Read the Whole Letter!

My former pastor and someone I consider to be my mentor, Bishop Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa, has published a wonderful pastoral letter for his diocese, Ecclesia Semper Reformanda (The Church must always be renewed). It is long as far as pastoral letters go but by no means difficult to read, either in content or length. Yet, with some exceptions, it seems the “bloggers” and their readers have a hard time reading anything in its entirety. Instead, they simply read other people’s articles with their catchy headlines and excerpts and feel free to write with magisterial authority on the content of the letter. Meanwhile, the articles that they comment on simply pull one paragraph out of the context of the whole letter and thereby misunderstand both the “part” and the “whole.” My fear is that the larger media will do one of two things: take the bloggers’ word for it on its content or ignore it altogether. Either option would be foolish.

My problem with this is that the bloggers, both “right” and “left,” have simply picked out something sensational in the letter, something that makes them feel good about their own positions or angry about the positions of others, without understanding what is argued throughout the letter. This makes the letter seem “conservative” and even extreme when it is neither.

For the true purpose of the letter, fully evident when read in its entirety, is similar to what Cardinal George has argued in his new book and an interview with National Catholic Reporter’s best columnist, John Allen. Namely, that we need to move beyond the liberal/conservative divide and labels as inadequate for the troubles facing the Church. Cardinal George argues for “simply Catholicism” which strives to keep together the two poles of identity and mission. The “conservatives”, like the St. Pius X Society, focus exclusively on Catholic identity and culture to the exclusion of evangelization and engagement with the world around them. They take a snap-shot of Catholic Culture, namely, the first half of the twentieth century, elevate the entire thing, small “t” traditions and all, to the level of dogma and bunker down into their ghetto. Meanwhile, the “liberals” engage with the world, adjusting the gospel to such an extent that there is no permanent deposit of faith received from Jesus and the apostles, and thus have nothing to offer the world. Neither approach will do.

Bishop Nickless has written a document that shows us the way forward beyond the current impasses. In it he argues that the Second Vatican Council is still the key to renewal, that we’re not done yet, that the on-going interpretation and implementation of the Council is the New Evangelization so often called for by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. Thus, he argues that the Council is the “greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in centuries” and that misunderstandings based on a subjective “Spirit of Vatican II” must be purged if we are to do the work of the Lord in our day and age. He argues that the two poles listed above, identity and mission, belong together, both are necessary. He argues that we have to know who we are, what we believe and what we are about (Identity) so that we can engage the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Mission) in dynamic and creative ways. In other words, as Catholics we are inherently “conservative” in our doctrine, because it comes from Jesus Christ, but pastorally “liberal” or “progressive” in our approach to the world. This is why neither label fits or is helpful in understanding where we are at in the history of the Church.

But don’t take my word for it! Read the whole letter! I highly encourage this for everyone, but especially students and parishioners of the St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center. It can be found on the Diocese of Sioux City website: http://www.scdiocese.org/files/Pastoral_Letter_updated100809.pdf

Taking Crazy Pills and Sucking on Dreamsicles

The colorful title above comes from two sources. The first, "taking crazy pills," comes from Will Farrell's character in the movie "Zoolander." Enough said. The second is from drinking beers on the porch with my sister this summer in the humid Indiana heat. We were talking about something outrageous and my sister dropped this line. I've wanted to use it ever since.

The correct context for their usage is when something is so crazy, outrageous, silly, contradictory or hypocritical you can't believe it. Here are some ways to use them:

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

What are you doin'? Sucking on dreamsicles?

I feel like everyone is taking crazy pills!

Why am I telling you this? Because I feel like I've been using these lines a great deal lately, usually after reading or watching the news. The public discourse and bitter acrimony on a whole host of topics, both within and outside of the Catholic Church, has pushed people to the extremes and has called for their usage.

1. Roman Polanski. Are they serious? Do they really think because he made "good" movies (I'm not sure I've seen any of his movies) that he shouldn't be held accountable for raping a 13 year old girl? Or that because it happened so long ago, it should just be dropped? They have not and would never say this (and rightly so) for a Catholic priest or for anyone else. Why should he get away with this heinous crime? Click here for an excellent analysis.

