse with a subsequent history of no further allegations, a process of self-correction had undoubtedly taken place with little danger of recidivism. We canonists are finding that where the alleged abuse occured two or three decades ago with no subsequent allegations, this self-corrective process has occurred. Yet Norm 8 calls for removal from ministry!

Priests need a union! The USCCB needs to revisit its Dallas Charter. The Charter must be made a respectable legal document. Canon 220 must be obeyed: "No one is permitted to damage unlawfully the good reputation which another person enjoys..."

THE DISHONORING OF MY REGIMENT!

2008-07-24T10:44:00.010-04:00

My formerly honored regiment of Catholic priests has been disgraced by an infiltration of pedophiles into its ranks. I and my colleagues bear that dark shadow to this day. It's cause: the failure of many bishops to obey Canon 1395. Yes, it's that simple! The canon orders punishment for a priest, who sexually abuses a minor. Punishment, not therapy! Muchless secret reassignment with damage to more children! Furthermore, no bishop has been punished by his superiors,as required by Canon 1389, for failure to enforce Canon 1395. Regardless of good intentions, bishops and their superiors are responsible for the effects of what they do or fail to do under their job descriptions. A tiny minority of priests abused children; an estimated two thirds of the nation's bishops secretly reassigned abusers.

Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor, John Paul II have, on their visits here,
apologized for this shameful abuse. But neither has shown that he understands the problem. If a problem is not understood, it cannot be solved. Both popes see the problem residing in individual priests. No finger is pointed at a bishop. Benedict in Australia recently declared, "I ask all of you to support and assist your bishops in combatting this evil". Sorry! Benedict has it backwards. He should ask the bishops to listen to and work with the laity. They understand the source of the problem; our bishops, for the most part, do not! In his trip to the US, Benedict on April 15, 2008 apologized for the pain caused by the sexual abuse phenomenon. He declared that it had "been badly handled". Use of the passive voice enabled him to avoid saying by whom it had been badly handled.

John Paul II also seems to have had it backwards. On April 23, 2002, addressing the US cardinals, who had been summoned to Rome, he spoke of "how the Church will help society to understand and deal with the crisis". Its arrogance, unintended as it may be, betrays the depth of his misunderstanding: it was society through its media, district attorneys, and trial lawyers that had forced the Church to face its own problem! Later he would reward Cardinal Bernard Law, driven from Boston by his priests and people as poster-boy for those bishops reassigning abusers, to a prestigious church in Rome, with a six-figure salary, and seats on nine governing commissions!

John Paul spoke of "the great harm done by some priests...". Regarding their superiors, he said, "...many are offended at the way in which the Church's leaders ARE PERCEIVED to have acted...". In the Pope's mind, in the clericalism cast of mind, he and bishops are immunized from direct criticism. John Paul then proceeded to call for "a purification of the entire Catholic community". Pardon me, please! Do not dare to try to deflect blame on the Catholic community. It belongs on the few miscreant priests and the many miscreant bishops. It is these latter who have been judged responsible, not just by the press, but by our civil courts and judicial system to the tune of $2 billion, not the bishops' own money, but the contributions of the faithful!

The clerical mentality - trying constantly to project an ideal, even if false, image of Church - is the underlying cause of thousands of young people damaged, $2 billion shot, three dioceses bankrupted, and now, in the latest phase, innocent priests becoming victims of allegations of incidents two or three decades past, inadequately investigated by their bishops.

The US Bishops' Dallas Charter has been a great success in its programs to protect children by vetting personnel and developing educational and awareness programs. As to its provisions to remove allegedly abusive priests, it has been severely criticized by the bishops' own National Review Board, Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ and eminent canonists for its lack of proportionality - a pat on the bottom treated equally as serial rape, the "one strike, you're out" rule, and the abandonment of any statute of limitations. The bishop is constituted arresting officer, prosecutor, judge, and appellant bench - an unworkable combination of conflicting roles. Many instances of innocent priests being removed from ministry are now surfacing. Appeals to the US Conference of Bishops have been made, without success, to revisit and amend the Charter's flawed, purportedly judicial structure. Do the bishops fear that the Church would appear to victims' groups and the public as backing off its initial determination to reform? If so, here again, clericalism's cast of mind puts a desirable Church image ahead of the reality of truth and justice.