2. Health Care. I'm not an expert here although I have tried to follow the debate closely as the Catholic Church has always been a strong advocate for affordable and accessible health care. This is a really important issue that requires careful deliberation and discussion. I am not capable of parsing these difficult issues. I would just like to point out some things that are, well, crazy.

a. I was at a lecture the other night by Bobby Schindler, the brother of Terri Schiavo. Understandably, he raised serious questions, indeed indictments, about the current practices of ethics panels in our health care system. He then went on to exhort everyone to pay close attention to the current debate lest the situation "on the ground" worsen. That's it. He simply told people to ask questions, to be involved. He was chastised by a women in the crowd for saying anything, however slight it was, against President Obama and his health care plans. That wasn't allowed. Second, she was worried that he was trying to "influence these young minds." Well, yes, of course he was. That is what public debate is about, especially at a university. My qualm is her desire to immediately shut down differences, discourse and debate. So much for tolerance of differences, democracy and the intellectual pursuit of truth.

b. The U.S. bishops are for health care reform. Always have been, always will be. But if the brave few ask difficult questions about abortion being included or respect for the principle of subsidiarity they are characterized as being held in bondage by the Republicans. This insult is usually hurled by writers who have explicitly campaigned for President Obama. The pot calling the kettle?

Once again, my problem isn't with differences of opinion, as this is, after all, a matter of prudential judgment, not doctrine, and therefore good Catholics can hold different positions. At least they should be. My problem is with the shutting down of debate and discussion with those who disagree with you, especially through hypocritical judgments or outlandish accusations. Particularly shameful was Michael Sean Winters, whom I was really starting to like and value his judgments, calling people that opposed government expansion racists.

The fact of the matter is that Catholics are politically homeless. Neither party keeps together the difficult tensions, in this case, of subsidiary and solidarity.

c. By the way, whatever happened to the principle of subsidiarity? Namely, whatever happened to the idea that problems should be dealt with by the smallest unit possible that the common good allows? This is a part of Catholic Social Justice teaching just as much as solidarity with the poor. But it is rarely mentioned by the current Catholic advocates for the currently proposed health care. I'm just saying, shouldn't that be part of the debate too?

d. Lastly, I find it incredibly ironic that those who for decades have lamented the bishops' supposed desire to preserve institutional prestige and power in the public sphere, (see the editorializing at the National Catholic Reporter) are now suddenly worried that if the bishops are too outspoken on the issues of the day the Catholic Church will lose its credibility in the public square. I guess one can only be a "prophetic witness" if you agree with the National Catholic Reporter. "We played a song for you and you would not dance, we sang a dirge and would not weep."

3. Lastly, we have the good sisters. The Vatican has begun an investigation into the life and health of women's religious communities here in the U.S., including their fidelity to the Deposit of Faith as it is taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Catholic Church. In order to participate in the study one has to make a profession of faith. The sisters aren't happy with the whole thing, but especially the last part. Think about how crazy that is: professed religious in the Catholic Church don't want to take a profession of faith, or won't. They say it is because it is an insult, that it questions their faith and fidelity to the Church. Meanwhile, they write articles that deny the Church's settled teachings (See this week's Commonweal). I have had to take a profession of faith and an oath of fidelity three times: at my diaconate ordination, my priestly ordination and upon being made a pastor. Each time I was excited and proud. If you believe what the Church teaches, why would you not want to proclaim it from the rooftops?

Cardinal George on the New Evangelization

Cardinal George of the Archdiocese of Chicago and the current President of the USCCB has published a new book on the Catholic Church in the United States. The book,The Difference God Makes: A Catholic Vision of Faith, Communion and Culture (Crossroad), lays out a vision for the evangelization of contemporary American culture. John Allen posted an interview with the Cardinal on the National Catholic Reporter website about the book.

The part I found most interesting in the interview (I haven't had a chance to read the book) is the notion of "simply Catholicism" as different from a "liberal" and "conservative" Catholicism.

It seems to me that he means the same thing Blessed John XXIII meant when he said that the purpose of the Second Vatican Council was two-fold: "that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be both guarded and taught more efficaciously...The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another." The two poles of Catholic identity and engagement with the world, of Catholic faith and evangelization, of Catholic culture and inculturation, of knowing who you are and how to share it with others, must be always kept together in a reciprocal relationship. The second pole is necessarily dependent upon the first while the second gives life to and feeds the first.

The Ax of the Redskin Bishop?

Here is an article by Archbishop Chaput. The Italian author of the follow-up article called him the redskin bishop! Sensitivity training for the Italians?

Great Question(s)

I saw this article yesterday on the U.S. Bishops and the Notre Dame Controversy. I thought I'd share it as I think he raises a number of great questions.