The Church will begin to solve its problems and resolve its tensions, when, and only when, clericalism and its adherents reverse priorities and place truth and justice ahead of institutional image.

GROWING UP CATHOLIC!

2008-07-16T11:56:00.004-04:00

CATHOLICS IN NEW YORK, 1808-1946 is an exhibition theme at the Museum of the City of New York. It will continue until December 31, 2008. Concurrently a series of panel discussions is being held, the first of which, "Growing Up Catholic" was held last night. Panel members discussed how a Catholic childhood shaped their identities and their work. Here is something of what was said. I did not take notes and apologize if I in any way erroneously mischaracterize the views of the participants.

JIM DWYER (NYTimes columnist) spoke of living on East 96th Street. He attended St. Ignatius School some thirteen blocks to the south. This became a center for his educational, sacramental, and athletic activities. He found Holy Week services impressive, the passage of Jesus from Palm Sunday to Easter, the purple veiling of the statues, and the brilliance of the Easter "Gloria". He was influenced by the striving for perfection that marked the Jesuits.

MARY GORDON (author) had a Catholic upbringing, remembering her First Communion and the concern of some as what type of pocketbook was the gift for the occasion. She told how she was turned off by the constant focus on chastity and concern for sexual purity. She felt that she and her fellows were vulnerable politically and this was taken advantage of by the Church in advancing political issues, especially in the time of the Cold War. The two individuals who stood out in her memory were Cardinal Spellman, "a piece of work", she said, and Bishop Sheen. She did not care for the political understanding that Spellman had of his role. About Bishop Sheen, she recalled his writing on the blackboard - "What he wrote was meaningless to me", she said. "I only sensed he was writing something and then he swished out." She said that her father being Jewish, Good Friday cast a somber mood on her household. Curiously, one of my colleagues here at the retirement residence said that her father was a convert and became a strong public voice for Catholicism. All this apparently after her childhood. My colleague knew Mary Gordon as a parishioner at St. Joseph's of Yorkville, where she attended Mass.

OSCAR HIJUELOS (author) found the religious influence in his life coming from his mother. He found that for him religion was something of the heart and the emotions, considering himself "a lapsed or collapsed Catholic" with one foot remaining in the camp.

TIM REIDY (journalist, editor) experienced a throughly Catholic education but this was followed by Princeton University, with a broadening of intellectual boundaries. Formerly with "Commonweal" and now with "America", he thought that it important that there be "an alternative voice" in church, not faith, issues.

MAUREEN WALTERS (author) was difficult to hear because of microphone problems. She was outspoken about women's place in society and in church. She felt that the church
was currently even further reducing the status of women in its affairs.

Some panelists commented on growing up in a rather closed world that only opened up in later life. One said she had never spoken to a non-Catholic until much later than childhood. One said that the Church had had a bad, I think she said "evil", effect in its preoccupation and teaching on sex. She said preaching on sex should be put off "for a hundred years".

In a well-handled discussion period, several very positive views were presented about Catholic upbringing. I made the observation, that although much older than the panelists, I found my Catholic identity, at least from highschool on, heavily influenced by the articulation of faith in writings, poetry, and art generally, giving as examples GK Chesterton, CS Lewis, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Francis Thompson and a host of French thinkers and writers like Jacques Maritan, Francois Mauriac, Leon Bloy, and Paul Claudel. Mary Gorden responded that those named were great figures of another time, but their like were not readily found at present. My experience did not appear to have been their's.

About two hundred persons were in attendance, a preponderance of them, women. It was a pleasure to meet at this event a number of my former parishioners from St. Joseph's of Yorkville and Epiphany. Observations from readers of this blog about the formation of their Catholic identity would be most welcome.

" AND ALL THIS, GEORGE, FOR OIL? "

2008-07-07T13:15:00.007-04:00

The smoke and smells of war have seared consciousness and consciences as that part of our nation at peace here at home sees,in the press and on television screens, the blasted houses of Baghdad, the debris left after road bombs and suicide bombers, the frightened eyes of Iraqi children. The other part of our nation is out there on the bloodied earth. Soldiers and marines at risk; over four thousand dead, thirty thousand seriously wounded; countless thousands of Iraqis killed and wounded; a nation destabilized into chaos, some of our nation destabilized into approving
torture!

The PBS Lehrer Report last evening turned attention to another grim result of this preemptive and unnecessary war: the grief and broken hearts at home when a marine or soldier walks up the steps of a once happy home and knocks on the door. Jim Scheeler, the author of "Final Salute", and Marine Major Steven Beck, Coordinator of those charged with delivering the dreaded messages,told the story in Sheeler's book. Beck told of how those at home always knew what the message would be. Wives with little children who lost a husband; mothers and fathers who were told that a son or daughter was dead. Major Beck described a sargeant, who had accompanied him on a mission, saying,"Major, please don't ever ask me to do this again." There were glimpses of a Marine officer embracing a crushed wife; an Army officer sitting quietly with an elderly or not-so-elderly couple, who had just been told that their boy or girl, yes, their little boy or little girl, had been killed.Yes! Killed! No matter how gently the emissary spoke, however soft his words, the message was "killed"; the message was "dead".

Major Beck and his teams must have been extraordinary individuals to have been assigned this mission. They were to respect no limits in trying to accommodate the bereaved. A wife had wanted to spend the last night with her husband. On the screen appeared in the dim light of the funeral home a casket in the background; in the foreground, a made-up bed for Catherine Cathey, the marine's wife.

In the play and movie, "A Man for All Seasons", the king's Chancellor, Thomas More, speaks to an official of the king, who has given up loyalty to his faith and, perhaps, to his conscience for receiving the governance of a portion of the king's realm. Sir Thomas looks at him and says, "And all this, Rich, for Wales?"

In the surreal scenes of a destroyed and chaotic Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, wounded, displaced; the Chaldean Catholic bishop, murdered; the Catholic community fleeing the country; Amercan and coalition troops killed and wounded in great numbers; countless hearts at home broken; a stand-in for Sir Thomas might be pictured as saying, "And all this, George, for oil?"

HEY! WAIT A MINUTE! WHAT'S GOING ON?

2008-06-26T20:40:00.004-04:00

Sit up straight in your chair and look at this! A full page ad by the Knights of Columbus in "America" magazine, NCR, and elsewhere! Color photo of Pope Benedict XVI; in bold type "Come follow me". And then: "We'd like you to join us in making Pope Benedict's vision of building a society of life and love a reality." No Jesus! Not a mention! Jesus said, "Come follow me", not Benedict! Jesus we follow; His vision we seek! What happened to Jesus?

In June 6, 2008 "Commonweal", a Letter to the Editor from Bishop Elden Curtis of Omaha states "It is a primary duty of a bishop to help keep his diocese in union with the universal church under the leadership of the successor of St. Peter..."
Primary duty? What happened to Jesus?

Human organizations have a centralizing impulse. What is centralized? Control; authority; power! Different popes have different visions. John XXIII brought the world's bishops together in Vatican II. Collegial efforts produced a church-shaking phenomenon. The Church was seen as "the people of God". And that "people" had a new voice - the vernacular in liturgy and greater roles. Paul VI sought to continue a collegiate modus operandi in his establishment of the Synods of Bishops. John Paul II
had a different vision. The Exhortations after the various Synods incorporated the vision of John Paul, not a collegial vision as in Vatican II and as intended by Paul VI. John Paul's charismatic personality accomplished much but did not put in play the visions of the Synods. He diminished the role of the laity in liturgy. He insisted, to the dismay of the Japanese bishops, that liturgical texts be translated in Rome, not in Japan. He neutered the national conferences of bishops: significant action decisions had to be unanimous; otherwise they went to Rome. Benedict XVI brought back the Latin Mass. These are a few examples of policy changes by John Paul and Benedict, achieved not by collegiate action and vision, but by popes with their own singular vision.

Of course, the Holy Father has an important place in our faith vision - of the lives of our universal Church, our national and ethnic churches, our parishes, and our personal lives. But the centralizing impulse and its exaggerations are at work. This may explain the "Come follow me" ad and the "primary duty" of Bishop Curtis. What happened to Jesus?